[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: Obama leads his coalition of Arab tyrants into another losing, Islamist-boosting war “The real defeatist in America is the man who says this nation cannot survive alone.” Col. Charles A. Lindbergh, 1 July 1941 “There is nothing worse than a belligerent professor.” Walter Lippman The Founders created a republic that could survive if it was run by honest men of moderate intelligence and common sense, but not one that could survive if run by men and women who are well-educated but also ideologues and pathological liars. Hence, America today is on the verge of being done like dinner. Since Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States in August, 1996, the people of the United States have elected presidents, senators, and congressmen who are neither honest not apparently very intelligent. This kind of electoral result is the chance that voters take in every republican political system, and it is a painful result that, in normal times, can be endured until a more savvy and less dishonest American emerges to win the reins of power and talk frankly and factually to the citizenry. These are not normal times, however, and the kind of leadership we have had continuously since 1996 is leading the nation into a world war with Islam that will be among the bloodiest ever fought by this country. This war will kill and maim so many American soldiers and Marines that those already killed in Afghanistan and Iraq will form no more than a corporal’s guard for the coming dead. And why are we getting involved into this war? –Because two U.S. journalists and one British journalist were beheaded by IS fighters? This a national security threat to neither the U.S. nor the UK. –Because Christians, Yazidis, and other minorities are being persecuted by IS forces? This is not a national security threat to the United States? –Because Iraqi, Syrian, and other Sunnis are warring against Iraqi, Iranian, and Syrian Shia and Alawites? This is a clear plus for U.S. national security and should be encouraged. –Because IS forces will eventually threaten and destabilize our “allies” — most large oil producers — in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the UAE? This is only a threat because Obama’s administration has not sprinted the final small distance to U.S. energy self sufficiency. And, by the way, most of our Arab allies and/or their wealthy citizens are sending arms, funds, and recruits to IS, as well as paying for the intolerant religious education of youngsters — who will become future jihadis — in the United States and its English-speaking allies. –Because IS is inspiring/funding/ordering local Islamists to attack in the United States, Canada, Britain, and Australia? This is a threat to those countries only because the insane leadership class in each believes in the fatuous and debilitating myths of multiculturalism and diversity, has made it easy for foreigners who cannot or will not assimilate to enter those countries, and has refused to fully secure national borders. –Because the fast-growing forces of militant Sunni Islam are threatening Israel? This is true, but it is not a national security threat to the United States. It is a threat only to the politicians in both U.S. parties who are on the take from AIPAC and other pro-Israel organizations. And why should we have refused to re-intervene in Iraq? –Because IS is cutting the heads off Westerners to lure America into re-intervening. Why? Because U.S. military intervention in any Muslim country means more donations, recruits, and popular support for IS, al-Qaeda, and other like-minded organizations. U.S. intervention in the Iraq-Syria theater will, over time, make everything it is designed to stop much worse. –Because we will lose again, and so further add to the Muslim world’s perception that the United States is finished as a superpower, is unwilling to destroy its enemies; and can, with continued patience and sacrifice, be defeated. In addition, the U.S., UK, Canadian, and Australian militaries have proven themselves — in Iraq and Afghanistan — almost completely incompetent when it comes to defeating Islamist insurgents. Until they relearn the art of killing massive numbers of their enemies and their supporters those militaries should stay home and defend borders. –Because the recklessly lawless Barack Obama has again violated the Constitution by attacking in Syria without congressional approval. He also has created a coalition of Arab tyrannies that will appear to Sunni Muslims as a clear U.S. effort to insure the stability of the Sunni tyrants who oppress them, as well as to protect the hated Shia and Alawite dictators who rule Syria, Iraq, and Iran. –Because we are BROKE as a nation; re-intervention will be prolonged and extraordinarily expensive; and the goal of IS and all Islamist groups vis. the United States is to complete its economic ruin. –Because Obama and the national government will further shred the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the name of “protecting Americans” from the Islamist enemies Washington is constantly motivating — through military intervention — to kill them and their soldier-children. –Because we live in North America and our enemy has neither the naval nor air power to reach us. We also have the capability to incinerate them and their supporters if they find a way to hurt us badly at home. The Islamist enemy’s threat at the moment stems largely from the refusal of America’s bipartisan elite to control the nation’s borders and its willingness to tolerate the entry of enormous numbers of illegal aliens about whose location and intentions we are ignorant. (NB: If another major attack occurs in the United States, it should provoke not only the eradication of the enemy and its supporters, but also something akin to drum-head courts-martial for politicians who have served in the national government since 9/11 and opposed border control. The trials should be conducted with a substantial number of gallows and, as Willie Nelson would say, “all the rope in Texas” standing by and ready to promptly execute the sentences imposed.) Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: X-15 (#0)
This is as irrelevant as most of the essay because Obama has the tacit approval of Congress since disrupting Syria is an Israeli goal which members of Congress must support or else they will lose vital Jew organizational, financial and media support at election time. Congress"approval" of Obama's action is reflected in its voting of funds to pay for the wars for Israel.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||