Reply #26: We heartily disagree here [View All]

[kcwayne]

Again, because there was an actual -- spectacular -- attack on US soil the model for this war is WWII not Vietnam


WWII, as instigated by Pearl Harbor was an attack by a sovereign, identifable nation on US Territory. 9/11 was an attack by an unidentifiable group of terrorists. The only similarity between the two is that Americans suffered catastrophic loss of life.

The conduct of hostilities against terrorists should not be conducted by a military attack against a people who had nothing to do with 9/11. It should be conducted by covert operations against the money, munitions, and stealthy organizers of those that are driven by the ideology that wants to murder our citizens. Our response to terrorists should be goverened by precision and intellect, not by scattered and non-discriminating destruction. The end result of what we are doing in Iraq, if indeed its purpose is to quell terrorism, is simply more terrorism. If you support this type of war, then you are giving license to perpetual war. You can roll over as many tinpot dictators you want, but the defeat of an endless string of nations will not defeat the ideology behind the terror, which is absolutely not founded on nationalism.

It's something you can't ignore because if you do and keep hammering home it will be the same as going into a southern church and doing a speach on supporting abortion and homosexual marriage

If Abraham Lincoln had believed this, then the south would still have slaves. That is why Lincoln was a leader. He was able to put forth the Emancipation Proclamation, even though an overwhelming majority of people in the South destested the idea, and an overwhelming majority of people in the North were opposed to it as well.

Maybe Lincoln thought that acting morally was more important than promoting the status quo, because this act was certain not to get him votes.