|
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_bastard
This is all well and good, but an all or nothing attitude is the sort of thing I assosciate with bigots and fascists.
You accept that there is an extent to which the US can retaliate. Too little, too much, etc. If someone says it's too much, they are not saying the US shouldn't be there.
Many, like myself, think the US should be there, and elsewhere, but that she should do the job properly, not for the cameras. A proper job will cost American lives and it will cost the taxpayer a lot of money, and the US govt is willing to forfeit neither of those things. Hence, she is willing to cosmetically sort out the problem.
It's not black and white, it's not a case of "well we can either bomb them to fuck or we can do nothing". There is a middle to the two extremes.
Is the task in capable hands or is it being fought for the cameras, for votes? Well, given we live in a democracy, where there is a lot to be gained by cutting corners and lying (Stephen Byers anyone?), I'd put my money on the latter. |
LOL.....too funny...your right George Bush is bombing Afghanistan to be re-elected in 3 years...LOL....
and all the troops their fighting are their for photo ops for Time magazine covers...its all 1 big fame and fortune task...
LOL....u people really scare me
___________________
Bring back 1994 NYC clubbing nights, cus the sh*t today is filled with junk parties and DJs that play sh*t House.....Zabiela, Sander, or Howells and all the rest suck and couldnt throw a night like it was in the early 90s in NYC!!!...Screw Twilo - give me Limelight circa 1993!!!
|