A Nice Moral Tone

Flanders

ARCHCONSERVATIVE
Sep 23, 2010
7,628
748
205
Research the reasons Bush the Elder did not go all the way to Baghdad in Desert Storm and you will have to conclude that Barack Taqiyya throwing away Bush the Younger’s victory is now creating the Iraq that Bush the Elder feared.

Research will tell you that the Soviet Union was imploding so Soviet Communists were too occupied to oppose Desert Storm in the Security Council.

Here’s the good part. The United Nations had veto power over the coalition forces in Desert Storm. When Bush the Younger invaded Iraq he did so unilaterally which sent UN-loving Democrats up the wall. Now, Taqiyya the Liar will have to go back into Iraq unilaterally because Putin will sure as hell veto UN involvement. I love it because Putin’s veto will shove the United Nations right up John Kerry’s rear end. Putin getting the Ukraine unopposed by NATO is the only way he won’t veto a UN coalition force in Iraq.

It gets better. Americans should only go to war to defend the nation. In short: No American should die in a foreign land so that others might live, yet Taqiyya is edging his way back into Iraq to save Christians from being slaughtered by Muslims when he should use Iraq to finish the job of defeating an enemy that declared war on America. My point: Defeating an enemy should always be the first priority of the US military. Saving Christians from being butchered has a nice moral tone to it, but it should be incidental; a feel-good unintended consequence so to speak.

Put it all together and Americans now have to fear that saving Christians will set the precedent for fighting touchy-feely UN wars. Talking heads are comparing the plight of Iraq’s Christians to Rwanda. Bill Clinton’s “greatest regret” is making the rounds as though anything he says is good for this country. If anything, Clinton is further up the UN’s ass than is the current Administration. Note in the video that Clinton cites another UN-controlled fiasco: Black Hawk Down. Also note that “. . . gotten a few more people to come . . .” means a United Nations coalition cum United Nations control:


[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85RlFabYw5g&feature=player_detailpage"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85RlFabYw5g&feature=player_detailpage[/ame]​

Finally, basing every decision on what is best for the United Nations since 1945 is responsible for today’s foreign policy failures. In the past 69 years America’s sworn enemies have slowly grown more powerful, while America’s power, prestige, and military superiority in the world has eroded immeasurably. Those quislings who are committed to the United Nations, and they alone, made it all happen. I can only hope that America will not be defeated militarily before the New World Order crowd is stripped of their power. My fantasy is that every one of the current generation of traitors will be tried for treason —— then taken out and hanged posthaste.
 
Last edited:
2014-08-14.jpg

My point: Defeating an enemy should always be the first priority of the US military. Saving Christians from being butchered has a nice moral tone to it, but it should be incidental; a feel-good unintended consequence so to speak.

Put it all together and Americans now have to fear that saving Christians will set the precedent for fighting touchy-feely UN wars.

It’s happening. I’ve heard calls for an international force to go into Iraq on a humanitarian mission. The problem is that no lasting victory in the war against jihadists will be achieved by involving the United Nations. Muslim troops will pull out of Iraq, regroup, and revert to their terrorism battle strategy.

Any Democrat calling for a humanitarian rescue effort means going through the United Nations. None of those people ever call for a humanitarian military intervention to save victims from Communist butchery. A successful UN-approved coalition in Iraq would open the door for touchy-feely interventions so long as they are NOT aimed at Communists.

Personally, I’m not all that keen on fighting for anything except for clearly defined defense of this country. If humanitarian wars must be fought to placate bleeding hearts, I see no reason why America and its willing allies cannot save endangered people without getting approval from those bums at the UN.

Note that Democrats did not want to save Iraqis from Saddam Hussein without first getting the UN’s approval. In short: Democrats believe that if Americans are NOT fighting for the United Nations they should NOT fight at all.
 

Forum List

Back
Top