http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/31/cruz-fires-up-conservatives-says-bomb-islamic-state-back-to-stone-age/
I will drink to that. On second thought, that would be a promotion for ISIS.
In my view, every civilized nation should join in this. We can go by alphabetical order. Australia can bomb them the first day, Austria, the second, Belgium the third....
These savages need to be killed.
Shouldn't take too many bombs as they have traveled only a very short distance from those days.
ReplyDeleteI was going to begin with an observation similar to elwood's -- have they really emerged from the stone age at all?
ReplyDeleteBut there are further implications to this. ISIS has exhibited no concern for the welfare of any civilian population that has come under its jurisdiction. So how do we bomb "ISIS" back to the stone age?
Do they manufacture their own weapons? No, they import them. Bomb the transports, if we can identify them, sure. But we can't bomb their weapons manufacturing plants, because there are none.
They were in control of a major dam for a short time. Should we have bombed that dam, in order to "bomb ISIS back to the stone age"? Or, was it good that we left it intact, since a large part of the people of Iraq depend upon it for electricity and irrigation, not to mention, bombing would have done more damage to Bagdhad than to ISIS.
In short, Cruz opened his mouth without putting his brain in gear, as my high school driver's ed teacher used to say.
Kill ISIS. That we can all agree on. How to accomplish that program -- this requires some precise analysis, and of that, Cruz appears to be incapable.
"this requires some precise analysis, and of that, Cruz appears to be incapable".
ReplyDeleteAs do Obama, et al, no??
No. Obama et al. understand that throwing rocks, or missiles, without intelligence (of the military variety) and analysis, is an insane waste of ammo. They are dealing with a new phenomenon, in a piece of geography where we are on speaking terms with almost nobody, and a civilian population that will in no way support sending in the number of troops for sustained engagement that it would take to really accomplish a mission.
ReplyDeleteSo he's working with what we realistically have, and has made some good opening moves. ISIS isn't going away overnight, and when it does, U.S. ground troops probably won't be doing the killing. Of course if ISIS should succeed in some operation that kills a few thousand Americans, all of a sudden there will be overwhelming demand to send any number of someone else's sons to kill the SOBs. Which is a bit hypocritical too, but its how politics works.
Meantime, the president is making a reasonably good start.
Remember how Sam Houston defeated Santa Ana? He retreats, with the entire Texas legislature raging at him and calling him a coward. He knew that in a direct confrontation, his army would lose -- fewer men, less well armed... until he saw just the right moment and terrain to literally catch the Mexicans napping... and then he nailed them.