Obama is going to stop the terrorists by driving a hybrid and using solar panels.
Your tongue and cheek response is a very simplistic version of Carter's solution.
The way to defang the middle east is to
slowly shift away from petroleum so that the world no longer depends
as much on these terror petrol states.
Once you significantly reduce oil dependency, you reduce our need to weaponize and fund terrible regimes and terror cells. [Of course, we both know you don't know any of this stuff because you've never studied the region. Meaning: you don't know who we've funded]
Reagan funded the Mujahideen in the 80s in order to trap the Russians in Afghanistan. Reagan called the Mujahideen "Freedom Fighters". Problem is: the Mujahideen was an early iteration of Al Qaeda. Against the advice of congress, Reagan, who was obsessed with gaining an advantage over the Soviets, gave the Mujahideen a powerful footing in the region. And now we are living in that unintended consequence.
Reagan funded and cemented the power of the young Hussein because the USA lost a vital asset in neighboring Iran (the Shaw, who was overthrown by radicals, which radicalization was fomented by our decision to remove the very popular Mozeddeq a generation earlier. Again, we both know that you know none of this).
And let's not talk about the money we've poured into Saudi Arabia, home to more Islamic radicals than anywhere. Our dependence on the region - our need to fund terrible groups so as to protect oil assets - has made these bastards stronger. And now we are living the unintended consequences of electing a B-rate actor in the 80s - whose actions increased radicalization and tied us deeper to the very petroleum which keeps us in the region, as we whack the hornet's nest but act surprised when we get stung by a crazy ******* hornet on a death mission.
Not only did we partner deeply with terrorist groups, but those same groups are now rebelling against us because our interests and theirs are no longer aligned (-but at least we made them stronger). Clinton's treatment of Iraq was almost as wrongheaded as Bush's and Reagan's. Washington has a made a ******* mess. Almost everything Big Government does to fix the "terrorist problem" makes it worse. [Republicans have never truly understood this. Their trust in Big Government has
always been more potent than the Left's trust in big government.]
Your side tells us Washington doesn't have the competence to run a laundromat without creating terrible problems. Yet, somehow, you give Washington the money and power to remake the Arab world in our image - and you don't think there are going to be unintended consequences?
Republicans don't get it. Washington always makes problems worse. When are Republicans voters going to stop giving Washington the power to save the world? When are they going to wake up and realize that the War on Terror is only going to make terrorism worse. You are not only bankrupting our grandchildren and leaving them a far more dangerous world, but you are leaving them with a Soviet-style surveillance bureaucracy.
You have fundamentally changed the country, and you have ensured terrorist blowback far into the future, and you have done this because of a threat that is far, far less than that of dying in a car accident. Turn off talk radio and turn off Fox News. Take your brain back. We can no longer afford your ignorance.
In order to reduce our fiction with the Middle East, we have to reduce our dependency on terror petrol-states, and we have to stop tinkering with their politics and weaponizing/funding radical regimes. We have to act in ways that empower moderate Muslims to expunge the radicals. Problem is: Washington has been doing the opposite for a long, long time, and now we are facing the mother of all unintended consequences.