Tancredo: McCain, Giuliani would be disastrous for GOP

I rest my case.

Joseph Botwinick

 

As long as you are not voting for them . . .



:saint:

 

Lets say, there was, although at this point in history, there is not, a Muslim country that invaded the United States and occupied it for several years to make it safe for Islam. And guess what, they really did find weapons of mass destruction. Now lets say that the leader of the Muslim country was totally inept at running a war and leadership. Now, what do you think we would be doing? What do you think some of the guys (especially in the out of the way rural counties) would be doing to the occupiers?

 

While you are comparing apples to orange trees . . .

Did you intend to imply that Iraq is safe for Christians?

Are you saying that you are for a world religious government, and you are for the muslim form of government?

Did you intend to imply that you would be for the muslim invaders?

Instead of fiction, try some truth: Saddam released over 20,000 criminals to make certain that murder and mayhem would happen. Thousands of foreigners have gone to the country to kill their fellow muslims.

Could our president 'do better' - certainly!

But, it would be nice if the muslims on the sidelines and the liberals out in the parking lot having a tail gate party would get on board and support the team that is dying on the field. IMHO.

 

Why do you ask if I intended all those things and turn right around and say it is fiction? Of course it is fiction. It was not to get your comments on comparing the two situations. It was for you to ask yourself, what would you do to the occupiers? And if you would be a part of organized efforts to eliminate the occupiers, why do you expect any different from them?

It has nothing to do with if we should be over there or not. What is has to do with is Bush's failure to recognize what he should have before the war, that they were not just going to lie down and let us have it. Goerge Bush may be your idol, but he certainly is not mine. If I could, I would take back the twice I voted for him.

 

Why did I ask about your fiction? Because it sounded like fiction.

The organized crime and invading muslims are causing mayhem and murder. Yet, you implied that it is the expected response of the 'peace loving' Iraqis that were 'invaded' . . .

If they were [still] fighting invaders, do you really think they would have ever kept the peace? No this is not a response to an invasion - this is an attempt to grab power and murder their fellow muslims.

How else can you explain their killing ten of their fellow muslims for each 'American invader' as you would ask me to read the story?

 

The only difference that you bring out that is correct that we would not be killing fellow Americans. However, the fact still remains is that is exactly what we would do with an invader, and would expect nothing less. This all leads back to the point, if one is going to execute a war, then that person and their staff are charged with having the leadership to carry out such a task. Our troops, who are risking their lives daily, deserve competent leadership. Your statement above, the president could "do better", please give me a break. He either has the leadership or he does not. War is not a murky, vague issue. It is black and white. If he did not have the foresight to finish and win, he should have never gone in.

 

Since you are the expert in warfare, maybe you could go over and fix the problem.

Me? I know that it is bigger than I am.

Have a great weekend!

 

Not an expert, but better than you, and with much clearer and logical opinions.

 

Is that your point or what you really want? "American world supremecy is if democracy were spread around the world"

No wonder I have been misunderstanding a lot of the post if others feel as you do. I have never really given world supremecy or democracy around the world a single thought. I would think both of those formulas would give too much power to a single person, in this case, our president. I have never seen anyone handle that much power well but God.

Whe one really considers America or democracy, the normally focus on themselves. This is important to consider because it means there are as many views of America or Democracy as their are people in this country. Rarely if ever do you find two who completely agree. This beg's the question, "what is it we would be spreading?"

 

I don't see his anology with your eyes. When one invades a country, over throw their government and say we'll help you be like us, what are they saying.

No one wants to hear our system of government is better than yours. That is a very defensive statement to make. It would be natural for anyone to become defensive and reject the premise of the idea just because how it's presented. It really is like going to your neighbors house, putting the parents out and saying let me show you a better way to be a family.

I know this would have been very different if Iraq had of said, "hey America, our way of government sucks. Can you guys come implement your style in our land?" We all know that is not the way this war started.

 

Not since the de-Ba'athification. Saddam's deputy prime minister - the 8 of spades - was/is Christian. Now Iraq is not safe for anyone.

 

You really have no clue what democracy is, do you? Or do you hate it so much that you have to misrepresent it? Which is it?

It is interesting to see how liberals equate the spread of democracy with imperialism and tyranny, but defend Saddam and his Bathist regime as if they were the noble ones. I rest my case once again.

Joseph Botwinick

 

That would imply that you have taken your expertise across the pond and you are dodging the friendly incoming mail of those peace loving anarchists.

I pray that your crusade to save iraq from all the muslim invaders works.

Have fun.

 

I remember getting into a taxi just after 9-11-2001, and the taxi driver assured me that I should encourage all of my fellow americans to liberate all of the muslims around the world. He assured me (excitedly assured me) that all of his fellow muslims were excited by the impending invasion of Iraq and could not wait for the USA to liberate each muslim country in succession.

Wonder why I did not believe him any more than the 'rhetoric' on this board? mmm ... maybe 'cause none of that kinda 'rhetoric' makes any sense.

Of course, he stuttered as he considered what should be done about the israelis . . .

:saint:

Some of us do remember being asked to go over . . .

I just gotta wonder, "What were you doing, reading the comics?"

 

LE,

I think if you check the facts, there have been more Iraqis who have died protecting their nation from terrorists than have Americans. Now, you might think there are no Patrick Henrys' there, but reality says otherwise. As for Neo-Cons making good statesmen, I think Reagan was one of the best, as was FDR.

Joseph Botwinick

 

The survivors of the Holocaust would probably disagree. But, as Poncho said, they don't really matter...do they?

Joseph Botwinick

 

You so funny. You have to give a name or attack anyone who disagree's with your propoganda. Yes, I do know what democracy is and I also know it's not for everybody. I also have no reason to defend Saddam but but Bin Laden is the one who confessed to 9/11.

Keep this in mind about spreading democracy, democracy means the governing "power" is with the citizens. They can and usually do elect people to represent them. Some people elect a king and let him rule. My point, everyone doesn't want democracy.

What does it make us when we force a form of government on a people who don't want it?

We appearently were not asked by the people of Iraq because they have been against us from day 1. I know Saddam didn't ask for us. Who is that ask for us to go? Was it a cab driver who lives here in the states? If the cab driver chose to leave that form of government and move here then it is obvious which he prefers. Now does this speak for an entire nation? I think not or they would have all left like him.