World War III my hairy ass.
good luck with that
Let’s take a look at the situation of Great Britain in 1940 versus the U.S. today. (Setting aside the respective leaders. I mean, comparing Bush to Churchill is just too cheap and easy a shot.)
Britain in 1940:
Britain had attempted to make peace at almost any cost, giving Hitler the benefit of every doubt.
let’s cut run and surrender with kerry, murtha and pelosi… ackmadinahad? hell! we can trust him. he’s a nice tyrant who only says he wants to wipe our allies off the face of the earth… he doesn’t really want war, he’s just misunderstood… evil godless americans… well of course the democRATS agree, america is evil…
In the end, Hitler’s untrustworthiness became so glaring and obvious that, over Poland, Britain felt she had no choice but to declare war.
(And incidentally – though you seem to have forgotten this, Imp – it was not Churchill but Chamberlain who declared war on Germany.)
Britain tried not to fight, but she had to, and she fought bravely and doggedly against terrible odds.
and you really do not see the comparison?
A year later, both of Britain’s powerful enemies would foolishly launch attacks against another even more powerful nation, drawing first the Soviet Union and then the United States into the war on Britain’s side. But in 1940 such folly on the part of the foe could not be hoped for.
The U.S. today:
One attack has been perpetrated on the U.S., in 2001, by a single group of terrorists who at that time were based in Afghanistan. No attacks have been made since then on U.S. soil.
damn. that fool bush must have done something right.
Except for our soldiers engaged in occupying foreign countries who did not attack us first, no U.S. military personnel, nor civilians either, have been endangered by what you are preposterously calling “World War III” since 9/11 itself.
right. iraq didn’t attack us first. they never shot at planes enforcing the no fly zone (even under clinton) nope. never an aggressive move by them.
The “enemy,” to the extent we have one not of our own making, is that single terrorist group. No other groups have even TRIED to launch attacks against the U.S. since 9/11, and none, including al-Qaeda, have succeeded.
[b]and you know this how? oh yes, you know what is in the mind of all terrorist groups and your trust in the media who also knows exactly what is in the mind of all terrorist groups who would never try to hurt americans… nope, no terror attack has occured anyplace on the planet since 9-11… and none succeeds in america because the terrorists really don’t want to hurt americans, the terrorists really want the democRATS to impose socialist tyranny on america and will not attack america if democRATS are in charge… right.
they haven’t succeeded because bush is a failure…[/b]
Far from trying to make peace, President Bush has used the opportunity provided by 9/11 to declare a “war on terror,” which provides an umbrella justification for attacking anyone he wants to attack anywhere, any time. In this, he resembles Churchill far less than he does Hitler, who also used the flimsiest of pretexts to justify aggressive actions against his neighbors. Both Poland and the Soviet Union were accused of plotting to invade Germany (both falsely) to justify Germany invading them instead. Exactly as Bush has done in Iraq.
no, churchill knew when to fight. bush knows when to fight.
Had Bush responded to 9/11 properly, he would have identified the attacker as al-Qaeda, whom it was, rather than as “terror,” which is purely an abstraction and does not exist as a concrete enemy. He would have invaded Afghanistan, as he did, that being al-Qaeda’s base of operations. And he would have given top priority to destroying this organization by any means necessary. But he would certainly not have launched an invasion of Iraq, which had absolutely nothing to do with the attack on the U.S. or with al-Qaeda, let alone contemplated broadening the war to include other Muslim nations equally innocent of 9/11, and he would not have used the attack as a pretext either to rattle sabers at half the world, or to call for compromising precious American liberties at home.
no, he should have launched attacks against ALL the terrorists. al qaida isn’t the only enemy. but of course the myopic pacifist left refuses to acknowledge the existence of enemies except for al qaida and capitalists.
Unlike Britain in 1940, America has not had to fight, but has done so anyway, aggressively, with no benign or peaceful or even remotely honorable intent whatsoever.
right. america has not had to do anything. america should pull out everywhere. cut the military completely off. be a good democRAT, and bend over and grab your ankles. the terrorists would never attack us again. the terrorists really want peace…
In short if we do end up in World War III, it will be our own damned fault, and we, not the “enemy,” will be the aggressors. We will not be in the position of Great Britain, but in that of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.
right, we attacked our embassies, our navy, 9-11… all of it was america’s fault… only we are the aggressors.
But we won’t, because Bush has so discredited his aggressive policies that his successor – regardless of party – would prefer to hang himself than follow that policy any further into this hole.
And you can take that to the bank.
