« Explaining the Northern Illinois campus shooting | Main | Ohio police officer convicted of murder... »

February 16, 2008



I wonder if other presidents have had this same thought as Obi and the Huckster, yet didn't say it for political reasons. But then when they get into office they realize the hard truth of the matter, being that you cannot rationalize with these people.

Why is it that only fear and intimidation work in these areas? Corruption and war are the norm, peace is an anomoly. I have spoken to a couple of Iraq veterans and they try to explain it to me. They provide first hand examples of having to de-escalate a situation by literally placing the muzzle of a gun on a persons head. Nothing else worked. But later on (say an hour) after the event, those same people have the utmost respect for them, sharing cigarettes, shaking hands etc.

I don't get it man.

Jim Leech

I say take every person that feels these ideas will work and send them to the worst places on earth. Take every actor, musician, politician, whoever, give them olive branches and send them out. Let them meet up with this group who burns prisoners alive, hand them the branch, and see what happens. We're dealing with an enemy who wants us dead, who wants to rid the world of us. They do not want to co-exist, they do not want America to exist at all. Their goal is to exterminate us. They've said it, they've tried it, they are still thinking up ways to do it. Peace will only work if both sides want that as the end result. I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand. Of course we want peace. America wants peace, The President wants peace, republicans want peace. But our enemies do not. Or at least they do not want our idea of peace. Again, we're talking the same thing that Hitler wanted and did to the jews during the second world war. Our enemies want to be rid of us. Why doesn't that scare, not only liberals, but all of us. I don't understand.


I've wondered recently whether we should be more careful about casting the terrorist's intentions too much in terms of wanting to rid us from the face of the earth. We may be a little too impressed with our own importance to them.

While a few have talked about destroying us, the more common statements made by Al Queda's leadership as discerned by our intelligence community is that they want us out of their part of the world and don't want us supporting Israel, whom they fanatically do want to destroy.

If that is true, we should get far more serious about developing our own oil sources and move forward with the technology available to us for converting coal to oil. Then, I wonder if the Middle East terrorists would significantly cut back talking about destroying us and would primarily focus back on their historical wars intended on dominating and/or destroying each other. We would remain on their radar because of our support for Israel, but that is less lethal than entering into their national affairs.

If we did so, we'd be better able to get our financial house in order and work cooperatively with the many nations in the world who are glad to do business with us.

Possibly the job of converting nations to freedom could be better done when those nations decide to have their own revolutionary and civil war like we had. Then they would own freedom themselves and appreciate the cost of freedom.

I'm not convinced that a part of our national morality should be sacrificing the lives of thousands of our men and women in countries that are going through the painful cultural revolution toward freedom. Why not save our efforts for the really important situations that arise from time to time like with Japan and Germany. during our world wars?

Jim Leech


What scares me most about your comments are the fact that we were doing a pretty good job ignoring terrorism and Al-Queda and such in the middle east during the Clinton years and beginning of the Bush 2 presidency. We did such a good job we completely missed (or ignored) the fact they were planning, and then executing, a plan to fly airplanes into the towers, pentagon and white house. I believe that is a direct attack on America, much like Japan attacking Pearl Harbor which took us into the 2nd World War. I'm not sure what part of that says that these ideologists don't want to destroy us, but my biggest fear is that we get complacent and happy and ignore all that is going on in other parts of the world and September 11 happens again.


No doubt we were asleep at the wheel before 9-11. We will always have to be vigilant so that doesn't happen again regardlesss of how involved or noninvolved we are internationally.

I guess what concerns me is the drift toward the United Nations becoming the world police force and war machine. The trend is toward "big brother" watching over every nation and intervening whenever groups or leaders within a nation or among adjacent nations are fighting some kind of civil or tribal war.

Since the U.S. ends up providing the lion's share of the funds and soldiers for these involvements, we become the hated target of some of the factions in each war as a result of taking sides, or appearing to do so.

Since the job of the president of the United States is to protect and defend our country, where does it say he should be leading the UN charge to resolve civil wars and try to bring freedom to others?

The comments to this entry are closed.