Which is a bigger threat to the World, radical Islam or radical neo-conservatism? (1 Viewer)

[bismitch]

Check this out.
http://goinside.com/03/11/peace.html

 

[Morrow]

Please no one vote neo-conservatism, you will only validate Navyprides orginal post

 

[bismitch]

hmm.... I was looking forward to some comments.

 

[Saboteur]

hmm.... I was looking forward to some comments.

I didn't vote here or in NavyPride's Radical Islam vs. Radical Liberalism poll either.

I think that Radical Neo-Conservatism has the potential to become as fanatically religious as radical Islam.

 

[Kelzie]

Not quite sure if anyone else noticed it, but they're kinda the same thing. Radical Islams are neo-conservatives. Which is why I can support the war on terror and be a liberal. All y'all that claim one or the other confuse the hell out of me.

 

[Saboteur]

Not quite sure if anyone else noticed it, but they're kinda the same thing. Radical Islams are neo-conservatives. Which is why I can support the war on terror and be a liberal. All y'all that claim one or the other confuse the hell out of me.

Good point. Radical Islamists are ultra Conservative

 

[Hoot]

Let's see....? Who uses the threat of violence to support political causes?

Who believes that the threat or use of violence to create fear is the best way to gain support for their political causes?

Who attacks people that oppose their political beliefs?

Who uses religious ideals to gain support for their political beliefs?

Who refuses to respect the boundaries and borders of other nations?

Who sometimes secretly supplies groups with weapons, training, and money for attacks in other countries?

Boy! This is a tough call...I'll have to think about this one for a while.

 

[Morrow]

Let's see....? Who uses the threat of violence to support political causes?

Who believes that the threat or use of violence to create fear is the best way to gain support for their political causes?

Who attacks people that oppose their political beliefs?

Who uses religious ideals to gain support for their political beliefs?

Who refuses to respect the boundaries and borders of other nations?

Who sometimes secretly supplies groups with weapons, training, and money for attacks in other countries?

Boy! This is a tough call...I'll have to think about this one for a while.

I don't think most people in the US, or on this very forum, are capable of understanding that parallel

 

[RightOfCenter]

Let's see....? Who uses the threat of violence to support political causes?

Who believes that the threat or use of violence to create fear is the best way to gain support for their political causes?

Who attacks people that oppose their political beliefs?

Who uses religious ideals to gain support for their political beliefs?

Who refuses to respect the boundaries and borders of other nations?

Who sometimes secretly supplies groups with weapons, training, and money for attacks in other countries?

Boy! This is a tough call...I'll have to think about this one for a while.

You're pretty much just making the same point as Kelzie, if quite a bit wordier. I think radical Islam is more of a threat at the moment, but it's Christian counterpart could get as bad or worse.

 

[ptsdkid]

What a surprise it is to see the various anti American liberal response to such a one-sided and ridiculous question.

The appropriate question here would be to ask who among the various political parties would be able and willing to fight these dangerous Islamic Fascists in the first place. I keep pondering that question, and I come up with one prevailing answer every time--that being the neo-Conservatives and those having a similar mindset. I'm also not surprised to see one of the respondents rail on and blame Christians for being a worldwide threat. Methinks most of you liberal minions have been smoking way too much whacky tobaccy. Tell me how a liberal in the White House (say, a Hillary Clinton) would react to a terrorist bombing on America's soil where some 3000 people die. Keep in mind, that we haven't been attacked on our homeland for 5 years now, thanks in total to George Bush's quick response to terrorism, despite all the negativism and waivering from the liberal side to the equation.
Please keep up your responses here; I'm having a great belly laugh over your weak positions on combatting terror. Oh excuse me, you don't have or you couldn't possibly take a position on terror. Almost forgot how all of you have become experts on bashing Bush and our military without ever offering alternative options to war--other than cut-and-run. LOL!

 

[WI Crippler]

Thats the big problem here. Nobody offers up a solution to the problem. Well conservatives have a solution that liberals don't like. Most people in general go through life complaining about various things. They never stop to think about the solution. That is the only way forward. What we need is a solution for the problem we face in Iraq and the War on Terror. If you possibly think that just quitting the war is the solution, then you have just made the problem larger by granting the enemy a huge victory. They have stated their goal is to have the entire world under the rule of Islam. Quiting in this Arena helps them towards this goal.
There is only one solution in my eyes. Total victory. We must destroy the enemys will to fight us. We must destroy the image of these nut jobs as somehow being freedom fighters and rather portray them as the sick facsists they are. Let them know there will be no mercy, and no quarter given to those who are or help terrorists. There will be no safe hiding places, and no rights granted to terrorists. If you cannot follow the tenants of the Geneva Conventions then you are not entitled to them yourself. We need more troops, not less in this war to finish it quickly. Thats my solution.
Oh and for all you people out there that try and attack people who are for us winning the war, saying why don't they enlist or calling them chickenhawks etc.... know that I am a former Marine, and Iraq war vet. I have paid for my right to voice my opinion about this conflict.
I dislike Neo-Conservatism intensly, as I am not a christian or a part of any religion, but i would personally be more worried about another attack from radical islam right now than another abortion clinic bombing.

 

[faithful_servant]

Let's see....? Who uses the threat of violence to support political causes?

Liberals - as evidenced by the repeated rioting they have done at world trade conferences the world over.

Who believes that the threat or use of violence to create fear is the best way to gain support for their political causes?

Liberals - as evidenced by the repeated rioting they have done at world trade conferences the world over.

Who attacks people that oppose their political beliefs?

Liberals - as evidenced by the repeated rioting they have done at world trade conferences the world over.

Who uses religious ideals to gain support for their political beliefs?

Liberals - as evidenced by their repeated efforts at forcing people to believe onlywhat THEY think is OK.

Who refuses to respect the boundaries and borders of other nations?

That would be the darling of liberals - the UN.

Who sometimes secretly supplies groups with weapons, training, and money for attacks in other countries?

Liberals - by way of the UN.

Boy! This is a tough call...I'll have to think about this one for a while.

Take your time.

 

[faithful_servant]

I don't think most people in the US, or on this very forum, are capable of understanding that parallel

Ah, the pseudo-intellectual bigotry arises from ....???

 

[Saboteur]

What a surprise it is to see the various anti American liberal response to such a one-sided and ridiculous question.

The appropriate question here would be to ask who among the various political parties would be able and willing to fight these dangerous Islamic Fascists in the first place. I keep pondering that question, and I come up with one prevailing answer every time--that being the neo-Conservatives and those having a similar mindset. I'm also not surprised to see one of the respondents rail on and blame Christians for being a worldwide threat. Methinks most of you liberal minions have been smoking way too much whacky tobaccy. Tell me how a liberal in the White House (say, a Hillary Clinton) would react to a terrorist bombing on America's soil where some 3000 people die. Keep in mind, that we haven't been attacked on our homeland for 5 years now, thanks in total to George Bush's quick response to terrorism, despite all the negativism and waivering from the liberal side to the equation.
Please keep up your responses here; I'm having a great belly laugh over your weak positions on combatting terror. Oh excuse me, you don't have or you couldn't possibly take a position on terror. Almost forgot how all of you have become experts on bashing Bush and our military without ever offering alternative options to war--other than cut-and-run. LOL!

Oh jeez here we go:roll:

No one directly mentioned Bush or Christians but you took the opportunity to bash liberals anyway.

 

[Saboteur]

Ah, the pseudo-intellectual bigotry arises from ....???

Doesn't feel very good does it?

 

[bismitch]

I'm sorry i should have been clearer with this post. I meant neo-conservative Americans.

The threat of neo-conservatism in America is surfacing itself in the many conflicts we have engaged in as "preventive" wars. How many more wars does it take to show that neo-conservative policy of hegemony is an impossible goal?

 

[earthworm]

I don't think most people in the US, or on this very forum, are capable of understanding that parallel

It is very easy, simple to understand.
What the Hoot has written is simply true..
Maybe it is the Islamics who cannot come to grips with this....
It is the Islamics, NOT any Christian, Liberal, or Conservative extremists who have sworn to destroy us...

 

[WI Crippler]

I'm sorry i should have been clearer with this post. I meant neo-conservative Americans.

The threat of neo-conservatism in America is surfacing itself in the many conflicts we have engaged in as "preventive" wars. How many more wars does it take to show that neo-conservative policy of hegemony is an impossible goal?

I'd rather fight proactively, then fight reactively. I am sure the british would have wished we were more proactive in WWII, rather than reactive. By being reactive we allowed Nazi Germany to become to powerful, by being reactive we allowed the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor. By being reactive we allowed 9/11 to happen. Had we taken proactive action, we could have certainley prevented these tragedies. The biggest problem with proactive action is that a certain segment of our population hamstrings us in our efforts to protect our country and our allies, as well as our interests and citizens around the world. They hamstrung our troops in Vietnam, and they are hamstringing us now. If people would be behind us like they were in WWII, and the Korean War we could finish this thing like we finished those wars.
And not all support has to be military. We defeated communist Russia without firing a shot, because of our support for freedom.

 

[bismitch]

I'd rather fight proactively, then fight reactively. I am sure the british would have wished we were more proactive in WWII, rather than reactive. By being reactive we allowed Nazi Germany to become to powerful, by being reactive we allowed the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor. By being reactive we allowed 9/11 to happen. Had we taken proactive action, we could have certainley prevented these tragedies. The biggest problem with proactive action is that a certain segment of our population hamstrings us in our efforts to protect our country and our allies, as well as our interests and citizens around the world. They hamstrung our troops in Vietnam, and they are hamstringing us now. If people would be behind us like they were in WWII, and the Korean War we could finish this thing like we finished those wars.
And not all support has to be military. We defeated communist Russia without firing a shot, because of our support for freedom.

Fighting wars in Iraq and Afganistan have less to do with preventing another 9/11, than our own security measures in airports and our intelligence network. Seriously how does this do anything to prevent a terrorist from accomplishing his goals in the U.S.?

First of all there are some factual inacuracies in this post. We never finished the Korean War, we settled on the original borders. That was a smart decision by Truman, otherwise we would have been in a war with China. WWII isolationism was the extreme opposite of neo-conservative preventive war. I agree that the U.S. should have entered the war at the same time as Great Britain.
But think of the times that the neo-conservative policies have failed us. Ex. Vietnam Look at what that accomplished....
Other exs. Iraq War II

Think of what would of happened if we did a preventive war with Cuba or even the Soviet Union.

 

[WI Crippler]

Fighting wars in Iraq and Afganistan have less to do with preventing another 9/11, than our own security measures in airports and our intelligence network. Seriously how does this do anything to prevent a terrorist from accomplishing his goals in the U.S.?

First of all there are some factual inacuracies in this post. We never finished the Korean War, we settled on the original borders. That was a smart decision by Truman, otherwise we would have been in a war with China. WWII isolationism was the extreme opposite of neo-conservative preventive war. I agree that the U.S. should have entered the war at the same time as Great Britain.
But think of the times that the neo-conservative policies have failed us. Ex. Vietnam Look at what that accomplished....
Other exs. Iraq War II

Think of what would of happened if we did a preventive war with Cuba or even the Soviet Union.

I don't think it has been the policies that have failed us, but rather the constant scrutiny and questioning by biased media outlets on either side that are going to make any military operation damn near impossible to win. With the wars in Iraq and Afganistan we are fighting them there. Our forces are like a candle for the moths to flock to. We are in their countries fighting them rather than picking them up at the airport.

I certainley don't consider myself neo-conservative because I digress from conservative views on certain issues, but having the ability to project miltary power anywhere in the world and fight wars away from our home soil is the best thing we can do to protect our citizens.
The threat of mutually assured destruction is what prevented any attack by russia or cuba, and therefor could be considered a proactive military strategy. Maybe not in the physical, bullets sense but the threat was enough to curb any kind of action on their part. Just because Russia and cuba did not engage us does not mean other won't in the future.
No such threat existed for Japan, Germany, or the terrorists of today. Hell the terroists repeatedly attacked US interests over seas for 20 years and nothing substantial was done. Only when we reacted from 9/11 did we start doing anything proactive in this arena. Extreme Islam has been at war with the US longer than we have been at war with them.

 

[bismitch]

You do realize that the threat of terrorism is miniscule, in comparason to a flu epidemic or other diseases. I think the money that is being spent in maintaining Iraq and Afganistan could be better used in medical research to prevent these or a cure for aids.

 

[Synch]

Not quite sure if anyone else noticed it, but they're kinda the same thing. Radical Islams are neo-conservatives. Which is why I can support the war on terror and be a liberal. All y'all that claim one or the other confuse the hell out of me.

Radical Islamists support free trade? Since when?

 

[Kelzie]

Radical Islamists support free trade? Since when?

Radical Islamists, much like neo-cons, aren't that into the economic sector. Unlike, say, regular conservatives, which do support free trade. Smart people. The neo-con movement has rather strong ties to socialism, which I'm sure you are aware, is not all that keen on free trade.

 

[Unfair]

only whites will say islam like whites aren't responsible for muslims being upset in the first place. you guys are a joke.

 

[bismitch]

I don't see how being white has anything do with this poll. Take your racist remarks elsewhere.