that we are not going to win against terrorists, or survive against a "jihad," without getting our hands dirty.
i'm not clear as to what you mean by dirty hands-- torture? but if you mean people will die in a war-- that' not getting one's hands dirty. we don't train our soldiers to be dirty. we train them to fight, kill and capture the enemy. nothing dirty about that (unless you're a pacifist, then it's all dirty i guess.)
Well, I personally disagree with this.
While I do not agree with everything President Bush has said or done, nor the way he presents himself when speaking, I believe he is doing what is best for America, and for other nations who believe in democracy in the long run. Wars are not pretty, nor desirable by decent people. However, to avoid war when pursuing a just cause in the over-view is foolish, and futile.
what again was the just cause in the case of Iraq? or for that matter in Grenada or Panama?
and why isn't this democracy building not being applied to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Qatar, Egypt, Morroco, etc? and why is Blair having tea with Gaddafi these days?
Consider General George Washington, who led a rebellion against a legal authority. He made many mistakes as a military leader, but his fortitude, and stubbornness kept him going until victory made him a hero and our first President. Abraham Lincoln (#16) sent union soldiers to kill fellow Americans in order to squash a rebellion in the southern United States. One of the main issues contested - - slavery. Not weapons of mass destruction, nor mass murder of an entire race, but owning people for slave labor. An unpopular decision, but Honest Abe stuck to his guns on the issue.
isn't it always ironic that Washington is the guy that the insurgents and alqeada leaders compare themselves too. (Mao, Ho Chi Mihn as well)-- and think about what you wrote "against a legal authority"?
but this is apples and oranges anyway-- at the time of the invasion, Saddam was saying he had no probs with us and wanted to kill alqaeda too. Not one iraqi leader or spokesperson was advocating an attack on the US (israel, eh, that's another story.)
And let us not forget the tough decision that Harry S. Truman (#33) had to make when he authorized to dropping of two bombs on Japanese cities that killed millions of people, and animals. All this to end a war that we did not want to be in, in the first place. What would have happened if the U.S. did not join the Allied forces to stop Hitler. France refused to help their neighboring countries when Hitler invaded in the 1930s. Then Hitler proceeded to invade France.
what does that have to do with iraq?-- as ludicrous as it is to compare bush to hitler-- it's silly to compare WW2 and Nazi Germany to the fight against alqaeda and the iraq war. and btw what neighboring nations did France refuse to help? Austria? Spain was neutral... that leaves... who?
for some one advocating a lesson in history...
If Hitler had his way, Americans would all be speaking German today. If the Japanese had their way, Americans would all be speaking Japanese by now. If Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and these insurgents in Iraq had their way all Americans would be dead. They don't care if we leave Iraq or not, they still want us all dead, and will stop at nothing to accomplish that.
again-- you have no idea what you're speaking about --Hitler didn't want US speaking german (he held out for awhile on the promise that the US would stay out of the war and later work with him)-- Japan's Military Junta merely wanted control of China--- after the US/England/Dutch cut off steel shipments that fueled their war machine-- they attacked Pearl Harbor thinking it would cause the US to negotiate a deal... big mistake. In any case- they had no plans on ruling the USA.
the Taliban and Saddam weren't interested in killing Americans-- they were happy in their little nests-- BUT Osama wanted to kill westerners to drive them from the holy lands-- after that, he promised that all hostilities would end. not saying he can be trusted but his stated goal was not world domination.
These rallies are good, if nothing more than to prove we are a true democracy. You couldn't have gone to this protest in many other countries without a high risk of being killed (typically by government officials).
--- but that's recent history- go back to the 60s and before-- we were a democracy that shooting protesters wasn't out of line-- or beating and waterhosing them.
Cheers to President Bush for not being a wimp.
(Inarticulate goof-ball, maybe - - but not a wimp!)
Last Fearner
yeah, the guy who avoided serving in vietnam, who doesn't expect his kids or near relatives who are of fighting age to join the military (see FDR for his kids contributions to the war effort). who callously puts thousands of american's life in danger without proper armor or enough troops to secure the peace-- who sits back and vacations more often and for longer periods of time than any other modern president in our history. who sneaks into Baghdad and sneaks out when he visited the troops. who's administration put our war wounded and injured in rat infested hospitals and other horrible conditions as a thank-you for their courageous service.
yeah, he's a real tough guy.
) but the exchange of views ending with LF's last post is one reason why I love coming here to MT.
