Is celebrity commentary bout current events relevant? Is the West shivering? Do bombs create more terrorists? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dreyfuss/whats-to-do-about-isis_b_8903676.html THE BLOG What's to Do About ISIS? 01/25/2016 08:48 am ET | Updated 11 hours ago Richard Dreyfuss Actor; Founder, The Dreyfuss Civics Initiative ASSOCIATED PRESS I used to say, in just the very recent past, "ISIS is coming," but that has become swiftly out of date. ISIS is here. ISIS is making a fabulous presentation, replete with a techno-expertise, film-making quality, excellent use of YouTube, making us think that they know what is our value system and that they are unstoppable because of their joyous use of nauseating violence. They are paralyzing the West as they come, and now all of Western Europe sits shivering behind their versions of the Maginot Line. I hope that frightens all of us, but not so much that we lose control. That's what they want -- that we let fear rule our behavior. Amazing that twice in the last 100 years, we are faced with enemies as different from one another as can be and exactly the same if we wash their make up off. In the late 1930s, one Adolph Hitler told us in detail exactly what he was going to do to the world, which was to return the world to the fifth century. No discussion, no debate, they meant to kill anyone who didn't fit the bill. At first we actually were dismissive of this monstrous concept and insisted, as most thinking people would, that "he couldn't really mean that." But as he continued to move toward the Atlantic, brazenly lying to us all, it began to occur to us that maybe, just maybe... until the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor. We at first were speechless with rage, and answered the Japanese, as Admiral Yamamoto's worst nightmare would answer, as an awakened and enraged giant. And then we were gifted by Hitler's first real useful geopolitical blunder. He declared war on us before he had to, and every American who would have argued that Hitler had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, stopped arguing. Before Christmas 1941, we had a two-front World War dropped into our laps. We understood immediately. We agreed we would go to Europe and beat Hitler to death first and then go to the Pacific and destroy the Japanese. ISIS wants to do the same as Hitler; the particulars are different but the end goal is the same. A caliphate is another term for that same fifth century: a barren, corpse-strewn, intellectually dead time and place where is there is no argument to make, no negotiation to put forth. There is only submission and death for all, including a majority of their own Islamic brothers and England, Italy, Germany, and the United States. Us. After Paris, the French attacked ISIS with planes and bombs, immediately. That's our expensive and futile Maginot line. Does anyone believe that will take care of the problem? Aren't there alternatives to a "military option?'' Can we bomb a movement that has no nation but definitely has a strong belief system, like we used to have? Haven't we learned that every bomb creates terrorists? We committed tens of billions of dollars to equip and train the Iraqi army, and watched as they faded and ran for their lives as the first echo of the first barrage came at them. Why? Because they had no belief system to support them, and their opponents certainly do. It's 1940 people, pay attention.
This shows why celebrities should just keep their yappers shut about anything other than entertainment. Their job is to entertain not pontificate anything beyond that. All this ninny can do is opine and ask questions..."oh, what should we do?"....don't worry skippy let the grownups handle it.
There's really only one solution. [video=youtube;aCbfMkh940Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q[/video] Seriously they are a cancer and you don't pander to cancer while telling the rest of your body that "its "contained" and that the body should stop being so racist. We need to fight this cancer with the most aggressive treatment available. First step, of course, is ejecting liberals from office not only in America but in other European nations which they are destroying with their pro-terror agendas.
How exactly would conservatives fight this cancer any differently than the current Administration is without another disastrous ground invasion?
Really? And in light of information about their origins from alternate sources than mainstream media. https://archive.org/stream/9-11CopB...e-IsraeliMossadInvolvementInAttacks_djvu.txtq http://www.serendipity.li/wot/swissreletter.htm1 http://americanfreepress.net/is-is-a-cia-mossad-creation/ http://www.mintpressnews.com/iraq-a...-and-israelis-held/203250/?desktop-version=on That would be completing the final step of a conspiracy designed to manipulate. We can do more against ISIS by American citizens taking control of America through their states.
Nuclear weapons. Obliterate the entire region. That is literally the ONLY way to defeat ISIS and Islamic terrorism in general without a ground war. And the last thing I want is another bull(*)(*)(*)(*) ground war in some (*)(*)(*)(*)-hole desert costing American lives and trillions of dollars. Nuke um'
oooookay then. We've been given the insane argument.... Is that what we can look forward to with a GOP Prez then?
One of the most impressive things said by anyone working towards the presidency was a simple statement of need for inquiry. Trump, "We need to figure out why they hate us so much." He knows the standard answers do not explain it.
Isn’t it more than a little ironic for you to say that on a political forum you’ve made over 20,000 posts to?
Why make other people's problems become your own? Let the Middle East sort it out as every time some foreign power comes in they get the blame for the next set of problems that arise. Do the simplest feasible thing about Islamic State. Nothing. And when did Hitler (Godwin's law in action again) say he was going to "take the world back into the fifth century"? Why does your source put words in someone's mouth, even worse, when the events of Europe in the 1930's are nothing to do with the Middle East of the 2010's?
Want to get rid of Daesh, Al Qaeda or whomever the latest haj bogey man in the woodpile is? Tell our government (and our "friends") to quit funding, arming and training them.
So we would face an immediate crash of the global economy from oil supply shock and stock market panic. And then we would face increased terrorism as all Muslims not in the region seek revenge for the murder of millions of innocent people. Great plan.
We tell the U.N. and everyone in the middle east we are leaving forever, cut off all military support and aid, lock our borders and forbid travel to and from, explain we have the ability and will to eliminate any entity who attempts to touch us, and let them continue to wipe each other out. Hopefully, in time the actual nations and states at real risk will grow a set and deal with this like big kids and we can spend the time and resources to fix our own crap.
Considering the minimal "Trade" between the United States and Middle Eastern nations, I do not see our economy suffering much....let alone crashing. Short of pretty carpets and oil there is nothing there we desire. We have many other options for floor coverings and plenty of oil.
The question wasn't "how do we stop ISIS without a single consequence". The question was simply "how do we stop ISIS". And that question is really nothing short of asking "how do we stop radical Islam". Short of nuking the entire region there is no stopping them. In fact the world is doing everything it possibly can to facilitate the spread of Islamic terrorism. These rabid belligerent Muslims are infesting every corner of Africa, now Europe, soon North America, and everywhere to go they bring violence rape pedophilia and terrorism. The convert entire Western cities into the private little Sharia communities and they breed and before you know it the entire native population is entirly replaced within one or two generations. So if you want to simply put a stop to Islamic terror without any blowback well, I'm sorry, it's just not practical. We've allowed the infection to penetrate too far and now we have accept the fact that its going to cost us dearly to rid ourselves of it.
How would we stop Middle Easterners from travelling indirect from 3rd party nations? We'd have to cut off trade from everyone just to be safe.
No...We would not. We are geographically separated and have the technology to keep it that way. Most trade is electronic or on ships, though some is through air transport. Port and Air are easy to police should we decide to do so, and those nations with product we desire will shortly beef up their own monitoring and protection as well. What else ya' Got?
In my opinion, we are doing two things right and one thing wrong. Right: bombing ISIS Right: not invading with a major ground force Wrong: supporting Syrian rebels To the OP, war is not "the answer", meaning it should not be the first option to settle disputes or as the method to shape the world to our liking. But, we must understand that sometimes it is necessary. Destroying ISIS is necessary, and there is no other way.
In many ways they do...and they will be forced to increase it should they want our trade and wish to also avoid the spread of ME disease.
