Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Comment on: Gray Ghost Country

What the Islamic World Really Thinks About the Democrats

111 Comments
Sunday, June, 01, 2008 4:12 PM Sarah writes:

Obama is muslim by birth right....

and Hamas has already stated he is the preferred candidate. Also, these statements are made to remind people Clintons are 'unpure' and have disgusting behaviors so that democrats can pick Obama - the preferred muslim candidate. Does anyone buy this poor defense of 'they really don't think it makes a difference if it's clinton or obama? then why make statements that put clintons at a disadvantage? Why put up phone banks supporting Obama candidacy in Gaza? I might not be muslim, but I know when i am being lied to by one.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, June, 01, 2008 4:27 PM Gray Ghost writes:

Sarah

First, thanks for stopping by.

Second, my last sentence says it all: "Unless Obama is a Muslim...". With Obama quitting Trinity United Church of Christ yesterday (05/31/08), he has broken any relationship with the Christian faith. I don't expect he will join another Christian church between now and the election.

I believe you are correct in your conclusion: "I might not be muslim, but I know when i am being lied to by one."
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, June, 01, 2008 5:08 PM BrianR writes:

This is the companion piece


to the comment I just posted on your Pakistan essay. Perfect proof of my assertion that a Western-style democracy won't happen in the Muslim ME.

The Palestinians hold valid elections (according to obervers) and who wins?

Hamas.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, June, 01, 2008 6:27 PM The Crawfish writes:

He knows how to deal with muslims!

He will surrender at the first opportunity!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, June, 01, 2008 6:54 PM caday5 writes:

A little phobic

Obama is not Muslim but what if he was? Is America only for Christians and Jews? That certainly wasn't the opinion of Jefferson who, btw, was no Christian.

And Brian,
why do you think Hamas won? And why is it that we ignore all peaceful actions and overtures by Hamas? Again, a little phobic?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, June, 01, 2008 8:12 PM emjayne writes:

lol `

"peaceful actions and overtures by Hamas" best laugh I have had all day!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, June, 01, 2008 8:19 PM Steve writes:

Dear Emjayne

Don't laugh too hard. Caddy only mouths the true "feelings" of the liberal elite. They believe that murderous thugs are capable of "peace overtures" that aren't intended as a means of killing more of us. When appeasement is equated with peace-loving, then the terrorists have an "in" with a political party that they can exploit.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, June, 01, 2008 10:50 PM caday5 writes:

emjayne

trying reading the news. Hamas has made peaceful overtures before, in fact, they observed a 16 month moratorium from attacking Israel. During that time, Israel constantly attacked the Palestinians.

But if you want to assume and laugh, go ahead. The laughter will just not be informed.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, June, 02, 2008 12:58 AM Gar Swaffar writes:

In days gone by

Democrat or Republican, they all stood together against any external enemy.
Today the Democrats and the RINOpublicans act more as if they ARE the enemy. And the Leftist Socialists of both parties act in concert with the enemy.

NObama or John McCan't - it ain't gonna be pretty
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, June, 02, 2008 7:38 AM caday5 writes:

boaz

Maybe our most threatening enemy is already in our country. I would suggest that you read the following article from the late Anna Politkovskaya, the Russian journalist who was assassinated. A ominously telling quote from that article is below:

"Russia continues to be infected by Stalinism. But it seems to me that the rest of the world has been infected along with it, a world shrunken and frightened before the threat of terrorism."

The link is:

http://www.justicefornorthcaucasus.com/Anna_Politkovskaya/8 .pdf

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, June, 02, 2008 9:37 AM Redhead writes:

caday's right!

Socialism is more insidious and dangerous than muslims!

Thanks caday for pointing that out!

We need to defeat the socialists, in all their incarnations first, then the muslims will not be nearly as big a threat! We are truly becoming shrunken by this infection.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, June, 02, 2008 10:59 AM BrianR writes:

Caday, re your comment


You should read what I posted on the Pakistan essay, to get a fuller flavor of the point of my comment, or better yet read my blog essays on the topic.

Phobic? No. However, I spent five years living in Iran and travelled the region extensively. I think I know whereof I speak.

Bush & Co have been operating on the febrile thesis that all that's necessary to "pacify" the region is to install a "democracy" and all the regional internecine squabbles will magically end. It's naivete of the first water, as the ME does not have the philosophical, ideological or cultural unerpinnings for Western-style democracy.

In the West, democracies don't go to war with each other; that's simply historical fact. All bets are off in the ME, and the election of Hamas is the proof, as Hamas is a party that ran on the destruction of Israel -- a democracy -- as one of its planks, and has asserted very repressive measures against competing "parties" such as the PLO. It's a joke of a "democracy" by Western standards.

So, if you want to call that a "phobia", be my guest. I call it a dose of realism.

Muslims have been factionalized for over a thousand years, and regional tribal divisions go back even further. That's not going to magically end in a few years just because we wish it so.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, June, 02, 2008 11:45 AM Buck writes:

Obama, Clinton and McCain

Obama is either a muslim, a white hating racist, an athiest or a communist. Or maybe any combination of the above.

Clinton is a communist. Whether she realizes or admits if she does realize does not matter. Her stated aims and goals are the SAME as the aims and goals of the CPUSA as well as communists world over.

McCain is a Liberal Democrat. His stated aims and goals are the SAME as Kennedy, Feinstein, et al. Whether he realizes or not does not matter. But in his case I am pretty sure he realizes it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, June, 02, 2008 1:55 PM caday5 writes:

Brian

Yes, in the West, democracies fight each other, we are just too powerful to make it look like a war. Chile is in the West, and in '73 we contributed to a coup that installed a dictator. We installed military rule in Greece in the sixties. We overthrew Guatamala's democracy in '54.

This is just off the top of my head, there are plenty of examples.

Our problem in reading the ME nations is that we think that any hatred or aggression by them toward us is a first strike, not a reaction. Not only did we overthrow Iran's parliamentary gov't in '53 to install a dictator, we have threatened the ME Islamic nation that is closest to a democracy. Remember that Iran fought the Taliban before it was popular. In addition, we are the ones who support dictators when we support Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, June, 02, 2008 1:56 PM caday5 writes:

Buck

Your definition of Communist is too broad to have any meaning. It seems to include anyone who has advocated any social program outside of your liking.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, June, 02, 2008 1:58 PM caday5 writes:

Redhead

Why not suggest to homeland security that anyone who advocates a social program should be sent Guantanamo?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, June, 02, 2008 2:10 PM Redhead writes:

caday

I did.

They're working on it.
First they've got to move all of the muslim terrorists out so that they are not corrupted by the socialists, though.
Then they'll bring in some native Cuban interpreters and interrogators in order to try to deprogram the socialists, and tell them the truth about how insidious socialism is, and how it corrupts the people and makes everyone hopeless and ready to jump in a little rubber dingy to sail across the Gulf just to reach freedom, at the risk of their lives, and at great loss of universal health care.
If that doesn't work, they're going to get several copies of the Communist Manifesto, and flush them down the toilet.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, June, 02, 2008 3:03 PM Steve writes:

Dear Caddy

I see you're still on your same "America is Evil" tirade... and with the same discredited "examples". As I have already addressed them, I see no need to do so again. What matters is that you continue to try and paint as evil any who would oppose evil... and that you will go to any lengths of misrepresentation to do so. When you use the words of evil to support evil's minions, you become one of them.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, June, 02, 2008 7:34 PM skep41 writes:

Here's An Idea

These nutty Mullahs are about as rational as the clowns who speak at the Trinity United Church. They should have a conspiracython where paranoid anti-American racist nuts are invited to explain how America and the Jews are conspiring to kill everybody else. This will be open to zany lunatics of all faiths.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, June, 02, 2008 10:38 PM caday5 writes:

Steve

1. I have always said that America is as evil as the next country. It is your side that claims that America is a positively exceptional country and thus should be free to do what it wants with impunity.

2. Please list the "discredited" examples and show why they are discredited.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, June, 02, 2008 10:58 PM KenUSA writes:

Compassionate Terrorists

Let's say Hammas is truly a well intentioned civic organization whose membership contains 1% bad actors that kill and maim indiscriminately. That qualifies them for the treatment the Catholic church gets from the liberal elite. Abject hatred, sensational headlines blaring "hypocrisy", endless lawsuits, vocal protests, sacrilegious vandalism and so on.

If Hammas is what they appear to be - A loosely organized band of degenerates intent on domination of their own people, the eradication of an entire race of people, the total elimination of the rights of women and the conversion or death of anyone who doesn't "sympathize" with their enlightened view. Then they qualify for the treatment pioneered by Genghis Kahn.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 12:40 AM BrianR writes:

Caday, your grasp of history is


non-existent, and I have to agree with Steve who has you pegged as a leftist nut.

Neither Chile nor Guatemala were democracies; "we" didn't overthrow Greece's government; Iran's government in power in 1953 wsn't a democracy either, as Mossadegh rigged the elections

I guess to YOU, any government we oppose magically transforms into a "democracy"; you obviously have absolutely no concept of the meaning of the word.

Further, note that in my post I clearly wrote "Western-style" democracy. That's a key distinction which obviously escaped our limited attention. Hamas is a "democracy" in the sense that it assumed power from a monitored election; that certainly does NOT make it a Western-style democracy.

An after reading the rest of your drivel, I'll put my many years of on-the-ground experience of living there -- and my resultant assessment -- over any claptrap that's going to flow from your keyboard.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 12:46 AM BrianR writes:

BTW, Caday, using your definition


of "democracy" the USSR must have been the most successful democracy in history.

Per their Constitution, they held regularly scheduled elections, they had 100% voter turnout (voting was NOT optional), and the successful candidates were always elected with a 100% margin of victory.


Of course, there was always only ONE candidate on the ticket, but what the hell, right? Let's not be picky.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 1:08 AM Buck writes:

c-5

Although I think you are an idiot I will answer your post in contradiction of my previous statement that I would heretoforth ignore you. Perhaps it will allow others to see the terrible harm and destruction you and idiots like you are doing to our country.

Communists.

Communists and communism are nothing new to this world. Great minds with ghreat intentions come marching onto the world scene with great fanfare and high expectations. And when those expectations are not realized they resort to intimidation, extortion and violence.

Communism...20th Century variation...set foot in this country not long after the 1917 October revolution. But even with the Great Depression it could not make an indentation. CPUSA was(and is) a subervisive movement. Their goal is the destruction of the United States of America. That the American people rejected it in its '20's and '30's costume, it quickly changed its avenue of attack. The effects of the new approach have been felt. Today our country is reeling from the attacks of not an enemy from abroad but from its own people.
People like you, C-5, people like you who seem to find nothing but fault and wrong doing with our country. People like you who seem to think it is the "intellectual" or maybe the "introspective" way to approach problems.
This country has done more to alleviate hunger, disease, famine and tyranny in the world than all thesocialist countries combined. Yet you and your minions can do nothing but beat us up.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 1:11 AM Buck writes:

Epistle to C-5 Pt II

You, C-5, you are a SPOILED CHILD. And when you have destroyed this great nation. When that is passed you and your brothers are going to be like the rich spoiled children whose parents were killed brutally but the lawyers got all the estate and you will be penniless. And you, with all your grandiose intellecutalism, with all your down your nose at us 'commoners' or, in your parliance, 'the workers', you will be cast among us. You are going to be a prety boy in a prison of 'Bubbas'.

You will wish to God.

And God is not going to answer.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 2:03 AM str8_talk writes:

I reiterate...

this weblink...if we don;t watch ouy,we'll be in the same situation! It goes w/ both of yout blogs on ME:
http://www.dotsub.com/films/moredemands/index.php?autostart =true&language_setting=en_1618
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 6:44 AM caday5 writes:

Buck

If I am a spoiled child, what would say about the OT prophets who complained and preached against Israel when it went astray? And one does not have to be a prophet to understand their words and do the same today.

Does your celebration of violence and abuse, as your last note relished my future vulnerability, make you a good representative of America? Is that the direction you want America to take?

You can complain about intellectualism all you want, just make sure that you are not doing the equivalent of book burning.

And as for communism, my complaint here is that you paint it with one color. Like all other systems, there are variations.

Finally, America has some serious sins to account for. Those who have a sincere interest in America want America to do what is right. This is because our survival is inextricably tied to doing what is right. Only those who have other interests are not concerned with the morality of America's actions.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 8:37 AM str8_talk writes:

Well I notice

that C-4 has found an audience, this is not the 1st, who's a self-proclaimed college prof, to disrupt a blog. My question is what very liberal jr college hired him?

He must be part-time or doesn't spend much time grading papers. I've seen blogs where he's argued all day his leftist views.

CAUTION; Don't light the fuse, it will explode!
I've heard that's a nasty explosion...ask Achmed!

PS...Sorry for the typos on last post, it's hard 2 type w 2 fingers working on Rt hand & a splint. ;)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 9:15 AM caday5 writes:

str8_talk

Please advise people to not consider other viewpoints. After all, if someone offers a different view than what the person whose blog it is offers, that is automatically disruptive.

And don't forget to try to discredit the other side either. Because then people do not have to consider the logical points made.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 9:45 AM str8_talk writes:

IF I see

a logical point of view, I'll acknowledge it. I've never seen you offer any logic C-4!

Just one pt & sorry GG 4 the interruption. I don't see people visit C's regularly; hmmm, doesn't that tell us something?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 10:15 AM caday5 writes:

str8_talk

Your note comes out of the Ann Coulter playbook. Don't discuss the issues, make accusations instead.

But just so you don't miss a logical point, perhaps you can help Brian who made the claim that western democracies don't go to war with each other. I pointed out that the coups of Chile('73), Greece('67), Guatamala('54), though not wars, do show that Western Democracies do attach each other.

BTW Brian, other people who have traveled the ME region have come away with different perceptions and conclusions than you have. That does not mean that what you are saying is false, it means that your view isn't the only one based on experience. So what we should do is to cover your views, point by point, to see which ones each person thinks is valid.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 10:48 AM Gray Ghost writes:

Apologies To All

I have been out of town on projects in Tennessee and Mississippi for the last few days so I haven't been able to comment or reply back as I normally do.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 10:56 AM str8_talk writes:

Gray Ghost

Off-subject, I accept a wide range of viewpoints, but when someone offers farrago material & tries to overtake another's blog because they cannot get any attn - it's bizarre! Then to be so far left, if the world was flat, they would have fallen off! Of course, we would need the lack of gravity at the edge. :(

It saddens me to see academia brought to such churlish behavior. I shudder to think how much worse it will be in four + years w/any of the current POTUS candidates!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 11:13 AM Gray Ghost writes:

Liberal Trolls (i.e., caday5)

Regardless of what caday5 says, he or she NEVER addresses the subject of an article. This article concerns WHAT THE ISLAMIC WORLD THINKS OF DEMOCRATS.

Note, caday5 NEVER says: If you look at this interview with some Islamic Bigwig, this bigwig says he loves the Democrats. Caday5 seems to miss the point altogether, by thinking the best of Hamas and the worst of everybody else. His/Her comments are always "Trollish" (i.e, never address the article, but always put forth "Liberal" doctrine).

BrianR, Steve, emjayne, and others understand that the "Liberal Elites" believe that Hamas (and other Islamic terrorist groups) can be trusted. (WE all join hands and sing "Kumbaya".)

History has proven that BrianR, Steve, emjayne, and others' opinion "that the terrorist groups CANNOT be trusted" is the correct viewpoint.

Personally, I pity "caday5". He/She has been sold a "bill of goods" by the Left and believes everything the Left says.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 11:14 AM BrianR writes:

And, Caday, as I pointed out


the countries YOU claim were democracies.... weren't.

But again, I must assume that for YOU, the USSR was the most successful "democracy" ever.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 11:21 AM Gray Ghost writes:

BrianR

Do you think that a "Western Style" democracy would be possible in Iraq after say 20 years of US troops being located in Iraq (i.e., similar to what occurred in Japan after WW2)?

Japan had centuries of a "feudal" civilization under the emperorer before the post-WW2 occupation of this country. However, I would say that they now have a "Western Style" Democracy.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 11:25 AM Gray Ghost writes:

boaz's Point

"Democrat or Republican, they all stood together against any external enemy.
Today the Democrats and the RINOpublicans act more as if they ARE the enemy. And the Leftist Socialists of both parties act in concert with the enemy."

During the early 1900's, the Main Stream Media would have crucified these Democrats and RINO's. One big problem we have to solve is how to get the MSM to actually print the news and not print an "agenda".
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 11:50 AM Gray Ghost writes:

str8 talk

"It saddens me to see academia brought to such churlish behavior. I shudder to think how much worse it will be in four + years w/any of the current POTUS candidates! "

Ditto!

However, is caday5 a part of the "academia"? I occassionally teach at the jr. college level and my wife is a public school teacher; but I would never have guessed that from reading his/her comments. My initial reaction was that he/she had a liberal arts degree and worked in the social services field, with an age of approx. 25 to 30 years. The comments are those of some one with limited "life experience" and a "Kumbaya" outlook on life.

In other words, they have never been shot at or been in a "fire fight"; they have never looked "Death" in the face (i.e., Katrina-type disaster); they have never stood up to "Evil"; and they have lived a very sheltered life.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 11:51 AM BrianR writes:

Ghost, that's an interesting question


The problem in the Muslim ME is the Islamic religion itself, and how it's practiced. The clerics are the final word on literally EVERY aspect of life, regardless of how small, and depending on their sect, they're in constant conflict. They are virtually dictators to their "flock". They, in turn, answer to the Ayatollahs; again, dictators. It's the inherent practice. And, of course, those sects are profoundly opposed to each other based on their interpretation of Ali's relationship to Mohammed, a division that goes back to the 4th or 5th Century. You have the Wahabists, the Sunnis, the Shiites, the Bathists. The intensity of these divisions can't be comprehended by someone who hasn't actually lived there; it's completely foreign to our way of thinking, and our philosophical roots.

Couple all of that with tribal/ethnic divisions that go back over a thousand years: the Kurds v. Turks v. Armenians v. Persians v. Arabs, etc, on and on and on.

Contrast that with Japan, a monolithic, culturally united society with the Emperor as a Godhead, universally obeyed. When he dictated that the post-war Japanese would cooperate with MacArthur... that was IT. No argument, no divisiveness, nothing.

So, to summarize, I'd have to answer "no" to your question. Twenty years wouldn't be nearly enough time. The Shah tried to drag Iran into the 20th Century, and look how it turned out for him.

The only reasons Turkey hasn't turned into a theocracy are that

1: Their country is still culturally part of Europe, though divided by the Straight of Bosporous. Constantinople was founded in Europe as part of the division of the Roman Empire, became the Byzantine Empire, and has strong philosophical roots in Western culture.

2: Attaturk charged the Army with ousting through coup any government that attempts to impose a theocracy.



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 12:00 PM Gray Ghost writes:

BrianR

"An after reading the rest of your drivel, I'll put my many years of on-the-ground experience of living there -- and my resultant assessment -- over any claptrap that's going to flow from your keyboard."

Ignoring caday5, that is the reason I asked my question concerning Iraq. You have something I don't have: a "feel" for the ME. We might and do disagree sometimes, but I highly value and respect your opinion (no a*S-kissing intended).

I have little "feel" for the area or the people. My nephew (Major, US Army, Intelligence, 3 tours in Iraq) believes that we can change Iraq if we are allowed to do what was done in post-WW2 Japan. He liked many of the Iraqis he worked with.

I don't know. Watching (thru MEMRI) some of the news of the area, I get the feeling that we are only "P*ssing into the Wind".
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 12:06 PM Gray Ghost writes:

BrianR

Thanks, you answered my question.

That leaves the logical conclusion, not that I like it: Kill or Be Killed.

I do not want my Grand-kids or Great-Grand-kids having to face this problem. Mushrooms over Syria, parts of Iran, and parts of Pakistan would appear to be the best solution. (As some of my more "redneck" friends would say: Nuke them back to the stone age.)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 12:28 PM BrianR writes:

Yeah, Ghost, I'm not


happy about that conclusion, either, but I actually wrote a couple of essays about it on my blog a couple years ago.

I wrote that the only chances for a successful outcome in Iraq, IMO, would have been for us to either go in there, line all the clerics up against the wall, and shoot them; or install our own strongman puppet dictator a la the Shah.

If we weren't willing to do that, we shouldn't have gone in.

Look at how long Britain was in there trying to deal with all this mess, until they finally threw up their hands and left.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 1:16 PM caday5 writes:

Brian

List the countries I claimed were democracies that were not.

The ones I listed
Iran('53), Guatamala ('54), Greece('67), and Chile ('73) were. They had different forms of democracies but that is what they were. You can list the kinds of gov'ts that took their place.

With regards to the Shaw, was repressing dissidents a part of dragging Iran into the 20 Century? It was his oppressive style that moved people to welcome the Ayatollah.

Judging from your notes, you do not seem to be a fan of democracy anyway. It seems that you favor gov'ts that acquiesce to US wishes.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 1:21 PM BrianR writes:

Well, Caday, you said it yourself


"They had different forms of democracy".

EXACTLY MY POINT.

They were NOT Western-style democracies, any more than the USSR was.

Get it now?

If you want a more in-depth analysis, I wrote a blog essay on the topic. This "discussion" with you is a waste of my time.



BTW, it's spelled "Shah", not "Shaw". Shaw was a pretty good playwright.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 1:50 PM caday5 writes:

Brian

That is right, so Great Britain doesn't have an American style democracy but is not a western democracy. Is our form of democracy the only form? I believe the distinction between "Western" democracies from Eastern Democracies is that Western democracies belong to all citizens regardless of ethnicity. Eastern Democracies are oriented around Ethnic groups. Israel is such an example of an Eastern Democracy.

Your comment on the Shah is most telling. You called him our

"our own strongman puppet dictator a la the Shah"
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 2:21 PM BrianR writes:

Caday......


I'm not going to waste time trying to explain to you what a Western-style democracy is, because you're evidently willfully dense. Read my blog essay. The UK is, indeed, in that category. So are India, Malaysia/Singapore, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, none of which are located in the West. It has to do with the way a true democracy is practiced, and the ideological and philosophical underpinnings being utilized and expressed.

And I never maintained that the Shah wasn't a US puppet, did I? Of course he was.


Was that your idea of a "gotcha" moment?

If so, it fizzled badly.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 2:37 PM caday5 writes:

Brian

I have enough to read without a blog invitation by someone who speaks down to others.

The Shah comment was not a gotcha moment, it is revealing moment showing that your first concern is not democracy. I already knew that.

Iran, in '53, had a similar form of democracy as Great Britain and yet you seem to have misplaced that as a western democracy. But not only did they have a parliamentary gov't, their Prime Minister put the needs of Iranians first but moving to nationalize their oil reserves. THat is when he was overthrown by the British and the Americans.

Israel, has an ethnic democracy built for ethnic Jews. So their democracy does not belong equally to every citizen. If we attempted the same kind of democracy in America around an ethnic group as Israel runs, we would call it racism.

Perhaps you can comment on the state of the US democracy. How the representative gov't not only does not follow the wishes or the best interests of its people, it goes against it. We have what Vandana Shiva calls a "shallow" democracy. We are only involved in our gov't once every 2 to 4 years to vote and thus our leaders make decisions that not only do we oppose, these decisions threaten us.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 3:05 PM Redhead writes:

Caday nails it again!

You’re on a roll, caday!
“…thus our leaders make decisions that not only do we oppose, these decisions threaten us.”

Like threatening to talk unconditionally to dictators that want to “kill the Great Satan!”
Like BS Carbon “Cap and Trade” Schemes that threaten to undermine our economy.
Like opposing drilling anywhere, continuing our reliance on foreign oil.
Like proposing “Universal” health care that will destroy the industry and reduce us to numbers in the system so that we can wait in line to die.
Like opening up our borders to outside invaders.

Like allowing unqualified liberals to teach in our schools…

I say send them all to Gitmo.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 3:21 PM caday5 writes:

Redhead

You missed a detail, not only do the majority of Americans want Universal Health care, the majority of Physicians support a single payer system.

Also, if memory serves, the majority of Americans want our gov't to do things to slow down the emission of green house gases.

Also, I am not aware of public opinion regarding our leaders talking to adversaries. But after all, Reagan talked to Gorby.

BTW, are you going to send all, including conservatives, unqualified teachers to gitmo? Was that what the latest poll said?

Again, what is a failed state? It is a gov't that goes against the wishes of its people and threatens their welfare with its policies. Sounds like the last 8 years.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 4:03 PM BrianR writes:

Caday, the only reason I talk down


to you is that you're brain-dead.

Your insistence on constantly bringing up Iran and Mossadegh is a perfect example. I already told you he'd rigged the election, and it wasn't democratic AT ALL.

But, of course, you'd rather hear yourself continue to spout jingoistic nonsense. Typical liberal.

Don't bother me anymore; watching my grass grow would be more amusing.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 4:28 PM Redhead writes:

caday, the challenged

You missed a detail, “…these decisions threaten us.”

The things I cited threaten to undermine the U.S. and it’s people. They are threats to us and our way of life. They are threats to what has made This Nation great in a short period of time.

Another detail. We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a direct Democracy. Thank God! We look to our leaders to be Leaders, not just to follow the polls taken by people and for people that have no clue as to how those policies threaten our very way of life.

BTW, I said send liberals to Gitmo. I said allowing unqualified LIBERALS to teach was a threat to all of us.

A failed state is one that fails to allow it’s people to thrive and live in freedom, and enacts such policies and regulations that cause the whole system to crumble under its own weight. (Think Russia and ancient Rome.)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 4:53 PM caday5 writes:

Try providing documentation

before you make those claims.

What Mossadegh did to get himself ousted had nothing to do with "rigged" elections, which preceded him. THey did have everything to do Iranian resentment over the Brits paying cheap prices for their oil. When Mossadegh moved to nationalize the reserves, then the Brits and the US replaced him. That was what the coup was about. In fact, the Iranian move to nationalize oil was a hot topic for a while and the British did everything they could to stop it including employing an embargo of Iranian oil to devastate the economy and cause political unrest. And I guess that with the fraud of the 2000 and possible fraud of the 2004 elections, then we do not have a democracy either?

And by the way, one reason why one person talks down to another is arrogance. That is not difficult to see here.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 5:11 PM Gray Ghost writes:

BrianR

Reading caday5's "dribble" is not unlike listening to my 5 year old grandson (or my daughter when she was 5). It is always everybody else's fault than him/her; everybody is wrong but me; nobody knows as much as me; ad nauseum.

Redhead had him/her nailed with: "caday the Challenged" (I assume you mean "mentally" challenged, Redhead.)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 5:17 PM caday5 writes:

Gray Ghost

To me, your comments are a reflection on you. I find that people who want control tend to resort to insults rather than logic.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 5:18 PM Redhead writes:

Grey G

Sure...that's the ticket!

mentally, morally, reading comprehension, emotionally ... you fill in the blank.

It really is pointless trying to debate with people like that. They just keep moving the goalposts, trying to declare a false victory. As I stated in my last blog posting, liberals are unhappy and dishonest, and a host of other things.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 5:37 PM Gray Ghost writes:

Redhead

I also like his/her insight into my "belief" system: I am a "control freak" who never uses logic.

Gee, maybe I better tell the State Boards of Registration for Engineers in 4 states that I do not use "logic". I cannot believe that for over 30 years I have been fooling them.

I also wonder where the Jr. College is located that he/she teaches computer science at? I don't believe that we would have gotten along with each other when I was a student.

BTW, Redhead did you get a chance to travel to those locations we spoke of?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 5:57 PM caday5 writes:

Gray Ghost

People who want to control too many things are control freaks. People who want to control fewer things are not. I don't know nor do I care whether you are a control freak or not. But your use of insults here rather than engagement in logic indicates that you want to control.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 6:22 PM Mrs. Paddy writes:

1775

Oh I hope you are not predicting what will come to pass. Thanks for stopping by the blog! Always a pleasure!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 6:41 PM Buck writes:

C5

You are going down to the river for a dip. It is very hot and you are tired and sweaty and a cool dip sounds good.

But

Someone sitting on the bank says "There's an alligator in the river."
Someone else sitting on the bank says, "Pay no attention to him. He's not quite right in the head."

You go look but you see no alligator.

What do you do?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 6:54 PM Gray Ghost writes:

Who Would Have Thought It, caday5...

IS A CONTROL FREAK.

First, he/she wants to control what I believe about myself by calling me a "Control Freak". I generally find that those who, when they are losing an arguement, call other people "Control Freaks" are usually the actual "Control Freak".

Second, he/she wants to control what my "life experience" tells me is true about the world is in reality false. (i.e., The terrorists are really good people and just mis-understood, ad nauseum.)

I hope and pray that God allows caday5 to live his/her life and never has to face evil in the manner that many who have commented here have had to face it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 7:22 PM BrianR writes:

Yes, yes, Caday, that's fine


You go ahead and keep telling yourself that; I'm sure it will boost your self-esteem immensely. And, after all, self-esteem is right at the top of leftist priorities.

I've read your comments here, and actually took the time to read your blog, too. Your problem is that you're not a thinker. There's no depth, nor perception, nor complexity, nor logic, nor sophistication in anything you write.

It's simply a bundle of leftist talking points; liberal rhetoric and generalities.

You're really just a cliche.

But that's to be expected, because leftist ideology simply can't stand up to intellectual rigor or examination; it's self-defeating.

Gray Ghost has you pegged pretty accurately; a five-year-old with an agenda.



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 7:26 PM BrianR writes:

And, and PS, Caday


You're confusing contempt for "arrogance".

There's a difference.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 9:09 PM caday5 writes:

Brian

So what. That is your opinion and it has to do with how you disagree with some people. When people put others down, it is very possible that the put downs are a reflection on the person speaking.

The problem with a previous note is that if you could justify the coup in Iran ('53) based on your accusation of a fixed election, then why can't a country do that to us considering the possible election fraud we have had in 2000 and 2004.

Our basic disagreement is that of whether our country should assume a position of superiority over all other nations or should we act as an equal. The former choice will lead to far more conflicts than the latter choice. This is because both the former choice will compel us to attack others simply because they do not accept our superior position and others will resent our assumed control.

In the meantime, WMDs are becoming more accessible to more parties because of an advancing technology. So we are on the eve of a greater proliferation. At that point, the warning from the Russell-Einstein Manifesto becomes more relevant than ever:

"Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war."

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 9:51 PM str8_talk writes:

Caday

always claims they have too much to read, but amazingly has enough time to read blogs & write them, maybe they should stay awasy fm Huffington. Obviously NEVER in military or natural disaster! Unless...well I'll keep that to myself, I was taught if you couldn't say something nice...

In KY now, check in tomorrow...saw Biltmore today.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 9:57 PM Gray Ghost writes:

str8 talk

Do you mean the "Biltmore Mansion"?

My wife and I saw it years ago. As an electrical engineer, I was really impressed!

Did you try their wine? I seem to remember it being pretty good.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, June, 03, 2008 10:10 PM Gray Ghost writes:

BrianR

"Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war."

Yes, it is easy to abolish war, if everybody is a Christian or even somewhat civilized. But if they are not (and they ain't); then you give those who are NOT a terrible weapon. They know you will not fight. They will therefore not hold back and you will be destroyed.

caday5's problem stems from her false premise that everyone else will act like her. The trouble is, they won't.

Even in the New Testament, Jesus and the Apostles NEVER told soldiers to stop being soldiers. Until the Lord comes again, soldiers will be needed to protect the helpless from evil men. And there will be evil men until He comes again.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, June, 04, 2008 12:35 AM BrianR writes:

Yeah, Ghost


One of the other big problems with liberalism primarily, though with some on the Right also, is the idea that everything is an either/or situation, with no middle result possible.

War = end of the world. Well... no, it doesn't necessarily. It sure hasn't so far, and there have been more than a few.

No welfare = starving kids dying in the streets. Well... no, it doesn't. Private charities took up the slack before and could again, and other options would obtain.

On and on and on. It's "thinking" without any nuance, dissociated from real-world experience, essentially reductio ad absurdem proposed as public policy.

In essence, it's not really "thinking" at all; it's simple sloganeering.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, June, 04, 2008 12:37 AM BrianR writes:

Oh, and a PS


Your closing analysis is summarized beautifully by Orwell:

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, June, 04, 2008 1:26 AM libertyworld writes:

I give you this...

"Al-Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri criticised Muslims for failing to support Barack Obama/ Islamist insurgencies in America and elsewhere in a new audiotape posted Tuesday on the Internet.
Osama bin Laden’s top lieutenant also blasted the Amarican Islamist movement CAIR over their reported readiness to consider a peace deal with the US Goverment.
"I call upon the Muslim nation to fear Allah’s question (at judgement day) about its failure to support its brother Husinsane of the Mujahedeen (holy Warriors), and (urge it) not to withhold men and money, which is the mainstay of a war," he said.
He also used the two-and-a-half hour message to urge Muslims to join democrat militant groups like the democrat underground and daily kos, mainly in the us, where he claimed that the insurgency against the Bush government and the US-led coalition forces is bearing fruit.
"I urge all Muslims to hurry to the election battlefields of Jihad (holy war), especially in Indiana," Zawahiri said in the message, the second in a two-part series to answer about 100 questions put to him via online militant forums.
"The situation in America heralds an imminent victory of Islam with Obama and the defeat of the crusaders and those who stand under their flag pins," he said.
"How can they put a matter like electing McCain a vote?" he added.

Former US president Jimmy Carter said on Monday that Baraq Obama is the only hope fore ending the so called "war on terror".

In his message, Zawahiri also called on the various jihadist groups operating in the America to unite behind the "more advanced" Al-Qaeda-backed "Islamic State of America".

In the first part of the message released last Friday, Zawahiri commemorated the fifth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq with a call to Muslims to make America a "fortress of Islam" by electing democrats in mass."
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, June, 04, 2008 8:25 AM caday5 writes:

Gray Ghost

Of course there is another way to reduce or even eventually eliminate war besides to cleanse the world of everyone who is different, that is to adhere to international law as an equal and let international courts and the UN work to resolve disputes.

Certainly there will be problems, but by insisting on equality and the rule of law, we will be able to distinguish between those who are our true enemies and those who are merely resisting our hegemony. Are nations morally bound to recognize our right to dominate? That is how you would respond to any other nation wanting to control the world?

It was General Eisenhower who said that for civilization to survive, we must follow the rule of law instead of the rule of force. And it was General MacArthur who said that war was an outdated method of resolving conflicts.

Again, the difference between the right and the left is that the right insists on a position that automatically causes unnecessary conflict: they insist on American domination. And they thus call any American who believes that America should act as an equal nation in the world as a "traitor."
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, June, 04, 2008 8:59 AM Redhead writes:

GrayG

I would like to address your obvious dilemma of “caday5” and whether to address them as him or her.

“caday5” is an it.

Look at its obvious lack of imaginative responses. Its reframing of statements as questions and vice versa, its ignoring of statements that do not fit within its dataset, and its regurgitation of the same information regardless of the situations presented to it.

“caday5” does not pass the Turing test.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, June, 04, 2008 9:35 AM Gray Ghost writes:

caday5...8:25am

"that is to adhere to international law as an equal and let international courts and the UN work to resolve disputes."

But what if a dictactor or a country refuses to accept the international courts or the UN as an "arbitrator" and goes to war to conquer his/their neighbor. What then?

But what if a country's constitution acknowledges the rights of its citizens to own weapons to defend themselves and the UN says all privately owned weapons in the world must be surrendered. What then?

But what if the UN peace keeping forces start raping and murdering the citizens of a country where the UN is "trying" to keep the peace. What then?

You will not find any comments from either Eisenhower or MacArthur saying to dissolve the military forces of the US. Why?

You want a perfect world; and there won't be until you get to Heaven or the Lord comes again.

Luke 22:35-36: Then Jesus asked them, When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a SWORD, sell your cloak and buy one."
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, June, 04, 2008 9:36 AM str8_talk writes:

Gray Ghost

Yes, we went to Biltmore Estate; I did not imbibe. I had a 6-7 hour drive, I'd have been sleeping instead of driving, not a good scenario going through the Cumberland Pass!!

We enjoyed a very good lunch at what was once the stable. A "HUGE" area that has been remodeled into a very nice restaurant. They also have two other restaurants on the grounds of 8,000 acres. We made a quick tour of the house, I was mostly interested in the hunting room. Then we went outside to tour as much as possible, my son was a pretty good sport until the last 1/2 hour. Then we traversed to the Bourbon capital of KY. Here I am in these fine liquour areas and I don't drink... such a dilemma... Ha Ha! ;)

Today for my son, we'll look at Lamborghinis, we looked at Aston Martins & Porsches 2 days ago, which if anyone has a couple hundred thousand laying around they can buy me a 2009 DBS. I particularly liked the silver metallic one I tried. Ha! Have a great day, we hope to dodge storms today!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, June, 04, 2008 10:01 AM Gray Ghost writes:

Redhead...8:59am

Thank you for mentioning the "Turing Test". I vaguely remembered studing this years ago in school while getting my Masters in Engineering. You forced me to look it up (behavioural tests for the presence of mind, or thought, or intelligence in putatively minded entities; Descartes' Discourse on the Method and the 1668 writings of the Cartesian de Cordemoy).

BTW, do you still need information on what we talked about?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, June, 04, 2008 10:05 AM Gray Ghost writes:

str8 talk

If you look at Astro-Martins; check the price for the James Bond Special (See the movie Goldfinger). I always wanted that one.

If you missed the electrical features added in the late 1800's and early 1900's, then you missed a very impressive display.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, June, 04, 2008 10:12 AM Gray Ghost writes:

Libertyworld

"Al-Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri criticised Muslims for failing to support Barack Obama/ Islamist insurgencies in America and elsewhere in a new audiotape posted Tuesday on the Internet."

I have not seen this message yet; but if what you say is in it (support for Obama), then we are seeing an unprecedented move by Al Qaeda to cause a drastic effect on the US elections and hit targets in the continental US.

Perhaps it is time to start playing "Cowboys and Muslims"?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, June, 04, 2008 11:23 AM Redhead writes:

GG

I was using Turing test as in the 1950's test put forth, or at least speculated, and probably corrupted since, as a method of telling whether or not a computer has intelligence.
Perhaps "caday" version 6 will be better.

Check your email.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, June, 04, 2008 1:34 PM BrianR writes:

Ghost, it's not


an unprecedented move. In 2004 bin Laden essentially endorsed Kerry, saying the reelection of Bush would lead to all kinds of unspecified reprisals.

Pretty hollow threat. They pretty much shot their wad on 9/11.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, June, 04, 2008 5:21 PM caday5 writes:

Gray Ghost

You have provided some excellent questions/issues. First, if a dictator does go ahead and ignores the international courts and the UN and moves against a country, then the UN must act. The idea here is that those counter the dictator, are accountable to others and are working together with other countries. It is about accountability and self-restraint and working in collaboration.

As for the horrible situation we have with some UN soldiers and aid workers abusing children, I will answer that after I provide more examples for you.

Finally, let's say we keep the strongest military in the world. But with that, we only go to war when authorized by the UN charter (preemptive war or approved by UN resolution). I can live with that, can you? BTW, the Iraq war was not a preemtive war. A preemptive war occurs when one country attacks another because of an imminent or commenced first strike. There was neither a commence attack or imminent threat by Iraq. Our invasion of Iraq is properly called a war of anticipatory self-defense--the same justification that the Nazis used during the Nuremberg trials.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, June, 04, 2008 5:49 PM Gray Ghost writes:

caday5, You Have Counterdicted Yourself

PART #1
"if a dictator does go ahead and ignores the international courts and the UN and moves against a country, then the UN must act. The idea here is that those counter the dictator, are accountable to others and are working together with other countries."

So you are not completely against war. Your quotation from the Russell-Einstein Manifesto says we must abolish war. But you just advocated a war if the UN says there needs to be one. I therefore conclude: YOU ARE ONLY AGAINST WAR IF YOU DON"T BELIEVE IT IS FOUGHT FOR THE RIGHT REASONS. (Similarily, you believe a UN resolution is a correct reason.)

What if no group of countries or states will answer the UN's call to wage war against this dictator? Is the UN allowed to "draft" troops from other countries and states to counter this dictator? And does the UN maintain its own military?

If no group of countries or states answer the UN's call; then I assume the UN falls apart and the dictator starts taking over additional countries until he controls the world.

If the UN is allowed to "draft" troops from other countries and states, I then assume the UN must have its own troops to force these countries and states to turn over their troops.

But if the UN can force other countries and states to turn over their troops to UN control; THEN WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EVIL DICTATOR AND THE UN?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, June, 04, 2008 5:58 PM Gray Ghost writes:

caday5, You Have Counterdicted Yourself

PART #2
"The idea here is that those counter the dictator, are accountable to others and are working together with other countries."

Let's look at what you said again. The UN makes a resolution. Some countries answer the call, some don't. But any troops going against this evil dictator are "accountable to others and are working together with other countries."

Prior to the US-Lead Coalition invasion of Iraq, the UN made resolution after resolution against Iraq. Some called for military action. Some did not. There were 20 nations in the coalition that took down Saddam (21 counting the USA).

Since the US and Bush met ALL of your qualifiers (UN Resolutions; accountability of all troops and nations; 21 nations working together; etc.) then I assume you approve of the Iraq War.

If you don't, then you contradicted yourself again.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, June, 04, 2008 6:08 PM Gray Ghost writes:

caday5, You Have Counterdicted Yourself

PArT #3
Now lets further assume that you, caday5, disagree with a particular UN Resolution calling for military action against another nation or state.

Do you:
Refuse to serve if the UN tries to "draft" you?

Protest the UN?

Do you, and others, take the UN to International Court?

Remember, if we don't give the UN the power to maintain a military then they are powerless. Also, the International Courts require extreme amounts of money and political clout to be heard. Normally they not listen to the rights of individuals.

Here in the US, you cannot be drafted (all volunteer army). Here you can protest the US government and have a chance you will be heard. Here you can work your way thru the US Courts (if your case has merit) and get all the way to the SCOTUS.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, June, 04, 2008 6:22 PM Gray Ghost writes:

caday5, You Have Counterdicted Yourself

PART #4
"Finally, let's say we keep the strongest military in the world. But with that, we only go to war when authorized by the UN charter (preemptive war or approved by UN resolution). I can live with that, can you?"

NO.

The USA is a sovreign (sp?) nation. I cannot elect or select any other countries' representatives who are in the UN. So why should I let them tell me what to do.

Lets say the UN is run by "thug" or criminal nations (an entirely reasonable premise, note the raping of women by Blue Helmets, Oil for Food Scam, etc.). Lets futher assume that Canada's elected officials decide to pull out of the UN. The UN passes a Resolution demanding Canada return to the UN or military action will be taken. Then I want my own elected officials deciding whether to participate or not in the UN Resolution.

If the UN cannot "force" any nation or state to participate in any UN resolution; then it is powerless. I prefer it this way.

You want a world government. I do not.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, June, 04, 2008 7:10 PM caday5 writes:

Contradiction Part 1

How about we face no nations coming to enforce a resolution when it comes. It certainly didn't come in the Iraq war. Because the UN did pass any resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq.

The next point. Am I contradicting myself? Depends. If I am working to eliminate war I might find in the present situation that war. The question becomes am I in the process of eliminating war or am I taking the same approach to war as was done before. By adhering to the UN charter myself, I am leading by example. THere is no guarantee that war will be eliminated but it is our best chance.

Remember that after 9-11, there were 1 million people in the streets of Tehran expressing solidarity with the US because we were attacked. Suppose we prosecuted Saddamn through the international courts instead of prosecuting a war of aggression, we would very like still have those 1 million people in our corner. Now that we invaded Iraq and are threatening Iran, we lost much of that support.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, June, 04, 2008 7:30 PM BrianR writes:

Ghost


It's crystal clear that anyone who is willing to subjugate the autonomy and sovereignty of this country to the will of any international group -- the UN or anything else -- is an internationalist, by definition.

Typically, internationalists abhor independant action by sovereign nations, and have a world vision in which no nation or people is any better off than any OTHER nation or people.

It's a Utopian fantasy that's been often used by countries such as the USSR to justify their own expansionism, interestingly enough -- all in the interest of achieving "world peace", of course. Further, that Utopianism is the philosophical foundation for socialism and communism.

In this case, we have the UN taking the place of the USSR, a questionable step up at best, as the UN is a corrupt organization that caters to tinpot dictators and other tyrants, does everything it can to handicap and hinder the USA, all while keeping its hand stuck out to the American people for the majority of its financing.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, June, 04, 2008 8:46 PM caday5 writes:

Gray Ghost

What you are missing about the UN Resolutions and Iraq is that it is the UN that decides when there is a material violation that mandates the use of force, not the US.

What you are also missing is that only two countries felt threatened by Saddamn: the US and Israel. Even the countries Saddamn had invaded were calling for the end of the sanctions and objected to the war.

Finally, the UN had an inspection team in there to determine whether Iraq had violated the sanctions. We kicked them out with the invasion. The inspection team asked for more time and we said no. They had not found any evidence that supported the US action.

And the IAEA presented their findings a couple of days prior to the invasion and said that Iraq's nuclear program was nonexistent.

Working with the UN means that we do not make unilateral judgments. We can't find someone guilty on our own. The UN does that and neither UNSCOM nor the IAEA supported our guilty verdict and they were there.

This invasion was illegal, immoral, and had no justification. The real reason why we invaded has been confirmed this year when foreign oil companies, including our own, have jockeyed their way into position to control Iraq's undeveloped oil reserves.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, June, 04, 2008 9:18 PM Gray Ghost writes:

BrianR

You are correct, he/she wants a world government and is by definition an internationalist.

I also note that she did not answer any of my questions.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, June, 04, 2008 9:27 PM Gray Ghost writes:

caday5

Either answer the following questions or I terminate any further response (except "Don't Feed the Trolls).

1. What if no group of countries or states will answer the UN's call to wage war against this dictator? Is the UN allowed to "draft" troops from other countries and states to counter this dictator? And does the UN maintain its own military?

2. Now lets further assume that you, caday5, disagree with a particular UN Resolution calling for military action against another nation or state. Do you:
a) Refuse to serve if the UN tries to "draft" you?

b) Protest the UN?

c) Do you, and others, take the UN to International Court?

3. Is the following a TRUE or FALSE statement:

So you are not completely against war. Your quotation from the Russell-Einstein Manifesto says we must abolish war. But you just advocated a war if the UN says there needs to be one. I therefore conclude: YOU ARE ONLY AGAINST WAR IF YOU DON"T BELIEVE IT IS FOUGHT FOR THE RIGHT REASONS. (Similarily, you believe a UN resolution is a correct reason.)

Please answer these 3 questions, specifically. DO NOT GO OFF ON TANGENTS. These are simple queations. You may explain your answer (i.e., "Yes, because.....); but answer the specific question.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, June, 05, 2008 8:48 AM caday5 writes:

contradictions based on assumptions

First, adhering to the UN charter does not dissolve the military forces of each nation, it limits their actions. So why are we talking about being drafted by the UN like all of the sudden we are a part of a one world gov't.

Second, if you want our forces not to be under the jurisdiction of the UN charter because we are a sovereign nation, then that should apply to all other countries because all other countries are sovereign nations too. And the result, there is no international law and thus the rule force takes precedent. In essence, we will be playing a global game of King of the Hill" where more and more participants will be playing with WMDs.

So what you claim for the US because it is a sovereign nation, you must allow for all other sovereign nations. THat means that our concern for the breaking of international law by other countries can no longer be used to justify our own military actions against them.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, June, 05, 2008 8:57 AM caday5 writes:

What the UN is meant to be

is a democracy between nations. Your hypothetical is a possibility. But that is just as much a possibility with our own gov't as it is with the UN.

Currently, you have no need to worry about the UN because the US has already emasculated it. We have assumed the right to override any international decision when it fits our purposes. We have decided that we can judge others and punish them because they have violated international law and yet we have excused ourselves from being bound by any international law. So basically, you have what you want.

The problem is that there no country is obligated to live under the current situation. They have as much moral right to challenge us for world rulership as we have for assuming to be the world ruler. Again, this is occurring when more and more parties will gain access to WMDs

Earlier you had describe the statement I quoted from the Russell-Einstein manifesto as being idealistic. How can we abolish war? What you seem to miss is the reality behind that statement. The continued use of war as a means to implement policy in the age of proliferation threatens our existence. So don't abolish war if you wish, can you really live with the results when WMDs are employed during the current or next war? What I find idealistic is the notion that we can survive while employing war as a means to implement foreign policies.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, June, 05, 2008 9:58 AM Gray Ghost writes:

caday5: Question #1

I assume that the following:

"First, adhering to the UN charter does not dissolve the military forces of each nation, it limits their actions. So why are we talking about being drafted by the UN like all of the sudden we are a part of a one world gov't."

means:

You expect ALL countries to live up to the UN Charter, regardless of their beliefs or feelings on the "Resolution" in question.

Since you believe that, than you will believe anything. (I have bridge property in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you.)

This was the problem with the League of Nations and now the UN. You are looking for a perfect world. It doesn't exist. The closest you will come to it is the USA.

95% of the African, Far Eastern, and the Middle Eastern nations are either dictatorships or wanna-be shaari's. They wouldn't live up to the UN Charter if their lives depended on it. South America and Latin America have similar problems.

So that means the USA, UK, and a few other nations will furnish all the military all the time.

Further, I expect my legally elected US leaders to tell the UN to "Go to H*LL" if necessary. And if they don't and it really gets bad, I will go for a 1775 solution here in the USA. (Believe me, what I am saying is not "idle chit-chat".)

You can say that I am not being a "team player" and that I am setting my needs above the needs of everybody else. But re-read the Decleration of Independence and the Constitution. That is my birth-right.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, June, 05, 2008 10:27 AM Gray Ghost writes:

caday5: Question #1 (cont'd)

So if the UN cannot "force" any nation to provide military forces, than the UN is useless.

If the UN can "force" any nation to provide forces, than the UN itself can become a dictatorship, worse than anything now existing.

You say "can you really live with the results when WMDs are employed during the current or next war?" But to get to a government that would be a true world-government you would ask me to forget all my freedoms for the "good of the world".

Sorry, I won't. And I am prepared to back that decision by force if necessary.

I think I have seen on posts you have said that you say you are a Christian. If you are, then you know the world will never be perfect until the Lord comes again.

Until then I will not sacrifice my freedoms for the "good of the world". My family has been in this country since 1704. We have fought in every war this country has participated in. We have paid, with blood, for the Decleration and the Constitution. I WILL NOT HAND THEM OVER TO THE UN OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT FOR "THE GOOD OF THE WORLD".

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, June, 05, 2008 10:31 AM Gray Ghost writes:

caday5: Question #2

Your second answer did not answer question #2:

"Second, if you want our forces not to be under the jurisdiction of the UN charter because we are a sovereign nation, then that should apply to all other countries because all other countries are sovereign nations too. And the result, there is no international law and thus the rule force takes precedent. In essence, we will be playing a global game of King of the Hill" where more and more participants will be playing with WMDs."

Please try again. I didn't ask what you see the USA doing, I ASKED WHAT CADAY5, THE INDIVIDUAL, WILL DO UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, June, 05, 2008 11:00 AM Gray Ghost writes:

caday5: Question #3

You answer for Question #3 was:

"Earlier you had describe the statement I quoted from the Russell-Einstein manifesto as being idealistic. How can we abolish war? What you seem to miss is the reality behind that statement. The continued use of war as a means to implement policy in the age of proliferation threatens our existence. So don't abolish war if you wish, can you really live with the results when WMDs are employed during the current or next war? What I find idealistic is the notion that we can survive while employing war as a means to implement foreign policies."

Even though you didn't say True or False, I will accept that you mean "FALSE". No war can ever be of any use (see your last sentence above in your answer).

You are acting in a foolish manner (or you are an idealistic idiot). If everyone had your "mind-set", than we would speaking German for the last 50 or so years. (Or, Mongolian the last 600 years, etc.)

There is Good and there is Evil. If you don't fight Evil, then you will be destroyed or made a "slave" to its minions.

The world will never "Join hands and sing Kumbaya". You know that. You are told that in the Bible. ("until the Lord comes again...)

So yes, WE TOTALLY DISAGREE. I will defend myself and my family with violence, if necessary. (Note: I have done so more than once.) I will help elect leaders who will defend the USA with war if necessary.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, June, 05, 2008 6:47 PM caday5 writes:

Gray Ghost

Actually, I am not overgeneralizing to the past. There have been some necessary wars, what I am saying is that we can no longer afford necessary wars. To continue with using wars as a way of implementing policies is that, because of the limited proliferation we have experienced and the greater proliferation that exists in the future, we will eventually be using WMDs. That threatens all of us.

The new variable that we must account for is the proliferation of WMDs. That proliferation was not present during WWII.

Also, others have worked against evil without resorting to violence. Gandhi in India and King here, did not answer violence with violence. They both won.

What we can do to head off wars is to practice equality between nations. What we see in those who practice abuse and tyranny, is that often they were the victims of abuse and tyranny, suffered deprivation, or saw the condoned use of violence. Now that is on the individual scale, but the question that comes next is is it any different between countries. Even the evil Al-Qaeda was severely abused by the Russians. In this case we can call it a chain of abuse.

Listening to grievances and insisting on equality to solve disputes can REDUCE future tyrannies. But we also have to admit that in the battle against evil, history shows that we will have to fight ourselves as well. It was Christian commentator Os Guiness who said the two systems that have caused the most bloodshet are utopian societies and dualism (we are good, they are evil)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, June, 05, 2008 6:54 PM caday5 writes:

Gray Ghost and Q #1

It is going to take international peer-pressure to move some rogue nations to into conformity. We can also include smart sanctions and limited, precise use of force to enforce sanctions. What we want to stay away from is war where there is a large number of civilian casualties.

If you take the Iraq war for example, there were massive civilian casualties with many of them caused by our forces. It was predicted by intelligence agencies that the invasion of Iraq would cause a significant increase in world terrorism. That is what occurred, according to both the State Dept stats and the Bergen and Cruikshank study of '06. And though the results since then have plateaued, the number of terror attacks, outside of the hot spots of Iraq and Afghanistan, are significantly higher than what they were before the invasion. That is the result of inflicting massive civilian casualties.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, June, 05, 2008 8:28 PM Gray Ghost writes:

caday5: Question #2

You still have not answered question #2:

Please try again. I didn't ask what you see the USA doing, I ASKED WHAT CADAY5, THE INDIVIDUAL, WILL DO UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, June, 05, 2008 8:48 PM Gray Ghost writes:

Liberal Talking Points

"If you take the Iraq war for example, there were massive civilian casualties with many of them caused by our forces. It was predicted by intelligence agencies that the invasion of Iraq would cause a significant increase in world terrorism. That is what occurred, according to both the State Dept stats and the Bergen and Cruikshank study of '06. And though the results since then have plateaued, the number of terror attacks, outside of the hot spots of Iraq and Afghanistan, are significantly higher than what they were before the invasion. That is the result of inflicting massive civilian casualties."

I wouldn't trust Bergen/Cruikshank for any information. But you don't say numbers, just the word "massive".

I have seen reliable numbers of civilian deaths from 50,000 to 92,000. The 92,000 is from the IBC, which I would accept. That represents 0.3% of the estimated population of Iraq in 2007. That is not "massive".

Plus the US has not been hit since 2001. And I watch the foreign news services constantly. (You know that if you look at my blog.) You are WRONG about terror attacks being significantly higher since the invasion. They ramped up during the first 2 years and have declined to levels way below 2000.

I am afraid you are COMPLETELY WRONG on all of your above data. These are nothing but Liberal Talking Points.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, June, 05, 2008 9:02 PM Gray Ghost writes:

caday5; War Is Necessary

"Actually, I am not overgeneralizing to the past. There have been some necessary wars, what I am saying is that we can no longer afford necessary wars."

So do we surrender to evil?

Do we join hands and sing "Kumbaya"?

AND WHY DO YOU REFUSE TO SAY WHAT CADAY5, THE INDIVIDUAL, WILL DO WHEN CONFRONTED WITH EVIL?

Until the Lord comes again, there will be evil. Some of us decided long ago that we will be "sheepdogs", not sheep, and will fight evil.

So what are you, caday5, going to do about us "sheepdogs"? If necessary, us "sheepdogs" will secede from the USA and start the true USA all over. Us "sheepdogs" will not back down and will fight evil, using what ever weapons are necessary. Us "sheepdogs" will not let a bunch of corrupt politicians in the UN give our security and freedoms away.

WARS ARE SOMETIMES VERY NECESSARY; us "sheepdogs" will fight them. So again I ask, WHAT ARE YOU, CADAY5, going to do about us "sheepdogs"?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, June, 05, 2008 10:57 PM Redhead writes:

Grey

caday will do what all liberals in the past have done. That gives it two options:
1) Hide in the basement, and moan about the Neanderthals fighting.
2) Hire others to fight for them, and moan about the Neanderthals fighting.

"There have been some necessary wars, what I am saying is that we can no longer afford necessary wars."
Clearly the dataset got confusing. Any war that is necessary is affordable, by definition. Some wars we cannot afford NOT to fight. Some wars, if not fought, will result in more deaths than if left unfought, maybe even ours.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, June, 06, 2008 8:42 AM Gray Ghost writes:

Redhead

Have you also notice that caday5 REFUSES to say what he/she will do as an individual. To me that is the most "telling" Liberal Position of all.

Coservatives place, with good reason, alot of thought into their own individual actions. In the movie "The Alamo" with John Wayne, there is a scene where Travis opens the gate and says you can leave if you want, but he is staying. For a brief minute we can see each man making their OWN choice of whether to leave or stay.

Even though this scene is a bit simplistic, but it does show the choice everyone must make on an individual level. Do you fight evil, let others do it for you, or simply run away? I made that choice a long time ago.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, June, 07, 2008 10:59 PM caday5 writes:

Gray Ghost

Your reading of my actions is as accurate as your reading of evil. I didn't refuse to tell you what I would do. I was busy preparing to play a wedding reception. But you not knowing that, you jumped to conclusions.

So who is the new evil that we have attack this time? Certainly Saddamn was evil but why is the only way to oppose him kill hundreds of thousands of civilians?

And who is evil in your view? And how do you know? For example, were the Nazis evil because they invaded Eastern Europe and killed Jews from the area because they anticipated an attack? Well guess what? We invaded Iraq because we anticipated an attack. In other words, we violated some of the same principles that the Nazis were guilty of.

Our nation's problem is that we assume the right to judge who is evil and who isn't and in the meantime, we allow no one to judge us.

See, I already told you what I would do. I would take it to the UN and the international courts. In other words, I am going to may my nation accountable to others when fighting evil less I become the evil I claim to be fighting.

What you have to ask yourself is is it evil you are opposing or are you upset that there are some who disagree with your nation's "positive" self-image. Such a self-image must ignore history because though there is evil out there, we are not innocent ourselves.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, June, 08, 2008 3:45 PM Steve writes:

Dear Caddy

We do not ignore history. Nor do we distort it for political gain. Nor do we make anti-Americanism the cornerstone of our philosophy in the process. This is your doing, not ours. Duplicitously blaming Americans for your own failings is deeply entrenched in your thought processes.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, June, 08, 2008 5:52 PM caday5 writes:

Steve

What you have is a failure to admit history. When history points to our unflattering actions, you call it anti-American. To equate criticisms of a nation's policies with opposing the country is something that is done in Cuba. Though we may not jail such people, to equate the two is nothing more than to simply authority and its abuse, not a country.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, June, 09, 2008 11:14 AM Gray Ghost writes:

And caday5

I note that you still fail to say what you caday5 the individual will do when faced with evil.

(Except to say you will take it to the UN. There might not be enough time to take it to the UN. If some one breaks in your house, do you call the police, hide in the closet, or put a weapon in your hand to protect all that is dear to you?)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, June, 09, 2008 11:16 AM Gray Ghost writes:

caday5

You are naive and ignorant of history. You have been sold a "bill of goods" by the Liberals and Socialists. I hope you can live with your decision.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, June, 09, 2008 11:56 AM caday5 writes:

Gray Ghost

On an individual basis, I take it case by case. What responses are required? What responses are necessary? Why is the person evil?

Again, we go back to the Bible and note that we are all sinners.

As far as history, what I have reported here is well-documented. Is it possible that everyone has valid things to say even if they are either socialists or capitalists?

IMO, those who have an idealized view of American History have generalized WWII to all American actions before and since that war. That is why it is difficult for some conservatives to hear the non-flattering parts of American History.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, June, 09, 2008 12:42 PM Gray Ghost writes:

And caday5

WHY IS THE PERSON EVIL?????????

You have got to be kidding me. (BTW, there is a great difference between be a sinner and being evil.)

You are singing "Kumbaya" again.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, June, 19, 2008 4:26 PM Redhead writes:

Turing Test

GGhost,
I haven't seen this work yet, but stop by andrews place. He's got a moonbat generator. It may be better than caday, version 5.

http://andrews.blogtownhall.com/2008/06/18/for_your_amuseme nt.thtml
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, June, 21, 2008 7:06 PM caday5 writes:

Gray Ghost

Again, think about the causes of abuse. People who abuse have often been abused, or have suffered severe deprivation, or have witnessed condoned violence. If that information is not important to you then realize that you are forming judgments while not considering all available information.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, June, 22, 2008 12:29 PM BlutoTheBiker writes:

Radical Islam loves the Democrats!

Sorry it took me so long to swing by and read this one Ghost. Remember in '04 when bin Laden said "al-Qaeda would declare a truce with any state that voted for Kerry!"

The radical Islamic adherent favors the Left in US politics. And the Lefties see this as proof as to why a Dem should run the nation. Seems to me more like absolute and undeniable evidence that we, Conservatives, are on the right track.

If in WWII Hitler had stated a preference for FDR's 1944 election opponent, would any of the opponent's supporters stood up and took Hitler's endorsement as a merit badge, as the radical American leftist does today?

When it comes to American politics, the world has truly turned upside down! And the radical Left are the morons doing this to us. We'd damn sure better wake up fast or we may indeed be sunk!

Bluto
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive