">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/nypaco/5546184e.gif">

What's Keef doin' with his right hand in the pic above? Is he fantasizing about Dana Milbank in his orange garb?

Maybe John Dean.

Maybe John Dean
***************

Is KO still talking to him after he went on O'Reilly ?

No, apparently Keith married someone else. LOL.

Allegedly.

Mrs. Krazy Keith Wilson

Krazy Keith gushing like a school girl.

Congrats, Mrs. Wilson.

Talking about the Honeymoon.....ooooh Mr. Wilson oxoxoxoxooxox

JOE: Keith, you got a real purty mouth...

KEITH: But, but, Joe, what about Valerie?

JOE: According to official sources, she doesn't exist, so we're free, free, FREE!!!!

"he'll be back telling lies through his teith [sic]."

Really? I haven't seen much of KO's lies on this threadbare blog. Take out the anti-KO mockery and it's substance light. Thin as rice paper.

There are dozens of Olbermann fabrications, distortions, and lies documented here. Dozens? More like scores. Maybe hundreds. I stopped counting long ago. Why don't you pick out a half-dozen of them and tell us how we're wrong?

i demand that anyone who doesnt like bill
suck my cock i need a relase and my cherry poped
cause iam a keith olbermann virgin
and my flower needs a popppin

keith is or might be a leir
and i need to get fucked in the ass

Krazy Keith called in sick cuz of her
It's not breaking news, that's for sure
Just another day off
His colleagues will scoff
He's called "dad" by this gal Katy Tur

Nick:

Those shots above are priceless...Great job and thanks for the early morning laugh

"Really? I haven't seen much of KO's lies on this threadbare blog. Take out the anti-KO mockery and it's substance light. Thin as rice paper."

That's only because he hasn't been on the air since last week...if he doesn't open his mouth he can't lie.

"That's only because he hasn't been on the air since last week...if he doesn't open his mouth he can't lie."

Yeah, or suck Wilson's dick! KO is the biggest faggot I've ever seen, on primetime or anywhere else. I would estimate there are about 50,000 individual falsehoods recorded here.

Keith is a big time faggot,
who lies and lies a lot
he thinks he such a stud
but he's a dick-sucking dud
who couldn't get it in with marge shot.

Keith lies through his teeth
his ratings are beneath
the ocean so deep
this faggot-assed creep
couldn't tell truth from bad beef

Katy Tur means Katy "door" in German. I'd say that's probably an open door if you know what I mean. (Slut).

And as a bonus, inside is a weiner.

"Those shots above are priceless" ... Posted by sixstringbassplayer (as if anyone cared)

um, yeah, if you're a too-easily-amused moron.

looping pictures of funny faces are funny.
looping pictures of funny faces are funny to post.
looping pictures of funny faces are funny to post over and over.

Cartoons depicting Bush as a moron are much more original.

Someone needs a bubble bath

ooooh keith and bill make me wet my pants
email me here to talk dirty and fuck me
crazybekki@hotmail.com

I turned this site into the ADL for your nazi salute mocking Olbermann mocking O'Reilly. Have you heard from them?

Hit, since you are so sensitive to the rights of religious minorities, did you turn in Orange Boy when he started this whole Nazi salute business?

Damn! Just 3 hours thrity minutes until keefy begins his lie-fest. I'm almost in withdrawel from not hearing liberal lies for almost four days. They are soooo easy to refute it's like taking candy from a baby and you get kind of used to it. C'mon keefy-boy, let's have today's batch of abominable lies!

What will it be today? I'm guessing a show proposing that all homosexuals get perpetual welfare if they agree to adopt babies! Or maybe some lies about WMD in Iraq.

Just can't wait.

"Hit, since you are so sensitive to the rights of religious minorities, did you turn in Orange Boy when he started this whole Nazi salute business?"

Seriously, get that shit off of here. It is disgusting to me. Why would you think that is any better than the original? You just trying to be funny? It's not. Get it off.

hello losers! how R the fascists doing today?

just a quick note to say how grand it is to see the moronic chimp sticking to his fools errand in Iraq while support falls to an all time low. 35% for, 61% against (from the MSM which you fools deny).

nice going, chimp-in-chief ... that idiot son of an a--hole is gonna ride this turkey right into the ground, and will it ever be THE laughing-stock-legacy to remember. nobody else even comes close. Worst. President. Ever. Easy.

have fun spinning your petty olbermann wheels, losers! http://www.ericblumrich.com/idiot.html

Whaaaaa! I can dish it out but not take it. I'm offended by Jewish slurs...when they come from rational people trying to expose anti-semites. Of course, it's just fine if some liberal pussy wants to put on his jack boots and goose step all around the MSNBC studios! In fact that's funny! But if a righty does it, oh, how he is dragging the tragic memory of 3 million poor Jews through the mud. Boo hooooo.

Get real.

Who runs this site?

"35% for, 61% against (from the MSM which you fools deny)."

I for one am proud we have a president for once who doesn't pull his dick back into his trousers every time he feels the west wind, pissing all over himself. That, my friends, was Clinton, who proved once and for all that it's beetter to get pissed off (Bush) than pissed on (Clinton.)

Iraq is a quagmire! Whaaaaa...we'll never win. Whaaaaa...my brother's cousin's uncle got his legs blowed off so we have to pull out...whaaaaaa!

does anyone run this site?

Sorry for being away so long, YES somebody does run this site!!

4:53 PM
Isn't Bush's JA at 42% now, according to Gallup?

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

BUSH: Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of a world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens. You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and, you know, kind of -- the "stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were --

QUESTION: What did Iraq: have to do with that?

BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a, Iraq, the lesson of September the 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case. And one way to defeat that -- you know, defeat resentment, is with hope. And the best way to do hope is through a form of government.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

So Jim, can we please get the NAZI imagery off the front page? Wasn't funny when Olberman did it, isn't any funnier in imitation.

Honestly. It makes me sick.

only if you ask un-anonymously shit for brains

I don't run the site. Someone just asked if somebody did!! And I hope you don't believe in censorship!! Even my opinions are worth something.

KO fantasizes about Helen Thomas and Ellen Degenerate.

They won't let him back in Secaucus?

Alright, Losermann said that they are repeating that lame nexus and terror crap due to viewer response? Give me a break, does he really think that the 6 people who watch his show haven't seen this piece every single time he's played it? Sounds like he's been spending too much time trying to hump Tur to write a new segment, doesn't it?

Hey anonymous very interesting statistics on how abortion is killing the Liberals future(sad pun intended). Libs kill there offspring because life isnt perfect boo-hoo(and they like dogs, cats and the same sex couplings). So i will now admit Libs arent wrong about everything. HEHE!!!
You real facsists are going the way of the DODO Bird. Congratulations! An abortion mill coming soon to a Big City neighborhood near you soon!!!
Hitler will welcome you to hell !!!!!! Now go to DU or KOS and ban someone with an opposing view you Nazi shit!!! And if you knock someone up remember it's legal to have your kid killed so get'r'done !!! LOL. Now go turn on a "good DEM" like Lieberalman for 1 dissenting opinion and call R's the fascists!! LOL

"So Jim, can we please get the NAZI imagery off the front page? Wasn't funny when Olberman did it, isn't any funnier in imitation.

Honestly. It makes me sick.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 22, 2006 05:51 PM"

Shut up cry baby bitch. Its freedom of expression. You know like FLAG burning. I thought you werent coming back to this site? It should make you sick Hitler slaughtered 12,ooo,ooo people not counting war deaths. Like September 11th...NEVER FORGET !!!!!!

I just got through watch KO's insightful nexus of terror alerts and fear mongering...

and I believe he is indeed on to something.

The Bush Administration is obviously playing up this entire FAKE terror threat

in order to influence the American people.

Listen up America!! There is NO terror threat!!

There never was and there never will be...

TELL IT LIKE IT IS MAN. SPEAK TRUTH TO KOOKS.

justthetruth, please post that on todays section.

Its freedom of expression

There are LIMITS to free expression, a--hole.

I should report Cox to the ADL (after all, what he's doing is no different than what he complained about when he sent a letter to them about KO).

shoulda coulda woulda cry baby bitch. quit sucking your fucking thumb and add something to the debate. besides ideas of censorship!!
what there are limits on, is your IQ.

I never realized the similarities in appearance of Olbermann and Atta. Maybe they're cousins! That would explain Olbermann's support of Iran, Hizb'Allah and al-Qaeda!

"I should report Cox to the ADL (after all, what he's doing is no different than what he complained about when he sent a letter to them about KO)".

Wrong. Orange Boy was caught in the act and OW has put Orange Boy's image front and center in the midst of flashing the infamous salute to remind folks of who he really is. We are shining the light on him.

What Olbermann did was a cynical deceitful and despicable attempt to grind his personal axe against O'Reilly and boost his ratings by invoking a symbol of hate against Jews. Mr. Cox has done a great public service by toally debunking Orange Boy's pretextual reason for flashing the Nazi salute. Olby tried to claim that O'Reilly defended Nazis; this has been exposed as a complete falsehood.

The ADL doesnt have anymore of a right to stiffle free expression/speech than you do.

Unlike yourself conservatives dont have guilt complex about problems/actions we didnt participate in. So go tell the ADL nahh nahhh nahhhner. You Liberal tattle tale Rat Fuck!!

I just got through watch KO's insightful nexus of terror alerts and fear mongering... Listen up America!! There is NO terror threat!! There never was and there never will be...

"Typical authoritarians possess not only a fairly narrow view of objective reality because of inherent bias, but they also exhibit a profound unreasonableness when confronted with facts and information that do not meet their subjectively narrow expectations. For instance, if an authoritarian is confronted with the fact that some people question the government's handling of terror, they will automatically and reflexively assert that those who question the government also question the very existence of terror itself, which is not only unreasonable, but delusional as well. That's why it's so difficult to have a rational discussion with an entrenched authoritarian. Not only will they deny the very existence of many unarguable facts with which they are uncomfortable -- they will fabricate others more palatable to their limited points of view."

Right-wing authoritarians are submissive toward authority, fundamentalist in orientation, dogmatic, punitive and self-righteous, socially isolated and insular, fearful of people different from themselves, hostile to minorities, uncritical toward dominating authority figures, and prone to a constant sense of besiegement and panic.

1)“ submissive toward authority”

OLBERMANN: “Newsweek”‘s Richard Wolffe, providing the voice of reason tonight. And I think greatly for it, and as usual, thanks for your time, sir.

OLBERMANN: Helen Thomas, the dean of the White House press corps, great thanks for your time tonight.
OLBERMANN: And it‘s clearly for the public benefit, we thank you for it. . . David Brock of that organization. Great thanks."

And that’s just one show (March 23)

2)“fundamentalist in orientation”

On C-SPAN’s Sunday night (March 12) Brian Lamb interview show "Q & A," MSNBC "Countdown" host Keith Olbermann lit into Fox News Channel in an extended rant, suggesting that its demise was the "best hope of mankind."

3)“punitive and self-righteous”

“There is a whole army of bloggers, radio hosts and TV people who have decided that any deviation from their political view is to be persecuted - and the "Olbermann Watch" and [Brent] Bozell jokers [of Media Research Center and Parents Television Council] are foremost among them.”

That’s right folks– "persecuted". Self righteous enough for ya? And you want punitive? Here is Olbermann answering his critics’ e-mails (or “confronting hate” according to Orange Boy):

"Given how far you are from knowing your ass from your elbow about my industry, you couldn't be stupider, wronger, or dumber ..."

"Go f*ck your mother."

"You 'Americans' still watching that evil f*cking O'Reilly?"

And Orange Boy wrote to a fan from his MSNBC E-mail account:

“Rita’s [Cosby] nice, but dumber than a suitcase of rocks”

4)“socially isolated and insular”

Snow said that he knows Olbermann from the days when he worked at Fox and that he thinks that he's a talented broadcaster. But he added: "You could have fit Keith's friends into a phone booth."

LAMB: We know a lot about you, but we don’t know anything about your personal life. I’m not sure you want us to know that. Are you married?
OLBERMANN: I’m single. I am a 47-year-old bachelor.

5)”fearful of people different from themselves”

“Part of my deal with the network is that I don't have to have debates. . . .Having both sides politically debating a point adds nothing to the political discourse; plus, it makes me queasy”

6)“uncritical toward dominating authority figures”
See No. 1 above

7) “prone to a constant sense of besiegement and panic”

Olbermann told Kurtz he had no problem with the story, but then said there was one thing he didn't like: the conservative Olbermann critic in the piece, Robert Cox and crew at Olbermann Watch, which he protested is "a site created to mock me." (And Olbermann is a stranger to mockery?) He claimed that when a commenter went after Cox, Cox put up "information of a personal nature" up against him, so "he's not a reliable observer of my work."

Then he went into a lecture about how supinely pro-Bush the press has been over the last five years, succumbing to feelings of "patriotic obligation." The press has "stifled itself," and "we do feel we have been taken advantage of" -- he wouldn't call it a "muzzling," merely "self-editing." He lamented how the media had to "get into the ring with power with one hand tied behind our backs."

.

"I just got through watch KO's insightful nexus of terror alerts and fear mongering... Listen up America!! There is NO terror threat!! There never was and there never will be..."

----------

"The administration’s constant refrain that Iraq is the “central front� in the war on terror is not only false but has now also backfired politically: only 9 percent in the recent CBS poll felt that our involvement in Iraq was helping decrease terrorism. As its fifth anniversary arrives, 9/11 itself has been dwarfed by the mayhem in Iraq, where more civilians are now killed per month than died in the attack on America. Desperate to assert their moral superiority after misjudging the major issue of our time, conservatives loftily declare that anyone who shares opposition to the Iraq war is not really serious about the war against the jihadists who attacked us on 9/11. That’s just another version of the Cheney-Lieberman argument, and it’s hogwash. Most of the 60 percent of Americans who oppose the war in Iraq also want to win the war against Al Qaeda and its metastasizing allies: and that’s why they don’t want America bogged down in Iraq. But that kind of practical reasoning holds little water for conservatives who have swallowed hook-line-and-sinker every line the administration has spoon-fed them regarding terrorism."

"Most of the 60 percent of Americans who oppose the war in Iraq also want to win the war against Al Qaeda and its metastasizing allies"

Yes, we are well aware of that since we hear the leftists weigh in on a daily bais with their alternative strategy to the President's resolve to stay and finish the job. The leftists alternative strategy is . . uh . . .uh . . . hey, what is our strategy?

In a recent Meet the Press appearance, Democratic Congressman John Murtha urged "redeploying" troops in Iraq: "We can go to Okinawa. We can redeploy there almost instantly." Mr. Russert, mindful of the fact that Okinawa, Japan, is 4,899 miles from Baghdad, offered Mr. Murtha an escape, in case he had misspoken. "But it would be tough to have a timely response from Okinawa," he said. But Mr. Murtha dug himself in deeper. "When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly," he said.

It would take 10-12 hours - and six refuelings - for F-16s to fly from Kadena AFB on Okinawa to Baghdad (assuming China and India would grant overflight rights, a dubious assumption).

Murtha further railed against White House advisor Karl Rove: "He's sitting in his air-conditioned office on his big, fat backside saying stay the course. That's not a plan! We got to change direction, that’s what we have to do. You can’t, you can’t sit there in the air conditioned office.

Thus, the Murtha doctrine emerges:

1. The Murtha Doctrine points to Beirut and Somalia as examples of
sound foreign policy, i.e. when the enemy attacks you, you need to
“change direction.” Specifically, you need to turn around and run the
other way. But this is not “cutting and running.” This is simply not
“staying and paying.” And there are many countries we can run to
where presumably we can pay a lot less to stay.

2. Wars are expensive and tough on the soldiers. So, according to the
Murtha Doctrine, instead of fighting them, the U.S. military should re-
deploy its soldiers to the periphery of wars. For example, the front in
the War on Terror should be moved from Iraq to Okinawa, Japan.
Because of Japanese efficiency and cheap Chinese labor, wars are a lot
cheaper in Asia.

3. The Murtha Doctrine stipulates that there is no need to actually be in
the country, or on the battlefield, where you are actually fighting a
war. Murtha points to the killing of Zarqawi as an example of how this
works: “The information came from the Iraqis, to the Iraqis, to the US
and then we bombed where he was, so… it came from the outside.”
For this reason, the Murtha Doctrine argues that because the
redeployment of troops to Okinawa Japan would make those troops
further “outside,” they would be more effective against the insurgents
in Iraq. “Our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly,” says
Murtha.

4. Because the Bush administration’s plans for Iraq were devised in
air conditioned offices and because Karl Rove is fat and his salary is
paid by the American taxpayer, the Bush administration has no plan
for Iraq and therefore, victory in Iraq is impossible. It’s easy for
Karl Rove to say stay the course from his air conditioned office in
D.C., so, the Murtha Doctrine will call for Rove to be re-deployed
to Okinawa where his non-plan for staying the course can be
regarded more earnestly. The Murtha Doctrine also calls for Karl
Rove to go on a diet, so his ideas will be able to qualify for “plan”
status. This will help the U.S. regain its stature in the world

5. The Murtha doctrine calls for the redeployment of all air
conditioners in Washington to Okinawa where they will better help
the troops fight the terrorists in Iraq. In addition, the lack of air
conditioners in D.C. will help lend more credibility to the Bush
administration’s non-plans for the War on Terror. The air
conditioning re-deployment will be paid for with a “windfall profits”
tax on Halliburton. We use a lot of oil and the Murtha Doctrine
understands this, but the Chinese use a lot, too.

6. Taking a stand that will probably draw the ire of Democrats, the
Murtha Doctrine says we have already won the military war, that it
was accomplished when Saddam’s regime was toppled and that
there was no more reason for the military to be in Iraq. This is yet
another reason why the Murtha Doctrine argues for the military to
be re-deployed to Okinawa, where Saddam’s regime is still thriving.

7. In summation, the Murtha Doctrine states that Iraq is worse
today than it was six months ago and that “staying the course is not
a plan” because Karl Rove’s office is air conditioned. The Murtha
Doctrine further states that the U.S. military’s presence in Iraq is
the problem and if we just leave, everything will be resolved. As
evidence of this, Murtha points to Karl Rove’s weight. Murtha uses
the following analogy to explain his doctrine: if you are playing a
football game and neither team is winning, you are therefore losing.
In order to win, you need to move your team to another stadium
and that way you can run your plays without anyone getting
tackled. Meanwhile, because you left the original stadium, your
opponent will simply give up and go home.

Holy crap! This site sucks! It's like a collection of Limbaugh High dropouts.

Holy crap! Another "pithy" comment!

One of the most interesting aspects of the global war on terror in general, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in particular, is that right now the U.S. -- for various economic, cultural, and logistical reasons -- is not really into waging a total war effort versus terrorism. Naturally, we could if we want, but right now we're not. Not in Afghanistan, not in Iraq, and more than likely, not in Iran. If we were, it'd be happenin' already, and it just isn't.

And cut-and-run or not, many Iraq war vets look around at home and complain that military families are the only ones making big sacrifices in this war on terror. So the hard truth right now is that for better or worse, and despite the cost in lives and treasure, the U.S. is fighting this campaign against terror much more like a police action than a world war. So be it, that's just the way things spun out this time. But the problem is that police actions usually don't end very well, at least abroad. Here at home, despite a handful of significant 9/11 type losses over a few decades, American soil will likely remain relatively unharmed. But that's just the good news.

The bad news is that the U.S. will more than likely be forced to gradually withdraw from the middle east, both politically and economically over the next several decades. The closest analogy, though still imperfect, is probably the British withdraw from India, though the current conflict will be much broader and much bloodier. In the long run things will likely end the same, but on a global scale. Because like it or not, you are not likely to win a costly and protracted police action, on several foreign fronts, with support from only half the population and sacrifice from only the military. Not against entire nations of people who pray five times a day and possess citizen armies that consider kamikaze-like martyrdom to be divine.

Not against entire nations of people who pray five times a day and possess citizen armies that consider kamikaze-like martyrdom to be divine.

HAL9000,

You're argument would be relevant except when put up against facts...

* 75-80% of the Iraqi population was oppressed under Saddam's regime
* That same 75-80% along with the many of the other 20-25% are now establishing a new representative government in Iraq
* The Insurgency in Iraq consists of 20,000 to 200,000 fighters
* Iraq's population is 25 million
* Even if we were to assume that there are 200,000 Insurgents all who are Iraqi (which we know is not the case), that would STILL be less than 1% of the Iraq population.

Which disproves your assertion that somehow we are up against entire nations

Its not an entire nation. Its an entire religion. All 1.2 billion and breeding of them.
If they had patience it would be over for the west in 100 years.Because of immigration mixed with low birth rates. But the muslims are overplaying there hand and to early. Killing and blowing shit up in plain sight will eventually wake up enough people. Then it will be a matter of survival(it already is)...kill or be killed.
The enemy is currently testing airport/airplane security with false alarms. It will work to desensitize most. Soon it will look like people are just to touchy. And then BOOM another 9/11 style murder spree in the air. We'll be lucky if someone with Bushs balls is in office and will attack them and slow them down. But until the body count skyrockets theres obviously little stomach for the wet work that is truly needed to stop this problem. I rarely fly and wouldnt go to a big city even if they werent shit holes....So me and mine are relatively safe. How bout you and yours? Well anyway atrition is on the menu for he time being.......

A case for self defense: From the Retreat of the Western World. Excerpt.

Muslims really do believe that the time has now come for overthrowing the West and putting Islam into the global, dominant position it should have according to their scriptures. They will spare no efforts, including nuclear war, in achieving this goal. The Iranian president has quite openly stated that “Islam will soon rule the world,” which implies that they will have to destroy or subdue the West. Al-Qaeda strategists have earlier outlined a schedule for awakening the Islamic world and crushing the West, with a timeline stretching over the coming fifteen to twenty years. They still stick to this plan, which means that tensions are bound to escalate even further in the near future. Westerners need to understand that a world war of sorts with the Islamic world is already inevitable by now, no matter what we do. The only question is whether this will be a cold or a hot world war. We will rapidly approach the latter, if countries such as Iran are allowed to gain nuclear weapons and continued Muslim immigration pushes Western European nations to the brink of civil war. Iranian nukes need to be prevented at absolutely all costs, if we are to have any chance of avoiding further escalation of the most dangerous kind.
There are many possible scenarios for the first half of the 21st century. Let us have a look at some of them:

1. Another Atlantic/Western century

The intra-Western, Atlantic ties between Europe and North America will still be the most important and defining global axis. This would require that Europe regains her old, cultural and religious dynamic and repels Islam. Just as Islam isn’t the cause of Europe’s current weakness, but rather a secondary infection, it could have the unforeseen and ironic effect of saving Europe from herself. By quite literally putting a dagger at Europe’s throat, the Islamic world will force Europeans to renew themselves or die. Europe will go through a turbulent period of painful, but necessary revival, and will arrive chastened on the other side. Although not impossible, this is probably not the most likely scenario at this point, given the economic and cultural weakness of Europe in particular. The West as a whole also makes up a declining proportion of the world’s population, and globalization makes it more difficult for the West to retain its technological superiority.

2. Another American century

The USA, more than Europe and Asia, will remain the world’s unchallenged superpower. The 21st century will be a continuation of the American Age that started in the 20th century. Europe may foster the strength to repel Islam, but not enough to renew herself, and will fade off the world stage. Alternatively, Islamic-controlled Eurabia emerges triumphant, or the entire continent becomes a nightmare of civil wars where neither side gains a decisive victory. In both cases, Europe will be a source of constant instability. The rise of the Asian economies will be derailed by internal political and cultural problems, or could trigger nationalistic rivalries and devastating intra-Asian wars similar to WW1 in Europe.

3. The Asian/Chinese century

The world will return to the Asia-centric system we had before the rise of Europe and the West. Multiculturalism and uncontrolled mass-immigration destroy the internal cohesion of the decadent West, which will slowly fall apart as it has lost the will to defend itself and the belief in its own culture. The wars in the Balkans in the 1990s will in hindsight be seen as a prelude to the Multicultural World War. Just as Imperialism caused WW1, Fascism WW2 and Communism the Cold War, Multiculturalism and Muslim immigration will drag the West into a war with the Islamic world. Instead of a Westernization of the Balkans, we get a Balkanization of the West. Will this be a world dominated by China, or by Asia as a whole, including India? Perhaps India and Southeast Asia will be bogged down by instability caused by Muslims. The Chinese will watch from the sidelines, quietly playing both sides against the middle as the West and the Islamic world destroy each other. In the end, China will reign supreme as the last man standing.

4. The Pacific century

The USA may remain the world’s leading power, but Europe fades off the global scene and leaves her spot open for Asia. Global affairs will be shaped by the twin pillars of the USA and Asia, mainly China, who will cooperate to contain Islamic extremism, a kind of Global Infidel Alliance. Europe will be the world’s largest open-air museum. The Louvre, the Eiffel Tower, Big Ben and Parliament in England as well as many other landmarks will have been lost during the Eurabian civil wars to expel Islam from Europe. They now exist only as plastic souvenirs that Europeans sell to American and Asian tourists to scrape out a living. These “authentic European souvenirs” will all be made in China, of course.

5. The Anglosphere - Indian century

I believe this is what has been predicted by writer Mark Steyn, among others. The USA and the UK, the major powers of the previous 3 centuries, will be at the centre of this one, too. But they will share the spot with India and some other countries such as Japan, “honorary members” of the Anglosphere. US President Bush has already adopted a policy designed to draw India closer to the United States in a strategic alliance. Perhaps this will be in the shape of a Democratic Union or Democratic Infidel Alliance, which may include parts of Free Europe depending upon the Islamic situation there. This alliance will be suspicious of authoritarian China, and will have hostile relations with the Islamic world.

6. The Global Civil War - Neo-Barbarism and Chaos

The darkest scenario of all. Islam manages to derail the West, both Europe and later North America. This disrupts global trade, and the ripples create unrest even in other parts of the world not directly involved in the fighting, including East Asia and Latin America. India will be drawn directly into the conflict with Islam, as will Russia and Israel. The chaos forces created by Islam and by global mass migration by hundreds of millions of people will erode state power virtually everywhere. Perhaps this trend will be reinforced by the appearance of a new, lethal virus, which will quickly spread to all regions of the world thanks to technological globalization. All of this will create a Global Civil War, the first of its kind in human history. It will disrupt civilization, be that Eastern or Western, for generations to come.

Just to keep it relevant KO sucks muzzie cock. And anonymous sucks KO. Just not this annymous but the leftist one.HEHEHE

The bad news is that the U.S. will more than likely be forced to gradually withdraw from the middle east, both politically and economically over the next several decades. Because like it or not, you are not likely to win a costly and protracted police action, on several foreign fronts, with support from only half the population and sacrifice from only the military. Not against entire nations of people who pray five times a day and possess citizen armies that consider kamikaze-like martyrdom to be divine.

You're argument would be relevant except when put up against facts ... Even if we were to assume that there are 200,000 Insurgents all who are Iraqi (which we know is not the case), that would STILL be less than 1% of the Iraq population. Which disproves your assertion that somehow we are up against entire nations.

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

yes, middle east insurgents/terrorists/extremists themselves only represent a small fraction of their societies as a whole, but their anti-US sentiment is supported by the majority of their populations, dummy.

• BAGHDAD -- Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll. But while they acknowledge benefits from dumping Saddam a year ago, Iraqis no longer see the presence of the American-led military as a plus. Asked whether they view the U.S.-led coalition as "liberators" or "occupiers," 71% of all respondents say "occupiers." In the multiethnic Baghdad area, where a Gallup Poll last summer of 1,178 residents permits a valid comparison, only 13% of the people now say the invasion of Iraq was morally justifiable.

and that's just in Iraq ... in other middle eastern countries the numbers are just as bad, if not worse.

• Pew Global Attitudes surveys of 50 nations in 2002 and 2003 found that the U.S. was less popular in the Middle East than in any other part of the world. (The relatively high U.S. favorability rating in Lebanon is due largely to the country's Christian minority. Among Lebanese Muslims, just 22% have a favorable opinion of the U.S.)

"Pew Global Attitudes surveys of 50 nations in 2002 and 2003 found that the U.S. was less popular in the Middle East than in any other part of the world."

Wow, what a scoop-- I'm sure Keef is all over this. So, I guess we should pack it in and leave Iraq, eh? They don't like us, so what better reason to just say "Aw to hell with it, let's get outta here.

Maybe it's time to start listening to the Murtha Plan:

"We can go to Okinawa. We can redeploy there almost instantly." Mr. Russert, mindful of the fact that Okinawa, Japan, is 4,899 miles from Baghdad, offered Mr. Murtha an escape, in case he had misspoken. "But it would be tough to have a timely response from Okinawa," he said. But Mr. Murtha dug himself in deeper. "When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly," he said. It would take 10-12 hours - and six refuelings - for F-16s to fly from Kadena AFB on Okinawa to Baghdad (assuming China and India would grant overflight rights, a dubious assumption). Murtha continued with an indignant broadside agianst Karl Rove: "He's sitting in his air-conditioned office on his big, fat backside saying stay the course. That's not a plan! We got to change direction, that’s what we have to do. You can’t, you can’t sit there in the air conditioned office."

The Murtha Doctrine stipulates that there is no need to actually be in
the country, or on the battlefield, where you are actually fighting a
war. Murtha points to the killing of Zarqawi as an example of how this
works: “The information came from the Iraqis, to the Iraqis, to the US
and then we bombed where he was, so… it came from the outside.”
For this reason, the Murtha Doctrine argues that because the
redeployment of troops to Okinawa Japan would make those troops
further “outside,” they would be more effective against the insurgents
in Iraq. “Our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly,” says
Murtha.

In summation, the Murtha Doctrine states that Iraq is worse
today than it was six months ago and that “staying the course is not
a plan” because Karl Rove’s office is air conditioned. The Murtha
Doctrine further states that the U.S. military’s presence in Iraq is
the problem and if we just leave, everything will be resolved. As
evidence of this, Murtha points to Karl Rove’s weight. Murtha uses
the following analogy to explain his doctrine: if you are playing a
football game and neither team is winning, you are therefore losing.
In order to win, you need to move your team to another stadium
and that way you can run your plays without anyone getting
tackled. Meanwhile, because you left the original stadium, your
opponent will simply give up and go home.