Quote:
Originally posted by irateplatypus
maybe i'm the exception and not the rule...
but my gut inclination is to take the opposite tack of Strange Famous (as it often seems to be the case lately  )
my attitude is that if someone hits you, then you must hit them back harder. if they continue striking, then either you aren't hit hard enough or aren't hitting in the right places. no one said that it was even possible that this war would result in them only getting a single punch off. but i'll tell you this, President Bush should be given some credit. i firmly believe that without his leadership, these bombs would've exploded on our side of the atlantic.
these people fundamentally hate the ideals and institutions that i love and value. they have proven that they are willing to give their own lives, as well as the lives of innocent women and children, in efforts designed to take them away from me or frighten me into not using them. i have no interest in cowering, i have no interest in appeasing these people.
of course, you'll probably call me a combative american with a chip on my shoulder. in that case, you'd probably also be right.
|
No, I won't call you that because I agree with you that if someone hits us we should hit them back a LOT harder. I do disagree that the bombs would have hit us this time - i think this was a message to Spain: "You helped the Americans. This is what you get."
My point in the original post was that we AREN'T hitting the ones that hit us. We're busy hitting OTHER people. Does everyone realize that Saddam NEVER made a move against us? EVER? In 91 he went after Kuwait. This time, he didn't go after anyone. On the other hand, we're devoting a TON of resources to Iraq - resources that should be used to beat the hell out of Al Qaeda, who actually hit us.