>> Actually, much of the world needed a lot of convincing. Not necessarily that we had a legitimate right to "get" bin Laden, but how we should go about it, whether we were justified in attacking the Taliban as well, whether we were callous bullies for putting the Afhan people at risk (of bombs as well as starvation in the coming brutal winter), and whether we, the American people and its leadership, had the conviction, the courage and, importantly, the objectivity to conduct this war in a just manner. <<
i don't think we convinced many that weren't already convinced after 9/11. those that we failed to convince we could never convince anyway.
>> In other words, would we lash out in anger, punish the innocent, claim victory, and walk away from the problems of the world as our last President might have been expected to do? <<
in defense of clinton, i think he would have conducted himself differently after the attacks on 9/11. he wouldn't have lobbed a few cruise missiles and called it a day.
>> Well, so far, so good <<
like i said, we've just completed the easy part. now it's going to get much tougher.
>> In spite of all the pundits' second-guessing and hand-wringing over quagmire one day, too fast the next, there have been very few errors and gaffs <<
the media always tries to drum up business. yes, the war has been conducted well in afghanistan, but like i said, who didn't think we should go after bin laden in afghanistan? now comes the hard part when some people believe we should wage war on iraq and other nations, and some believe we should turn inward and wage the war here at home.
>> Bush is saying and doing all the right things and I think the rest of the world is pleasantly surprised and increasingly confident that we will do this right. <<
well i think he could be better. he should have never brought up all this business about islam. he should stick to saying this is a war against terrorism and we're going to get and stop the terrorists who ruthlessly attacked our citizens. bin laden wants a holy war and desperately wants to drag religion into it so he can divide the world. when bush starts commenting on islam he is playing into bin laden's hands.
>> As for whether we should "get Saddam", I don't see it as a choice between letting him off the hook or blasting his ass to hell. Those who want the latter would have us believe anything less equates to the former. Not true <<
i'm all for killing him if we can. i am against carpet bombing iraq and killing thousands of more innocent civilians because we don't have the means or will to eliminate the real threat. one man, not an entire country.
>> We should do what we can to take the burden off of the people of Iraq, but keep the pressure on his regime. <<
so you are against economic sanctions? you're against bombing iraq for 78 straight days like we did serbia so we could topple a vicious regime and do some nation building? isn't that exactly what we did in kosovo? we didn't like milosevic so we bombed a couple thousand innocent people into submission to force his upheaval. you seemed to be in favor of supporting our intervention and nation building there, why not do the same in iraq?
>> As we build better friendships in the region and as the Iraqi people start to see us as a fair-minded nation <<
oh my, aren't we dreaming.
>> support for Saddam will evaporate <<
there is hardly support for saddam. people simply fear him and can't do much about it.
>> Tyrants need their people to perceive an external enemy <<
precisely. the tyrants in wash dc are using the external enemy of terrorism to usurp our liberties, expand the size and scope of government, and seize more power. the american people are fools for letting them get away with it.
>> The people see their own suffering (economic or political) and can only blame the tyrant. Eventually, the tyrant falls. <<
you mean like castro ;-) |
