What a worthless, stupid idiot.
Ouch!
lol. Guess this puts Obama in the Sunni camp.
Let’s see.
He’s insulted Australia.
He’s insulted families of military personnel.
Now he insults Pakistan.
Is there anything else that I’ve missed?
His no-nuke statement was about as assinine as they come.
I’m no Obama fan by any means but you can’t blame him because the entire population of pakistan has diminished capacity.
It will be interesting to see if Barack puts on his “sorry face” and comes begging for forgiveness. He seems to have very thin skin and always tries to immediately compensate for his latest flub. I bet he tries to “open dialogue” with the Pakistanis, or some other such nonsense.
More business for the Chinese American flag makers.
Obama’s an idiot, but he shouldn’t be blamed for the misbehavior of some Islamofascists.
****ing moron.
I want to see the same abuse directed against Obama that was directed against Tom Tancredo for his stupid nuke-Mecca statement last year.
This is a major, MAJOR story that the MSM is covering up.
way to go obama, lol!
But I thought one of the Democrat’s top priorities was to make everybody love the USA again. He must have been misquoted. /s
I've been thinking long and hard how to write this - so here goes. Obama... well he is a poser and we all know it but he shed the light on something that needs to be exposed.
So what if the Pakistanis are upset. I for one could care less about these reprobates who are intent to live in a perpetual state of anger at the West.
Today it is Obama - yesterday it was Islamic cartoons and the day before it was disrespect for the Quran - It's always going to be something with these animals. There is no appeasing them. Never.
I don't like Obama - never have, he is a Socialist just like Hillary and to be honest he does not have a chance at being the POTUS. Case Closed. But he is right in what he said about Pakistan and Musharraf and I'm not going to turn on Obama and call him an idiot for proposing what needs to be done - even if I doubt he has the courage to follow through.
THE ACCOMMODATION AND APPEASEMENT OF PAKISTAN MUST STOP!
Lets get something straight - Musharraf is NOT our friend - He is NOT our ally - He is and has always been a brutal military dictator and since 9/11 he has been a cunning opportunist who has duped the United States out of over a BILLION dollars in AID for which he has contributed jack all. He does not move against Al Qaeda or the terrorists in his country unless they threaten him personally - and when he does decide to act it is always after we push him to act. Never on his own. He plays a game with the United States by telling us that he needs $$$ to go after the FOREIGN terrorists (the homegrown Pakistani Al Qaeda and Taliban are basically off limits to us - any of you are welcome to confirm this with the clowns at foggy bottom) - then he tells us that he needs more $$$ for education and for whatever - Currently over US150 Million is unaccounted for of the $$$ that we have given this extortionist.
His own foreign minister had the audacity to THREATEN the United States a few days ago on national television - Did you miss it? Did you miss him warning the US not to make them angry? (the video link is on the front page of my blog)
Oh but the threats from Pakistan are not new - Pervez Musharraf has THREATENED us as well - Claiming that America will be BROUGHT TO IT'S KNEES without him. This is the reprobate that our commander and chief has the audacity to call our friend and ally.
Musharraf feels free to extort from us an threaten us with impunity because he has nuclear weapons - which he is always willing to remind us of should we dare cross him or refuse to hand over our "lunch money". So what happens when we dont fork over our lunch money to Musharraf?
"OMG those pesky Al Qaeda and Taliban guys I can't control them!"
And what has President Bush done?
Remember this ---
"...And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists ... From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
President George Bush - 21 September 2001
Not only has Musharraf been supporting them - he has signed peace treaties with Al Qaeda and Taliban - which basically say - you are free to go after the USA as long as you leave Pakistan alone. This is our friend and ally??
Our policy with Pakistan and Pervez Musharraf is one of accommodation and appeasement. A policy that history has shown leads to disaster.
I grew up in a different time - a time when the size of our adversary did not intimidate us - a time when our President had the courage, foresight and resolve to know that accommodation and appeasement can only lead to disaster. A man who if he was alive today would be saying --
"If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based upon what we know in our hearts is morally right. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of Islamic fascism by committing an immorality so great as saying to millions of Americans now being forced to accommodate in the name of diversity, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are willing to make a deal with your new slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace--and you can have it in the next second--surrender.
Reagan didn't threaten to bomb a mosque or a religious site - no much worse - he threatened to turn an entire country into a glass parking lot - and the world believed him!! We lived a policy of MAD (mutually assured destruction). It served as a deterrent.
Tancredo asks "What deterrent do we have now?" - and the answer is none - we don't have a deterrent because our policy of accommodation and appeasement does not call for one.
So we are all just sitting here - keyboard commandos waiting for the next big attack - we know it is coming - everyone does and we have absolutely no way to stop it. Oh we can hopefully catch them before they turn a few cities into a radioactive fireballs - but at the end of the day, they just have to succeed once whereas we have to always succeed. The day is coming and we have all just resigned ourselves to the fact.
Let me guess though. Once 4 or 5 cities are turned into nuclear fireballs then we will finally be able to shake ourselves free from the chains of political correctness and the malaise and strike back with full vengeance. Our retaliation will of course be pathetic - like a wounded tiger in a cage of his own making. Reactive never proactive.
Bomb Mecca? OMG that is completely out of the question - Never Never Never (of course we might consider it after we lose a few cities).
Why is it out of the question? Why should anything be out of the question? Crazy? maybe. Will it work? Possibly. Is it better than a policy of accommodation and appeasement - Definitely Yes.
One of our biggest problems since 9/11 has been how to get the so-called moderates to turn on the extremists in their midst. Our message though has not been clear. Our State Department dons 'makeshift hijabs', attends mosque openings and is constantly proclaiming Islam to be a religion of peace.
It is clearly a policy of appeasement. We accommodate and appease who we think are the "good muslims" hoping that they in turn will somehow come to repay us for our benevolence by turning against the extremists in their midst. There are a few instances of success, but overall the results have failed and they will continue to fail. It's not that these people don't know who they extremists are. They know fully who they are but their loyalties are divided and instead of turning in the extremists, they shelter them.
The solution is lies not in accommodation and appeasement, but in collective punishment.
Reagan's "ace in the hole" was that he never let our adversaries know what he would do unlike our nation's leadership today. Reagan didn't have to nuke a nation - but the option was always on the table and our adversaries believed that he would do it. There was no mixed signals. The message was crystal clear.
In many ways it is like we are playing a high stakes game of poker with Al Qaeda and yet, like an idiot, we keep showing all of our cards. Al Qaeda knows what we will and won't do - but we never know what they will do. If you are a fan of Sun-Tzu's "Art of War" then you might come to the conclusion that we are fighting a losing battle - well... we are. This isn't about not being patriotic or not supporting the troops - it is about common sense and logic.
Lets face it. We are on the defense always - we take one step forward and two steps backwards every single time - we are not going to win this war being perpetually afraid to offend anyone and employing a policy of accommodation and appeasement. Give it up.
No one walked around in the 70's with their finger in their butt mumbling about a "War on Collectivism" and with our State Department going on high alert issuing profound apologies whenever someone decided to take a dump on Lenin's Book of Marx. We knew who the enemy was and we were not afraid to name them regardless of the danger to ourselves and regardless to the size of our enemy.
I'm so disgusted whenever I listen to the whining about "oh but we dont want to piss off a billion peaceful muslims worldwide" ~~ the "peaceful muslims" already have you on your knees building them special "foot basins" and prayer rooms in public buildings and for those of you who dare to resist -- you are immediately sent off to the gulags of diversity for mandatory "sensitivity training" conducted by the CAIR bully-boys.
But as long as they don't hurt you right? I mean better red than dead.
This is exactly why politics is supposed to stop at the water’s edge.
Democrats thrive on completely fouling things up, to put it mildly.
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
Mo mention of Pakis burning American flags in the article. Nor was that the title of the article you posted. There is a rule here that you use the same title as used in your source. That's to avoid duplicate threads.
Having said that, I agree with you about Obama's big mouth. But I think any jerk in Pakistan who may be burning American flags would have been doing it regardless of Obama or Tancredo.
What I find totally preposterous is the notion that Americans - in the post 9/11 era - might actually elect someone named Barack Hussein Obama to the White House.
Pakistan Criticizes Obama on Comments