|
i've read this article twice and can't for the life of me justify the title of this thread.
the article is 95% recitation of historical fact. granted, the choice of dates and events were probably tailored to support her intent, but i don't see why this contributes to the idea that she is vile.
if you can disprove the veracity of her writing, do that. if you can't and are still offended, ask yourself why the dry presentation of fact offends you so much and articulate a logically sound response... if you are able.
i must say, on a personal note, that i resent anyone that says we "haven't won shit there." to debate about the merits of our actions is one thing but to deny the efficacy of our military operations displays a lack of knowledge of the situation.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
~ Winston Churchill
|