[libstripper]

Sherman actually has something here. The trouble I've had with support for "moderate" Muslims has been that we have no reliable intelligence that would enable us to keep it from going to the very bad guys we're possibly fighting. Even more, as it stands now, the most likely effect of our involvement against ISIS will be a de facto alliance with Iran that will enable the Iranians to get their much-craved nukes. IOW the Mahdi will lead us from the frying pan to the fire, something he no doubt craves to do.

The solution to this, painful and expensive as it seems, is to regard Iran and ISIS as two sides of the same coin, radical Islamic terrorism, and to attack both simultaneously. If done decisively, that would eliminate the entire threat. Equally important, it would enable us to view Assad as no more than the somewhat irritating, but not really threatening, typical Mudlsime dictator that he would be and leave him in place to control the really rabid Mudslimes that are a serious threat to both of us.

Turning back to representative Sherman, this means his idea of a full debate, before giving the Mahdi the money he's asked for, is an excellent idea because it will reinforce Congress' constitutional role in war making and enable Congress to force the Mahdi to explain his war objectives, including how he will avoid turning the USAF into Iran's de facto air force and giving de facto consent to Iran's nuclear program.

[RitaOK]

This is a huge risk, possibly suicidal, especially under Obama.

Billion$ in war funding for materials that is crisply out of American hands ad cascading into a war zone in the absence of the full engagement of accompanying US military forces is a very alarming prospect.

Considering the billion$ for fighting ISIS under Obama, also serves as an appetizing slush fund for diverting funds.

[Rummyfan]

Kill the head. The body will follow. Following this idiot's advice, we should just do nothing. Honestly, our enemies must laugh at the vacuousness and pettiness of our so-called leaders. No wonder they are so emboldened. Is there not one man in Washington? Doesn't even have to be a man - I'd settle for a contemporary Margaret Thatcher or even a Joan of Arc.

[camle]

cant do everything, so we must do nothing...

[PghBaldy]

Unless we kill all muslims, we will have this problem, until they decide to correct their culture and behave worldwide.

[TigersEye]

I'll take nuclear carpet bombing for $5 billion, Alex!

That will end Glowbull Warming too.

[LambSlave]

For once I agree with a Dem. We should kill them all.

[duffee]

We should go after all islamist and certainly not allow anymore into the United States, at least for a hundred years or so and then only if they can show they’ve become civilized and “the religeon of peace” in reality.

[Billthedrill]

So...that feller who wants to cut my head off - I need to leave him alone because if I kill him the next one might only want to cut my head partially off? And when I kill him, the next guy will maybe only want to cut my arm off? And when I kill him, the next guy will maybe leave me alone? I'd call that progress, actually.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

The problem with whatever comes out of this idiots mouth is that it comes out of this idiot’s mouth.

[ImJustAnotherOkie]

The secret to using that strategy is secure borders, wall them off and let them take care of each other.

We don’t have that option so it is a non-starter.

Typical dumbass Dem Logic.

[MasterGunner01]

What the Democrat Congress-critter is saying: If America opposes ISIS (or whatever it calls itself now) is futile. Another version will only arise to take its place. Therefore, ISIS = Islam = Borg: Resistance is futile; prepare to be assimilated.

[353FMG]

Wow, Brad Sherman doesn’t have a clue.

But he does understand that there is very little difference between “moderate” Islam, ISIS and all these other muzzie organizations.

He does seem to know more about the enemy than his fellow congress critters do want to admit.

[allendale]

Sherman should learn something from Sicilian culture. If an organization beheads two of your people and brags it will destroy you, you don’t worry about much except the thorough, brutal and complete liquidation of that particular organization. Their fellow travelers will get the message and understand that you are not to be provoked in any way.

[dfwgator]

Muslims are Muslims, there is no Moderate Islam, they are all just fighting each other for the right to be the rulers over the Caliphate.

[Durus]

Maybe we should destroy all of them.

[MIchaelTArchangel]

First, we annihilate ISIS. Then we wait for the next group of thugs to rise. Then we annihilate them. After about fifteen or twenty such annihilations we will either run out of evil Muzzies or we will run out of Muzzies. Either solution works for me.

[BuffaloJack]

I don’t care if ISIS is replaced after it is destroyed. We can continue and destroy the replacements. They will run out of Martyrs before we run out of bombs.

[brothers4thID]

There will be evil to battle until the Day of Judgment. To resist battling evil for fear of another evil rising in the aftermath is an insidious cowardice of faith.

[I want the USA back]

There are no good guys in the middle east. If you empower one, hoping that it will defeat a worse one, you will soon find out that it hates you too and wants to kill you.

Helping “moderates” is an illusion. There are no moderates.

[reed13k]

Typical liberal - they all think we should look the other way no matter what the issue is: drugs, vice, Islamic terrorists, cronyism, adultery, beheadings, bribery, paytoplay...sheesh (oh unless its a non-liberal then they should be destroyed, burned, ashes disbursed, including all relatives to the 5th degree stopping only for other liberals)