How should an American Christian respond to ISIS?
- Thread starter bobstod
- Start date
I'm not for troops on the ground. We worked feverishly to destabilize the region a few years ago and it is coming back to bite us. We can't sit back and do nothing, but we can't get dragged into their fight either. I mentioned wisdom already, and it will take that and some luck to choose the right course here.
An equally valid question is - So you guys are ready to go fight ISIS? (assuming that you are military age)
Another question in Turkey received the following answer: "The Muslim community needs to think about how we can make sure that children are not being infected with this twisted notion that somehow they can kill innocent people and that is justified by religion." We?
http://theweek.com/speedreads/58919...remism-must-come-from-within-muslim-community
http://theweek.com/speedreads/58919...remism-must-come-from-within-muslim-community
CA, our son spent 18 months in Baghdad, after volunteering multiple times to get there. And this was 2003 before the surge, we ended phone conversations when rockets started coming to their base multiple times.
We always braced for the worst and thank God it was never needed.
To answer your question, under this president, absolutely not, he has no will to defeat the enemy.
A war has to be fought to win, with 100% force, otherwise the troops are hogtied and sitting ducks for failure. I wouldn't wish that for any parent to endure.
I read about that a little while ago. He has a pesky little problem remembering that he's a Christian.
No, but I am all for bombing them back to the stone age. The will to do this has been lacking from the office of the POTUS.
We had pilots who flew over their camps and were refused the orders over many months. Untie their abilities.
If we felt we could trust our leaders to do what is best for Americans this situation would be less polarizing. It seems Obama is more concerned with what Iranians want and Congress is afraid or too selfish to call him on this.
Nope. Let Europe fight this one. We didn't go over there to win to begin with. There are too many rules of engagement. Sometimes winning involves casualties that "civilized" societies can't stomach.
At the same time, I don't want "them" in our country either.
Of course they are. I simply said I don't want them here. Houston is a hotbed for them. There are known muzzie terrorist compounds outside of Houston. It's just a matter of time.
As much as I bash Clinton for Somalia I have to commend him for Kosovo. Less involvement but yet strategic involvement wins wars against non conventional forces. Our military is built to defeat other military and guerrilla fighters not every nut that decides that his life is less than a cause. Sending troops would not solve any of our problems, but it would amplify them. Every on the fence radical is going to join Isis because their prophecy looks to be coming true when the western world is in Syria. Even though lawerence of Arabia invaded 100 years ago, but then again you are talking about racial divides among Muslims as well in that case. I still think backing Assad and the Russians is the best option but I doubt Obama will do it because Assad made him look weak in 2013.
Some of the conversation on this thread was about the refugee influx into our country. Gov. Bentley, along with governors in 5 other States, has said Alabama will not take them. A poster on anther site suggested that if all 50 States would do the same we could settle them all in D.C. Excellent idea. I suspect we would get a truer picture of the motivation for the executive order to take them in. Many things have been done using charity and compassion as the reason when they were really done for self serving politicians who hurt everyone involved in the long run. A favorite liberal term is "it's for the children." Do America's children not matter?
There are roughly 60 million refugees around the globe. Shall we take them all?
There are roughly 60 million refugees around the globe. Shall we take them all?
Last edited:
I'm thankful for his willingness to serve.
Well, I don't lay that at Obama's feet - we've not fought a war with the will to win since 1945.
I don't think that is an odd philosophy at all. They all have their place and times.
I completely agree. Either get in completely, or stay the hell out. It's a national commitment, not a policy enforcement.
And I'm laying it at Obama's feet because as we all know, he is no slave to precedent. if he had the will, he would.
The refugee influx situation just gives him a chance to release more from Guantanamo while our backs are turned! Never let a Crisis go to waste or so it seems. That's how he governs/dictates! A President governs a Dictator dictates!
I agree with the bold also, but require ALL Socialist Democrats to personally house at least 10 male refugees each from 17 to 45 years of age. The POTUS and the VPOTUS could house at least 15 each in that category.
Maybe agrees with General Dempsey, his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who stated in his testimony before Congress.
“Militarily we could confront them, we could destroy a lot of equipment, we could drive them underground, if you will. But as I said, they will only be defeated or destroyed once they are rejected by the population in which they hide,” Dempsey said.
“Truly there is no military solution to ISIL,” the general added. “It may be a tough pill to swallow, but there is no military solution.”
Dempsey also said:
Dempsey was quick to say the US can’t achieve that goal alone, however, and said that the way forward must involve a“coalition of Arab and Muslim partners, and not through the ownership of the United States.”
Latest threads
-
-
Question: Chris Youngblood did he commit over the weekend?
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-