Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
A) There is a difference between balls and bravery. You need to be a big game shooter to win wars, besides obvious points of strategery, you do need to be ruthless and you have to be committed.
|
The difference between balls and bravery depends on who you ask. In reality 'Balls' usually refers to wrekless courage. If you're suggesting this administration has balls, I agree. The problem is that in any situation not involving rollerblades and a handrail, balls probalby isn't appropriate because of the wreklass part. Do you really want to be run by a government that can be classified as wrekless? Do you want that government to act in a wrekless manner, espically when engaged in or starting a war? Courage is a fine virtue to have, and can be benificial in war, but wreklessness hinders us, it doesn't help us. As for commitment, everyone assumes that we have to stay the course with Iraq and stay committed. If you enact a plan base don information, and you find out that information is wrong (for whatever reason), what will committing to your actions really do but further your mistake? Yes, what I am suggesting is the removal of all US troops from Iraq starting now and ending in a few months. I realize that it *could* start a civil war, but there is a civil war already and many of those fighting in that civil war are fighting because we are there.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
B) I think you are misreading or representing what I wrote about the justice thing. I wasn't talking about the Iraqi's and Justice. My initial reply was in regards to the fact that people like Shrub or Cheney should stand for war crimes, that would have to be at the UN court in Hague probably, that's what i was talking about.
|
I did misunderstand you. I believe that justice would be served if those responsible for the misinformation are charged and found guilty of their crimes.