<< I don't think anything of you except that you're misguided. >>
Without responding to any of your other comments in the post (many of which I agree with, by the way), I do feel compelled to respond to this one.
All I have done is ask questions. Very early on, I stated my support for the concept of striking at terrorists, and would support far more of a "war" than this President is likely to employ (see today's Washington Post editorials for a good example). I just think an open dialogue is important, and screaming down opponents is no way to convince them. Nor is calling people names. I responded "in kind" to some of your comments to make a point, not because I thought you were actually biased. Name-calling doesn't convince anyone to change their position.
As to the "virtue" of the Sudanese government - Hitler's forces did extremely well because they were convinced of the rightness of their cause. They had no problem doing what they thought needed to be done. By the time America entered the war, we (the allies) were just as convinced of our "rightness", and some Germans had started questioning there's (as the truth about the death camps started coming out). Of course, there were many other factors (dumb luck, weather, Hitler's stupidity) that helped us win, but without being convinced of our moral high ground, we wouldn't have fought as hard, and might have given in to the Neville Chamberlains.
The same holds true here - today, 20% of America disagrees with the bombing. There was less disagreement at the start of the Vietnam war. If it turns out the factory can't be proven to be a legitimate target, the support may erode further. Partly, that's because Clinton's motives are in doubt. If he REALLY makes this a war on terrorism, the people will line up behind him. If it starts to look like he pissed off some crazy people in order to distract us from domestic issues, we may not be willing to support further strikes. |
