They simply think that there would be no wars if the US and Israel just stopped fighting them.

They honestly believe that.

Gone from a region that was at war constantly to....what was it again...oh right, peace...? There's "just a few"other things too, but I won't bore you with them.

Bit of a pronouncement; I mean we're not exactly Jesus now are we? I'm sure we like to think so at times...but anyways.

~AJ

Thank you. Lots of nations oppose war until it knocks on their door, as it did the US in 1941. Some again people long for the day when we will say no to the world in the interest of peace at home. It is easier to put out a small trash fire than wait until the house is burning.

Don't you know? You're not supposed to mention Jesus and politics in the same breath. We may not be like Jesus, maybe more like God, he doesn't mess around when he's unhappy. But anyway, we saw how peaceful the Norwegians were when the Nazis moved in, no turning the other cheek then. I guess they are the enlightened ones now, right? I wonder how peaceful will they remain when their populations become predominately Muslim?

Mm, I guess I get what I deserve for being a tad acerbic.

That being said, it's all well and easy to be judgmental and high and mighty concerning historical conflicts - they weren't as advanced and proggressive as we are (which is questionable, lol). It's far too easy to see them as barbarians....but really, are they - or are we? (Sorry, getting into phiolosphy/ethics, etc.) Simply put: Europe has done a lot, and I think you're being to American-centric, and not realy looking at what they have accomplished.

Whoops, my bad; I guess I'm the black sheep (Or a red headed step son at the Kennedy compound). Anyways, I really don't care what I'm supposed to say or not say. *shrugs*

Your point? You're twisting things around. On one hand you've justified military action that is clearly a violation of numerous things we're bound by, then you've supported military action that is - in my opinion at least - morally questionable....and yet you turn around and slam the Norweigans who were defending their country? wtf?

(Btw, Muslim's are 1.8% of the population of Norway, so approximately 84,000.)

~AJ

Sure, much better to analyze history and learn from it than repeat it.

I don't see anyone as a barbarian (even some cultures that could be considered that). You must be thinking of Mumble (he believes Americans are uncivilized). They can think what they want but just so they don't sell crazy here.

Not a slam. I applaud anyone that defends their nation. Just don't put down those that do, because you feel safe nowadays (due in a large way because of the nation you criticize).

...and growing.

I have noticed that Muslim immigrants are generally more popular where there are few of them and less popular where there are many of them.

Similarly Jews are more hated where there are few of them and accepted where there are many of them.

Interesting observation, I would tend to agree. My neighbor is Muslim, and I hardly see him or his family at all (perfection), Jewish families are few here as well but you can tell from their holiday displays, so I would say more visible than the Muslim population in my area at least. I'm wondering if your observations applies to visual presence as well? 

What I mean is that for example stories about Israel are most popular in Sweden, where there are almost no Jews and least popular in the US. In Europe, Germany has a somewhat high Jewish population and people are less anti-Semitic than in Sweden and Norway.

I also know from my own experience that Palestinian Arabs usually hate Jews and Israel less than your average European "peace activist".

The explosions in Ramadi this week, capital of Anbar province in Iraq, bear the hallmark of Al-Qaida. Will the Iraq War, largely thought to be won, slip back into chaos? How will this effect Obama's foreign policy?

The other day President Obama gave himself a "strong" B+ on his job performance. Personally speaking, I believe it is unwise for any politician, but especially the president, to grade their own performance. There are plenty of pundits to do that for them. So how does the JU public grade his performance? Here ate the categories: Afghanistan, Health Care, Climate Change, Jobs, Foreign policy. Add any additional areas you feel are relevant.

"D +" at best.  He speaks out of both sides of his mouth and I no longer believe a word he says.

IMO I would like to see the Democrats keep a very slim majority in both houses.  So slim of a majority that the attack dogs will be praying to Lieberman for forgiveness.

This would allow the Republicans to be in opposition until the next big election and still be strong enough to block anything.

Let the hard left get so discredited that maybe the American people will not want to go there again for a long long time.  But let’s just hope that the Right wing Religious Social Conservatives don't fill in the void and make things even worse.

C+

His presidency so far was more dissapointing to the extreme left than to me. He became a realist in many ways. His speech in Oslo was awesome (except that he failed to acknowledge that the invasion of Iraq was one of the wars he was referring to, even though he was against it).

His segregationist position on Jerusalem and the West-Bank disappoints me (I am against segregation) and I don't think he knows what he is talking about regarding the Middle-East. But then he doesn't do anything, so that's fine.

I don't like the fact that he keeps betraying and insulting the US' most valuable allies (Poland, the UK, even Germany to a degree) and I think it is embarrassing and a moral failure that he doesn't do anything about Africa at all. George Bush visited African countries often and his administration brokered two peace treaties to end civil wars in Africa. He also increased aid and finally put some focus on Africa. Obama has completely ignored Africa, apparently thinking that being part African is enough.

I am glad you bumped this Nitro or I may have never seen this one.  As to the original article, I find myself looking at 2010 as kind of a macabre test of the hypothesis on 1994. IN that year, you will recall, the republicans had a very strong leader in Newt Gingrich and it is generally accepted that he led them to victory.  I have my reservations that he did (and that it was not just a reaction to the first Billary years).

in 2010, we will see.  There is no single strong leader on the right.  If the results are different, then we can probably infer that indeed Newt did lead the way with his Contract for America.  If the results are somewhat the same (I like Lee1776's scenario), then the "Newt" effect is minimalized.

As for it saving Obama (republican Victory)?  No.  As much as I dislike Clinton, I do acknowledge he was a very shrewd politician.  1994 saved him from himself (but mostly from Hillary) and allowed him to at least not trash the nation.  Obama does not have the experience, temprement, intelligence or personality to learn from his mistakes.  instead of saving it, the loss of control will only push him farther into a radical agenda.  He has no personal responsibility, and so that will be his modis operandi for everything (it already is - although getting stale - Bush has been gone a year now).  For us old timers, he will make Carter look decent.

Lastly, as for the grade, sorry Leauki, I have to disagree.  My grade is a solid D (I also noted he said "I" 38 times in his Oslo speech - great one!  Yea, right).  But my grade is based upon what I expected from him, and how he performed (isn't that how grades are supposed to work?).  For the most part I expected exactly what he would do.  If he had lived up to that, he would have gotten a solid C (average).  However, he failed in 2 key areas to even live up to my minimal expectations.  His pettiness (going after talk radio, Fox, and anyone else that did not recite him chapter and verse - while that may make him feel good - vengence and all, it is hardly what one would expect from a world leader.  At least not a competant one.), and his narcisism.  His election was historic!  And he should be proud, but then get off it and actually accomplish something.  instead, nothing is his fault, everyone is conspiring against him, and he never makes a mistake.  I, I, I, I, I - even his supporters are getting tired of hearing that word coming form Mr. Teleprompter.

The only reason he does not get an F is because I do so want him to hang on for 3 more years.  The only thing worse than an Obama Presidency is a Biden one.

Thanks to all for responding. As I said earlier, my intent with this blog is to document factors that will impact the 2010 election, positive or negatively depending on your view point, in one location. I invite anyone (liberal and conservative) to comment. We'll try to keep this event related, without personal attacks. Although opinions are desired as much as factual information. I'm going to moderate, so I'll try to keep my opinion out of this, however I may play devils advocate to get a poster to elaborate further. Maybe some political history students will find this information useful in the future.

Lee, that may very well happen if Republicans don't vocalize a message soon that resonates with the public. Can they expect to ride into victory on anti-Democrat sentiment alone?

Interesting. Do you think Howard Dean, considered far left by some, will fuel this? He has been recently recommending not passing the health care bill, stating it does not go far enough.