Quote:
Originally posted by: mavsman
I still don't get how some people can compare WWII to "the war on terrorism" meaning the War in Iraq, only to justify the latter. Don't you get it that the World War was a fact, a thing that existed long before you joined, whereas the WoT is an idea that has been brought up by your government and/or your media? You could recognize the difference quite easily: In World WarII, the enemy was Hitler. You joined the war and took him to a point where he - the most evil man in history - had no other chance than to commit suicide. Nowadays, in the days of the WoT, the big enemy is Bin Laden. Where is he? Does anyone care? Why are most of the troops in Iraq, when modern-day-Hitler isn't there for sure? Still everything is looking like a cat's displacement activities. You won WWII, you cannot win the WoT in Iraq, because you don't get Numero Uno there.
|
MM...Your statements would be what the 9/11 commission called a "lack of imagination". The enemy is much bigger than terrorism, it's islamic fundamentalism which uses terrorism as a tactic of that enemy. Kerry thinks he can go back to the way clinton fought it, ok, let's have the debate.
Bush does not, he feels that major structural changes have to be made in the middle east. He also feels that freedom is our best defense against the islamic radicalism. If you or your party can think of a better way..I'm all ears. But if it's going to the UN, excuse me if I'm not interested. The UN and the ICJC have just about passed a resolution stating that Israel cannot defend themselves unless it is against a "STATE". Tell me what "state" is Hamas, Hezbellah, Al Queada.