This'n'that; June Twenty-Third #3; Responsible 'End?'

What The Hell Is A 'Responsible End' To A War?
    See what happens when a community agitator is elected as ruler without proper vetting?  The Soros puppet "Clown Prince" owe-bama still hasn't a clue on ruling anything, let alone the--formerly--most powerful country; the--formerly--greatest economy on the planet!!
    The blather opportunity of last evening proves yet another 'owe-bamaism:'
we can change an outcome by changing the referencing terminology! 
I ask again:  What the Hell is a 'responsible end' to anything, let alone, armed conflict?!?  If that were the General Eisenhower ideology in 1944, we'd still be shouting "Heil Hitler" to the great-grandson of Adolf's third-cousin, twice removed!!!  Where do George Soros and Valarie Jarrett come up with this bullshit?!?
    In General Eisenhower's day--in that war--the ultimate objective was to "kill people and break things!!"  Throughout Europe, Africa, Asia and the Pacific Islands, the stated objective was to destroy the enemy's ability and desire to wage war.  While World War II was the last such instance, the stated objectives were achieved by every commanding general--when generals were generals--and had the authority to "kill people and break things!"  That ended with the victory in Europe and Japan.  Since the Korean 'police action,' through Viet Nam, the armed conflicts have been 'run' from the Pentagon.  Afganistan and Iraq are no different.
    Now we have the 'panty-waists' headed by the pantywaist-in-chief, waging a politically-correct "limited kinetic operation" inwhich--just since George Soros has been in charge--American military deaths in Afganistan have increased FOUR-HUNDRED PERCENT!!!
    With this regime's mindset, is it any wonder that Rush Limbaugh muses "Mickey Mouse could beat owe-bama!"  I muse: "Mickey would certainly be the better ruler!"
Til Nex'Time....