Saturday, September 11, 2010

We Should Be Carpetbombing Them Instead

Patrick McIlheran found an unusual survey done by Rasmussen, but was even more perplexed by the results (emphasis mine):

Rasmussen asks Americans which other countries we ought to be ready to defend by arms. A majority says there are five.

Canada I get, and Britain. “Israel has U.S. support even if it makes the first move,” the pollsters report, with 51% saying we ought to help out if the Israelis do the world a favor regarding Iran’s nukes. World War II is so over, at least as far as a willingness to defend Germany.

And -- this surprised me a bit -- a majority say we ought to defend Mexico if it’s attacked.
What I want to know is why he found it surprising more people would prefer to be in protective of a neighbor, a business partner and just fellow human, even if they have different color.


  1. And then he thought about it some more, comforted in his conclusion that in was only because right-thinking Americans wouldn't want a[nother] horde of dusky refugees crossing the Rio Grande.

  2. Nice racist comment, sven. What is it with liberals and race?
    But if you actually look at the poll, which requires reading, the poll has contridictory numbers. We are pissed at Mexico but then turn around and want to defend them if they are attacked.
    Bu then, who the hell would want to attack Mexico? It's third world with huge problems. They would be better off with a coup right now.

  3. McIlheran is a racist, pure and simple. No amount of middle-brow pseudo-intellectualism can mask it. He doesn't even know it because he's too busy trying to impress his four readers. And it's allways some sideways BS. Just askin'. Just sayin'. I wonder...BS, BS and BS. If he were a better writer, he might-might-pull it off, but he sucks as a writer and sucks as a human being.

  4. We are pissed at Mexico

    What do you mean we, honkylips?

  5. Sven, watch the gratuitous racial epithets.