Tancredo: Threaten to Bomb Muslim Holy Sites in Retaliation

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Felix -

Although I am ambivalent on the ethics of your position, it warms my heart to know that there are still people willing to do whatever seems necessary to survival. Carry on good sir.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a position of doing whatever necessary, because if it was determined that holding back was 'necessary' he and people like him wouldn't. His is a position of anger and revenge.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
America has always been overwhelmingly violent and brutal when angered. "Payback" is our middle name. Unfortunately, so is "blowback." The mess that is Iran today, and thus part of the havoc that is Iraq today, is directly attributable to our hubristic arrogance, so perfectly captured in the attitude of your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Its directly attributable to ridiculous rules of engagement and our lack of will to win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean the idea of having rules of engagement is ridiculous or the specifics in ours are ridiculous?

[/ QUOTE ]

the specifics

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Tancredo is a pacifist compared.....compared....what I would do if the islamo-nazis succeed with a an act of nuclear terrorism on the USA.... If Tancredos comments can inject the slightest fear to islamo-nazis that the USA will come down hard on them...

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh I see. So you thought that terrorists thought we'd look the other way if they nuked NY?

Thanks, Tancredo, for straightening them out.

[andyfox]

America has always been overwhelmingly violent and brutal when angered. "Payback" is our middle name. Unfortunately, so is "blowback." The mess that is Iran today, and thus part of the havoc that is Iraq today, is directly attributable to our hubristic arrogance, so perfectly captured in the attitude of your post.

[canis582]

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
America has always been overwhelmingly violent and brutal when angered. "Payback" is our middle name. Unfortunately, so is "blowback." The mess that is Iran today, and thus part of the havoc that is Iraq today, is directly attributable to our hubristic arrogance, so perfectly captured in the attitude of your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Its directly attributable to ridiculous rules of engagement and our lack of will to win.

[andyfox]

Lack of will to win what? We "won" in Iran in the 1950s and the trouble we've had with them since has been directly attributable to that "win." I recommend reading "All the Shah's Men."

As for Iraq, we would have been in much better shape today had the Bush administration not ignored every recommendation and warning it had from both inside the government and non-governmental organizations about the perils of allowing looting, deBaathification, disbanding the army, occupation, believing Chalabi's lies, etc. A Secretary of Defense whose attitude was not "stuff happens" would have helped too.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
America has always been overwhelmingly violent and brutal when angered. "Payback" is our middle name. Unfortunately, so is "blowback." The mess that is Iran today, and thus part of the havoc that is Iraq today, is directly attributable to our hubristic arrogance, so perfectly captured in the attitude of your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jimmy Carter is responsible for modern day Iran. He abandon our ally the Shah and he gave us a terrorist state. As for arrogance....I have a right to be arrogant. I'm an American. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[adios]

Perhaps interesting questions:

What would Jimmy Carter have done about 9/11? What would Dubya have done about the Iranian hostages? What would Clinton have done about either or both?

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps interesting questions:

What would Jimmy Carter have done about 9/11? What would Dubya have done about the Iranian hostages? What would Clinton have done about either or both?

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy.... Jimmy would have called Osama over for a little rub and tug to try to make Osama like us.... Osama would demand more and more with each stroke of Jimmy's hand.

Dubya would have tried to get the hostages back, but likely screwed it up somehow, and would have most dems working against whatever he attempted.

Clinton would have found the nearest intern to choke down his "little willie"... but still never would have had a serious response to either event. (as evideced in the 1st WTC bombing, two embassy bombings in Africa, Black hawk down, and the USS Cole bombing.)

[andyfox]

Nope. Dwight Eisenhower is much more responsible for modern day Iran than Jimmy Carter.