Not that you asked

Here's a few random thoughts I've had about a couple of issues that have been bugging me lately. The issues: Why do evangelicals support Donald Trump? And ISIS.

Don't you find it odd that evangelicals support Trump? They hate Bill Clinton, in part, because of his sordid history with women, yet they love Trump, who has a similar history. Clinton has only been married once, to Hillary, but has had multiple affairs. Trump has been married three times and had numerous affairs during the first two of them. He even once said he wished he could date his own daughter. Both men are poor examples of husbands, yet evangelicals love Trump and hate Clinton.

Trump refers to Communion as, "I eat my cracker and drink my wine." He has never asked God for forgiveness for anything. Bill and Hillary Clinton have attended church since their childhood, and after Monica, Bill was asking God and anybody else he met to forgive him.

Trump once forced a woman to sell her home so he could use the land for a parking lot for his casino. It was legal, of course, but a little bit sleazy. Clinton has never been motivated by money, just political office. He never made big money until he left the White House.

Trump is everything that evangelicals are supposed to hate. They should be picketing his speeches. Instead they are inside cheering him on. Again, I have to ask, why?

As for ISIS, I'm beginning to believe that they aren't such tough guys willing to fight for their cause. They are more like a typical schoolyard bully. They're "tough guys" when they know they can win a fight, but run for cover when they meet an equal or better foe. Here's what I mean.

When Saddam was in power the radical Muslims who make up ISIS were there, yet they didn't organize and try to overthrow him. Why? Because they were terrified of him. They knew that if they tried something like that, they would end up dying, probably slowly and painfully.

It was only after Saddam was dead that ISIS sprang up. As for all of their bravado about welcoming death, with the 72 virgins in the afterlife, while Saddam was alive they were perfectly willing to stay at home with the wife and kids.

And look at the way they choose to fight. The only enemy they have faced on the battlefield was the Iraqi Army, which was so pathetic that even the French make fun of them. All of their other "battles" have been surprise attacks like shooting up theaters or kidnapping.

There seems to be only two ways to defeat ISIS once and for all. One would be an all out military campaign. The problem with that is that the only way to preserve that victory is for the U.S. to remain in the country forever. We have put ISIS down several times and then withdrawn, after which they come back. The people over there aren't willing to defend themselves.

The other alternative is to put a dictator of our choice in power and supply him with enough money and weapons to keep ISIS down, just like Saddam did. That's not such a new idea. We did the same thing with the Shah in Iran. He was just as evil as Saddam, but he was friendly to us, so we didn't care how he treated his people. During the Cold War, we backed any tyrant in the world as long as he said he wasn't a Communist.

If I had to choose between a never ending military action or a dictator, I'd choose the dictator.