Uh oh. Many of Us May Be In Trouble

[ImWithStupid]

Have to watch what you say, or Achmed is gonna sue you.

 

Muslims nations: Defame Islam, get sued?

 

By RUKMINI CALLIMACHI

Associated Press Writer

 

 

DAKAR, Senegal (AP) -- The Muslim world has created a battle plan to defend its religion from political cartoonists and bigots.

 

Concerned about what they see as a rise in the defamation of Islam, leaders of the world's Muslim nations are considering taking legal action against those that slight their religion or its sacred symbols. It was a key issue during a two-day summit that ended Friday in this western Africa capital.

 

The Muslim leaders are attempting to demand redress from nations like Denmark, which allowed the publication of cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad in 2006 and again last month, to the fury of the Muslim world.

 

Though the legal measures being considered have not been spelled out, the idea pits many Muslims against principles of freedom of speech enshrined in the constitutions of numerous Western governments.

 

"I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy," said Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade, the chairman of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference. "There can be no freedom without limits.

[wez]

How many Muhammads does it take to change a lightbulb?

 

Muhammad was a liberal.

[timesjoke]

Considering that many muslim schools teach that western people are Devils and they even have cartoons and other shows saying the same thing for young entertainment, I find it difficult to entertain any sympathy for their complaint about things like this.

 

Maybe we should start suing them for their lies.

[wez]

Considering that many muslim schools teach that western people are Devils and they even have cartoons and other shows saying the same thing for young entertainment, I find it difficult to entertain any sympathy for their complaint about things like this.

 

Maybe we should start suing them for their lies.

 

 

 

Appears we chose to kill them instead..

[timesjoke]

Appears we chose to kill them instead..

 

Look Wez, I am trying to ignore your wacko junk as much as possible to keep the peace around here so I would appreciate it if you would keep your America hatred to yourself.

 

The muslims have been killing innocent western people far longer and on a more regular pace than westerners. If you take the time to learn about things you would see how America gave Afganistan the ability to defend themselves against the Russians and then these same people show their appreciation by doing things like cutting off the heads of news people (who mostly agree and support them) killing children, killing any innocent they can find for the fear factor, doing attacks like 9/11, ...........

 

 

Yes, there is killing on both sides, but it is not the act that is important, it is the motivations behind the attack that matter. We are tageting real attackers while their favorite victims are children and other innocents, these two things are worlds apart on intent, and if your incapable of seeing how intentions are different and changes things, there is no hope for you.

[wez]

Look Wez, I am trying to ignore your wacko junk as much as possible to keep the peace around here so I would appreciate it if you would keep your America hatred to yourself.

 

The muslims have been killing innocent western people far longer and on a more regular pace than westerners. If you take the time to learn about things you would see how America gave Afganistan the ability to defend themselves against the Russians and then these same people show their appreciation by doing things like cutting off the heads of news people (who mostly agree and support them) killing children, killing any innocent they can find for the fear factor, doing attacks like 9/11, ...........

 

 

Yes, there is killing on both sides, but it is not the act that is important, it is the motivations behind the attack that matter. We are tageting real attackers while their favorite victims are children and other innocents, these two things are worlds apart on intent, and if your incapable of seeing how intentions are different and changes things, there is no hope for you.

 

Hahahahahaha... Yep, war and killing will certainly work this time. 2000 years of history will finally be proven wrong.

 

 

What are our motivations?

 

By the way, did you watch that vid yet? Were Panamanians killing innocent children too?

[timesjoke]

Clinton completely ignored them and was the most popular American President in all of the muslim world, and we got 9/11 as a reward for keeping our hands in our pockets, maybe you liked being hit on 9/11, your always so against everything American, were you one of the kids dancing in the streets after the attack Wez?

 

9/11 is what we get for refusing to stand up to agression.

[wez]

Clinton completely ignored them and was the most popular American President in all of the muslim world, and we got 9/11 as a reward for keeping our hands in our pockets, maybe you liked being hit on 9/11, your always so against everything American, were you one of the kids dancing in the streets after the attack Wez?

 

9/11 is what we get for refusing to stand up to agression.

 

 

Is it possible that 9/11 is what we get for being aggressive while trying to act like passive, innocent victims? We have had a military presence over there since at least the 1950's.. And no, 9/11 didn't make me happy TJ. Were you one of those cheering at the bombs falling in Baghdad?

 

 

Is it possible that they are actually the ones standing up to aggression?

 

 

Did you watch that vid yet?

[timesjoke]

Is it possible that 9/11 is what we get for being aggressive while trying to act like passive, innocent victims?

 

No it is not possible, we did nothing but help in places like Afganistan, hell prior to the attack on 9/11, did you know America provided most of the edible food to that Country? We help them fight odd Russia, we make it possible for them to eat, but they want us all dead, that is the mentality we are fighting.

 

 

Thanks for reminding me why everyone sees you as an idiot, I won't reply to you on this topic again so feel free to post more anti-american "we deserved 9/11 garbage" without me getting in your way.

[wez]

No it is not possible, we did nothing but help in places like Afganistan, hell prior to the attack on 9/11, did you know America provided most of the edible food to that Country? We help them fight odd Russia, we make it possible for them to eat, but they want us all dead, that is the mentality we are fighting.

 

 

Thanks for reminding me why everyone sees you as an idiot, I won't reply to you on this topic again so feel free to post more anti-american "we deserved 9/11 garbage" without me getting in your way.

 

 

 

Why have we had a military presence over there for 60+ years? We don't need guns to deliver food so we can look like world saviors/heros. No one is fooled anymore.. Why haven't they had one soldier over here, ever? Role reversal is fun, to a point.

 

Osama helped them fight the Russians too, did he not? We trained him and gave him weapons.. we should know.

 

 

How did we find ourselves as the innocent victims/targets of these people?

 

 

You are aware Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.. right? Not one Iraqi hijacker I don't think. They were from our buddies place.. Saudi Arabia.

 

Did you watch that Panama vid yet?

[wez]

Here's TJ's debate skills..... Got this pm from him moments ago...

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Wez,

 

I am asking you nicely to just leqave me alone. Don't ask me any questions, don't quote me or otherwise try to bait me into your childish games.

 

My life is filled with great things and every time I interact with you I feel as though I have come as close to a purely evil person as is possible in this world.

 

Your evil is in your games, you preach inaction and complacency, you preach American hatred, you preach self-loathing, you try to bring everyone else down because you don;t have the skill or ability to elivate yourself.

 

I am sicked by your very existance.

 

 

So again, I am asking you to please just leave me alone.

 

Times

[hugo]

A true conservative's view of our foreign policy over the last century:

 

Excerpts from:

 

A Republic, Not an Empire

by Patrick J. Buchanan

 

March 25, 2000

 

If elected, I will have all U.S. troops out of the Balkan quagmire by year's end, and all American troops home from Europe by the end of my first term. Forty years ago, President Eisenhower pleaded with JFK to bring all U.S. troops home from Europe. Certainly, sixty years after the end of World War II, and fifteen years after the Berlin Wall fell, is not too soon to get all U.S. troops out of Europe... If not now, when? ...

 

What is best for America and the world, they tell us, is that the United States should remain a superpower sheriff, the Wyatt Earp of the West, possessed of the sole right to deputize posses, or go it alone if necessary, to discipline evil-doers, wherever our "values" are threatened. I submit that this foreign policy poses a great and growing danger to the peace and security of the United States.

 

For ten years, the U.S. has played the dominant role in maintaining rigid sanctions on Iraq. By one UN estimate, these sanctions have resulted in the premature deaths of 500,000 children. Will the parents of those children ever forgive us? Even our European Allies recoil. By keeping these sanctions fastened on Iraq, we flout every tenet of Christianity's Just War doctrine, and build up deposits of hatred across the Arab world that will take decades to draw down. One day our children shall pay the price of our callous indifference to what is happening to the children of Iraq.

 

I speak as a proud Cold Warrior who supported every great anti-Communist initiative from JFK to Reagan. And I support a U.S. defense that is second to none and a foreign policy whereby America responds resolutely to any attack on American citizens, honor, or vital interests.

 

But what purpose is served by our shortening the lives of Iraqi people who have done us no harm? If Desert Storm could not remove Saddam Hussein, how are the women, children and elderly of Iraq, the victims of our sanctions, supposed to overthrow him?

 

And if 78 days of bombing could not eject Milosevic from power, how does forcing the people of Serbia to endure a brutal winter without fuel or heat advance our goal? What happened to the moral idea of proportionality, even in wartime, between means and ends?

 

We are in an election season, and the two major parties have made their predictable selections. Their debate over foreign policy -- it is no news to anyone sitting here - was devoid of any fresh thinking. Both parties are frozen in the mindset of a Cold War that ended ten years ago.

 

During one debate, John McCain singled out Iraq, Libya and North Korea as "rogue states" and advocated the armed overthrow of all three by U.S.-trained and equipped armies. Pressed on what he would do if his armies were being annihilated, the Senator did not respond. But he did not reject the notion that Iran, a nation of 70 million, should also be designated a rogue state to be targeted for overthrow.

 

Friends, this is hubris; this is triumphalism; this is the arrogance of power; this is America's Brezhnev doctrine. I single McCain out not because he in particular is misguided, but because such ideas are commonplace among the global gamesmen in Washington.

 

Governor Bush cried out in anguish when he was compared by Senator McCain to Bill Clinton, but he did not utter a skeptical word about McCain's plans for rogue regimes. Indeed, the Governor has exhibited neither absorbing interest nor extraordinary aptitude for foreign policy -- to put it generously. His call last year for the war on Serbia to be waged "more ferociously" was his one memorable foreign policy utterance. But in the cluster of foreign policy aides, the self-styled "Vulcans," now home-schooling the Governor, notions of "rogue state rollback" are music to the ear.

 

Among the more prominent of the Vulcans is Paul Wolfowitz. A Pentagon aide to Bush the Elder, Wolfowitz produced in 1992 a blueprint for war against Russia that would utilize six carrier battle groups and 24 NATO divisions to rescue Lithuania, should Moscow recolonize that tiny republic.

 

Richard Perle, another of the "On-to-Baghdad" brigade, is perhaps Washington's premier enthusiast of using U.S. power to topple rogue regimes. Another tutor to Governor Bush is his father's former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft. A few months ago, General Scowcroft advocated putting a division of U.S. troops on the Golan Heights, to police peace between Syria and Israel, thereby insuring there would be dead Americans in any future Syrian-Israeli clash.

 

Not one of the "Vulcans" embraces the new thinking on foreign policy that has taken root in Congress and the country in the aftermath of the Cold War. This new thinking alarms both Clintonites who call it "isolationist," but even more the neo-conservatives who believe America should convert her hour of power into a "benevolent global hegemony."

 

Indeed, during Clinton's war on Serbia, one neoconservative strategist was so disheartened by the lack of war spirit among the Republican rank-and file, he mused about giving up and leaving the GOP altogether.

 

Quo Vadis? Where are you going, America?

 

Because of our sanctions on scores of nations, cruise missile strikes upon others, and intervention in the internal affairs of still others in the wake of the Cold War, a seething resentment of America is brewing all over the world. And the haughty attitude of our foreign policy elite only nurses the hatred. Hearken, if you will, to the voice of our own Xenia, Madeline Albright, announcing new air strikes on Iraq: "If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see farther into the future."

 

Now I count myself an American patriot. But if this Beltway braggadocio about being the world's "indispensable nation" has begun to grate on me, how must it grate upon the Europeans, Russians, and peoples subject to our sanctions because they have failed, by our lights, to live up to our standards?

 

And how can all our meddling not fail to spark some horrible retribution? Recall: it was in retaliation for the bombing of Libya that Khadafi's agents blew up Pan Am 103. And it is said to have been in retaliation for the Vincennes' accidental shoot-down of that Iranian airliner that Teheran collaborated with terrorists to blow up the Khobar towers. From Pan Am 103, to the World Trade Center, to the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar - have we not suffered enough not to know that interventionism is the incubator of terrorism? Or will it take some cataclysmic atrocity on U.S. soil to awaken our global gamesmen to the asking price of empire?

 

America today faces a choice of destinies. We can be the peacemaker of the world - or its policeman who goes about night-sticking troublemakers until we, too, find ourselves in some bloody brawl we cannot handle. Let us use this transitory moment of American power and preeminence to encourage and assist old friends and allies to stand on their own feet and provide and pay for their own defense.

Let me state my present intent: If elected, I will have all U.S. troops out of the Balkan quagmire by year's end, and all American troops home from Europe by the end of my first term. Forty years ago, President Eisenhower pleaded with JFK to bring all U.S. troops home from Europe. Certainly, sixty years after the end of World War II, and fifteen years after the Berlin Wall fell, is not too soon to get all U.S. troops out of Europe and let Europeans provide and pay the cost of their own defense. If not now, when?

 

And let us quickly adopt a measure of humility about how much we know about what is best for other peoples and cultures. In the words of the great scholar Russell Kirk: "There exists no single best form of government for the happiness of all mankind. The most suitable form of government depends on the historic experience, the customs, the beliefs, the state of culture...and all these things vary from land to land and age to age."

 

We are entering a fertile and exciting time in our politics. Our ossified two-party system, that has managed to stifle serious foreign policy debate for a decade, is cracking up. Pressure is growing from dissidents within, and this year, there will be a mighty challenge from without. As Joe Namath said, I guarantee it.

 

Our Reform Party will be on the ballot in 50 states, and, if I have anything to say about it -- and I expect to -- it will become a non-interventionist party, a peace party, that will reach out to Americans of Right and Left who reject the Third Way imperialism being forced upon us by the elites of both Beltway parties.

 

In this new era, many of us are rediscovering the old distrust of crusading that was at the center of the world view of the old American Right. We are conscious of our love for this country. We do not wish to isolate America from the world, only to isolate America from wars -- the religious, ethnic, and territorial wars of less fortunate lands. We know there is a powerful body of American thought -- from Washington to John Quincy Adams to William Jennings Bryan and Robert Taft -- as well as all the near forgotten figures written about by Justin Raimondo and others -- to help guide us. And their message is one I intend to stamp upon our banners in the campaign of 2000: A Republic, Not an Empire! America First!

 

[hugo]

You can't defeat Islam. What must be defeated is radical Islam. We can best do this by giving encouragement to the moderates in the Islamic world and stop feeding the radicals propaganda machine by having troops throughout the ME. We can best maintain security at home with restrictive immigration policies and finding new technologies and conserving to reduce our demand for foreign oil.

[wez]

Another excellent article from a true patriot teach..

[ImWithStupid]

I pretty much agree with that whole quote, even though I don't always agree with Pat Buchanan.

 

Although I vehemently denounce terrorism and acts of bombing and especially 9/11, I too feel that the US has had horrible foreign policies since at least WWII.

 

On too many occasions our foreign policies have been responsible for the overthrow or determination of the governments of many nations that were dictated by force, where diplomacy should have or could have been used.

 

Too many occasions of the supposed support of the rebel against a tyrannical foreign invader, like Afganistan, but when the USSR left Afganistan, we left the crippled nation, without a governmental structure, and was pretty much in chaos, and dumped them on the curb like a used up hooker who didn't matter any more. It's pretty much determined that is what led to the rise of the Taliban there, after a bloody civil war to obtain power.

 

That is the lesson that we must learn from in Iraq. Do I truly believe that we should have invaded Iraq, and destroyed the government in place? No, but that is were we are now. To just up and leave Iraq until it can get a functional government (decided by the Iraqi people, not what the US decides their government should be) and infrastructure, we will be left to repeat the failures of Afganistan.

 

The US needs to quit thinking they are the ones who should tell the world how things should be, in other soveriegn nations, according to our model of democracy. Our form of government doesn't work everywhere. People and cultures are different. Hell, in the middle east, many of the people remember and talk about the crusades as if they happened ten years ago, not hundreds of years ago, and they still fear the west/christians are going to attempt another crusade, and our occupation of Iraq, support of Israel, bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait doesn't do anything to take away this fear.

 

With that said, I love the US, I just can't say the same for the execution of power and foreign policy for the last half century or more.

[wez]

Very well said IWS..

[wez]

Let's talk about Tim McVie TJ... Gulf war veteran.. terrorist.. What happened there?

 

 

By the way, don't ever PM me again. You got something to say to me, do it in public. Or ignore feature me as you were told.

[timesjoke]

You can't defeat Islam. What must be defeated is radical Islam. We can best do this by giving encouragement to the moderates in the Islamic world and stop feeding the radicals propaganda machine by having troops throughout the ME. We can best maintain security at home with restrictive immigration policies and finding new technologies and conserving to reduce our demand for foreign oil.

 

 

That was mostly done By Bill Clinton and we got 9/11 as our reward for backing off and just letting things unfold. Clinton basically gave our military to the UN and begged their permission to do 99% of everything we did. More than 90% of our CIA actions were scrapped and ordered to end by Bill as well. We ignored several open attacks on American interests and tried to directly make peace with the radicals.

 

 

After we told the world we will do as we please and displayed a little muscle, for some reason we have not had any attacks.

 

This is real basic logic, we show ourselves to be whips like Bill Clinton and we invite ourselves to be attacked in more and more horrible ways. We show ourselves willing to kick some behind and the radicals start looking for easier targets.

 

We can't "love" our way out of problems, look at how many times France has been defeated and they have always been kissing behinds. Now they are being torn apart with muslim extremists. Canada has a long history of bending over backwards to appease Muslims and there have been many radical training grounds discovered there as well as plots stopped. Australia also bends over backwards to appease Muslims and they have the biggest Muslim gang rape problem in the non-Muslim world.

 

See a trend forming?

[wez]

We can't "love" our way out of problems, look at how many times France has been defeated and they have always been kissing behinds. Now they are being torn apart with muslim extremists. Canada has a long history of bending over backwards to appease Muslims and there have been many radical training grounds discovered there as well as plots stopped. Australia also bends over backwards to appease Muslims and they have the biggest Muslim gang rape problem in the non-Muslim world.

 

See a trend forming?

 

 

 

According to Jesus, that's the only way.. Love. I thought you went to church? The only trend I see is hate driven circles of violence that get us no where but where we are.

[ImWithStupid]

That was mostly done By Bill Clinton and we got 9/11 as our reward for backing off and just letting things unfold. Clinton basically gave our military to the UN and begged their permission to do 99% of everything we did. More than 90% of our CIA actions were scrapped and ordered to end by Bill as well. We ignored several open attacks on American interests and tried to directly make peace with the radicals.

 

I agree that Clinton did much to pussify our military and our appearance of dominance, along with his exessive downsizing of our military.

 

As for Clinton being soft on terrorists, leaving us with 9/11, I think those wheels were in motion long before Bill was in office. Our country failed in Afganistan by abandoning them after the USSR pulled out, leading to a bloody fight for power and the rise of the Taliban. Just as we did to the Iraqi Shia population in southern Iraq during Desert Storm by leading them to believe that if they rebelled against Saddam, we would back them, and when they began to try, we left them twisting in the wind.

 

This goes back to my post about having five or more decades of pretty poor foreign policy, including the Clinton administration.

 

There were some successed too, such as the fall of the USSR's empire and control over all the countries around them.

 

This is real basic logic, we show ourselves to be whips like Bill Clinton and we invite ourselves to be attacked in more and more horrible ways. We show ourselves willing to kick some behind and the radicals start looking for easier targets.

 

I will agree that Clinton made some moves that caused us to lose the fear factor, or intimidation factor that we won't be pushed around or cry defeat. I think the biggest mistake he made and what gave all these nations like Iran, North Korea, etc... the idea that we aren't to be feared, was his pull out of Somalia after the Blackhawk Down incident. The Muslim extremists there not only see that as a rally cry that they can beat us. The thing is that was one battle, that went wrong. What should have happened was to regroup and respond with an overwhelming use of force in Mogadishu, and regain control, and dominance. We were already there, it's not like we would have to invade them. Instead Wimpy Bill, pulls us out and now every year they have a national holiday celebrating the defeat of the US and driving us out of their country. In that instance I don't think we would have had much of a problem getting support from the international community.

 

We can't "love" our way out of problems, look at how many times France has been defeated and they have always been kissing behinds. Now they are being torn apart with muslim extremists. Canada has a long history of bending over backwards to appease Muslims and there have been many radical training grounds discovered there as well as plots stopped. Australia also bends over backwards to appease Muslims and they have the biggest Muslim gang rape problem in the non-Muslim world.

 

See a trend forming?

 

I agree with the whole, "we can't love our way out of problems", idea and I truly believe what Teddy Roosevelt said about, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." This was his description of his foreign policy relating to using diplomacy but have the means to support your stance if necessary.

 

I think in the past the US has been too fast to use the "big stick" or covert operations that impose our will on sovereign nations for short term results, and not enough with diplomacy.

 

I agree with a zero tolerance on terrorism, but we should first use diplomacy to get the governments to work with us, like we are in Columbia against the drug trafficers, and less threatening to use force whether they like it or not. I don't think any of us would like another country violating our sovereignty or imposing their will on us. This is what the people in these nations see in the long run, that we didn't respect their rights as a nation, why should they respect us?

 

After we told the world we will do as we please and displayed a little muscle, for some reason we have not had any attacks.

 

I agree it has worked for the short term, and so far, I just fear that in the long run this is the exact mentality that will and has caused us to lose some respect globally.

[ImWithStupid]

You can't defeat Islam. What must be defeated is radical Islam. We can best do this by giving encouragement to the moderates in the Islamic world and stop feeding the radicals propaganda machine by having troops throughout the ME. We can best maintain security at home with restrictive immigration policies and finding new technologies and conserving to reduce our demand for foreign oil.

 

Well said.

 

True Islam, doesn't need to be defeated, it's the radicals like you said that need to be dealt with and like you said, we need to use more diplomacy in dealings with the MidEast in more of a mediator roll, from afar, as opposed to troops on the ground.

 

It's time that the U.N. and all the other nations who criticize us to step up, do something more than point out our failings. We can diplomatically give our support or approval, but no troops or money.

 

I too don't advocate isolationism, but it's quite obvious that the heavy hand approach with demands or consequences doesn't work, and hasn't worked to reach long term goals, for more than half a century.

 

We need to decide that we can monitor and police international events and situations without being the policeman that responds.

[hugo]

We can't "love" our way out of problems, look at how many times France has been defeated and they have always been kissing behinds. Now they are being torn apart with muslim extremists. Canada has a long history of bending over backwards to appease Muslims and there have been many radical training grounds discovered there as well as plots stopped. Australia also bends over backwards to appease Muslims and they have the biggest Muslim gang rape problem in the non-Muslim world.

 

See a trend forming?

 

That is why I made this statement:

 

"We can best maintain security at home with restrictive immigration policies and finding new technologies and conserving to reduce our demand for foreign oil."

 

Of course, GW loves more immigrants from the ME, from wikipedia:

 

"Muslim immigration to the U.S. is rising and in 2005 alone more people from Muslim countries became legal permanent U.S. residents ? nearly 96,000 ? than in any year in the previous two decades."

 

Yes, we need to make sure our immigrants come from parts of the world not tainted by radical Islam. Europe is catching hell at this moment due to poorly regulated immigration. Ours is poorly regulated too. Fortunately hispanics don't have a significant minority, it don't take many, who blow themselves up in marketplaces.

 

The pattern that forms is the more you mix with nutcases the more likely you are to get harmed by one.

[ImWithStupid]

That is why I made this statement:

 

We can best maintain security at home with restrictive immigration policies and finding new technologies and conserving to reduce our demand for foreign oil.

 

Yes, we need to make sure our immigrants come from parts of the world not tainted by radical Islam. Europe is catching hell at this moment due to poorly regulate immigration. Ours is poorly regulated too. Fortunately hispanics don't have a significant minority, it don't take many, who blow themselves up in marketplaces.

 

The pattern that forms is the more you mix with nutcases the more likely you are to get harmed by one.

 

When it comes to radical Muslims entering our country, we need to be concerned about the northern and southern borders. Canada is a bit lax like much of Europe.

[hugo]

When it comes to radical Muslims entering our country, we need to be concerned about the northern and southern borders. Canada is a bit lax like much of Europe.

 

Let me requote from what I just added to my prior post>

 

"Muslim immigration to the U.S. is rising and in 2005 alone more people from Muslim countries became legal permanent U.S. residents ? nearly 96,000 ? than in any year in the previous two decades."

 

The Iraqi war has actually put pressure to increase Muslim emigrants to the US. It ain't made us more secure.

[timesjoke]

That is why I made this statement:

 

"We can best maintain security at home with restrictive immigration policies and finding new technologies and conserving to reduce our demand for foreign oil."

 

Where to start......

 

While this sounds good it is a completely unrealistic goal because we need Americans to conserve, a thing nobody is willing to do so whatever axctions we want to consider, we must stay inside the realm of reality.

 

Even if we opened up all the restricted areas for drilling (liberals will stop this) we could not possibly meet our needs today, much less the increased needs that are going to come.

 

 

Of course, GW loves more immigrants from the ME, from wikipedia:

 

"Muslim immigration to the U.S. is rising and in 2005 alone more people from Muslim countries became legal permanent U.S. residents ? nearly 96,000 ? than in any year in the previous two decades."

 

I don't see how this is GW's fault, he does not make the guidelines, maybe some consideration by the liberal controlled Congress is in order.

 

Yes, we need to make sure our immigrants come from parts of the world not tainted by radical Islam. Europe is catching hell at this moment due to poorly regulated immigration. Ours is poorly regulated too. Fortunately hispanics don't have a significant minority, it don't take many, who blow themselves up in marketplaces.

 

Isolationist tactics will not work, our society is too fully immersed into the PC religion to change now. We are letting in more ME people because we feel guilty for attacking ME people.

 

 

The pattern that forms is the more you mix with nutcases the more likely you are to get harmed by one.

 

We have lots of nutcases that are Americans. We have them blaming ourselves for 9/11, we even have them claiming Bush made the attack and not Muslims. We can't stop hundreds of billions of dollars worth of drugs from entering the Country, if a determined terrorist wants in, no amount of immigration laws or technology will be able to stop him.