Ted Cruz Invites Obama to Border, Calls for Bombing ISIS ‘Back to the Stone Age’

Sen. Ted Cruz today invited President Obama to accompany him to a golf course on the Texas-Mexico border, telling conservatives at an Americans for Prosperity summit in Dallas he thought that was “the only way there is a chance in heaven that he might come” to the region.

The Texas Republican and potential 2016 presidential contender also heavily criticized the president’s foreign policies and suggested that the U.S. should bomb ISIS “back to the stone age.”

“Tonight I am officially extending an invitation for Barack Obama to come join me at the border in Texas,” Cruz said. “I figured the only way there is a chance in heaven that he might come: I am inviting him to a golf course.”

Cruz told the audience that he is inviting Obama to join him at Lajitas Golf Resort in Big Bend, where, on “the 11th hole, the pin is on the other side of the Rio Grande, so you can only go for a hole in one.”

Cruz devoted much of his speech to lambasting Democratic immigration reforms and warned that it would be “utterly lawless” for Obama to offer “amnesty” without the consent of Congress. Obama is expected to take executive action on immigration sometime this fall, but it has remained unclear when or how aggressively the president would seek to change U.S. policy.

Get the point! It has nothing to do with weapons.

Oh, I get your point, alright. ISIS is Stone Age mentality. But it's Stone Age mentality with 21st century weaponry -- a significant remove from Stone Age mentality with Stone Age weapons.

In the 19th century, the Dervishes fought Kitchener with spears and swords...and magic. Unfortunately, the West can no longer deal with Islam as they did in the 19th century.

On the other hand, if the cruelty that ISIS does doesn't cause a Curtis Lemay type of response (even rhetorically), then we're probably going to have to get used to a permanent ISIS. I believe Winston Churchill's reaction to the Bolsheviks is correct. He said, "We should strangle the baby in its cradle."
Carl von Clausewitz wrote in his book ON WAR that wars are won by breaking the enemies will to fight. Clearly, if we think about it the will of the American people to fight has been broken by our enemies abroad and politicians taking political advantage of American war weariness (which for most Americans means they're tired of hearing about it). Even as vile and cruel as ISIS is, and as much as they have shown themselves to be at war with everyone not practicing Islam as they do, our president is not willing to say we're at war with them.

My opinion is that we should use airpower to even the battlefield for those already fighting ISIS. Continue to transfer arms and ammunition to the Kurds and others so that they can hunt down and exterminate these foreigners who wage an unprovoked war against the people of Iraq and Syria.

Actually, I agree with just about everything you said. I was merely referring to tactics--not principles.

I, too, have long liked Clausewitz. The aphorism for which he is probably best known--that war is "merely the continuation of policy [OR politics] by other means"--is an excellent observation, in my opinion.

And we do, indeed, need to confront ISIS--or whatever it is calling itself nowadays--in a most unforgiving manner. (I do not often quote a thoroughgoing Marxist; but in this case, I will make an exception, and quote Leon Trotsky: "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." It is something for a war-weary nation to ponder.)

I’d been thinking of that same quote, except that it was Trotsky who said it. Of the two of them, it’s hard to say who was the more cruel, stupid, and bloody. Of course, Stalin and Mao topped them both.

You are entirely correct about the incredibly bloodthirsty nature of both Stalin and Mao. (Just how Mao might ever have become a cult hero, among some on the left, is utterly beyond me.)

Perhaps the bloodiest tyrant of the twentieth century--not in absolute numbers, but in terms of murders as a percentage of the total population--was Pol Pot, whose Khmer Rouge had up to three million people murdered, out of a population of only about eight million in Cambodia at the time (or "Kampuchea," as it was briefly renamed).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.