According to the New York Times, president Obama decided to get involved in the fight against ISIS in Iraq only because the issue of genocide was added to everything else. Really? America's long time friends and allies, the Kurds, who are willing to and want to fight for themselves, are about to be overrun, but that is not enough for the USA to even send weapons? Once ISIS fighters take over a town or city, they round up and behead or crucify their opponents, but that is not enough for the USA to get involved? ISIS has announced that its long range plan is to fly their flag over the White House, but that direct threat from armed terrorists against America is not enough to get the USA involved? ISIS also kidnaps women under 35 in the conquered areas to use as sex slaves for its fighters, but that is not enough? ISIS threatens another American ally, Jordan, but that is not enough? ISIS will attract the crazy Islamic jihadists from around the world to their new terrorist haven state, an area that will make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like Monte Carlo during the season, but that is not enough?
So what finally pushed the president to action was ISIS's push into genocide. In other words, there are tens of thousands of Yazidis and Christians stuck on a mountain where they would literally die of thirst and hunger in just days. I agree with Obama; that is an intolerable situation and America has to act. But that situation is going to be over in days or weeks. Either the people on the mountain will be rescued or they will die. I am sorry to be so harsh, but that is the actual fact. What then? Will Obama go back to abandoning our friends and allies, ignoring the terrorist threat to America, and leaving the Yazidi women to a life of force prostitution or worse?
The real issue here is whether or not it is in America's national interest to stamp out ISIS around the world just like we have tried to do with al Qaeda. Must ISIS first get to a position of such strength that it can launch attacks on the USA before we act? Did we learn nothing from dealing with al Qaeda? Sadly, Obama seems to live in a world of progressive ideology rather than reality. He needs to realize that there really are evil people who want to destroy America (and they are not Republicans).
Then there is another statement that needs comment. This one comes from Massachusetts Democrat Congressman Jim McGovern who said this:
"When we bomb ISIS, which is a horrible group, we have to realize that we are heading down
the path of choosing sides in an ancient religious and sectarian war inside Iraq,"
What an idiot! America need not take sides in a religious war. The Kurds, our allies who are under attack, are Sunni Moslems. Supposedly, so are the members of ISIS. The issue is not a religious war; right now the fight is between good and evil. The Yazidis and the Christians are of different religions from ISIS. ISIS wants to slaughter all of them. In McGovern's view should we just say that we will watch ISIS kill Christians and Yazidis because we don't want to get in the middle of a religious dispute?
Look, I well know that most Americans don't want another war, especially in Iraq. I join that view. But we all have to realize that unlike the current progressive dogma, not all wars are bad. Sometimes, we have to fight. When the national interests of the USA require action, we have to be prepared to act. It is not enough to talk or to "feel" one way or the other regarding truly evil groups. We need to act.
h/t Steve Brill for the McGovern quote.
So what finally pushed the president to action was ISIS's push into genocide. In other words, there are tens of thousands of Yazidis and Christians stuck on a mountain where they would literally die of thirst and hunger in just days. I agree with Obama; that is an intolerable situation and America has to act. But that situation is going to be over in days or weeks. Either the people on the mountain will be rescued or they will die. I am sorry to be so harsh, but that is the actual fact. What then? Will Obama go back to abandoning our friends and allies, ignoring the terrorist threat to America, and leaving the Yazidi women to a life of force prostitution or worse?
The real issue here is whether or not it is in America's national interest to stamp out ISIS around the world just like we have tried to do with al Qaeda. Must ISIS first get to a position of such strength that it can launch attacks on the USA before we act? Did we learn nothing from dealing with al Qaeda? Sadly, Obama seems to live in a world of progressive ideology rather than reality. He needs to realize that there really are evil people who want to destroy America (and they are not Republicans).
Then there is another statement that needs comment. This one comes from Massachusetts Democrat Congressman Jim McGovern who said this:
"When we bomb ISIS, which is a horrible group, we have to realize that we are heading down
the path of choosing sides in an ancient religious and sectarian war inside Iraq,"
What an idiot! America need not take sides in a religious war. The Kurds, our allies who are under attack, are Sunni Moslems. Supposedly, so are the members of ISIS. The issue is not a religious war; right now the fight is between good and evil. The Yazidis and the Christians are of different religions from ISIS. ISIS wants to slaughter all of them. In McGovern's view should we just say that we will watch ISIS kill Christians and Yazidis because we don't want to get in the middle of a religious dispute?
Look, I well know that most Americans don't want another war, especially in Iraq. I join that view. But we all have to realize that unlike the current progressive dogma, not all wars are bad. Sometimes, we have to fight. When the national interests of the USA require action, we have to be prepared to act. It is not enough to talk or to "feel" one way or the other regarding truly evil groups. We need to act.
h/t Steve Brill for the McGovern quote.
No comments:
Post a Comment