previous post next post  


You don't need to watch the video to get the point.

The point is - these people are Nazi-Soviet-Imperial Japan level rat bastards, fueled by religious zealotry.

They're going to take very active containment, at the least, or a WWII-level of violence to eradicate.

Like it or not - this is also part and parcel of the result of invading Iraq. I told you back then I didn't like optional wars - because they *never* *ever* end the way you expect unless they're tiny ones.

Our intentions were good, but we screwed that up from the beginning.

And we're going to be paying for this for a long time, whether we want to, or not.

But the threat is at the 1934/5 level, and these folks don't have the capacity that Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union did. So there's a window to deal with them without having to go all Dresden and Hiroshima on them.

But it isn't going to be pretty.

And before it's all over, we're going to be poorer, and, I rather suspect, a lot less free.

As we continue to surrender our freedoms for the illusion of domestic security, and hand more and more to an ever-ravenous state apparatus.


I'm going to sign a DNR.

HORRIBLE: ISIS murders 1500 POWs in a brutal display of violence (NSFW)


Hard to watch, but Americans must, especially the peaceniks and do-gooders who want to negotiate and "can't we all just get along" types.

These rabid animals cannot be dealt with by diplomacy, or negotiations, but must be destroyed by brute force.

I would like to say this is not our fight, so just let the barbarians kill each other.  But, these are part of the same rabid pack that includes Al-Queda, ISIS, Hamas, Boko Haram, and most importantly the Iranian theocracy.

The latter are the most dangerous because they will soon have nukes.  Nor will they hesitate to assist their brethern in the jihad against the "great Satan and the evil Jooos" by giving them nukes.  Their apocolyptic and perverse beliefs include some bizzare notion that the twelfth, or "hidden" Imam will appear when civilization is destroyed and save all the good Muslims.... or something along those lines.  In other words, they seek massive destruction as a religious duty, not just individual evil medieval barbarism against their tribal enemies.  Would they prefer to set off a nuke in Tel Aviv, New York, Washington or London?  No, that is a trick question- the answer is all of the above.

The Iranian nuke program must be stopped.  It is clear our dangerously incompetent President and his sycophants and cronies will not do so.  That leaves it to the Israelis to do so.  May God be with them and grant them success in this vital task.  And, may we have the wisdom and courage to not stop them or punish them.  The Israelis are defending us, even if our leaders do not understand this.

Of course, one ironic part of this massive chess game is that the crazy muzzies hate Russians as much as westerners, so Putin's adventures need to keep that in mind as well.

The "moderate Muslims" (if indeed there are such creatures) need to watch this video and decide if they will stand and fight for their lives, or be marched to the killing fields.

We need to approach this problem with the attitude of Gen. Mattis "I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all."  And, then make good on that promise.  Starting with ISIS and the Iranian nukes.

Muzzy radicals love death (their own or their opponents) more than we love life.  Tough to understand that or cope with it.  But we ignore that fact at our own peril, and these are perilous times.

Americans would like to be able to simply mind their knitting and let world go by. Alas, the world is demanding attention forcefully and will not be ignored forever. We saw what happened after Vietnam - we got another 20 years of killing in Asia and Africa because Americans simply wanted to go home and be left alone. It may have seemed cheap, but we paid for it in loss of reputation and good will, plus the current rise of China who is looking to fix our little red wagon in the not too distance future. I'm reminded of what Patrick Henry said to those unwilling to help New England fight the Brits - "May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget you were our countrymen." Unfortunately, policy wars tend to lead to wars that you have no choice of fighting.

I disagree with the use of the term "optional war" to condemn or criticize the US war in Iraq.

All wars are "optional", even when invaded or attacked first, or faced with enslavement and death.  You don't have to fight back; you can opt to just accept the fate that the aggressor will inflict upon you.

After Pearl Harbor, and even after Hitler declared war on the US, the US wasn't forced to go to war. After all, Axis forces had not yet directly attacked the US homeland. But the US opted to go to war and fight.  We could just as easily have sued for peace and acceded to the demands of the Axis powers.

To blame what's happening in Iraq now with ISIS on the removal of Saddam Hussein is like arguing that the Western Allies should have left Hitler in power to prevent the Soviet expansionism and aggression that occurred later in the Cold War.



 I disagree, Frank.  And I think your WWII/Cold War analogy is inapt.  Hussein was not Hitler nor Iraq Germany in terms of a threat to either his neighbors or us.

From your perspective, a better analogy would be the failure of the French to push their rights under international law when Hitler re-occupied the Rhineland, which might have resulted in Hitler falling from power in 1936.

As for your quibble over "optional," well, lets just say I think you are being too cute by half on word-play.  The situations are not equivalent threats.

What is clear is that we jumped into a war we were ill-prepared to fight.  We deluded ourselves into seeing what we wanted to see (aided by Chalabi and company, certainly), and Rumsfeld set the conditions for failure from the moment he killed the bigger plan in favor of his transformational form of warfare.

And then we dithered and dallied trying to dodge the truth of the matter, which cost us time in responding, and we forgot that, like it or not, Americans don't like fighting long wars (spare me the campaigns against the Indians and in the Philippines, lets talk the America of post-WWII here) and especially ones that cross administrations where the political party changes.

It wasn't a war we *had* to fight, nor one that had to be fought when and how it was.

And that lies squarely at the foot of Bush and Rumsfeld.  They failed to do what needed to be done.  It doesn't matter, one whit, whether or not they meant well.












As I have been reading the comments, I am beginning to believe that you are missing something very important,*context*! First of all, all wars are not optional. Fdcol63, If you want some of the scenarios that you have described, then be my guest, but do it someplace else. I've said this before and I have seen absolutely nothing that changes my mind on the issue. The situation that we are now in is in fact a result of bypassing the US Constitution. This document that we have all sworn an oath, tells us that if we want to go to war we must have a "Declaration of War". Some have said, or at least inferred that an "Authorization to Use Military Force" is an equivalent. Personally, I believe this is wrong and has caused more grief than help. There is no comparison between our response to Hitler and Saddam. If we have enough time to prepare and deploy a force to attack Saddam, then we had enough time to "Declare War" if we really want to look at the situation in Iraq at the present moment, we must understand that this is essentially a "Family Feud". It will never ever be over. I originally thought there was a possibility after about 10,000 years, but I even doubt that. Now we have ISIS  on the move, if it wasn't for that group, there would just be another group to fulfill that role. None of this just happened. I don't expect anybody to agree with me. 
Grumpy, the Supreme Court has ruled (twice IIRC) that the AUF counts as a declaration of war for purposes of engaging in war. There's no inference involved.
 Casey, please tell me, is this what you believe? The Supreme Court, like the other branches of our government, have been wrong before, at least, in my opinion. Let me explain why I believe there is a difference. While it is true that in both cases, the military actually are the ones in combat. The primary difference is the stance of the ordinary citizen of the US. Making sure that I am correct in my understanding of what you are saying of the view from the Supreme Court of the US, is this, the terms, "Authorization to Use Military Force" and a "Declaration of War" are interchangeable. Is this what you are trying to say? This is only my view, but I believe history will actually authenticate this view. In my view, the "Authorization to Use Military Force" essentially sends the military to war with no support or very little from the American citizenry. In a true "Declaration of War , the whole nation goes to war with the military and all of the necessary sacrifices that go with it. In this 2nd one, this is a total package and everybody does their share. This is the reason that I believe that we have had a poor showing in these recent wars. Casey, don't just repeat what the Court has said, but tell us what you believe.