liberals….genghis Khan …………your a hoot.

and by hoot, i mean your question is riducouls and give the impression that you lack any sense at all.

this of course is only an opinion.

How about a liberal scattering of lead?

the answer is yes.
Actually they did it.
but that (liberal?) ambassador ended up into a water bowl…
boiled up like an egg, yet it wasnt an egg. Eggs dont scream,
liberals do (republicans too)

If his "hoard" were at the gates of the city, they'd find a way to tax it by about 50%. I'd be more worried about his HORDE.

We can learn that ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force. Hugs and kisses will not protect you, overwhelming fire power will.

You can not compromise with the intolerant.

Of course they would. Anyone that stands up for freedom is a fascist according to liberals.

If one knows the history of Genghis Khan then one would know that "liberals" would use diplomacy with him when at the gates of your city. In doing so, they would submit but the populace stayed alive to live their normal lives except under different rule.

And if Conservatives wouldn't use diplomacy but ignored him, he would, as really happened ,destroy the city and all of the inhabitants.

Now tell me. Should we use diplomacy or confrontation?

Last time Khan roamed thru Persia, there was none left alive or a very few individuals. I think that Persian officials of that time were pretty liberal and dead after he came.
After that muslims learned the lesson, so they decimated their opponents who had made the same mistake the rest had became new muslims, and so islam grow.
Today we give them in the western world more freedom then they have in the middle east, but in the middle east other religions have no say, so what do we have to do?
Change the locals ,or change the middle east, locals are voters and are paying taxes, so we go to change the middle east and after we change them, locals will change themselves.
But if we do no change the middle east , then locals will grow, an we will be changed, and outperformed, outvoted, and probably be muslim or dead, or must we separate or reeducate local muslims, I do not mean christianize, but reeducate that local muslim population does not think like a middle eastern but as a local secular citizen, and not like a religius fanatic, that is a thorn among us.

A little knowledge of history might have alerted you to the more appropriate application of Genghis Khan as an analogy for the modern world.

Unlike Genghis Khan, Saddam Hussein was not a threat to America (he was leader of a country completely on its knees and almost completely disarmed, rather than being at "the gates of the city"). Republicans are big on attacking small, defenseless nations and acting as though they are fighting a big scary bully. For GWB it was Iraq, the bogey man he quaked in fear over when his Daddy was president and George Jr. was whacked out on coke and hallucinatiing. For Ronald Reagan there was that proud moment when he pounded the Mongol horde in… Grenada!

The only proper modern day (i.e. within living memory) leader analogous to Genghis Khan was Adolph Hitler, who led a country actually capable of threatening others.

And then it was Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Democratic President who occupied the oval office longer than any man in history, who led the country to victory with its allies.

You're welcome.