Posted on 08/08/2007 5:33:29 AM PDT by expatguy
Tancredo should broaden the scope of his threat;
read “Kernel of Evil” in the Aug 7 Wall Street Journal, detailing Saudi Arabia’s initiation of, and support for, islamic terrorism at every level from recruitment, to financing, to supplying everyone from the leaders to the foot-soldiers.
++Pinging the Cool People and the Listholders++
The battle will be all the more bloodier for our children and grandchildren.
Thanks for the ping!
OUTSTANDING!
L
You and I have a choice to make. We can give up our dreams of freedom and liberty and continue with a policy of accommodation and appeasement, one that gives no choice between war and peace, only between fight and surrender or we can stand together and demand once and for all that our elected leaders get up off their knees and lead.
No more aid for Pakistan or for Saudi Arabia or for any nation that does not share our democratic principles. No more foot basins, no more special prayer rooms. No more accommodation and no more appeasement.<<<<
Excellent article and so very true.
Thank you for posting it, maybe the name should be:
“WAKE UP AMERICA”.
Everyone should read this article................
I think appeasment is way too strong here. Rather, what we have is a policy of divide and conquer. There was an article outlining the many ways the Bush admin has worked to keep other countries out of this fight, including millenium challenge fund grants. One thing that could have happened when we invaded Iraq is that Iran and Syria could have opened two fronts. We could not have fought them off with 150,000 soldiers. The lack of historical knowledge of many shows up in their inability to imagine what a real fiasco would have looked like.
What is a suprise to me is that while Rep. Tom Tancrado says what a lot of Americans are thinking he ends up being savaged alive, but YET, if Sen. Barack Obama says anything about going into Paki to take out AQ, then no big deal, just an opinion on the part of Sen. Barack.
Thanks, Granny.
When terrorists hide behind the “woman’s skirt” for training and planning their heinous acts, then those mosques ahould have a huge bull’s eye painted on the dome. There should be no sanctuary, holy or not, for them.
I imagine our forefathers spinning in their graves over the ludicrous policies this country is following.
It is as simple as the President said in the beginning, "You are either with us, or against us".
Nuking Mecca was a stupid idea the 1st time I heard it on 9-11-01, it was a stupid idea when Tom Tancredo said it the 1st time, it was a stupid idea the last time he said it. Stupid ideas don’t stop being stupid by being repeated over and over.
Rep. Tom Tancrado says what a lot of Americans are thinking
Thinking? or Feeling?
There are many terrorist targets, both direct and indirect, that we might address ourselves to long before we ever considered the nuclear option. I would expect a US President to possess the sort of maturity, restraint, and situational awareness necessary to effectively carry on what will be a very long struggle.
Indeed. Thank you so much for your insights!
the state department sees itself as in competition with the military.
To understand the statedepartment one need only look at left vs conservative.
The left does not want solutions they only want ISSUES.
The state department does NOT want solutions they only want issues which require eternal negotiations. The state department is NOT in the solutions business.
The military provides solutions, its mission IS solutions. Solutions put state department employees out of business. See the USSR, all those diplomates were shifted to the Balkans. The Balkans blood bath is a state department created problem.
Did you have the same reservations about the policy of mutually assured destruction. How about we just say that we will destroy the entire country of Saudi Arabia.
Not specifically directed at you and no offense, but I personally get offended when I see the people reminding us the size of our adversary - as if it had any relevance.
What you seem to be saying is that your resolve is incumbent upon the size of your enemy.
--
"But to advertise it as a strategic option would needlessly inflame Muslim sentiment, reducing rather than enhancing our actionable options."
Without announcing it, how does it become a deterrent?
And let me get this straight... "needlessly inflame" ~ that sounds almost like fear. I personally could care less if Muslims get pissed off.
I believe though that I asked a legitimate question:
On what basis should one's serenity ever trump my own safety and security?
OKAY you have me convinced! /sarc
Did you have the same reservations about the policy of mutually assured destruction?
Yes - I thought it was foolish in the extreme, as did Ronald Reagan. Instead of threatening nuclear retaliation for specifically-named acts (which is poor tactics; let them guess instead), we ought to be rooting out the terrorists and their supporters. We don't have to nuke the Saudis, for example. We can stop coddling the bastards: expose their support for radical mosques and madrassas; seize and freeze their domestic assets, gather intelligence on their activities and use police and military power as necessary in our interests. (And screw the State Department).
What you seem to be saying is that your resolve is incumbent upon the size of your enemy.
The size of our adversary is not beside the point - it is a proper military consideration in a time of war. The capabilities, will, organization, structure, location, assets, and size of one's enemy dictate how you ought to fight them. One's resolve ought never be dependent on the size of one's adversaries. That much is true. But one would be foolish not to take into account how many of "them" there are and where they are located.
Without announcing it, how does it become a deterrent?
It becomes a deterrent by refusing to exclude it (the nuclear option) as a possibility while maintaining the clear ability to act.
I personally could care less if Muslims get pissed off.
I, for one, couldn't care less how they feel about us. I know what you meant. I'm just saying that there is a tactical advantage to be gained through ambiguity: they need to know that we can act, but they shouldn't ever know if or how we would respond to a specific threat or action.
On what basis should one's serenity ever trump my own safety and security?
I'm not sure, and I want to answer fairly. Whose serenity do you mean, and what do you mean by "serenity"?
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.