A Scary Mainstream Republican

The success of the mid terms for the Democratic Party is dependant on how much Americans can remember about the Republican controlled Congress during the Bush years.

I hear the word Tea Party, conscientious govt. spending, blah-blah blah--where is the beef?

Sounds like Newt is falling off the same cliff as McCain is now--you need be a Palinista, or a Limbaughite, go Right extreme or get lost!

Republicans have no reason to be optimistic in 2010.

I have been open and honest about being a disgruntled Obama supporter. I have asked for folks to provide an alternative for 2012- all the while pointing out that just because Obama has let me down doesn't automatically mean I would vote for a Republican (or anyone else for that matter). END DISCLAIMER

Here is an example of why I wouldn't just automatically vote Republican next time-

YouTube - Gingrich: We're one for three on the Axis of Evil, why not 3 for 3?

Newt Gingrich is from the mainstream Republican party. He is IMHO- not one of the fringe Republicans. But yet, this former speaker is basically suggesting that we should attack/should have attacked Iran and North Korea because they are part of Bush's Axis of Evil- of which we already took care of "one out of the three" (Iraq).

SCARY SCARY irresponsible rhetoric.

If I have a choice to mortgage ourselves with healthcare and "handouts" to Americans or mortgage ourselves with neverending "wars" and the killing of troops and innocent civilians-

well- we'd all have a Cadillac plan with Blue Cross/Blue Shield and probably a democrat for another 4 years.

Get real, GOP.

I didn't pick that up. He was comparing the war against extremism to the cold war, which lasted forty years. Where did he say Bush should have invaded all three countries? I wonder if you are pulling a Breitbart? ;-)

Ha- funny about Breitbart.

I don't think it was even very subtle. He said Bush was right about the Axis of Evil, that we got one out of the three (we attacked Iraq) and that if we had ended up prior to WWII taking the approach we have now(not getting involved militarily), we'd be owned by Nazis.

Well IMHO, Bush was likely right about those three countries. Iraq was / would be up to no good no matter what. (We've smashed the status quo there and changed the dynamic, hopfully for the better.) Iran will either be undone internally or will ultimately become a threat to the world, since they have shown a millingness to support extremist groups. North Korea - who the hell knows what they're up to, but we do know they have nuclear weapons.

If we had stable democracies in all three of those regions, the world would be a much safer place for all involved.

The success of the mid terms for the Democratic Party is dependant on how much Americans can remember about the Republican controlled Congress during the Bush years.

I hear the word Tea Party, conscientious govt. spending, blah-blah blah--where is the beef?

Sounds like Newt is falling off the same cliff as McCain is now--you need be a Palinista, or a Limbaughite, go Right extreme or get lost!

Republicans have no reason to be optimistic in 2010.

The success of the mid terms for the Democratic Party is dependant on how much Americans can remember about the Republican controlled Congress during the Bush years.

AlphaCrab - News Flash - The democrats controlled Congress the last two years of the Bush Presidency. That's when all the trouble started.

As my fellow tea party friends like to say, I can see November from my house.

Let's see, we invaded Iraq to establish a Democracy?? And that didn't work. We invaded Afghanistan, and now we want to establish a Democracy, and absolutely no one thinks that will work. So your thoughts are to try it again in Iran and North Korea (as we slog it out in War#1 and War#2)? Somehow, this just doesn't seem too smart to me...

Iraq isn't a fledgling democracy?

We invaded Afghanistan to build a democracy?

I said we should invade Iran?

I said we should invade North Korea?

Well IMHO, Bush was likely right about those three countries. Iraq was / would be up to no good no matter what. (We've smashed the status quo there and changed the dynamic, hopefully for the better.) Iran will either be undone internally or will ultimately become a threat to the world, since they have shown a willingness to support extremist groups. North Korea - who the hell knows what they're up to, but we do know they have nuclear weapons.

If we had stable democracies in all three of those regions, the world would be a much safer place for all involved.

Hi Idlewind, I agree that these countries don't have our best interests in mind and that they would like to see us destroyed. But the thing is- we are the ones invading and destroying countries. We are the ones who have actually used the nuclear weapons.

We have 20 times the weaponry of all other countries put together. We don't use our armed forces to protect ourselves and enforce our borders. We mettle with the affairs of others.

Religious extremism aside, it makes sense to me why we are hated and why others wish to do us harm.

Can u imagine if your family was eating on the patio at Red Bar and an unmanned drone from Russia killed all of them because they were trying to eliminate some Eglin officials dining at a neighboring table?

What would we think if Russia invaded and conquered Mexico or Canada wanting to replace their former forms of govt with something more along the lines of what Putin prefers?

In post #8 you stated "If we had democracies..." I inferred that you would wish to impose our form of democracy/capitalism on them by force. I didn't think you were inferring that we should ask them politely.

Hi Idlewind, I agree that these countries don't have our best interests in mind and that they would like to see us destroyed. But the thing is- we are the ones invading and destroying countries. We are the ones who have actually used the nuclear weapons.

We have 20 times the weaponry of all other countries put together. We don't use our armed forces to protect ourselves and enforce our borders. We mettle with the affairs of others.

Religious extremism aside, it makes sense to me why we are hated and why others wish to do us harm.

Can u imagine if your family was eating on the patio at Red Bar and an unmanned drone from Russia killed all of them because they were trying to eliminate some Eglin officials dining at a neighboring table?

What would we think if Russia invaded and conquered Mexico or Canada wanting to replace their former forms of govt with something more along the lines of what Putin prefers?

Yeah, would love to see us practice some isolationism. Be selfish for a quarter century. The only part of what you said that I don't agree with is that I don't think we're ever not hated- even when we're helping/needed.

Hi Idlewind, I agree that these countries don't have our best interests in mind and that they would like to see us destroyed. But the thing is- we are the ones invading and destroying countries. We are the ones who have actually used the nuclear weapons.

We have 20 times the weaponry of all other countries put together. We don't use our armed forces to protect ourselves and enforce our borders. We mettle with the affairs of others.

Religious extremism aside, it makes sense to me why we are hated and why others wish to do us harm.

Can u imagine if your family was eating on the patio at Red Bar and an unmanned drone from Russia killed all of them because they were trying to eliminate some Eglin officials dining at a neighboring table?

What would we think if Russia invaded and conquered Mexico or Canada wanting to replace their former forms of govt with something more along the lines of what Putin prefers?

While this is not popular thought these days the simple truth is that the only way to be secure is to be the strongest and then be willing to ruthlessly protect and promote your interests. Using nuclear weapons in 1945 was in our best interests, it saved between 500,000- 1,000,000 American lives. Destroying other nations means to hurt us is in our interests, we must do it to protect ourselves.
We get in trouble when we attempt to use military power in ways that do not promote our interests. Bush's "nation building" comes to mind.
I would be angry and want revenge if my family was hurt while dining at the Red Bar. I expect my government to prevent that from happening by whatever means necessary. I assume every other nation will behave in the same way.

Can't you and 30-A Shopper see the contradictions in your stance? We cannot invade countries and expect to be seen as liberators. We cannot destroy countries "to get the bad guys", and not destroy the good people in that country that we were supposedly trying to "liberate". The wars of the 21st century will all be insurgencies just like we are experiencing now. Unfortunately, in these kinds of wars, we have to go in with a major emphasis on "nation building" whether we like it or not. A lot of people think the reason we failed in Iraq is because, after six years, they still don't have electricity or clean water. All the weapons in the world won't help us until we commit to honestly helping the countries we choose to invade and destroy.