Posted on 11/14/2015 8:02:33 PM PST by Brad from Tennessee
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the Democratic Party presidential debate on Saturday evening in Iowa that she would not use the phrase “radical Islam†to describe the enemy responsible for attacking the United States and the west in general.
The exchange with moderator John Dickerson of CBS News was as follows (rush transcript):
Moderator: Secretary Clinton, you mentioned radical jihadists. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), also running for president, said this attack in Paris showed that we are at war with radical Islam. Do you agree with that characterization “radical Islam?â€
Clinton: I don’t think we’re at war with Islam. I don’t think we’re at war with all Muslims. I think we’re at war with jihadists
Moderator: Just to interrupt. he didn’t say all Muslims. He said “radical Islam.â€
Clinton: I think you can talk about Islamists who clearly are also jihadists, but I think it’s not particularly helpful to make the case that Senator Sanders was just making that I agree with that we’ve got to reach out to Muslim countries. We’ve got to have them be part of our coalition. If they hear people running for president who basically shortcut it to say we are somehow against Islam. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Damn right!
And for as fanatical the Japs were, they lived in the modern world. The Mohammadians are living in the 6th century.
RE Modern World:
They were a strange mix of modern and ancient.
And they were tough as nails.
Yep. And now they’re one of our strongest allies.
But they weren’t marrying 6 year olds either. I still can’t figure that out, nor do I want to.
Also, is it me or is Japanese WW2 weaponry boring compared to the German stuff?
Perhaps they’d prefer the term ‘devout’?
RE Japanese WW2 weaponry boring:
It killed. The arisaka in 7.7 is a fairly decent rifle; towards the end of the war they were shoddy, but we were bombing the batsnot of their industries, so yeah..
Their machine guns were OK; they did their job. Mortars, same same.
They were good with what they had.
Thay also had the Ohka - a guided flying rocket. Pilots were sealed into the canopy, the craft was launched from a Betty bomber (Mitsubishi G4M2, I believe) and the pilot ignited the rockets, straight to our ships. It was a flying warhead. They called it “Ohka” or cherry blossom. We called it “Baka” - for “fool”.
Either way, it could be the first cruise missile; unlike the German V-1 “Buzz Bomb”, which this was patterned after and modifed, this had a human pilot in it.
They DID have the two largest battleships in the world - Musashi and Yamato. Bigger than ours, the Germans, the Brits.
Thank you, Mr. “Guns & Ammo”.
I’ll do some reading up on what you posted.
Trust me. I’m right.
Haha!
Yes sir.
What these young kids miss is that what the US did worked. Japan and Germany were our Allies.
We didn't impose reparations on them like France and England did to Germany in the 1920s, and like USSR did to Eastern Germany in 1940s and 1950s. We did what we needed to beat them and then fixed the problems. And they stayed our Allies through the cold war.
“Fortunately that MacArthur did realize that, and the mistake of removing the Kaiser in WW1 underscored that as well. Too bad he was stopped from removing the Communist scourge in Korea and China. Had that been accomplished successfully, with a united Korea and Chiang in charge of China, the likelihood of a Communist agenda in Southeast Asia (Vietnam) would’ve been stopped dead in its tracks. Just imagine where we’d be today had all that been put down 60 years ago.”
You two have brains. Always a pleasant surprise on FR : )
““Charlie’s outlook is positive,†said one informant.”
Yeah....HIV positive.
Supposedly, he >>does<< shoot up coke and bangs tranny porn stars.
The guy went from “A” list (Platoon, Wall Street, Ferris Bueller) to “A” train.
“....You two have brains....”
Good lookin’ too... with pleasant personality... Humble... did I mention humble? Modesty is one of my BEST qualities...
Haha!!!
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........
I’s gots ta be’s me.
OK : )
It’s not rocket science when it comes to the period after war. #1, You defeat the enemy. #2, You swiftly come in and rebuild and remove the negative influences in the former enemy that led to war in the first place (as a demonstration that there are no hard feelings and you want them to become our friends and allies again).
Point being, you don’t want a perpetual humiliation of the vanquished after you’ve won, which not only does not lead to rapprochement, but builds a simmering hatred and will ultimately lead to another war. Precisely why the end of WW1 (Treaty of Versailles) was a fiasco. Keeping the Germans perpetually humiliated and unable to afford to rebuild swiftly was what enabled the Nazi Party rise to power.
One wonders if Germany had been swiftly rebuilt post-1918, kept the Kaiser and more reasonable political leaders elected, if when the ultimate showdown with the Soviets was to occur, we’d have had a united front to take them on and take them down (or at least kept them isolated and impotent). Joining with the Soviets to defeat the Axis was literally making a deal with the devil, and we paid dearly for it.
Thank you. I misread that as “you have two brains.” Just as long as one ain’t abnormal. :-P
“Precisely why the end of WW1 (Treaty of Versailles) was a fiasco. Keeping the Germans perpetually humiliated and unable to afford to rebuild swiftly was what enabled the Nazi Party rise to power.”
Absolute insanity . The Treaty of WW2.
Even Obama could have become the leader after this........
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.