Posted on 11/16/2015 5:13:24 AM PST by Kaslin
It is unfortunate, but no surprise, that everyone running for office, working for someone running for office, or writing about someone running for office is searching for the perfect rhetorical and political response to Paris.
After the initial horror of the Paris attacks began to fade, my first thought was, "Let's go get the bastards."
ISIS, in the past few weeks, has bombed Beirut, brought down a Russian passenger jet, and now launched Friday's complex attack in Paris.
Someone raised the question over the weekend why Vladimir Putin hasn't moved a couple of divisions of Russian soldiers, along with heavy artillery into the region to exact revenge for the aircraft bombing.
I said it was one thing to put soldiers and materiel on planes and fly them 1,500 miles due south from Russia to Syria. It was something else again to have barracks, mess halls, latrines, food, water, power, communications, fuel and maintenance facilities to support them once they landed.
And, as we've learned, putting troops and guns into a region is a hell of a lot easier than taking them back out.
On the other side of the equation - and the other side of the Atlantic - the big discussion has been over what to do about people trying to get out of the region. The easiest and, truthfully, safest approach is: Close the borders TFN.
That's hard to argue with.
The White House has determined that 1,500 Syrian refugees have been granted asylum in the United States. President Barack Obama made it known in September that he intended to increase that number to 10,000 this year and perhaps another 10,000 next.
Twenty thousand people in a country of 320 million adds about six-one-thousands of one percent to the total.
I get that it's not just the gross number of immigrants, but that if only eight of them are trained terrorists
As I discovered when Mullpal Tim Hyde and I went to Hungary, Croatia, Serbia and Austria to visit with migrants/refugees in early October, is that they were a blend of people from a variety of countries, with a mixture of reasons why they wanted to get from where they had been living to where they hoped to live.
Michael Smerconish said on his CNN program over the weekend, the people who are flooding into Europe are trying to get away from the very horrors that were visited on the people of Paris. Good point.
And what about the nations of the region taking their share? Jordan has been the go-to country, but it's bursting at the seams. The royal families in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and UAE might consider giving up some of their personal 747s and palaces and build out some reception centers for their neighbors.
I don't have a good answer for that, either, but if they did, they would need to fund those operations by raising oil prices and we could kiss $2 gasoline goodbye. As they expanded their defense capabilities to meet prospective threats from ISIS, we could wave bye-bye to $3 gasoline in the near future.
Finally, I would like to call a moratorium on the phrase "boots on the ground." Those boots are being worn by American men and women. Largely young American men and women.
If we increase our military presence in the Middle East in response to the growing threat let's not hide behind "boots on the ground" or any other euphemism.
Let's tell the truth: We are going to send young men and women into battle. Again. Some of them will be killed. Many will be injured. Again.
It will not be pretty. It will not be romantic. But if we do, it will be because we deemed it necessary to our national security.
As many of you may remember, I spent about six months in Iraq from November 2003 through May 2004. If I were called upon to go back to the region, I would, even though I couldn't physically do, at almost 69, what I could do when I was 56. I would do what I could.
I'd go. I'd put my boots back on and go.
I'd go with them.
I have no faith in the vetting being done of the Syrian immigrants that Ears is bringing in.
Stop this insanity!
Hate to sayit but attacking JUST ISIS isn’t the answer. You’regoing to have to show them that their actions are going to have consequences and that there will be collateral damage that will affect their families. You will have to destroy what they care for not them if you are serious about winning this war. They do not care if they themselves are killed. Yes ISIS assasins you have awakened the sleeping giants and you will pay soon in a horrible way.
Plans and strategeries ... as we speak
>>>Someone raised the question over the weekend why Vladimir Putin hasn’t moved a couple of divisions of Russian soldiers, along with heavy artillery into the region to exact revenge for the aircraft bombing.
probably decided that Obama would give isis Intel and air support.
At the start of the Afghan war, the estimates of the number of enemy was about 30,000. For each and every year thereafter, despite the tens of thousands of fighters the US and its allies killed, the estimated number of enemy remained at 30,000. Why?
Two reasons. First, that was the maximum number of fighters the enemy leaders could command. But more importantly, there was a *perpetual* source of replacements, from the madrassas religious schools in Pakistan, many of which acted as little more than replacement depots, to give young men minimal training to be fighters, before shipping them off. Along with making them memorize the Koran.
Thus, as long as there was an open border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, something which the Afghan government insisted on, it was impossible for the US to win the Afghan fight.
Now, having said this, look at the Syrian situation. ISIS is trained and led by Saddam’s former commanders. This alone explains why they have been so effective, so far, relatively speaking. To make things worse, they are getting logistical support, weapons and equipment from both the US and its allies, and Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Muslim nations.
This is because Assad is a Shiite, thus backed by Iran, with considerable sympathy from Iraq, but importantly with a *perpetual* source of replacements from the Shiite Hezbollah, in neighboring Lebanon.
So where, exactly, can the US insert itself in this fight?
By fighting ISIS, the US helps Israel’s enemy Hezbollah, as well as Iran. By fighting Assad, the US encourages radical and vicious Sunni butchery in the region.
Russia has no such predicament, because they wholly support Assad, and Iran. This is why they are fighting not just ISIS, but anyone else seeking to overthrow Assad. If their side wins, Russia gets a valuable prize: a warm water sea port in the Mediterranean, which would be a huge win for them.
This is typical. Everyone is wondering why someone else is not doing something.
I believe that the sane part of the world is going to have to work together to solve this problem. What will happen if the Arabs and the Israelis are asked to contribute soldiers? What will happen if civilians in the West are asked to provide financial support in the form of higher taxes than has been paid in the last 60 years? What can Asian countries contribute?
I do not believe that Americans will want to be the only persons contributing.
We shall see who is willing to do what.
The enemy is the religion.
PERIOD.
It must be stamped out root and branch—ALL its adherents. Kill or convert—that makes no difference.
EVERYTHING else going on is just mental masturbation.
We will just keep getting more of the same, otherwise.
Since it appears that almost ALL of the invading enemy lives on social benefits from the invaded countries—why not just cut off the $$$$ and see what happens?
It would be a start, anyway.
The truth of the matter is that if America goes into war in the middle east our aim must be to kill moslems. The more that we kill the better, eradication of entire populations, genocide if you prefer to call it that. Until we are willing to kill every last man woman and child that embraces islam, we need to stay out of there. (Because every moslem we let live behind us will eventually stab us in the back)
If we do not have the stomach to eradicate the problem then the least we must do is quarantine the area, no moslem gets out (except for strictly controlled diplomatic purposes).
Islam is the enemy. It is better to nuke the entire Mideast (Excepting of course Israel) and have to cut down on our oil consumption, then it is to allow islam to remain viable.
Of course the first thing we have to do is get the moslems out of our countries. Every moslem is a terrorist and a liar (I’ve read their scriptures) and they cannot be trusted. Ever. So every non-citizen moslem needs to be executed or deported. Every citizen moslem needs to be encouraged to leave. Make life a living hell for them here if we need to.
Bulldoze every mosque (they are in reality anti-American terrorist training centers), destroy every trace of organized islam in this country. Burn every copy of the Koran and stop any from being printed here. Islam is sedition in this country.
Our Constitution guarantees us a republican form of government and islam is not republican in any way. It is incompatible with our Constitution.
exactly correct
I'd bet that I could control a drone with a HELLFIRE on it as easily as a twenty something.
Why should He??
|
Are you still killing your unborn? -- GOD |
The same day; in America; CHOICE killed about 3,300 people not yet born.
And we are worried about...
2 Chronicles 7:14 (KJV)
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
Why should He? Because He promised He would. We just need to fulfill our part.
See any chance of that happening?
I can only speak for myself. I am trying my best to do my part. The rest of the Christians answer for themselves
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.
