Maybe he means we could do what the great and mighty George Bush did.

6/2/2009 5:07:40 PM

please don't change the topic moron. i would like an answer to the question.

6/2/2009 5:09:18 PM

It's hilarious how some of you like to pretend that I don't answer your questions. I'll admit that I often don't answer them the way you'd like, but I do answer.

Quote :

"Real consequences for violating UN resolutions and other agreements, not just more angry letters and an endless series of meetings."

To me, "real consequences" is self-explanatory. In addition, anyone with real knowledge of military strategy and tactics knows that you don't take any options off the table--this includes attack.

Now I'll put it to you and your cohorts, what are you prepared to do to prevent North Korea from becoming even more of a menace to our world? I'm guessing absolutely nothing--and nothing means more worthless meetings and meaningless sanctions, right?

6/2/2009 5:17:33 PM

so are you saying that we threaten to attack them?

6/2/2009 5:21:58 PM

Quote :

"Now I'll put it to you and your cohorts, what are you prepared to do to prevent North Korea from becoming even more of a menace to our world?"

6/2/2009 5:23:45 PM

i don't claim to know the answer to that question.

6/2/2009 5:26:49 PM

Quote :

"I'm guessing absolutely nothing--and nothing means more worthless meetings and meaningless sanctions, right?"

6/2/2009 5:47:23 PM

Well, its tough to say what kind of "real consequences" there could be for NK's current misbehavior.

Economic sanctions are rarely effective at fostering political changes in other countries and they would be even less effective in this case because NK is already one of the most isolated countries on the planet.

A military response is also practically out of the question. Sure, conceptually we should never take anything off the table. But we still have our hands full with Iraq and Afganistan. Even if we conducted targeted air strikes on NK's nuclear facilities, we would not have the resources to support S.Korea or Japan if NK decided to respond.

Personally, I think doing nothing for the moment is probably our best option. And I don't think there is anything wrong with that because its the Brinkmanship of GW's first term that got us in this mess in the first case:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html

We still actually have no clue why NK is doing this (see link below). So we need to sit back and figure that out first. It could be this is all a bunch of posturing by Kim Jong Il to show his people that he is still a strong leader despite his failing health. In that case, it may blow over in a few months.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/18/clinton-says-north-koreas-combative-behavior-rooted-political-turmoil/

My hope is that when all is said and done Obama will be able to pick up where Bill Clinton left off. During the election, John McCain's long-standing hawkish stance on NK was one of the few things that worried me about him. Given NK's current posturing, I am kinda glad he was not elected.

[Edited on June 2, 2009 at 5:57 PM. Reason : ``]

6/2/2009 5:47:26 PM

Quote :

"A military response is also practically out of the question."

well that appears to be what hooksaw is talking about. He is being coy and pretending like we should all be able to read his mind and know exactly what he's saying without actually saying it, but it sounds to me like his idea of "real consequences" is to throw some ICBMs at North Korea.

6/2/2009 6:48:19 PM

Quote :

"My hope is that when all is said and done Obama will be able to pick up where Bill Clinton left off."

Like letting Osama off the hook? Or letting Sadaam ignore UN resolution after UN resolution? Or maybe you mean blowing up some more Christians in Bosnia... Or maybe it would be cumming on an intern's dress... (ok, the last one is just trolling, lol)

6/2/2009 8:01:03 PM

I actually meant with regards to NK. When Clinton left office, North Korea was not testing nuclear weapons and we even had inspectors in place so we could track his nuclear activities. After years of Bush's cowboy diplomacy ("we wont negotiate with you until you stop being evil"), the inspectors are gone and NK is testing nuclear weapons. We are simply in a worse position now than we were before Bush took office. Even Bush realized that. That's exactly why he did a 180 on NK in his second term. This is 100% a total failure of the Bush administration and there is simply no other way to look at it. *No other way* Obama will be doing a damn fine job if he can clean up Bush's mess.

PS* But if we're going to troll, I might point out that it isn't the job of the U.S. to enforce U.N. resolutions and Clinton's record on Osama seems about as good as Bush's (so far as I know neither got him "on the hook"). Though I think the point goes to Clinton because he didn't have to invade an entire country to fail at the task of killing Osama bin Laden. WTG Clinton!

[Edited on June 3, 2009 at 9:09 AM. Reason : ``]

6/3/2009 8:55:01 AM

To kooksaw:

Quote :

"Now I'll put it to you and your cohorts, what are you prepared to do to prevent North Korea from becoming even more of a menace to our world?"

6/3/2009 8:56:47 AM

Quote :

"Obama: "And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world." UPDATE: The excellent Don Surber crunches the numbers and points out that Obama's claim is highly dubious. According to Surber, the US has an estimated three to eight million Muslims, less than one per cent of the world's total and less than at least 23 other countries. The average claim for the US Muslim population is about six million. The precise figure is difficult to get because it's not included in US census data and many put the figure at much, much less. But even if we assume there are six million Muslims in the US, that makes it only the 34th biggest Muslim country in the world - behind Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Nigeria, China, Ethiopia, Algeria, Morocco, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Tanzania, Syria, Malaysia, Niger, Senegal, Ghana, Tunisia, Somalia, Guinea, Kenya, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Burkina Faso and Tajikistan. "

Maybe he meant we're a big country geographically, AND we have some muslims. Must have had the telepromptor in the shop.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/06/03/barack_hussein_obama_us_one_of_the_largest_muslim_countries_in_the_world

[Edited on June 3, 2009 at 10:36 AM. Reason : .]

6/3/2009 10:35:55 AM

hahaha man drudge is in hyper-obama-overlord-muslim overload today.. probably close to 15 inferences and non sequitur associations

i took a screenshot for my lol archives

i think i like the main photo the best



lol i mean i don't even know where to start

6/3/2009 10:52:11 AM

NBCNEWS ANCHOR BOWS BEFORE OBAMA?

6/3/2009 11:04:08 AM

oh my god

matt one-upped himself today



PRESIDENT SPORTS THIN MOUSTACHE IN EGYPT...

6/4/2009 9:42:21 AM

You truly belong here with us among the clouds

6/4/2009 9:46:15 AM

Quote :

"Maybe he meant we're a big country geographically, AND we have some muslims. Must have had the telepromptor in the shop."

I love how he comments on that not too long after saying the US isn't a Christian country. Thanks man.

6/4/2009 10:15:33 AM

The US isn't a Christian country!!! It really pisses me off when people say that.

by the way if you missed his speech yesterday you can read it here

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/political/2009/06/04/5277627/Microsoft_Word_-_cairoaddress.pdf

it really is an amazing speech. what a breath of fresh air!

6/4/2009 11:00:54 AM

Quote :

"The US isn't a Christian country!!! It really pisses me off when people say that. "

why's that?

6/4/2009 11:03:11 AM

because the US was created as a safe haven for people of all religions and to have the freedom to believe in what ever faith we personally decide to follow. additionally, our founding fathers made it a point to separate and protect the church from the state and to prevent the state from setting up an official religion. when people say the US is a christian nation it flies in the face of the first amendment.

6/4/2009 11:08:17 AM

HOORAAAAYY

6/4/2009 11:09:15 AM

That's not what bothers me.

He's like "hey we're not a Christian country!" then he's like "ya know, if you took all the Muslim people in the US we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries.

Oh how nice!

6/4/2009 11:09:55 AM

Quote :

"it really is an amazing speech. what a breath of fresh air!"

No matter who is giving the speech, I don't understand why people say that. You know they're not the ones writing the speeches, correct?

6/4/2009 11:13:36 AM

someone in the administration he hired is.

6/4/2009 11:16:18 AM

yes i do know that he didn't write the speech. i'm not talking about Obama being a breath of fresh air but our foreign policy all together.

6/4/2009 11:17:06 AM

Pat....please tell me that you have some understanding of persuasion.

Step 1. Create commonality and comment of positive qualities
Step 2. Get to the meat of it. Identity the issues and propose solutions that support a common goal
Step 3. Revisit areas of common ground and common purpose with the idea that your solutions are the way to achieve that

This is exactly what Obama did in his speech

6/4/2009 11:20:59 AM

Quote :

"when people say the US is a christian nation it flies in the face of the first amendment."

sparky

Incorrect. It simply acknowledges things like "endowed by their Creator" and other such language in the documents (and actions) of our founders, many of whom were Christians of one stripe or another. Furthermore, it recognizes that somewhere around 75 percent of Americans are Christians.

I think everyone knows that there is no official church of the United States of America. And we are not a theocracy.

6/4/2009 11:32:48 AM

Quote :

"i'm not talking about Obama being a breath of fresh air but our foreign policy all together."

I would like to know more about this fresh, new foreign policy.

6/4/2009 11:33:17 AM

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

6/4/2009 11:37:03 AM

^^did you read the speech?? its nothing like the foreign policy of the bush administration with his talk of crusades and its god's will that he invade iraq and shit like that.

^^^ several of our founding fathers hated organized religion including christianity.

[Edited on June 4, 2009 at 11:40 AM. Reason : ...]

6/4/2009 11:38:33 AM

just finished watching the speech. it was a fantastic speech. now let's hope the words come to fruition

6/4/2009 11:39:54 AM

are you five?

come on dude, even hardcore Obama supporters can admit that nothing much has changed on the foreign policy front

6/4/2009 11:40:39 AM

Quote :

"He's like "hey we're not a Christian country!" then he's like "ya know, if you took all the Muslim people in the US we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries. "

Reminds me of people who are like "hey, I'm not racist, I have black friends!"

6/4/2009 11:41:45 AM

^^ from an action standpoint I agree. we continue our efforts in Iraq and have stepped up military presence in Afghanistan. However, what I'm referring to more so is the attitude. As seen through yesterdays speech, America is now on a path or mutual understanding and reconciliation instead of colonialism and forcing democracy down peoples throats like it was during the bush administration.

[Edited on June 4, 2009 at 11:44 AM. Reason : ^^]

6/4/2009 11:43:43 AM

yeah, who knows if all the contact and communication with the Middle East and the Muslim world will lead to substantial policy changes or changing attitudes from Muslims to the US and the West, but my god, what a change in attitude from the US to them. Thankfully the years of Bush's cowboy diplomacy are gone, and we don't have to listen to our President make idle threats and insults to anyone to disagrees with him.

I think Obama's larger goal here is to build support among normal Muslim's for him and the US, because then they will be more willing to stand up to and denounce radical Muslims like Al Qaeda and the Taliban. With Bush's attitude, normal Muslim's couldn't be expected to care much when Al Qaeda took out attacks on the West, because we weren't giving them any reason not to. But if Obama can help shift the view of the US, then hopefully Muslims will be able to marginalize and diminish their own radical elements.

6/4/2009 12:43:28 PM

I gotta agree. No actions have been made by Obama yet but it has only been a few months. Foreign policy doesn't turn on a time. But I like the direction he's going in (even though I don't think the speech was that amazing). Hopefully something will actually come of it. But if nothing does, I hope Obama will be strong enough to handle things if it doesn't.

[Edited on June 4, 2009 at 1:09 PM. Reason : ``]

6/4/2009 1:05:51 PM

Quote :

"He's like "hey we're not a Christian country!" then he's like "ya know, if you took all the Muslim people in the US we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries. "

I think he's just trying to make the point that the US is not interested in furthering the goals of Christianity, as an opponent religion to Islam. Several Arab countries have an agenda of furthering Islam, so this is quite relevant to his audience. At the same time, he's pointing out that America is home to a large Muslim population.

Yes, it's possible to interpret that as "I'm not racist; I have black friends!", just like its possible to interpret "Honey, I love you just the way you are" as "You're a fat ho-bag".

That said, I think it was a dumb thing to say simply because it's apparently grossly inaccurate.

[Edited on June 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM. Reason : .]

6/4/2009 1:10:34 PM

if he had said "western world" instead of "world" it would be accurate.

6/4/2009 1:11:40 PM

^ and even more accurate if he was talking about the U.S. being the largest Muslim country in North America! Boy its fun to change the meanings of things.

6/4/2009 1:30:12 PM

ok?

[Edited on June 4, 2009 at 1:32 PM. Reason : "if he had" == i know that he didn't actually say that.]

6/4/2009 1:32:13 PM

Quote :

"Incorrect. It simply acknowledges things like "endowed by their Creator" and other such language in the documents (and actions) of our founders, many of whom were Christians of one stripe or another."

Yes, but, we aren't governed by the Declaration of Independence, we're governed by the Constitution which makes no such claims and in fact guards against enshrinement of preferred religions.

Quote it all you want but it doesn't make a hill of beans when it comes to the law, what truly matters.

6/4/2009 1:35:40 PM

Quote :

" "if he had" == i know that he didn't actually say that."

then i'm glad to hear you're still part of the reality based community. of course, that only raises the question why you think it is useful to speculate about alternative universes where Obama correctly described national muslim demographics (if he had said this...said that...etc).

Seems like a waste of time to me. Obama said something that was factually incorrect. Seems easy enough for me to deal with. But *shrug* different strokes...

[Edited on June 4, 2009 at 1:44 PM. Reason : for different folks]

6/4/2009 1:42:27 PM

i find it conceivable that he misspoke and isn't dumb enough to think that we have a large muslim population when compared to the rest of the world. he may not have. there's not really a way to know.

6/4/2009 2:33:48 PM

Quote :

"there's not really a way to know."

kinda my point. so why worry about it? you know he won the election. so you don't have to defend his every mistake and misstep. it will be okay. he'll still be president tomorrow.

[Edited on June 4, 2009 at 2:50 PM. Reason : ```]

6/4/2009 2:46:47 PM

Quote :

"Quote it all you want but it doesn't make a hill of beans when it comes to the law, what truly matters."

PinkandBlack

Please stop trolling. Clearly, I was addressing why people say things such as we are a Christian nation--it's true for a number of reasons. Even though, as I pointed out, there is no official state church and our nation is not a theocracy.

BTW, can anyone else see the absurd contradiction in the following statement?

Quote :

"when people say the US is a christian [sic] nation it flies in the face of the first amendment."

sparky

Congress shall make no law. . .abridging the freedom of speech. . . .

LOL!

6/4/2009 3:59:10 PM

To say America is a Christian nation is to say it has a Christian identity, which it certainly does not. Most of the founding fathers were deists at best, and the phrase "endowed by the creator" was added in later by a christian editing Jefferson's original Declaration of Independence, which did not include any deistic wording.

In a 1797 peace treaty with Tripoli (John Adams' administration), there is this statement: "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

6/4/2009 4:29:06 PM

^^ just because you can say it doesn't mean its not retarded

6/4/2009 5:19:08 PM

The US is not a Christian nation in any meaningful sense.

Certain people for the purposes of idiocy might choose to view us as being one, but they really don't matter.

6/4/2009 7:50:22 PM

Quote :

"I think Obama's larger goal here is to build support among normal Muslim's for him and the US,"

Quote :

"Step 3. Revisit areas of common ground "

I don't think we have reached any common ground yet in regards to cutting off our heads, and flying planes into buildings. Perhaps we could revisit those topics first.

Quote :

"Obama said something that was factually incorrect. Seems easy enough for me to deal with."

But whenever Bush said something stupid, liberals had a cow. I'm no Bush fan...but fair is fair. So we need to point out examples of Obama's ignorance too.

Quote :

"we are a Christian nation--it's true for a number of reasons."

No, we are a nation of individuals. The founders set up the country to recognize and protect the rights of individuals..not the tenets of Christianity.

6/4/2009 10:57:23 PM