I'm guessing that is worth something in our world, but not sure what. And I'm not trying to be rude, just I think you're stating what everyone knows. However, employing an "ideology" as you put it takes some type of medium.

Kind of reminds me of the "enabling act" passed in Germany in 1933. It specifically stated that the increased powers were only as long as the current conflict lasted, which of course was forever.

"in war time" = forever

Name a year in the past 70 years when you believe we were not at war, and I will provide you with examples of where our soldiers were fighting at the time.

I know I stated the obvious, but you'll be surprised how overconfidence at times make one forget the basics.

We wanted to spread democracy in the Middle East and wanted to push for elections in the west bank and Gaza, while knowing fully that the facts on the ground will result in the election of Hamas. People in Gaza have not seen a single good day for decades, the stick has been very heavy on them for many years, be it from Israel or a corrupt Palestinian authority. Unemployment is more than 50%, majority of the population are living on UN aid, education is weak (almost non existent).. on and on. Where is the incentive for those kids who grow up with little education and a great sense of hopelessness? When someone approaches them and say go blow yourself up and we'll take care of your family and you'll go to heaven, what do you think some might say?

As far a medium for changing ideology, it is there (called majority of the Muslim/Arabic world) it just needs support.
- Let’s not preach democracy while supporting dictators
- Let's show our good side to the world. It is hard sometime to figure out how the US and it’s powerful appeal and culture that dictates to kids all over the world what to wear, what to listen to, what is cool to drive … etc, have such difficulty showing its good side???
- Let’s invest in our energy independence.

On a lighter note, when I visited Jordan a couple of years ago, I saw a little boutique in Amman called “50 Cents” with a large picture of the rapper 50 cents. I don’t think they were paying him any royalties, nevertheless kids are buying whatever his image is selling.;)

One good example was hitler. Most people thought back then that they could sit down and reason with him. The rest is history...

I agree there are people that you can indeed reason with...but those people bent on destroying you and who are already planning steps on how to do it, you dont reason with them.

War is awful, but the problem is that Obama wants to sit down and talk with everyone and that just will not work. There are certain scum-bag leaders that the President of the U.S should not give the time of day to, cough...cough Ahmadinejad and Obama does not understand that.

Correct, you cannot reason with extremists. But what you can do is have a policy that causes the extremists to lose support among the population.

As an example, I'll use the most destructive extremist/terrorist group in the last 200 years -- the KKK. At their height, they were much more dangerous than Al-Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah or any other Muslim group is today. They were responsible for tens of thousands of deaths over many decades, and at one point in the late 19th century, they had armies that fought actual large scale battles against the US military in various states in the South.

So how did we "deal" with them and make the problem go away? The solution is not easy, but it is very simple. When living conditions are bad (when there is poverty, hunger, violence, etc.), people tend to flock towards extremism and support anyone who promises "change". Sound familiar? That is how Hitler came to power. That is why Hamas was elected in Gaza, that is how the Taliban came to power in Afghanistan, and that is how the KKK became so popular in the South after the Civil War. Poor living conditions, poverty, and a very unhappy population is a recipe for extremism.

So how do you get rid of the extremists once they are in power? Well, if you fight against them with violence, you are only going to empower them and cause the local population to give them more support. The answer is to have a policy that causes the elimination of the poverty, hunger and violence that caused the people to flock to the extremists in the first place. Once that happens, the extremists will gradually lose their influence, and as was the case with the KKK, they will become irrelevent.

But you cannot defeat them using the military. President Grant learned that the hard way with the KKK, and Israel has learned the same lesson when dealing with Hamas and Hezbollah. They have been fighting for decades, with no end in sight and no improvement in their situation.

The more Union soldiers Grant sent down south to fight against the Klan, the more southerners went and joined the Klan. For each Klan member they killed, 10 more people joined up. The result of Grant's war against the Klan in the early 1870s was that the group to grew to several million members by the end of that decade.

Fighting against terrorists and extremists is like pouring water on an electrical fire. It seems like it will work, but it will just make it worse.

Apparently General Petraeus disagrees. He has come out in support of talking with one's enemies. Not giving them everything, not abandoning diplomatic preparation, but being prepared to talk.

I don't agree with everything Obama says, but I thought that his plan to sit down and talk to enemies was one of his better ones. Sure, carry a big stick. But the full phrase is "speak softly and carry a big stick" and that implies that talking comes first.

What he said is actually worse than what I posted. Here is what he said.

"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

I don't think that is the reason why no terror attacks since 9/11.
If they want it they will do it still, trust me. And I don't think 9/11 is the reason we bombed Iraq.
Someone posted a video of kids throwing stone at US mil guys a while back. Most people do not understand why they were throwing stones and called the kids idiots. You have to spend time in that part of world to really understand the minds of people. In that part of world, people kill their brothers for money and/or power. Bombing is just a short term solution.

I'm surprised at you my friend.

I read the entire article that this statement came from and Biden was not saying that Obama was weak at all.

I suggest that all of you that commented in this thread read the entire article and not allow "MrLabGuy" to distort the facts. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...to-suppor.html