Your prejudice and knee-jerk assumptions are a really terrible combination – well, if being anywhere close to accurate is your goal anyway…..

KMC1 on December 9, 2007 at 4:11 PM

So can you provide a single example of my “prejudice”? Can you specify a single example of my “knee-jerk assumptions”? Can you provide any evidence at all that I’m inaccurate about anything?

As usual with superior intellectual types such as yourself, you forgot to actually win the debate before declaring victory.

Between the two of us you are the only one who has been jerking anything.

Seriously, the people on HA give Conservative Intellectuals such as myself a bad, bad name.

KMC1 on December 9, 2007 at 4:11 PM

Oh dear, I’m so, so sorry to be giving elitist “Conservative Intellectuals” such as yourself a bad, bad name, KMC1. I should’ve known better than to speak my mind and express my opinion. In hindsight I wish that I would’ve shut up and allowed people like yourself, with your vastly superior intellect, to explain why, uh, conservatives during the cold war were WRONG to support MAD and appose unilateral disarmament.

Please enlighten us further and bless us with more of your superior intellect, KMC1. You’re such a genius.

What a shmuck!

FloatingRock on December 8, 2007 at 2:54 PM

Seriously, the people on HA give Conservative Intellectuals such as myself a bad, bad name.
Your prejudice and knee-jerk assumptions are a really terrible combination – well, if being anywhere close to accurate is your goal anyway…..

If a Republican candidate says that we are in a religious war against Islam, the Dems win. We have to put our Constitutional principles ahead of religious hatred.

dedalus on December 8, 2007 at 2:53 PM

I agree. Speaking for myself, when I referred to a holy war above at 9:48 (yesterday) I was referring to the perspective of the enemy.

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.

Good point.

What a bunch of whackos.

KMC1 on December 8, 2007 at 1:24 PM

History shows that the “whackos” during the cold war were people like yourself laying down in front of trains and “whacking” nuclear silos with sledge hammers to protest our nuclear arsenal and stated MAD policy with our enemy.

Islam declared war on Christianity and all non-Muslims thousands of years ago. That war has never ended. We’re already fighting a religious war, like it or not.

If a Republican candidate says that we are in a religious war against Islam, the Dems win. We have to put our Constitutional principles ahead of religious hatred.

KMC1 on December 8, 2007 at 1:24 PM

You have a knack for twisting things around to fit your own conclusions.

Islam declared war on Christianity and all non-Muslims thousands of years ago.

Gregor on December 8, 2007 at 1:39 AM

Hundreds maybe (Mo was born around 570 A.D.)

55075e7156b9…

LegendHasIt on December 7, 2007 at 10:31 PM

Well said. I’m with you 100%.

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

Errrr … HUH?

What do you think we’re in right now? You don’t seriously believe all that nonsense about them hating us because we’re “in their business” do you?

Islam declared war on Christianity and all non-Muslims thousands of years ago. That war has never ended. We’re already fighting a religious war, like it or not.

Yea, don’t participate in the debate, but don’t claim that it’s cause there’s one America.

Why bomb Mecca?

aengus on December 7, 2007 at 11:01 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.

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.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

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.

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.

You all…You’re all….
CliffHanger on December 7, 2007 at 10:05 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

There’s gonna be debate a Mexico? Huh?

terryannonline on December 7, 2007 at 10:12 PM

(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

FloatingRock on December 7, 2007 at 10:11 PM

There’s gonna be debate a Mexico? Huh?