Not trying to disassociate him from the war. Trying to acknowledge that the war is bigger than any one person or thing.People forget that despite Russia and France's opposition, there was a fairly large coalition willing to go in, that thought Hussein was a threat. Clinton thought he was a threat. Gore would've thought he was a threat. Given a post-9/11 world and a general consensus that Hussein was a threat (rightly or wrongly) I find it very hard to call it "Bush's war". This was a war for US, to protect US. What part of "a nation that fails to deal with threats is a nation that will be attacked and seen as weak by its enemies" doesn't make sense to you? Like someone else said, talking big but doing nothing will wear off quickly and we'd be seen as all bark, no bite. Likewise, as someone else said, Woodrow Wilson was a failure, and his ideas failed then. They didn't work then, they haven't worked since, and they won't work now. Pacifism only works when your enemy isn't willing to kill you. That is my philosophy, and tied in with a percieved threat, that's why I support the idea that it wasn't Bush's war, it was a war so that Jeffjoe won't have to live in terror.Do you remember where you were on 9/11? I sure do.ZAP
OK. I'll accept your viewpoint.I disagree. I believe that without Bush and the others around him we would not have gone to war. The people who created that picture probably agree with me.The picture is saying that these people died in service to their country and Bush must bear a great deal of the responsibility.Why does that cheapen their sacrifice? It doesn't criticize them; it criticizes Bush.PSI am more afraid of terror now than I've ever been beforeBy the way, how do you know pacifism won't work? Quote from: The_Zapruder_Film on August 17, 2004, 05:14:34 PMNot trying to disassociate him from the war. Trying to acknowledge that the war is bigger than any one person or thing.People forget that despite Russia and France's opposition, there was a fairly large coalition willing to go in, that thought Hussein was a threat. Clinton thought he was a threat. Gore would've thought he was a threat. Given a post-9/11 world and a general consensus that Hussein was a threat (rightly or wrongly) I find it very hard to call it "Bush's war". This was a war for US, to protect US. What part of "a nation that fails to deal with threats is a nation that will be attacked and seen as weak by its enemies" doesn't make sense to you? Like someone else said, talking big but doing nothing will wear off quickly and we'd be seen as all bark, no bite. Likewise, as someone else said, Woodrow Wilson was a failure, and his ideas failed then. They didn't work then, they haven't worked since, and they won't work now. Pacifism only works when your enemy isn't willing to kill you. That is my philosophy, and tied in with a percieved threat, that's why I support the idea that it wasn't Bush's war, it was a war so that Jeffjoe won't have to live in terror.Do you remember where you were on 9/11? I sure do.ZAP
Discussion
Resources
