Santorum? Really? | Conservative Heritage Times

What lurks behind the Santorum smirk? And why are house-trained conservatives backing this loser? From Rebellion.

18 Comments »

18 Responses to “Santorum? Really?”

Matt Weber on 15 Feb 2012 at 6:57 pm #

Some combo of the following

a: No one believes Romney
b: There’s no one else left
c: Conservatives are idiots
RonL on 15 Feb 2012 at 8:26 pm #

“Santorum, like Wise and Kirchick, are cheerleaders of genocide and war, not perpetrators. It’s not for them to risk smudging their fingers by going onto the field and actually doing the things they advocate.”

What Geniocide? What is with this leftist garbage?
Have an honest debate on facts, without leftist lies and smears. Acting like a parody of Kichick helps no one.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 15 Feb 2012 at 9:18 pm #

Matt Weber,

I think the Republicans are determined to lose this election. That way, the collapse that’s sure to come will be on O’s watch.

Nothing else explains the dismal Republican field.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 15 Feb 2012 at 9:21 pm #

RonL,

How do you interpret Tim Wise’s letter to the white right:

“We just have to be patient.

And wait for your hearts to stop beating.

And stop they will.”

And Santorum has promised to attack Iran. How much war and genocide does it take before you notice it?
Kirt Higdon on 16 Feb 2012 at 1:23 am #

The problem is that war and genocide have so many advocates. You could have put up the faces of George Bush, John McCain, Michelle Bachman, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Susan Rice, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.
roho on 16 Feb 2012 at 4:12 am #

I’m just not convinced that the GOP wan’ts this election any more than “Bush Sr’s” second term?………………………….Obama is as good as anyone else to be holding the steering wheel when the car runs off of the mountain!………….Let the train crash!……It has to crash with some asshole anyway?

Might as well be some dumb-ass negroe whining about a bunch of poor ass people that never deserved a house anyway! Somebody has to take the fall for a million Iranians getting torched for not embracing Jewish Usury and Western Banking!………….Hell!…..Let their children die if they are not willing to turn over their oil to western stockholders!……..Yea buddy.

We should come home, balance our checkbook, and leave the world alone!!!!!……………………Alone!
RonL on 16 Feb 2012 at 8:17 am #

HB2 and Kirt,
Killing a few thousand or even a million Iranians (not likely) in a current war would hardly be genoide.
Taking out Iran’s nuclear weapons program is the opposite of genocide. Yes, some people would die. But the alternative is to rely on the theory of Mutually Assured Destroy when dealing with people who sent unarmed children to clear minefields by walking through them and who believe that their eschaton will occur when the Muslim world is cleansed by fire. That is to say the alternative of pre-emption is a future nuclear exchange, which would kill millions of Iranians.
Thousands vs tens of millions. Stop talking genocide, when the charge can easily be turned on you and a lot of American civilians would also be dead.

There are plenty of nasty words that can be legitimately used like blood thirsty, war mongers…. But to call my position genocidal cheapens the term to irrelevance. It is a leftist game.

Roho,
If Iran wasn’t building nukes and wasn’t killing Americans, we wouldn’t care about them.
Bruce on 16 Feb 2012 at 12:20 pm #

I agree with RonL about the (mis)use of the word “genocide” when referring to our policy/actions in the Middle East.

Tim Wise’s beliefs are closer to genocide.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 16 Feb 2012 at 2:33 pm #

RonL,

Yes, as I stated above, Uncle Tim is anticipating the day when white hearts stop beating, and the other two are calling for war – the point is that all three are attracted to images of (safely) distant violence and death.

Iran does not have a nuclear bomb – it’s a member of the IAEA, and allows inspections, whereas Israel has some 200 bombs, and does NOT allow UN inspections.

So which country is the problem here?
Kirt Higdon on 17 Feb 2012 at 12:26 am #

I agree with HB2′s reply to RonL. Unlike Tim Wise, Santorum may not be for genocide in the sense of wanting to kill off every last Persian. What he wants and what the regime under Obama’s presidency is actually doing is spreading chaos, death and destruction across most of the Moslem world from the Atlantic to the borders of India, bombing promiscuously, waging the cowardly warfare of drones, missiles, and airstrikes against virtually defenseless populations, and employing first one terrorist group, then another. Most of this is done at least on the pretext of aiding Israel and the Israeli regime is an enthusiastic partner in a lot of it. In fact, it seems now that Al Qaeda is in an unholy alliance with the US, Israel, and Turkey to overthrow the Christian friendly Assad regime in Syria.

In Iraq these tactics led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the displacement of millions of refugees. In the broader region, tens of millions could die or be displaced. Maybe not genocide but terrible evil. What’s more, the neocons are straining to apply these tactics to Russia as well and Santorum even wants to do the same to Venezuela and Bolivia.

As to how to deal with Iran, here’s an alternative. Restore diplomatic relations and lift all sanctions. Withdraw all US forces from the Middle East, Africa, and everywhere else outside US borders. Learn to live in peace like most of the world does instead of waging permanent war 24/7. Israel is in no danger from an Iranian regime which has no nuclear bomb, is not building one, and says it doesn’t even want one. Israel and the US against Iran is like a pair of Goliaths against David, back when David was just a toddler and had never picked up a sling. Bullying and cowardice on this level is perverse and shameful even if a few Persians survive the planned holocaust.
roho on 17 Feb 2012 at 12:55 am #

Absolutely Kirt………….The insanity is so bad that the MSM propaganda machine is not even working. A recent MSNBC poll showed that 76% of Americans see no reason to even be considering war with Iran…….This means that our ZOG doesn’t care what the US Citizen wants anymore, and tyrany is at the doorstep.
RonL on 17 Feb 2012 at 4:56 am #

When has Israel called for anyone to overthrow Assad? Israelis are terrified of the stream of refugees that will come when the Ba’athists are overthrown. They are concerned by Assad’s threat to attack Israel if NATO attacks Syria. And they are concerned that they will not only be encircled by the Muslim Brotherhood on another Axis, but that Al Qaeda and other Salafi groups will get Ba’athist Syria’s WMDs.

People presume that neoconservative American hacks speak for Israel. They do not.
Kirt Higdon on 17 Feb 2012 at 12:06 pm #

Israel voted for the UN resolution condemning the Syrian government and calling for Assad to step down, not so? This is an official act of the Israeli government. It might be argued that the resolution was toothless and that practically all other governments with a few honorable exceptions voted for the resolution. But all other governments do not have a record of more than a generation of warfare against Ba’athist Syria including in very recent years an unprovoked bombing of a partially completed alleged nuclear reactor building. Ordinary Israelis may be terrified by the prospect of the overthrow of Assad, but it is in their government’s interest to keep them afraid so they will support whatever the government wants to do. Works the same way in the US. And the refugee flow will be going out from Israel once the chaos reaches the point where the expulsion of the remaining Palestinian Arabs can resume.

And Syrian WMDs? What WMDs? Are these the ones which Saddam Hussein allegedly sent to Syria from Iraq rather than use them to save himself? How many times do you expect us to fall for that one?
RonL on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:34 pm #

Israel joined almost every country on earth in a meaningless statement calling for elections and peace. The alternative was to undermine Assad’s regime by supporting it. Instead, the Ba’athists now get to call the rebels Zionists.
Some support.
RonL on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:35 pm #

And Syria has a universally acknowledged Chemical Weapons program.

It had a nuclear weapon’s program, which Israel destroyed. Do some basic research.
Kirt Higdon on 17 Feb 2012 at 8:22 pm #

Others claim that Syria has poison gas. That’s possible but given the difficulty of using deadly gases in warfare, it rather an exaggeration to call them weapons of mass destruction. Even in WWI, when they were used to their greatest extent in battle, they were minor killers compared to artillery and machine gun fire. Of course, the advantage of the term WMD is that it can be applied to anything – I’ve even heard it applied to simple pipe bombs. And even US intelligence stated that they doubted that Syria ever had a nuclear weapons program, just as Panetta has recently stated twice that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and has not even decided to.

I’d buy that Israel’s UN vote was meaningless if Syria was a country they had no interest in rather than one against which they have been at war off and on since the inception of the modern state (not to mention ancient times). If the Israeli government wanted to save Assad, they easily could. Give back the Golan heights and agree to a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders and invite Assad to mediate the negotiations. Assad would instantly be a hero to the Syrians and the Arab world, the revolt against him would collapse, and he, Netanyahu, and Abbas would be joined recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. This won’t happen because the Israeli and US government want Assad overthrown and Syria reduced to a hell-hole of permanently fighting tribes and factions like Somalia, Iraq, and Lybia.
DanPhillips on 17 Feb 2012 at 8:32 pm #

The problem with chemical weapons is the panic they induce and the paralysis (not physical paralysis) in activity they cause. Ever try doing anything in MOPP gear? Once a troop is in MOPP gear, he is basically worthless.
Kirt Higdon on 17 Feb 2012 at 11:57 pm #

Any weapon will cause problems, but I’ve never heard of any analyst who claimed that chemical weapons played a significant, let alone a decisive role in the outcome of either WWI or the Iran/Iraq war and these were the only wars where they saw much use in battle. (The British and Italians both used poison gas against primitive opponents, but the British actually did more damage with the celebrated Maxim gun.) As a terrorist weapon, the use of poison gas by a religious cult in the Tokyo subways killed few and caused no paralyzing panic. There’s a reason why terrorists prefer high explosives, but to include these within the concept of weapons of mass destruction as many do simply reduces the term to mere propaganda, which is pretty much what it is.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Conservative Heritage Times

18 Responses to “Santorum? Really?”

Leave a Reply

Search

Categories

Monthly

Pages