Originally posted by dooper
But I thought the "Promised One" was going to change all the evil in the world through dialogue and understanding.
Damnnnnnn ......... guess it didn't work!
Try it another way - kill them where you find them!
It's kind of like . . . whack-a-mole - but more noisy!
You just get a hammer for each hand.
Does anyone else think this cherry-boy Obama is starting to panic? I mean nothing - NOTHING he predicted or anticipated has gone like he thought it would.
Comes from going around with your head in the clouds, getting your counsel from Ayers and Wright.
BEIRUT, Lebanon — An American-backed alliance appeared to retain control of the Lebanese Parliament on Sunday in a hotly contested election that had been billed as a showdown between Tehran and Washington for influence in the Middle East.
Related
In Lebanon Vote, Stark Options, Complex Choices (June 6, 2009)
Foreign Money Seeks to Buy Lebanese Votes (April 23, 2009)
Preliminary results reported on Lebanese television showed the alliance, known as the March 14 coalition, had managed to preserve its majority in Parliament. If those results are confirmed, they would represent a significant and unexpected defeat for Hezbollah and its allies, Iran and Syria. Most polls had showed a tight race, but one in which the Hezbollah-led group would win.
Originally posted by xmotex
Obama isn't trying to "reach out" to the hardened extremists, there is no point in doing so. He'd have as much luck making buddies with the Aryan Nations whackos...
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.
When you map W.M.D. and terrorism, all roads intersect in Pakistan.
The nuclear security of the arsenal is now a lot better than it was. But the unknown variable here is the future of Pakistan itself, because it’s not hard to envision a situation in which the state’s authority falls apart and you’re not sure who’s in control of the weapons, the nuclear labs, the materials. - Graham Allison, Harvard professor and a leading nuclear expert excerpted from the New York Times article that follows
Originally posted by Hemisphere
Originally posted by xmotex
Obama isn't trying to "reach out" to the hardened extremists, there is no point in doing so. He'd have as much luck making buddies with the Aryan Nations whackos...
Who wants him to reach out to extremists? I for one would prefer he was tough on extremist agendas. He was "preaching to the choir" on his Mideast tour. I mentioned that we must consider radical Islamists have been further emboldened. What is partisan about that? Is that not a consideration of everyone? Would you say that Democrats for instance don't care if extremists are made more comfortable in their extremism by our President? Would it take another strike on the US itself to convince you?
Moderates don't need to be addressed, he's not a threat to them. Wouldn't you say? What has President Obama done to irritate moderates? Well, there's this back stabbing of Israel but the moderates involved there are Jews that voted for him. Do you think it's safe for him to abandon those Jewish supporters at this time? I would think so, they're not the terrorist types.
More to the point the President has told extremists on a number of occasions that he would more or less turn the other cheek. This includes the Geneva Convention for terrorists, backing down the US missile defense and backsliding on Pakistan.
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.
The entire article:
Tough talk on Pakistan from Obama
Originally posted by mental modulator
We can stop spending hundreds of billions and THEY can creep out of the middle ages mentality and join modernity.
Who cares if they are emboldened, if they can be arrested at home by their government, with their laws and personnel.
All before it becomes our problem, LIKE A SMOKING GUN, IN THE SHAPE OF A MUSHROOM CLOUD.
about time
Two Houses
The Koran sees the world as divided into two - one part which has come under Islamic rule and one part which is supposed to come under Islamic rule in the future. There is a division of the world which is very clear. Every single person who starts studying Islam knows it. The world is described as Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam) - that's the place where Islam rules - and the other part which is called Dar al-Harb - the house of war. Not the "house of non-Muslims," but the "house of war." It is this house of war which has to be, at the end of time, conquered. The world will continue to be in the house of war until it comes under Islamic rule. This is the norm. Why? Because Allah says it's so in the Koran. God has sent Mohammed with the true religion in order that the truth will overcome all other religions. - Professor Moshe Sharon
Originally posted by xmotex
reply to post by Hemisphere
How is it that this one bombing invalidates a new approach (which BTW, does not consist of "turning the other cheek" to violence) when all the bombings and mayhem around the planet during the previous administration did not invalidate their "get tough" approach?
To claim this seems disingenuous and frankly partisan.
The truth is, it's way too early for any ideological camp to declare victory, as it takes years to see the trends that result from these kinds of policy changes.
I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. - President Barrack Obama
The head of the Iraqi parliament's biggest Sunni Muslim bloc was killed at a mosque on Friday, officials said, an assassination which could undermine efforts for sectarian reconciliation in Iraq. The killing coincided with coalition negotiations by parties before parliamentary polls due in January, seen as a key test of whether Iraq's Sunnis, Shi'ites and ethnic Kurds can live at peace after years of bloodshed since the 2003 U.S. invasion. - Reuters
“My assessment is that if we put an additional 30,000 of our outstanding troops into Baghdad, that that's going to quell some of the violence, short term. I don't think that there's ever been any doubt about that. And I don't think that there's any doubt that as long as US troops are present, that, you know, they are going to be doing outstanding work.
“It doesn't change the underlying assessment, which is that there's not a military solution to the problem in Iraq, and that the political dynamic in Iraq has not changed. The only thing that the Iraqi legislature appears to have agreed to, as the surge took place, was a motion to adjourn and go on vacation.
“And the ongoing question is how can we trigger a serious conversation and a responsible conversation between the Shiite and the Sunni and the Kurds that will reduce the sectarian conflict. That is not happening, and until it does, we are going to continue to see long-term problems, there, and it's my assessment that until we begin a phased withdrawal from Iraq, we're not going to get the sort of serious talks within Iraq and in the region, that are required.”
On Sunday the U.S.-backed coalition, led by politician Saad al-Hariri, won a parliamentary election against an alliance that includes Iranian-backed Hezbollah. - Reuters
The structure draws heavily on U.S. experience in Iraq.
Appathurai said the command shake-up was needed given the big surge in troop numbers announced by Obama. - David Brunnstrom, Reuters
And his son said he was a "compassionate conservative". 