Oh, for goodness sakes...come on now.
Roughly 10,000 ISIS troops are the greatest threat to mankind since the U.S.S.R. and Nazi Germany?
So the Khmer Rouge murdering millions of Cambodians was less of a threat?
So 800,000+ Rwandans hacked to death was less of a threat?
The Nigerian Civil War. Over 1 million and less of a threat to humanity then roughly 7-10,000 ISIS fighters?
North Korea could obliterate South Korea with nukes if it wanted to. India and Pakistan could do the same to each other.
All of these are less of a threat to humanity then roughly 10,000 ISIS troops running around in pickup trucks with a little artillery and ZERO airpower?
No offense, but your statement is totally ridiculous.
And as for Obama's moron plan of getting involved again...
even Reagan knew better then to get involved in the Middle East
'Lest we forget, after America's first encounter with jihadist violence in 1983 – when 241 US military personnel were killed – Reagan, to use the disparaging lingo of the neocons, chose to "cut and run". Every single soldier was pulled out of Lebanon within four months. "Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle," Reagan later wrote in his memoir, adding: "The irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there … If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position ... those 241 marines would be alive today."'
Ronald Reagan was no hawk
