Mailvox: That must be some good crack

Bill hits the pipe and writes: Look at what Vox proposes; either WW-III, which will lead to enslavement faster than you can say “The Patriot Act” regardless of if we win or lose (and, BTW, we’d lose badly). Or, the withdrawing of American troops back to our borders, which puts the front lines in Chicago, LA, and New York, and ensures that we eventually lose to Islam. Either of Vox’s paths lead to our destruction.

Um, Bill, I’m not proposing WWIII, I’m simply observing that WWIII has already been declared on us. Global Sharia is the goal of the jihad, which means that the jihad must a) fade away on its own, b) grow stronger, or c) get crushed. The first option appears unlikely, the president has decided against the third option, which means that we are merely putting today’s war off for tomorrow. It’s a legitimate option and an understandable one. We don’t have to fight it now, anymore than we had to start fighting Japan in 1936 or Germany in 1939. But barring alien intervention, the odds are high that we will end up fighting it sooner or later – later would be my guess.

Very few Americans are cognizant of how things are shaping up in Europe. The next three decades will see massive changes in many countries there. America is perceived to be at the forefront of this struggle, but it is not. Ground Zero is not in New York, but Amsterdam, Berlin and Paris. How will pulling US troops back ensure losing to Islam? The only serious danger to the US, for the foreseeable future, is posed by allowing continued Islamic immigration. We have Europe to serve as a cautionary example. This has nothing to do with where US troops are now.

The lunacy of pretending that invading one out of twenty jihad-sympathizing countries reduces the danger here is absurd. If Hussein’s WMDs were moved to Syria – or Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Indonesia, Algeria, Morocco, or Iran – then there is absolutely nothing about our military presence in Iraq that reduces the danger in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. They would ALL have to be invaded, occupied and pacified in order to reduce ANY danger. Furthermore, how would those American cities become the front lines considering that none are on the borders? The answer, again, lies in the realm of immigration, not military force.