Quote:
Originally posted by Warf Rat
I am certain Sadam needed his people and his neibors to fear him. That would explain all the lies about WMD's, even at the cost of war. If it was known that he was defenseless, he would have been taken down by his own people or one of his neibors.
I think he would rather lose to us than another country. After all it looks like a war of religions now. So in a way Sadam went out in a way that might hurt us more than he ever could have done on his own.
So, the question is, has this administration gone too far.
|
I really don't know if the administration has gone too far or not enough. Have they bitten off more than they can chew? Or did they take small bites instead of big ones? I look at terrorism like lung cancer. If you smoke,you have a better chance of it attacking you than if you don't.
So how does Bush deal with terrorism? Does the U.S let terrorists exist as long as U.S interests are not targeted and take a chance they won't attack ( I can't believe I am even thinking that terrorists might think of the rules of engagement concerning war) or does Bush go hard at every turn knowing as long as the U.S tries to eradicate it, those so inclined will have more reasons to attack?
It's hard to see a win win situation given the context that exists. Maybe something catastrophic like a repeat of Hiroshima or Nagasaki might bring the world back to peace. I hate to think that way but something that rocks the world might be the recipe for a reality. But when does it come back to bite your ass?