Re: (OT:) From another group (I hate Michael Moore...)




Mike Hunter wrote:

We did not expect you and the rest of the lefty kooks would understand what
happened prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, just as you do not understand
what is happening in the world today. Back in 1939 most American were not
willing to fight for their own freedom by joining the fight in Europe. Just
as the kooks today like to say what did Iraq do it us?

Those parallels are wrong. In 1939, most Americans who opposed
fighting the Axis were either pacifists (WWI had horrified them),
isolationists, or even sympathizers of Hitler or Mussolini. But
today, virtually no Americans favor the enemy, only a very small
minority are pacifists, and virtually everbody favors military action
against the terrorists. OTOH most Americans now oppose the Iraq war,
and since the end of the Gulf War, Iraq under Saddam was not an
expansionist power in any way, either directly or through terrorist
proxies, but just a caged dog with a loud bark.

Not understanding the enemy back then cost millions and millions of lives
before it ended, when Hitler could have been taken out far sooner but for
likes of Neville Chamberlain and the other appeasers.

Today we have a President more like Winston Churchill who understands it is
far better to fight an enemy sooner rather than later and on his ground
rather than to wait till they can bring the fight to you.

And Neville Chamberlain didn't understand the enemy because he had
very limited experience in world affairs, had never even been to a
foreign countrybefore coming to power (unlike Churchill, who had
served in all over, including in Afghanistan, and warned against any
foreign power invading that country), and was an incurious leader who
was intolerant of dissent from his advisers. So if anything, GW Bush
is more like Neville Chamberlain than Winston Churchill, and while
Chamberlain didn't know better to fight a real enemy early, GW Bush
decided to waste most of our fighting ability against an already-
paralized enemy, Iraq.

I doubt if you kooks will even understand that, even when we get hit again,
and we will get hit again. The head of the CIA told the Senate nearly
fifteen years ago under Clinton, it is not a matter of if we are attacked by
terrorists but when and how badly.

And when the CIA told GW Bush very specifically, in August, 2001, that
bin Laden would strike in the US, what did GW Bush do to stop the
attack? Nobody on the right has been able to answer that.

.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Decision time for US over Iran threat
    ... Air strikes to take out their enrichment facilities utilizing nukes if ... Our enemy just *loves* people like you. ... Bush set up to invade our privacy. ... As far it being Bush's fault for another enemy attack, ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Bush and U.S. Foiled at Least 10 Terror Plots
    ... Bush is truly a world leader. ... "Against such an enemy, there's only one effective response: ... to force U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and create an Islamic state there. ... West Coast attack was a key figure behind the attacks on the World ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: 2008 Pres
    ... That's what's got me so pissed off with the Bush war doctrine. ... it breaks his desire to continue the fight. ... of our power in which we take the fight to the enemy and wipe him off the ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • Re: Bush and U.S. Foiled at Least 10 Terror Plots
    ... > Bush is truly a world leader. ... > "Against such an enemy, there's only one effective response: ... > to force U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and create an Islamic state there. ... > hijacked airplanes to attack the West Coast in mid-2002 and the East ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: Bush and 9-11
    ... They were a personal attack on Bush. ... You brought the fight to the White House ...
    (alt.politics)