@ Schnee:One thing is indisputable. Obama has more people
disapproving of the job he's currently doing than those who approve. His
numbers are not for from his record lows. And with how is currently not dealing
with the recent horrendous American journalist beheadings at the hands of ISIS,
they could start dropping even lower quite quickly.
ISIS is only the latest of the Islamic threats we face. Others are Al Qaeda in
Afghanistan/Pakistan, Taliban, Al Shabab in Somalia, Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al
Qaeda in North Africa, Al Qaeda in Mali, Hamas in Gaza, Hizbollah in Lebanon,
the Muslim Brotherhood in 170 countries, Iran, Qatar, and, of course, Saudi
Arabia which has been funding education and training of jihadists for many
decades in mosques around the world. Their common goal is the Islamic domination
of the world, only the methods may vary. According to a popular manual of Sharia
law, "Jihad means to war against non-Muslims." The Constitution of the
Shiite Islamic Republic of Iran says: "the army of the Islamic Republic of
Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps ... will be responsible not only
for guarding and preserving the frontiers of the country but also for fulfilling
the ideological mission of jihad in God’s way; that is, extending the
sovereignty of God’s law throughout the world (this is in accordance with
the Koranic verse “Prepare against them whatever force you are able to
muster, and strings of horses, striking fear into the enemy of God and your
enemy, and others besides them.” [8.60])
@Objectified"now suffering from record low approval ratings"Bush had a sub-30% approval rating in 2008. Obama's sitting at 42%
(Real Clear Politics average of 8 recent polls that themselves ranged from
38-46% approval). It's not Obama's personal record low either if
that's what you meant (that would be the RCP average of 39.8% from late Nov
@Thid BarkerAl Qaida wasn't in Iraq until we got rid of Saddam. They
were doing what ISIS is trying to do now, fill a vaccumn that we created."the country was stable"Aside from several uprisings
and sectarian conflict... @Objectified"Do you think
it's possible the intel was bad and consequently not the decision of any
particular politician? "I would think that except there's
reams of evidence that Powell was deliberately given false information as a
means of selling the war. Of course the hubris of those neocons keeps them from
admitting they were wrong.
@Mountanman"I am very certain Itsjustmeagain and other pacifists will
change their tune when ISIS hits us again, and they will!"Again?
When did they ever attack US territory a first time? If some sort of terrorist
attack does happen that doesn't mean the answer is suddenly "let's
put boots on the ground". Our soldiers deserve careful consideration of
their service, not reactionary desires for vengeance.
@ GaryO:Another thought. If Republicans and conservatives are so bad
and liberalism is so great, and only conservatives believe other conservatives,
then how come Obama, the most liberal politician in Washington, is now suffering
from record low approval ratings around the entire country and has many members
of his own party (who are up for re-election) are trying sodesperately to
distance themselves from him?Doesn't make much sense... does
it. But then again, most liberals and liberal rhetoric seldom does. Better come
back with something much more substantial and meaningful next time, Gary.
GaryO:Your nonsensical comment replies make it easy to understand
why so many people who comment on these boards keep indicating you have very
little political credibility. You avoid the real issues while trying to push an
ultra-liberal and rhetorical agenda.You've never once explained
why Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton both voted in favor of America attacking
Iraq while under President Bush and using the exact same intel that he was
given. Do you think it's possible the intel was bad and consequently not
the decision of any particular politician? Why is it so hard to
actually take objective looks at issues instead of always being on a soap box
denouncing Conservatives and Republicans? Seriously... you've been doing
that for so long that apparently no one is taking you serious anymore. You never
have any meaningful backing to any of your allegations. In a high school debate
agenda, such an approach would get completely embarrassed by the opposition.You are probably a nice person, but need to take a less minatory
approach when discussing anything politically related. You might then eventually
regain some of that long-lost credibility.
Gary O. That was quite a rant! None of it accurate but what does that matter to
a liberal? You really need to call Diane Feinstein. She thinks we should fight
terrorists in Iraq! Obviously she is mislead but no doubt you can straighten her
Hey Thid Barker-“the military had Al Qaida . . . defeated in
Iraq and the country was stable until Obama snatched defeat right out of the
jaws of victory!You “Conservatives” love rewriting
history, but the facts stubbornly remain facts.The kind of
stability we had in Iraq depended on the presence of MASSIVE American military
force there.That’s not real stability. That is FAILURE.And Failure is all that “Conservative” leadership can give
this nation.Yes, I know, the Republican propaganda machine ROUTINELY
repackages "Conservative" failures and tries to sell them as
Successes.But the only people who buy that nonsense are other
"Conservatives."Right Wing Fantasy Land is a busy place,
Hey Objectified –“Some people seem to have a hard time
even remembering, let alone learning from history.” That’s right.
They call themselves Conservatives.If intelligent moderate
Presidents in the past had let warmongering “Conservatives” have
their way, the most of the United States would be nonexistent . . . just a
collection of blackened radioactive ruins.General Curtis LeMay used
your same rationale in furiously criticizing JFK for failing to nuke Cuba during
the Missile crisis of 1962. “This is almost as bad as the appeasement at
Munich.” – Curtis LaMayGeneral LeMay considered JFK a
coward for not pursuing an all-out nuclear war against Cuba. But JFK had done
the right thing.The first Nuke to hit Cuba would have sparked a
fuselage of Nuclear weapons from Cuba into the US, and wiped out more than half
the nation immediately. Our IBM response would then have killed over half a
billion people in the USSR . . . and then who knows what might have happened?We need a President with some sense, and thankfully we have one.Would Romney be able to hold his own against the advice of Generals slavering
for war?I doubt it.
Gary O. The difference every rational American sees is that under President
Bush's leadership the military had Al Qaida (you know, those guys who flew
those airplanes into our buildings and murdered 3000 innocent people) defeated
in Iraq and the country was stable until Obama snatched defeat right out of the
jaws of victory! And now our enemies are double in strength and believe it or
not a serious threat to other countries including the one you are living in!
Obama's ineptness has created far more terrorists than existed before!
That's the difference between a real Commander in Chief and a community
organizer with no clue!
No worries folks, Obama will be working out the strategy to combat ISIS on the
back nine at Andrews Air Force Base. Our Dear Leader works even when he's
What would happen to the military industrial complex without a boogey man to
Hey Thid – “President Bush knew who our enemies are and took them
seriously but Obama hasn't a clue!”Lol . . . You MUST be
joking.Obama attacked Iraq as a direct response to 911, but Sadaam
and Iraq had NOTHING to do with 911.That’s like us conquering
Australia because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Attacking
Iraq was pure NONSENSE . . . And leave it up to that nonsensical Republican
administration to take such confused and mindless action.
““President Bush knew who our enemies are?!” I don’t
think so.BTW, you misquoted Obama again. Obama said “We
don’t have a strategy yet.” Do you know why he said that? He said
that because we don’t have a strategy yet.Oh I know, GW Bush
had a strategy almost right away . . . Attack Iraq, and kill Sadaam and 100,000
Iraqis. But that was a pretty dumb strategy.Obama prefers to give
our strategy some thought . . . And not just lash out at any target that might
be convenient.See the difference?
@ One-Vote and GaryO:After extensively studying WWII and the
situation leading up to it, your comments remind me much of the same attitude
most American liberals had toward Hitler and his terrorist Nazi group while they
were attacking and overtaking surrounding territory of Germany's
neighboring European countries. Those countries were begging for our
help. But our American liberal politicians, among others, said at that time that
Hitler wasn't that much of a threat, that it was their problem and not
ours, that fighting Hitler would cost too much money and so we should basically
just sit on the sidelines... very much like your attitude based on your
comments.Sadly, it took Pearl Harbor to wake America up to reality.
I hope it doesn't take the equivalent again... something that makes 9/11
mild in comparison. Unfortunately, it might.Some people seem to have a
hard time even remembering, let alone learning from history.
Does anyone else find the about face many liberals have completed on this issue
amazingly hypocritical? Imagine liberal Democrats demanding that Obama go to war
against terrorists when only recently they excoriated GWB for doing the same
thing in exactly the same places! "Obama is too cautious" Diane
Feinstein. The only difference is that President Bush knew who our enemies are
and took them seriously but Obama hasn't a clue! He even called ISIS
"JV league terrorists" and has, "No strategy for dealing with
them". Obama is making reasonable Democrats (the few that there are) very
“. . . They will, quote, 'spill our blood.'"So . . .
is this anything new.Is there ANY group of Muslims in the Middle
East who might have a moral problem with spilling a little American blood?Yes, ISIS want’s to wipe us off the map? So what? They can’t do it with an intercontinental ballistic missile, can they?
And that means they can’t do it from any of their bases in the
Mideast.So what’s the hurry about destroying their bases?It’s because they’re training terrorists there? Terrorists
can be trained ANYWHERE.Destroying their bases in the Mideast will
not destroy their ability to train terrorists.They could just do an
online tutorial and train everybody in the world who might be interested.Of course, the Lab part of the course would prevent somewhat more of a
challenge, but not that much more.I tell you what, before we even
think of invading in force, let's implement a special tax on Republicans to
pay for some of the cost, shall we?
@ one vote:Treating ISIS like we've been doing is not working.
Not at all. They are getting stronger and more daring, and becoming a bigger
threat to the free world (including America) almost daily. Greater and more ore
decisive action needs to be taken soon. Very soon.Will it be easy?
Certainly not. They are now well established and well funded. Obama
should've taken substantial action over a year ago when our intelligence
groups warned him about them and his top military people were almost begging him
to take action. But for some reason, he wouldn't take them
seriously and even compared them to a JV team. Since then, the world has paid a
huge price. Tens of thousands of additional civilians and out-manned localized
military personnel have been tortured and killed by ISIS. ISIS has
continued growing in size, strength and territory. Their threats toward
non-Islamic countries have grown more bold. Now both Democrat and Republican
Congressional leadership are again encouraging Obama to take more decisive
action. But will Valerie Jarrett and Michelle Obama, who usually make most of
Obama's decisions, allow him to do so? That's the $64 question.
We are better off treating terrorists like we have been doing. That allows
involvement anywhere such as Pakistan to get Bin Laden. Anyone that wants to put
boots on the ground with enemies all around that requires policing of religious
factions needs to rethink that tenuous position.
I am very certain Itsjustmeagain and other pacifists will change their tune when
ISIS hits us again, and they will!
How is this news? Of course they do, always have and always will. Islamists hate
liberty, freedom, and even just fun -and anything else that isn't
"Islamic." To quote the thankfully now dead Ayatollah Khomeini:
"Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was
for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime
must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor
in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is
serious." And he meant entertainment and went on to say it opposes swimming,
TV etc. Of course he pointed out that it approves of martial training, shooting,
etc. Of course it does. Islamists are all about force, religion at gun point.
The extremist will always want to attack the Great Satan. You can only stop it
if you want to colonize every country forever, and they will still wait us out.
Putting boots on the ground will not end ISIS, they will simply become invisible
and come to any Western country to blow something up. The key is to seal
our borders, not go and bail out Iraq again. Mr. McCain, go if you feel a need,
and take your youth with you. While you're at it, how do you resolve US
citizens who do not enlist in US Services and join the Israel Army?
I just don't understand how this could be happening? I thought the world
was supposed to love us after Obama won the presidency. I thought the only
reason the world (and the terrorists) hated us was because of the Cowboy, George
W. Bush?How could these selfish terrorists do this to Obama right
before an election! Obama just can't catch a break!
I don't think that we should allow US citizen to serve in the militaries of
other countries. We had several US citizens who were serving in the Israeli
army who were killed in Gaza.