Tony-
>But, a retired Major rank guy said that still, we are so careful as to who might get hurt in bombing, etc., of Taliban, El Queda, etc., that it may become a demoralizing factor for US military people. In other words, the lowlifes killed whoever was in the WTC buildings, no regard whatsoever, and we're still afraid to injure an innocent cockroach over there.
But know what? That's what makes us so much better than they are. Life means so much more to us than to them.
>Another opinion said if Gore were president, we still might not have done anything.
I doubt that we'd have done nothing. We'd probably acted nearly the same in Afghanistan. The difference though, and this is owed to Bush's unilateralist perspective, is that Gore likely wouldn't have adopted an "us-vs-them" mentality, and these slimy Islamic countries such as Pakistan wouldn't have been jumping obsequiously to our aid like they've done. I've gotta thank Bush for that, though I still cringe a bit when I hear him speak.
Having said that, Bush, Rumsfeld, Stufflebeem, Fleischer, and co. have made it abundantly clear that another country's next. Who will it be? If it weren't for the fact that we've been allowing us to use their airspace, Pakistan would be a good target. Saddam's always a nice option in the eyes of the public. My pick would be Lebanon or Syria (almost one and the same, Lebanon's nothing more than a puppet of Syria, but there are probably more terrorists there). Frankly, any country that knowingly harbors any one or more of the Islamic terrorist groups (Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hizbollah, etc...) should have its government dismantled.
-Z
P.S.: I can go on. Really. |
