Originally Posted by Keedy

Excellent Bucco. Funny what editing will do.

Keedy

There wasnt no editing, I posted that part and the rest of the article is in the link. That is why I supplied it!!!!!!!!!! Was made mention of being one of the largest Muslim Nations. Funny how people read into things. OF course uless it is Bill-O or Fox news reporting it.. Make ya wonder???

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Other than the criticisms being leveled on conservative talk radio and among a few folks here, from all that I'm reading the President's visit and speeches in the middle East are roaring successes among Muslims. What's unknown at the moment, and probably will remain so for awhile, is how much help and money will derive from the requests the President made of King Abdullah and President Mubarak.

Maybe even more important will be how Israel responds to the demands made when Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel visited Washington a couple weeks ago. He was non-committal on the issue of closing down the settlements in the West Bank when meeting with Obama, but loudly de-bunked that idea as well as the idea of a "two party solution" among his supporters once he got back to Israel. Looks like we'll have to lean on Israel to get some progress there. I have no doubt that we have an administration that will be willing to 'lean' as much as is necessary without pandering to domestic moneyed political interests.

Otherwise, most of the pundits are saying that we've set the stage for more progress in Middle East relations than has existed for a decade. I suppose if one wants to, words and phrases can be picked apart and criticized. That provides entertainment for some, I suppose. But maybe the overall question should be: does this trip by the new U.S. President seem to be a good first step in accomplishing our national objectives? Most expert observers are saying 'yes'.

Good info as always VK

Just a short break here. I have no idea what the argument is, but I just want to point out a comment about something being deleted from a reference to an article in another publication.

Please be careful of that criticism because it will encourage people to include entire articles in their posts, and we all know that is a copyright violation. We don't like copyright violation, and members have been doing excellently in referencing foreign material on Talk of The Villages.

A short reference is just fine, accompanied by a link to the complete work.

And, too, while I ask members to be careful of the criticism of citations, I also ask that members be fair in what they select to encapsulate the reference.

Originally Posted by tony

Just a short break here. I have no idea what the argument is, but I just want to point out a comment about something being deleted from a reference to an article in another publication.

Please be careful of that criticism because it will encourage people to include entire articles in their posts, and we all know that is a copyright violation. We don't like copyright violation, and members have been doing excellently in referencing foreign material on Talk of The Villages.

A short reference is just fine, accompanied by a link to the complete work.

And, too, while I ask members to be careful of the criticism of citations, I also ask that members be fair in what they select to encapsulate the reference.

THIS was TOTALLY my fault !!

My apologies to you Tony, and to GMONEY AND to BOBKAT1.

My intent was to follow up BOBKAT's post where he agreed with the quote suppled by GMONEY but in my feeble mind he was only agreeing with the part that GMONEY had cited in the original post. So, I simply noted that but in a stupid and short way !

I should have been more clearer with my comments and I apologize to all !

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Other than the criticisms being leveled on conservative talk radio and among a few folks here, from all that I'm reading the President's visit and speeches in the middle East are roaring successes among Muslims. What's unknown at the moment, and probably will remain so for awhile, is how much help and money will derive from the requests the President made of King Abdullah and President Mubarak.

Maybe even more important will be how Israel responds to the demands made when Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel visited Washington a couple weeks ago. He was non-committal on the issue of closing down the settlements in the West Bank when meeting with Obama, but loudly de-bunked that idea as well as the idea of a "two party solution" among his supporters once he got back to Israel. Looks like we'll have to lean on Israel to get some progress there. I have no doubt that we have an administration that will be willing to 'lean' as much as is necessary without pandering to domestic moneyed political interests.

Otherwise, most of the pundits are saying that we've set the stage for more progress in Middle East relations than has existed for a decade. I suppose if one wants to, words and phrases can be picked apart and criticized. That provides entertainment for some, I suppose. But maybe the overall question should be: does this trip by the new U.S. President seem to be a good first step in accomplishing our national objectives? Most expert observers are saying 'yes'.

I havent seen much criticism on here of the Presidents speech at all !

A discussion about the "muslim country" stuff but have not heard any criticism of the speech or the attempt !

Did I miss something ?

Originally Posted by tony

Just a short break here. I have no idea what the argument is, but I just want to point out a comment about something being deleted from a reference to an article in another publication.

Please be careful of that criticism because it will encourage people to include entire articles in their posts, and we all know that is a copyright violation. We don't like copyright violation, and members have been doing excellently in referencing foreign material on Talk of The Villages.

A short reference is just fine, accompanied by a link to the complete work.

And, too, while I ask members to be careful of the criticism of citations, I also ask that members be fair in what they select to encapsulate the reference.

That is what I thought. That is why I just posted a quote and supplied the link. Good Point Tony. Thanks again

Originally Posted by Bucco

I havent seen much criticism on here of the Presidents speech at all !

A discussion about the "muslim country" stuff but have not heard any criticism of the speech or the attempt !

Did I miss something ?

I actually agree with you and VK. I mean you cant step on the wrong toes now a days!!! Maybe he " Obama" is trying to play both sides like a piano. But it seems to be like a piano out of tune. I took ofense at first when I heard the Muslim Country deal, but I kinda think I see what he was talking about and the picture he is trying to paint. Well Ok maybe not!!! I think you know what I am saying.

Originally Posted by GMONEY

I actually agree with you and VK. I mean you cant step on the wrong toes now a days!!! Maybe he " Obama" is trying to play both sides like a piano. But it seems to be like a piano out of tune. I took ofense at first when I heard the Muslim Country deal, but I kinda think I see what he was talking about and the picture he is trying to paint. Well Ok maybe not!!! I think you know what I am saying.

The President says and does a lot that bothers me HOWEVER I am willing to give each of these issues a chance. This was a great speech...he always gives great speeches....I will watch what he DOES now.

Most of what I feel about some of this I will keep to myself for a bit trying to give everyone a chance to fix a very serious problem.

I know we have been falling all over ourselves for the last few years to make the muslim nation feel comfortable that we are not at war with their religion. If the only way to convince them of this is to let down our defenses in some way or to be less aggressive in the defense of the US then I say stop the talking..they are not listening.

I do not recall any condemnation of the Bin Laden remarks although I may have missed that, but that would help the way I feel. I am speaking of condemnation by the middle east folks our President was speaking to yesterday !

Again, how can you criticize an attempt to keep peace and fix that mess over in the middle east !

Originally Posted by Bucco

The President says and does a lot that bothers me HOWEVER I am willing to give each of these issues a chance. This was a great speech...he always gives great speeches....I will watch what he DOES now.

Most of what I feel about some of this I will keep to myself for a bit trying to give everyone a chance to fix a very serious problem.

I know we have been falling all over ourselves for the last few years to make the muslim nation feel comfortable that we are not at war with their religion. If the only way to convince them of this is to let down our defenses in some way or to be less aggressive in the defense of the US then I say stop the talking..they are not listening.

I do not recall any condemnation of the Bin Laden remarks although I may have missed that, but that would help the way I feel. I am speaking of condemnation by the middle east folks our President was speaking to yesterday !

Again, how can you criticize an attempt to keep peace and fix that mess over in the middle east !

Point taken, Food for thought!!

Rephrasing the question to read, "What did Obama do Right for America?" And that is the easiest question to answer: NOTHING! How did we become a Muslim Nation? How many Muslims live in the USA, I bet not over 3 million. When did the USA ever bow down to any other country. What about the men and women who gave their lives for freedom in Europe, the sands of the Middle East, and elsewhere? Wake up America. This is OUR country not Obama's. The empty suit in the White House brings disrespect for our flag!

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Other than the criticisms being leveled on conservative talk radio and among a few folks here, from all that I'm reading the President's visit and speeches in the middle East are roaring successes among Muslims. What's unknown at the moment, and probably will remain so for awhile, is how much help and money will derive from the requests the President made of King Abdullah and President Mubarak.

Maybe even more important will be how Israel responds to the demands made when Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel visited Washington a couple weeks ago. He was non-committal on the issue of closing down the settlements in the West Bank when meeting with Obama, but loudly de-bunked that idea as well as the idea of a "two party solution" among his supporters once he got back to Israel. Looks like we'll have to lean on Israel to get some progress there. I have no doubt that we have an administration that will be willing to 'lean' as much as is necessary without pandering to domestic moneyed political interests.

Otherwise, most of the pundits are saying that we've set the stage for more progress in Middle East relations than has existed for a decade. I suppose if one wants to, words and phrases can be picked apart and criticized. That provides entertainment for some, I suppose. But maybe the overall question should be: does this trip by the new U.S. President seem to be a good first step in accomplishing our national objectives? Most expert observers are saying 'yes'.

Expecting "peace" in the MidEast brokered by the United States is like hoping there's oil on the moon and it will come to us via the Star Trek Pipeline.

The MidEasters have been fighting, killing, slaving, exploiting and every other "ing" since Cain and Abel. The issues are never going to be resolved by outside mediation, as neither side wants to give an inch - ever - out of fear that one inch will be exploited to 100 miles.

US politicians strolling through the MidEast with "plans" for peace are laughable. The only thing the US provides is a unifying effect whereby both the wrring factions skin the outsider. The Camp David Accords were a great example, as all that happened is that Israel and Egypt were able both to milk more foreign aid from the US on the pretext of "more foregin aid will make things better." It was a great photo op event, but nothing of substgance resulted other than more money going from us to them both.

"The settlements in the West Bank" - who cares? If both sides what to push each other to the wall, why are we sticking our political noses into the middle of it? The last time I looked at a map, Europe has more at stake than anyone in the Americas. Everytime they play brinksmanship, we send more money to both to "tone things down." When will we learn than we cannot solve the world's problems? The world loves to take our money when we in or arrogance try to play Papa to everyone.

We don't need to "lean on Israel" or anyone else. All we have to do is shut off the money stream - period! Or is the money - excuse me, foreign aid" supposed to continue forever? For all MidEast factions, isn't 50 years of foreign aid enough? And what good has it really done in the last 20 years?

Time to let the MidEast neighbors learn to live with each other without US money. We can't keep borrowing from the Chinese and others so that we can give it away to ingrates. We don't "owe" anything here, as we have paid for 5 decades. Or are we expected to pay for 5 more decades?

Forgive me if I don't seem like a big fan of Israel or its Arab neighbors. The fallout since the Kuwait War (Gulf I) is less than stellar. The Israeli action against the USS Liberty (www.usslliberty.com) in 1967 and the subsequent coverup is shameful, yet it still continues.

So, I don't put any of the MidEasters on a pedestal. They don't give a hoot about us, so why should we really care about them more than what he have?

Your insight is right on IMHO Steve.
What did Obama not say in his speech:

In his discussion of the West and the Muslim world, President Obama fails to mention how, in the past two decades, the United States has shed blood and treasure in Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq -- all Muslim-dominated countries -- in an effort to aid tens of millions of people who were threatened by or living under ruthless dictatorships. The impulse to help these countries was not in every instance simply humanitarian; but in every instance humanitarianism was a factor, and in some instances it was the dominant one. Today, more than 50 million Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq are liberated from two of the most sadistic regimes we have ever witnessed. It might be nice for President Obama -- and frankly those in the Arab world -- to say that, even just once.

Nor does Obama mention other efforts to help Muslims -- for example, the extraordinary humanitarian efforts by Americans to aid Indonesia in the aftermath of the devastating 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.


http://www.commentarymagazine.com/pr...den-mean-15180

Originally Posted by SteveZ

Expecting "peace" in the MidEast brokered by the United States is like hoping there's oil on the moon and it will come to us via the Star Trek Pipeline.

The MidEasters have been fighting, killing, slaving, exploiting and every other "ing" since Cain and Abel. The issues are never going to be resolved by outside mediation, as neither side wants to give an inch - ever - out of fear that one inch will be exploited to 100 miles.

US politicians strolling through the MidEast with "plans" for peace are laughable. The only thing the US provides is a unifying effect whereby both the wrring factions skin the outsider. The Camp David Accords were a great example, as all that happened is that Israel and Egypt were able both to milk more foreign aid from the US on the pretext of "more foregin aid will make things better." It was a great photo op event, but nothing of substgance resulted other than more money going from us to them both.

"The settlements in the West Bank" - who cares? If both sides what to push each other to the wall, why are we sticking our political noses into the middle of it? The last time I looked at a map, Europe has more at stake than anyone in the Americas. Everytime they play brinksmanship, we send more money to both to "tone things down." When will we learn than we cannot solve the world's problems? The world loves to take our money when we in or arrogance try to play Papa to everyone.

We don't need to "lean on Israel" or anyone else. All we have to do is shut off the money stream - period! Or is the money - excuse me, foreign aid" supposed to continue forever? For all MidEast factions, isn't 50 years of foreign aid enough? And what good has it really done in the last 20 years?

Time to let the MidEast neighbors learn to live with each other without US money. We can't keep borrowing from the Chinese and others so that we can give it away to ingrates. We don't "owe" anything here, as we have paid for 5 decades. Or are we expected to pay for 5 more decades?

Forgive me if I don't seem like a big fan of Israel or its Arab neighbors. The fallout since the Kuwait War (Gulf I) is less than stellar. The Israeli action against the USS Liberty (www.usslliberty.com) in 1967 and the subsequent coverup is shameful, yet it still continues.

So, I don't put any of the MidEasters on a pedestal. They don't give a hoot about us, so why should we really care about them more than what he have?

Steve we are usually on the opposite ends of the Political views posted here, but on this I agree with you 100%. I was serving in the USN during Gulf I and was stationed in Sicily. I saw first hand what some of our Allies think of us. You can not buy friendship and loyalty, every country does not want our system of Government

Regarding the Middle East, Isreal, Palestine, Sunnis, Shia' etc., there have been all kinds of criticisms of what the strategy of the Bush administration was, and now what the Obama strategy is, even though they are somewhat different. There are prognostications of what will work and far more often, what won't.

But we're left with the same problem, it seems. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. It's members are spreading around the globe--to Europe, Africa, the U.S., and Canada. In a few decades, they will be both a political and religious force to be reckoned with. They're already an increasing unsettling force thruout the western world because of their willingness to kill themselves in order to kill many others as a demonstration of their faith. That fact is undeniable.

At the same time, there is serious unrest in the Islamic homelands in the Middle East. The existence of Israel is a canker right in the middle of Islam. Muslims and Jews will likely never get along with one another. The U.S. is hated by Islam because of our steadfast support of Israel. Islamic fundamentalist hatred has exhibited itself in the numerous jihadist attacks on western and U.S. interests and people in recent years. Israel is becoming far less willing to cooperate with the U.S., while still expecting our money and security provided by our military and the weapons we sell them. The ease of travel, the information available on the internet, and very porous borders in most western countries will almost certainly result in more terrorist attacks. It's only a matter of time, it seems.

So if some disagree with the Bush strategy, and others now disagree with the Obama strategy, then what is the correct strategy to begin to minimize the threat of terrorism? The "problem" is not going away. In fact, as I said above, it's getting bigger as Islam grows and spreads.

So, if we don't like the approach taken by our most recent two Presidents...then what would YOU do to address the problem? That seems like a logical question to me.

So, if we don;t like the approach taken by our most recent two Presidents...then what would YOU do to address the problem? That seems like a logical question to me.
__________________

Maybe a new thread to ask this question is in order.

Keedy