On question #2 it depends on whose Islam we’re talking about. Wahabbi Islam no. Some muslims manage just fine in western nations. They tend to do best as a minority. A secular government would allow apostasy without the fear of being murdered. The hope is, over time, they would become less Islamic, join the 21st century, and start building churches.

Buck Turgidson on December 27, 2007 at 10:56 PM

“They tend to do best as a minority”

They do best as minority because then the nation is not muslim. Understanding that muslims have to become less muslim to have a successful ‘western-syle’ nation is the road to recovery. The intrinsic rules of that belief system preclude Western Civilization as we know it. Christianity was the growth bed of Western Civilization and therein lies the problem.

In our country, islamic lobbying groups utilize our Bill of Rights to pressure towards islamization of this nation. This may be successful for them as a minority, but it is destructive to the basis of our freedoms

Meanwhile both Musharraf and Bhutto were ‘westernized’ islamic leaders. Both were ‘palatable’ to the West and therefore less digestible to their population

Thompson/Gingrich with Bolton as a Sec State!

“It could be a lot worse if those nukes fall into the wrong hands,” he said. “Right now, the question of stability is paramount in the short run in Pakistan.”

Brokered convention, here we come! My sign’s already printed up!

see-dubya on December 27, 2007 at 6:53 PM

Heh.

All good points.

Although in Europe the opposite has been happening.

FloatingRock on December 28, 2007 at 12:04 AM

Sure. The European immigration issue is real and tragic as far as I’m concerned. But if democracy could exist in places like Pakistan without turning into an islamic state, that would be something. If Iraq succeeds with a reasonable, lasting outcome it would prove it is possible. I hope I live to see the day.

Yeah her stupidity allowed this to happen. Just another dumb brown person right? Lets go back to the glory days of Madelline Albright when things were hunky dory with the world.

broker1 on December 27, 2007 at 8:50 PM

Nice, illogical, off-topic, non-sequitur (to say nothing of unhelpful) use of the race card.

Do we need to ask your permission before criticizing the egregiously incompetent Rice? (Did you by any chance happen to hear what Bolton said about “our” [Read: Rice's] pushing Bhutto’s return and precipitously timed civilian elections on Pakistan?)

And what weird world to you live in where the only two available options for SecState are Albright and Rice?

I can’t wait till January 2009.. I have no confidence that this country under Condi Rice as FM has any clue WTF to do about the world.

VinceP1974 on December 27, 2007 at 8:46 PM

I couldn’t agree more Vince (although, it could get even worse if a Dem wins the White House). Radio talk-show host Michael Savage had Condi’s number months ago, referring to her as a “Sunday School marm” who is “in over her head.”

Bhutto’s assassination is the final straw: If Bush permits Rice to stay on at this point, history — in my view — will show him to have been a foreign policy gelding held captive by his “own” State Department since roughly the beginning of his second term.

Bolton, as usual, is the smartest guy on the planet regarding these regional crises.

But hey, Pakistan is a part of the world he is very familiar with, and some of the things he says seem far fetched, but to us things that happen over there are far fetched.

Although in Europe the opposite has been happening.

FloatingRock on December 28, 2007 at 12:04 AM

Actually, all over the world, in this century they’ve regressed dramatically.

The hope is, over time, they would become less Islamic, join the 21st century, and start building churches.

Buck Turgidson on December 27, 2007 at 10:56 PM

Although in Europe the opposite has been happening.

Simultaneously turning the entire country into glass with stealth cruise missiles might be a third option.

BTW, that was just for shock value, to loosen people up for the less extreme possibilities. Next to the extermination of Pakistan, MAD is enlightened.

you better be sure you get every last one of them, or invade quickly and take control.

gajaw999 on December 27, 2007 at 10:34 PM

Simultaneously turning the entire country into glass with stealth cruise missiles might be a third option.

Another possibility would be Tancredo’s MAD strategy. If Jihadis get their hands on nukes, and if American’s know it, I think we will probably see a lot of nuke-Mecca converts out there in la-la land. (No, I’m not talking about pre-emptive strikes, just MAD.)

If we have a robust missile defense that can extend to all of our allies and interests abroad combined with strong border and shipping security here at home, (and our allies would require it as well), this would also serve a deterrent.

The last option is the reason I don’t understand how McCain, Rudy or any of the other open-border candidates can claim to be strong on national-security. They’re full of cr@p. McCain, for example, he’s against water-boarding; does anybody here think he’s going to issue a MAD directive against Mecca or alternative targets of similar value to our enemies if there is a strong chance it could save one or more of our cities? Heck no, he won’t.

The only thing I can find is on Wikipedia (for whatever its worth). They state that “Black Ops” is the generally accepted worldwide military parlance for types of covert operations typically involving activities that are either secret or of questionable ethics and legality.

SouthernPride on December 27, 2007 at 9:14 PM

Holy cow, don’t you ever watch movies? :)

Does this mean Monsoor believes Musharaff is the culprit? Ideas???

I can’t speak about what Monsoor intended to say, but “black ops” doesn’t necessarily indicate that the head of a government is involved in the operation. Particularly in a country like Pakistan, where there are elements of the ISI, (and probably every other branch of the government), that are sympathetic to Jihad, Monsoor’s belief that the assassination may be the result of a black op doesn’t necessarily indicate that Monsoor believes Musharraf was involved in any way. The ISI probably has all sorts of black ops that Musharraf isn’t aware of, at least not unless he has spies in the ISI that keep him appraised.

Again, that’s just my generic thoughts on the matter.

Education about the nature of a responsible form of rights-based governance, first, is vital before you start idealistically throwing open the gates of power to the mob of mullah-intoxicated traditionalists.

If the population has been stunted and kept stupid, you only get a stunted, stupid “democracy”.

The word becomes a meaningless mockery without a Bill of Rights, an Enlightment ethos, and secular rule of Law underpinning the Grand Exercise.

Bush, et al, who promote “democracy” without grasping the Unintended Consequences of empowering the Unexamined Mindset of Islam endanger our future with their fecklessness.

Bhutto joined in this folly, and got a taste of the demos.

On question #2 it depends on whose Islam we’re talking about. Wahabbi Islam no. Some muslims manage just fine in western nations. They tend to do best as a minority. A secular government would allow apostasy without the fear of being murdered. The hope is, over time, they would become less Islamic, join the 21st century, and start building churches.

The first candidate who enlists Bolton’s open support in the primary is highly likely to get my vote.

Megadittos