Tancredo: Why I won’t participate in the Spanish-language debate
posted at 6:00 pm on December 7, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I declined the invitation to participate in the Spanish-language Republican presidential debate on Sunday because I do not want to endorse the further Balkanization of American political life…
I do not believe it is proper to appeal to the ‘‘Hispanic vote” or the “Asian vote” or the “Black vote.” I believe we must appeal only for American votes.
Any political debate is aimed at citizens. It is about issues of concern to the entire community, not a segment of the community. It is vital that all political debates and discussions take place in the public square, not in separate enclaves. Our democracy does not need different messages broadcast to different audiences in different languages that are not heard or understood by other groups.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
And the choir shouted, “AMEN!”!
SouthernGent on December 7, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Why, Allah!
Speakup on December 7, 2007 at 6:05 PM
A fresh breeze, the sun breaks through the clouds… almost … like….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa9fnDKMK_I
peski on December 7, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Like I said Tancredo Rocks
400lb Gorilla on December 7, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Bravo, Tom!Oh, Wait. Bravo is Spanish.
Hooray for Tom!. He captured my sentiments on that particular subject precisely.
LegendHasIt on December 7, 2007 at 6:06 PM
Gracias Tank!
I mean… uh…
Romeo13 on December 7, 2007 at 6:06 PM
I never thought of it that way; he is right.
Free Constitution on December 7, 2007 at 6:06 PM
Hallelujah, Tom, Hallelujah!
jaime on December 7, 2007 at 6:07 PM
“Nuke Mecca” Tancredo makes good points a lot of the time. Too bad he’s in the nuke mecca crowd.
lorien1973 on December 7, 2007 at 6:15 PM
lorien1973 on December 7, 2007 at 6:15 PM
If you have an idea for an effective deterrent, he’d be glad to hear it. Seriously, if you have a better idea, email him.
Spirit of 1776 on December 7, 2007 at 6:18 PM
Why not target Mecca? We targeted Moscow (maybe time too again).
Speakup on December 7, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Hes right!
hinduconservative on December 7, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Yeah. Why use nukes when conventional explosives will do the job.
LegendHasIt on December 7, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Why? You do understand that MAD worked in the Cold War because we were able to threaten somthing they treasured… their country… and the lives of their leadership.
Now, what does an ISLAMIST treasure that we can threaten? Since he does NOT have a country? Just a cause?… and his leadership is scattered?
Key is to make a credible threat… not a hollow one… and not to threaten somthing they don’t care about.
Romeo13 on December 7, 2007 at 6:21 PM
A deterrent would stop something from happening. Nuking Mecca would only make the situation worse and create a lot more enemies than we have now.
USSR – country (and the capital of that country). Islamic extermists – not a country.
lorien1973 on December 7, 2007 at 6:21 PM
What I want to know is, when the moderator calls Tom a racist will the other candidates walk out?
Speakup on December 7, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Italian, actually.
But, right on Tanc! Be Heard! Be Seen! Make the People Know! In English!
Frozen Tex on December 7, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Can I hope for ALL Republicans to boycott this fiesta of Balkanization?? Thought not.
I always thought that only CITIZENS got to vote, and CITIZENS have to speak, read, and understand ENGLISH, right?
Anyone who attends is caving in to this garbage.
fred5678 on December 7, 2007 at 6:25 PM
Friggin absurd comments like this are why he gets a bad rap. He never suggested BOMBING MECCA! He said (rightly so) that “THREATENING TO BOMB MECCA would be the only thing that might get the attention of the terrorists.”
They don’t care about death. They don’t care about being wiped out. The only thing they care about is their warped ideology.
Now, I’ll admit that Tancredo did get it wrong, but only because it wasn’t yet known at the time that all we’d have to do is threaten to name every teddy bear in the country “Mohammed.”
Gregor on December 7, 2007 at 6:25 PM
lorien1973 on December 7, 2007 at 6:21 PM
Not my issue. Just since you brought it up in this thread, merely suggesting you address it to him. Especially seeing as he is open to suggestions on the topic.
Spirit of 1776 on December 7, 2007 at 6:25 PM
Ok, I’m throwing this question just as a debate starter. Isn’t Trancredo assuming that everyone that watches Univision doesn’t speak English. What if a bilingual speaker just wants to see a debate Spanish?
terryannonline on December 7, 2007 at 6:26 PM
Eh, how do you threaten a purposely mixed and dispersed idealogical enemy?
You make sure they understand the one city most important to them won’t exist.
Speakup on December 7, 2007 at 6:27 PM
Common sense is not so common.
locomotivebreath1901 on December 7, 2007 at 6:28 PM
By nuking them and millions of innocent people at the same time. Let’s have America be the country that destroyed their most holy place on the planet, to kill people who probably aren’t even there. Yeah, that’ll get em our side.
Win hearts and minds – or melt them. Hey. Whatever works.
I find it amazing how many of you all would agree with the concept as well. That killing millions of people, for the sake of a few, is a legitimate path to consider.
lorien1973 on December 7, 2007 at 6:31 PM
I don’t think many here would agree. At least, I hope not.
terryannonline on December 7, 2007 at 6:35 PM
Lorien, why are you not understanding the difference between “threatening” and actually doing? The constant “threat” of nuclear war acted as a constant “deterrent” during the cold war. We never had to nuke Russia, did we?
Gregor on December 7, 2007 at 6:35 PM
Doesn’t speak English ? And/or doesn’t want to bother learning English, and/or doesn’t want to practice English.
My immigrant grandfather would not allow Swedish to be spoken in the home: “You’re in America. Speak English” he told my mother.
Good advice, IF YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE in the economy and civic affairs. UNIVISION is promoting an economic and civic ghetto.
fred5678 on December 7, 2007 at 6:35 PM
If Fred Thompson would have said that, he’d jump back up 10 points overnight.
But well said, Tanc!
JetBoy on December 7, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Who said anything about nuking millions of people?
I’m sure glad we didn’t think like that in WWII.
Are we at war? Are the liberals right?
Besides I don’t have the ability to threaten anybody.
Speakup on December 7, 2007 at 6:36 PM
That is pretty strong statement. Explain.
terryannonline on December 7, 2007 at 6:39 PM
Sooo… were we at war with the German People? or a few Nazis?
Were we at war with the entire Japanese Race? or just the Government of Japan?
This whole modern concept that a countries citizenry is NOT responsible for the acts of their government makes it possible for said government to HIDE behind the people.
War, by its very nature, punishes your enemies until they loose the will, or means, to fight… if the “cost” to the enemie when they start a war against you is too small, then they will wage war on you without consequence… like Hez in Israel. War MUST be horrific… the cost MUST be excessive, or idiots will start the all the time…
Like now…
Romeo13 on December 7, 2007 at 6:44 PM
I live in UNIVISION land, and I get what he means. SoCal politics are largely driven by mutual back-scratch between liberal latino activists, liberal latino politicians, and liberal latino media. The mayor is a freaking MECHA member who’s wife left him for sleeping with a Spanish language TV anchor-chick. Rumor is she also slept with a Fabian Nunez, Speaker of the House (CA).
peski on December 7, 2007 at 6:45 PM
Yeah, but does he have a blimp?
Didn’t think so.
He’s toast.
Vinnie on December 7, 2007 at 6:46 PM
No, but we would have. And if you are not willing to do it; it’s not much of a threat. Standing behind the “deterrent” message without accepting it as a possibility means you just being dishonest. Face it; Tanc is a nuke mecca guy and therefore, it kills the rest of his message.
Again. Huge difference between countries (japan, germany, USSR) and disparate groups within a country. If you cannot see the difference, then I’m sad for you.
Not with the average guy owning a business near Mecca we are not no. Nor with the country where Mecca is located. We are at war with a group of people who’ve decided to take their religion to the nth degree. Nuking the normal peoples’ holy city is just going to drive more of them to the nth degree and not fix anything.
lorien1973 on December 7, 2007 at 6:47 PM
A man with stones the size of Montana.
You gotta love this guy for his honesty.
madmonkphotog on December 7, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Tom wanted to threaten mecca?! WTF! Now he just moved up in my ranking. Makes sense. religious extremists treasure nothing but their so called religion.
Everyday the players’ rankings change. This is going to be a difficult primary for me.
Wait and see though. Someone is going to call him a racist for boycotting the discusión en español. If they can’t speak english, then how do i know that they know our constitution, gov’t structure, etc, and how it works (not how the libs want it to work)? I really dont want anyone ignorant voting because ignorant decisions are always bad ones. But there is almost no way to prevent ignorant voters, unfortunately, whether they are immigrants or born citizens.
Even a lot of college grads I encounter and work with are ignorant when it comes to simple things like naming and briefly describing the 3 branches of gov’t and their roles and responsibilities. Sad, very sad.
El Guapo on December 7, 2007 at 6:47 PM
I agree, but if he really feels this way, why show up to the “Values Voters Debate” put on by WND?
Slublog on December 7, 2007 at 6:49 PM
I find it amazing that someone who has been around here long enough to have read the several threads on that subject can miss the whole point.
Most of are not calling for the destruction of the city (there would, of course be massive civilian casualties and collateral property damage if you used nukes. That’s why I call for a precision strike of conventional explosives)
The hole point is to threaten the one thing that they do value: The Ka‘bah and the ‘black stone’ that it surrounds.
When you are trying to dissuade a child from bad behavior, you don’t threaten to take away his Brussels Sprouts. You threaten to take away a favorite toy.
If one understands the islamic mind, the obliteration of the ‘black stone’ in RETALIATION for a terrorist attack is really the only practical deterrent, and since they believe it is invulnerable, shielded by the hand of Allah, you prove that one of the basic tenets of their cult is false, setting up the situation so that those capable of rational thought might start questing more of the absurdities of their pseudo-religion.
It works on so many levels that it is the perfect psychological weapon.
LegendHasIt on December 7, 2007 at 6:49 PM
Ok, you just proved that Univision is involved with local LA politics but again how specifically are they creating an economic and civic ghetto.
terryannonline on December 7, 2007 at 6:50 PM
I suggest you read The Haj by Leon Uris so that you can comprehend the arab/persian mentality. The only way to beat arab and persian muslims into peaceful submission of our demands is to humiliate them. They themselves will admit such a thing. Showing mercy or compassion by NOT bombing mecca will be viewed as a weakness, and to muslims, EVERY weakness must be exploited and capitalized on. I mean come on, are “cartoons” REALLY worth taking life over?
Califemme on December 7, 2007 at 6:51 PM
Exactly.
Califemme on December 7, 2007 at 6:54 PM
{in my best Devon Dudly voice }
Oh testify my brother
Mojack420 on December 7, 2007 at 6:55 PM
I didn’t realize you were a fortune teller. My apologies.
Gregor on December 7, 2007 at 6:58 PM
holeWhole. DOH!LegendHasIt on December 7, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Perhaps I’m misremembering my WWII history, but when we used nukes the last time, I don’t think that getting Imperial Japan “on our side” was an objective. I certainly know that none of our present-day commands which control the nukes and their delivery systems have “making friends” as an objective.
Oddly enough, I was just reading up on the two-year-old Tancredo “nuke Mecca” controversy–in which I played an insignificant part–because it involved another situation in which certain pundits were telling we little guys and girls that we should agree or shut up. Being one of those discussing the subject who had actually seen a nuke up close, I found all of the rending of garments over Tancredo’s actual remarks on the subject rather puzzling and have since concluded that all the wailing was due to failure of imagination.
However, the military big shots (and little shots)think about what-ifs all the time (illustrated in a WSJ article linked here some days back on COIN)–including those involving nuclear retaliation, which was what Tanc was asked about and responding to.
Therefore, I suggest that one of the strategic commands adopt this motto:
“We Imagine What To Do In Worst Case Scenarios, So You Don’t Have To”
baldilocks on December 7, 2007 at 7:01 PM
OT (sort of): Remember Pearl Harbor
baldilocks on December 7, 2007 at 7:10 PM
Baldilocks
If you cant win their hearts and minds then another Machiavellian (spelling?) act may unfortunately be needed to send the message, “Stop *$%&ing with us!”.
I agree. Truman did too. But we have yet to be that “cornered” to justify such a threat. But it may not hurt to say (or threaten) what would happen if they (terrorists) don’t stop terrorizing the world and leave us no other alternative.
Speaking softly and carrying a big stick doesnt seem to be working with these guys.
El Guapo on December 7, 2007 at 7:18 PM
I remember Pearl Harbor! And I remember their ambassador was in the middle of peaceful negotiations with us when it happened.
El Guapo on December 7, 2007 at 7:19 PM
Next time you’re in the area, take a drive through Santa Ana, or Bell, or ….
Large chunks of Southern California have become little more than an extension of Mexico, and this activist/politician/media triad is doing everything in its power to stifle assimilation, keep the flow of migrants coming, and build a power base of race-centric victi-crat minded socialists.
peski on December 7, 2007 at 7:20 PM
lorien1973 on December 7, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Speakup on December 7, 2007 at 7:21 PM
LegendHasIt,
You have hit the bullseye. A very articulate theologian I know told me as much. I am going to screw this up; Comparatively, when Islam, Christianity and Judaism are put side by side the most substantial difference is the fact that Islam is the only one of the three that has not been uprooted from it’s original emplacement-thus separating the religion from any specific land, this in many ways forced those capable of rational thought into looking at their own religions from a multitude of angles creating improvements, progression and growth.
ColdBore76 on December 7, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Oops, block quote click malfunction.
Speakup on December 7, 2007 at 7:22 PM
I truely dont think libs are smart enough to plan like that. They are just greedy, ignorant, and naive. Which is just as dangerous. OK, maybe a few are plotting, but 99% are too stupid to execute a long term plan like that.
El Guapo on December 7, 2007 at 7:22 PM
El Guapo,
It may not be a conspiracy but libs have learned to harness the absolute worst in man and profit from it.
ColdBore76 on December 7, 2007 at 7:24 PM
ColdBore76
I never looked at it like that. good point!
El Guapo on December 7, 2007 at 7:24 PM
It only takes about 10 or so. Mayor of LA, Speaker of the House, Univision muckety-mucks, Rep. L. Sanchez, and a view loudmouth rabble rousers (like “El Piolin”, the radio host largely responsible for the huge march last year).
I’m not saying its a cloak and dagger conspiracy – it’s just them being them, and look at the result….
peski on December 7, 2007 at 7:26 PM
And don’t forget “One Bill Gill” Sedillo, who has introduced a driver’s licenses for illegal aliens bill every year for about 5 or 6 years. It actually passed once, then got axed by the Governator.
peski on December 7, 2007 at 7:29 PM
Oh I know. There are a few smart enough and witty and smooth enough to be great public speakers and instigators (like Sharpton & Jesse Jackson – have they ever actually helped a person find a career and be able to dig himself out of poverty with good old fashioned hard work?).
I just don’t think most libs are smart enough and selfless enough to cooperate with one another long enough to execute such a plan. I think it is happening on its own and they are just playing the “victim” card because they arent smart or brave enough to address the real problems.
El Guapo on December 7, 2007 at 7:30 PM
ColdBore76
That is their tactic: persistence, and hiding it in other bills. Which explains liberals’ fear of the line item veto.
El Guapo on December 7, 2007 at 7:32 PM
Thanks,
Three Amigos was one of my favorite movies of all time–as pathetic as this may sound, I can still, of my own free will and accord,
locate the singing bush
say the magic chant, fire one shot in the air
summon the invisible swordsman
…etc.
ColdBore76 on December 7, 2007 at 7:34 PM
Hey El Guapo, are you that guy from the old Steve Martin / Martin Short movie, the one with the jeep he called his “little mule”?
Or one of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guapo
Cool name anyway.
peski on December 7, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Very good point El Guapo. They are the worst kind of socialists, selfish and ego-centric.
ColdBore76 on December 7, 2007 at 7:36 PM
I still remember the 3 chants to the singing bush to summon the invisible swordsman! It is called getting old remembering when movies were actually clean humor and still original and funny.
peski Yes, The 3 Amigos inspired my screename.
“chipchipchipchipchipchipchip….NANNY!”
El Guapo on December 7, 2007 at 7:41 PM
HA! MY little buttercup has the sweetest smiiiille….
ColdBore76 on December 7, 2007 at 7:50 PM
suppose I scared everyone off this thread…sorry guys.
ColdBore76 on December 7, 2007 at 7:55 PM
Yeah, and too bad that Reagan was in the nuke Moscow crowd or else he would have been OK too.
FloatingRock on December 7, 2007 at 7:58 PM
Heh.
I included this in my Wednesday blog…
“…This is my problem with SO many of the candidates and how politics has evolved; I am sure in their wildest dreams the Founding Fathers never imagined politics in 2007 to look like this. Everyone identifies some special interest; it’s not just black, latino and white… it’s Asian, it’s women, it’s gays and then separately those who support gay marriage and of course those who don’t… the permutations are endless. Transgendered latino women with adopted children, American Indian business women… on and on and on. It highlights a specification more than a different ‘need’ but it makes people feel special. Everyone needs food to eat, clothes to wear and shelter from the elements; whether or not someone is Asian or Pacific Islander makes no difference.
But politics sees an opportunity in the most vague of differences; it sees a chance to appeal to a group, to make inroads with people by cultivating and then satisfying a generated special ‘need’.”
Why aren’t just simple Americans enough? I don’t feel deficient just being an ‘American’; I feel honoured. Why is it so wrong to care about America? Why is it so bad to take care of your citizens, be concerned about continuing your country’s traditions?
Instead we’re divided and sub-divided; you’re not special if you’re just content with being an American. Unless you’re a special interest group to be divided an conquered, pols aren’t interested. It’s reprehensible.
linlithgow on December 7, 2007 at 8:02 PM
“Nuke Mecca” Tancredo makes good points a lot of the time. Too bad he’s in the nuke Mecca crowd.
lorien1973 on December 7, 2007 at 6:15 PM
It makes absolute sense because the terrorists used the World Trade Center as a “symbol” of the American spirit and free trade. The Pentagon was a “symbol” of America’s defense. The plane intended for the Capitol would have struck the “symbol” of the American Government. The casualities at each location was incidental for these animals. Therefore fighting fire with fire and applying the Hamurabi code, destroying the “symbol” of their hateful religion is not only appropriate but it would be the ideal retaliation. Oh Yeah and Go Tancredo, nice to see a good Italian like myself who is an American first!!
Joey1974 on December 7, 2007 at 8:06 PM
Wasn’t that particular thing from “Romancing the Stone”. And a hot-rodded 4WD pickup rather than a Jeep.
LegendHasIt on December 7, 2007 at 8:06 PM
Holy cow.
The guy decides not to attend a function, and the next thing you know you guys are talking about nuking things, The Three Amigos, 9/11, WTC, Romancing The Stone, Islam…
Gees.
KMC1 on December 7, 2007 at 8:14 PM
I swear I wish I had 10 million dollars I didnt need I would fly it out to him personally and beg him to take this run seriously
Joey1974 on December 7, 2007 at 8:17 PM
Who are you to judge KMC1!?!?
It’s all relative man!!Back off!!
ColdBore76 on December 7, 2007 at 8:20 PM
(all said in a whiny lib voice)
ColdBore76 on December 7, 2007 at 8:20 PM
USSR – a collection of countries governed by an ideology. Islam – a collection of countries governed by an ideology.
FloatingRock on December 7, 2007 at 8:21 PM
Good point, I have heard more than once that the Koran is more of a national charter than anything else.
ColdBore76 on December 7, 2007 at 8:23 PM
Yes. Some of us have been paying attention to (and writing about) Mr. Tancredo and his rather uncomproming position on security for more than just this election cycle.
Google keywords “Tancredo, nuke, and Mecca” if you’re interested in the history of this conversation. Or go here and here (shameless plug).
baldilocks on December 7, 2007 at 8:26 PM
In regard to the Republican candidates attending a debate down in Mexico, I’m with Tancredo 100%. I’m extremely disappointed that the other candidates, especially Fred, who claims to have a strong position against illegal immigration, would attend. Rudy and Huck I can understand, but Fred and Romney? It’s one of the primary reasons that I don’t really support either one. I’m not sure I trust them on the issue. How can I when they are attending a debate with foreigners?
(Yeah, I know it’s not actually in Mexico, but it might as well be as far as I’m concerned.)
FloatingRock on December 7, 2007 at 8:34 PM
How ‘about Mohammedog?
Stuffed bears are out this season, stuffed dogs are the new rage! Buy your child a Mohammedog this holiday season and it will provide memories they will treasure for the rest of their lives.
FloatingRock on December 7, 2007 at 8:41 PM
Wow, after MAD brought us safely through the cold war, through the strength of conservative American’s dragging liberal American’s and Europeans kicking and screaming into the future, this is what the conservative movement has come to? We have to start the MAD debate all over again even after it’s been proven?
FloatingRock on December 7, 2007 at 8:47 PM
I suppose that during the cold war some of the people protesting in front of nuclear silos considered themselves conservative too, so I probably nothing much has changed.
FloatingRock on December 7, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Lorien’s position isn’t conservative, if it were Lorien would take a proven position over over a failed position, as that is where conservatism finds it’s roots, in tried and true empirical historical experience.
ColdBore76 on December 7, 2007 at 8:53 PM
If we bomb Mecca we will start a religious war and that could be the ugliest war we have ever see.
terryannonline on December 7, 2007 at 9:25 PM
It has more to do with the threat of, not actually bombing–the extremists should know that if pushed or attacked we would hit them where it counts.
ColdBore76 on December 7, 2007 at 9:33 PM
But by such a threat you are putting them on the offensive and just another ploy for terrorists to rally the troops.
terryannonline on December 7, 2007 at 9:39 PM
Of course and he never suggested that we start a war in that manner–preemptively. He was asked a question: what should the US do in case Islamists detonate a dirty bomb in an American city, i.e., start a war by nuking us first. He didn’t even suggest the response (nuke Mecca). His interviewer did and Tancredo agreed that this was an option.
This context got lost then, as is so now.
baldilocks on December 7, 2007 at 9:44 PM
I bet that if Tancredo won the nomination and went on to win the White House, shortly after his confirmation and his announcement instating a MAD policy against Islam’s holiest cities, the heads of Osama and his top lieutenants, (at least), would be handed over within days.
It would be much like the hostage release when Reagan came to power. The moderate Muslims that don’t have a death wish would be moving out of Mecca and Medina in droves and all over the world Muslims would rise up in the streets demanding that their leaders take action against Osama and Al Qaeda and save their holy sites they depend on for their salvation.
FloatingRock on December 7, 2007 at 9:46 PM
I’m sorry, but you have that backwards. If they nuke the US they will start a holy war, (which I would argue they’ve already started), and we will give them the ugliest war they’ve ever seen. We will annihilate them utterly.
That’s the attitude that will win this war and keep us safe, but a fringe benefit, which isn’t ever really worth considering really, is that it’s in our enemies best interest as well because it will keep them safe too.
FloatingRock on December 7, 2007 at 9:48 PM
You’re assuming that Islamists think the way we do. But they don’t. They think like bullies the world over–they will sit down somewhere when they think that they’re going to get their a** handed to them. Osama’s “Strong Horse” theory spelled this concept out.
baldilocks on December 7, 2007 at 9:52 PM
Terryannonline,
Not a threat, a fact. It should be a standing status quo fact that if A therefore B. The same thing that kept the Reds from attacking us, MAD. Our current enemy is not unlike a pack of wolves-sensing fear and reluctance. Your peace at any cost logic will invite attack, provoke the ones you are afraid of getting angry. Ahmadinejad is pulling this garbage because he sees (thank you American left and the media) the aparent unwillingness to fight and die for our way of life.
ColdBore76 on December 7, 2007 at 9:52 PM
Another example of the “Strong Horse” concept. More? See Libya’s WMD.
baldilocks on December 7, 2007 at 9:53 PM
not only that, we don’t think the way you think we do. Our world is one where the notion of and ability to project force sways hearts and minds, anyone who claims that diplomacy or talking has ever achieved any relevant tangible peace or foreign policy objectives is kidding themselves.
ColdBore76 on December 7, 2007 at 9:54 PM
You all praise Tanc and yet, you will not consider supporting him, or other true Conservatives such as Duncan Hunter in the Primary.
You’re all too afraid of the Hildebeast lurking in the shadows.
Cowards…
CliffHanger on December 7, 2007 at 10:05 PM
BTW, regarding the US presidential debate down in Mexico, I sure Hope that Hot Air will be featuring video of any pandering or anti-pandering that our candidates engage in down there… in Mexico.
FloatingRock on December 7, 2007 at 10:11 PM
There’s gonna be debate a Mexico? Huh?
terryannonline on December 7, 2007 at 10:12 PM
FloatingRock on December 7, 2007 at 10:13 PM
You are painting with a pretty wide brush there, Cliffie.
Better change those “ALL”s to something like “too many of you”
I’ve been sending Hunter and Tancredo money since they announced officially. Hunter, because he is the truest conservative running, Tancredo because he is the loudest about the one important ‘hot button issue’ that directly has an impact on my life every day.
If Hunter is on the ballot by the time our primary comes around, he WILL get MY vote.
The reason that Tancredo doesn’t get the wide support is because most people that love his message on maintaining our sovereignty and controling the illegal alien invasion realize that he isn’t quite presidential material YET. I’d like to see him as Hunter’s VP, Secretary of the Interior, or a governor or even a (yuck) Senator for a term, to get some executive experience and broaden his horizons a bit. With that experience, he might be ‘Presidential’ by 2012
LegendHasIt on December 7, 2007 at 10:31 PM
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Anyone who understands the islamic mind would not advocate what you are suggesting. You cannot prove that any particular basic tenets of Islam are false because it does not hold to the laws of rationality, “Allah’s hand is unfettered”). You could convince fellow infidels but not believing Muslims.
Why bomb Mecca? What could that possibly achieve? Their faith (the Muslims) will not be shaken so the only viable solution is to hamstring them. Cut off their oil revenue. The West needs an independent energy program that renders the Saudis redundant (plus Chavez and Putin into the bargain).
I read a newspaper article a few years ago saying that the Saudis would return to tents in 2050 when the oil dried up. Not soon enough. The West needs to bankrupt OPEC, to smash it into a thousand pieces as soon as possible.
aengus on December 7, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Hey, at least lorian admits that Islamic fanatics aren’t part of a recognized national military, and therefore do not fall under the protections of the Geneva conventions.
psrch on December 7, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Because they nuked one or more of our cities. Actually, the point is that we won’t have to bomb Mecca because, knowing that we will do so if provoked, the Islamists won’t nuke one of our cities in the first place.
I agree with you that at some point down the road if this war escalates, it may be necessary to deny the enemy the use of oil as a weapon and financing. However, captured oil fields do not serve as a nuclear deterrent and may actually have the opposite affect. Islamists are generally more concerned about Allah’s will than they are about oil and if they have confidence that their holy sites will not be harmed they may nuke us secure in their expectation that we will respond by capturing their oil fields, which will likely lead to world war.
Imagine all of the world’s infidels fighting amongst each other while Mecca and Medina remain untouched.
Besides, capturing oil fields is harder than it sounds. We can certainly capture and hold the ground, but whether or not we’ll actually be able to tap the wells is another matter entirely. For all I know many of the oil wells in the region are mined with explosives, or the enemy may have contingency plans to destroy them on short notice. There may be garages in Saudi Arabia, for example, filled with truck bombs that can be driven to the various oil facilities on short notice to destroy them. Even if this isn’t the case, there are probably hundreds if not thousands of missiles in Iran and Syria aimed at the oil wells in the region.
MAD is the broadest spectrum deterrent to Islamists that we can employ. Other than that we have to rely on intelligence and technology, both of which are imperfect and can fail spectacularly.
FloatingRock on December 7, 2007 at 11:57 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »