Previous 21 - 30 Next
Dan: Not all Germans were Nazis, and not all Russians were Communists. Nevertheless, we entered two wars (one hot, one cold) to defeat them. Likewise, not all citizens of Muslim nations are terrorists, but they are trapped in a falsely theocratic system called Islam...which, in fact, is a political ideology with worldwide ambitions. Time to take the semantic gloves off and call this situation what it is: a war on Islam. Were we to do so, we could handle this situation by using (or threatening to us) our own weapons of "terror" (nuclear weapons) to motivate THE LEADERS OF ALL MUSLIM NATIONS to end the bloodshed caused by the 1400 year old schism between Sunnis and Shiites. Why should another drop of American blood be spilled?
The Teleprompter Speaks posed (3:15 PM) that "Obama can't say this and then ask Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other Islamic countries for help." Here is the flaw in your thinking: POTUS certainly can say that Islam is not a "religion of peace," and he could demand, upon threat of nuclear annihilation, that Muslim nations clean up their own neighborhoods. He doesn't have to "ask" them for any help, at all. AMERICA HAS FORGOTTEN HOW TO IDENTIFY AN ENEMY AND DEFEAT IT. THE ONLY WAY TO DEFEAT TERRORISTS...AND THE NATION STATES THAT SPONSOR THEM...IS TO OUT-TERRORIZE THEM.
Hey, he's too busy playing patty cake with the Arab League to pretend we're at war. To admit that we were at war would require us to identify the enemy, and the enemy consists of ISIS terrorists AND THEIR STATE SPONSORS who include Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc. Moreover, it might be discovered that BHO has contributed arms to ISIS (when they were motivated more to oust of the Saudi's enemy, Iran). NONE OF THE LEADERS OF MUSLIM NATIONS CAN BE TRUSTED TO ACT HONORABLY. THEY ARE ALL LIARS AND MUST BE COERCED INTO USING THEIR OWN MILITARY FORCES TO ERADICATE ALL THE TERRORISTS IN THEIR NATIONS.
Here at the White House, we prefer the expression "kinda warish like."
Let me translate: "do their share" = continue to use US forces as if they own them. Let me translate: "contribute as appropriate" = shed none of their blood and spend as little as possible - just enough to say they made a contribution. I will repeat: Terrorists (be they Sunnis or Shiites) and the nation states that sponsor them must be coerced into laying down their arms and cleaning up their own neighborhood. If that means using tactical nuclear weapons to put the fear of Allah in them, if it means threatening to destroy Mecca and Medina, then that's what it means.
In response to:

Post-9/11: Protect the Freedom To Warn

Whitebeard Wrote: Sep 12, 2014 12:00 PM
This is, exactly, how cancer and the Federal bureaucracy works: unchallenged destructive growth...making it harder and harder for the healthy cells to exist or perform their intended functions.
Nail meet hammer. Spot on, Dyadd.
You won't like an honest answer, lois is 12. Unlike BHO, GWB was not a Sunni sympathizer; he was non-sectarian in his approach and thought that power should be shared between the Sunnis and Shiites. The police forces, just like the rest of Saddam's gov't, were all Sunnis who, routinely, mistreated Shiites. You ever been in a situation where one group dominates another? Guess Bush was right, huh? Trying to stick up for the mistreated part of Iraq's population? Believed in civil rights, didn't he? Get off the crack pipe.
Precisely, Mike.
Every Muslim has to choose sides: Sunni or Shiite. BHO is a Sunni sympathizer (at the very least). His refusal to get a SOFA and withdraw all our troops out of Iraq was part of a plan coordinated with the leading Sunni nations (e.g. Saudi Arabia) to counter the growing Shiite control of Iraq by a violent overthrow of its new gov't (...carried out by rebels funded by Sunnis and now calling themselves ISIS).
Previous 21 - 30 Next