[Lando Lincoln]

Lando

[Lando Lincoln]

Lando

[AZLiberty]

What would the nation retaliate against?

Mecca, Riyadh, Teheran, Damascus, Pyongyang.

That ought to keep things quiet for a few years.

[Mike Darancette]

Would any form of Constitutional government even survive?

How could we withstand an isolationist, socialist planned wartime economy.

[Democratshavenobrains]

All those people who were bleating about the Al-Queda recruitment lines being filled by the Iraq War should NEVER be taken seriously again.

[backhoe]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1079267/posts

The OFFICIAL FReeper attack ad thread

Kerry: AWOL on National Security for 20 years...

 

[FairOpinion]

"That is the choice that must be made this November: between a party which takes the terrorist threat seriously and is prepared to fight it to the point of sacrificing many things they want, and between a party whose adherents place their own individual issues take precedence over the security of the nation. In short, this election is a choice between patriotism and treason."

===

More great work! Thanks.

Hitting the nail on the head, again.

[wayoverontheright]

There is only one way to defeat the terrorists, as I’ve explained many times before. We must, as Lincoln once said of the Civil War, bring ourselves to grasp the mathematics of the situation. In any society there are only a limited number of people who are willing to knowingly commit suicide for any cause. The number willing to do so in a losing cause is even less than that.

In an otherwise wonderful article, this strategy falls well short of what is needed to defeat them.

The strategy presupposes that the suicide bomber is the only purveyor of destruction they have, and this is patently false, as remote detonation of any weapon is still a viable method, especially with WMD, and we simply cannot kill them all. The comparison with the kamikazis of Japan is apt, but proves my point...WE DID NOT KILL THEM ALL, WE HUMILIATED THEM AND THEREFORE STUNTED THEIR WILL.

We CAN stunt the will of our enemy again, but we must be willing to quit denying that our response is by necessity both PUNITIVE AND RETALIATORY. We must say to them "If you allow those in your midst to hit us again, we will not abstain from utilizing our Western might to the fullest, innocents be damned." In order to change their will, consequences must befall the entire region, or at least a chosen sector for clear and unequivocal demonstration of our resolve.

We must realize that all wars are fought somewhat on psychological grounds, with HUMILIATION being the key cathartic ingredient. The consequences of two countries going down and extracting Saddam from his hole before a shocked and embarrassed Arab Street, in my opinion has already changed the dynamic, but our refusal, in the name of political correctness, to frame our actions as punitive and retaliatory will allow them to continue to disrespect us, and therefore remain a danger to us.

[bassmaner]

bump for later