Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
Well then, the worse thing 'for the world' (as opposed to 'for this country') might have a been a more appropriate choice of phrasing. Of course, I realize it was an off-the-cuff remark. But the way it was put, to me, makes it sound a little opportunistic - like a cheap shot. And, come on, anytime you put the words 'Bush' and 'Hitler' together in a sentence you are making a very well-used association that will likely promote some very well-used reactions. And frankly, I'm tired of both.
|
No offense intended, but you're tired of hearing some things said and written, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died avoidable deaths...avoidable if we didn't have openly avowed official civilian practitioners of "elective", "preemptive", aggressive war, commanding the US military, but we did in 2003, and we still do. That is the problem. Talking about it, objecting to it, is not the problem.
The CIC of the world's sole super power has waged "elective", "preemptive", aggressive war, after announcing his "policy change" after the 9/11 attacks, against two sovereign nations. It appears likely that he is at least considering initiating the same thing against a third nation, in the near future. Is Rekna anymore in error, comparing the effect of this "new policy" on the US, and on the reat of the world, with what Hitler did, than those who are under reacting to...or horrors....supporting these crimes against humanity?
Is there a more reasonable way, given the facts and the history, to put these acts of aggression in proper context or perspective? I don't see how it can be done without ignoring some or all of the information in my last post.