This is partially why I tried to explicate, in my comment above, what is the threat many conservatives perceive.  Conservatives such as myself are not so worried about near-term terror attacks as we are about exponential growth of the fundamentalism/Jihad movement. It is only inside the larger threat (of growing worldwide fundamentalism/Jihad) that the perceived softness of Obama is seen as a very big problem for the U.S.  

"have you served in the military?"  I will not answer.  This is the "chickenhawk" argument; and it is a discredited argument.  Any answer I give would be a distraction from logic and reason.

I didn't say anyone "should be willing to go back".  We miscommunicated somewhere on this.

"how old are you?"  Again, I think any answer I give would be a type of distraction.  I'm older than dstar.  That's enough for now.

"i don't think obama plans on withdrawing troops and then sending them back".  The bolded part is the problem.  IMO, Obama is not Mr. New Politics of Hope.  He's the same old politics which evades specifics and, when he must be specific, surrounds both sides of an issue whenever possible.  I've heard Obama criticize Hillary for not setting a hard date/schedule for withdrawal from Iraq ... then, two sentences later, I've heard Obama say that, as President, he will "of course" retain flexibility to act  according to changing conditions on the ground.  ??!!  President Bush is retaining flexibility according to changing conditions on the ground.

On Friday, a top Obama foreign policy advisor(Samantha Power) resigned from the Obama campaign and said this:  

Power told a British television audience that Obama's plan for withdrawing from Iraq (like, apparently, his plan to renegotiate NAFTA) isn't really to be taken seriously. "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator," Power explained. In perhaps the most sensible comment I've heard her make, Power added: "You can't make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009." She went on to describe Obama's stated plan as "a best case scenario."
 

"Humanitarian bombardment"

In Iraq and Afghan, we are doing humanitarian bombardment as much as we are logistically able to do so.

"Propaganda bombardment"

I'm with you.  Our lack of public relations/propaganda bombardment is a pet peeve of mine.  Since we want to win the people away from Sharia and Jihadism, public relations/propaganda is just as important as bullets(though including the "bullets" part may not fairly reflect exactly what you said).

The good news is the U.S. military is learning strategic public relations lessons as we go, and is adapting.  

is war "the best way to win over the heart and soul of Islam to peaceful coexistence and democracy?"

This is THE KEY QUESTION, isn't it?

In Iraq, our goal is to protect the moderates, allow them to love freedom and democracy, then count on them to win the undecided fence sitters over to moderation.  

Without U.S./Iraqi/Coalition military protection for the people, Al Qaeda and Iran would never allow moderate Iraqis to be won over to freedom and democracy.

The good news is the disciplined(though imperfect) and humanitarian behavior of our troops is it's own kind of good public relations for our cause.  Our troop discipline, and our codes of conduct, are a large part of the "awakening" we currently see amongst Iraqi tribes.  For the most part, the Iraqi people now  see we are not at war with them.

Al Qaeda, especially when it was living amongst the Sunni tribes, was neither disciplined nor humanitarian.  Their behavior led to their rejection by the tribes.

Iraq is a grand democratic experiment.  If moderate Muslims are incompatible with democracy, the spector of horrific nuclear booms draws closer.  

If political correctness handcuffs the U.S.; if pc prevents us from conducting military skirmishes such as Iraq; then we are stripping ourselves of interim measures of self-protective recourse.  We will, then, take it and take it and take it from an enemy, until such time as we spasmodically strike back with the world's most horrible weapons.  

I do not want that day to happen.  I am hopeful that Muslims will embrace democracy.  I am hopeful we will not allow pc to strip us of our ability to protect ourselves in some way short of nuclear pushback.

"I'll just tell you in advance that I'm not interested"

EXACTLY.

You read into my two highlighted comments(below) what you wanted to read into them.  You so strongly assumed you knew my views that my actual words didn't seep into your consciousness.

Here, word for word, is everything I said:

my first comment

sigh.  

What can I call it, other than States Rights, so I will not be implying prejudice?

PC is so incredibly tiresome - and such a ridiculous joke.  

my second comment

Thats all fine, and enlightening, and is truly  interesting discussion, imo.  I'm geeky enough to like that stuff.  I concur with much of your comment.

But, you know what I am talking about.  Here is the very first sentence of your own Wikipedia link:

States' rights refers to the idea, in U.S. politics and constitutional law, that U.S. states possess certain rights and political powers in relation to the federal government.

Now, what do you want me to call that, so I will  not offend PC sensibilities or accidentally speak in negative code?