(Cont. from Part 4) Card tells us that the United States won the Vietnam War. But that somehow Congress gave the whole thing away to the Communist North Vietnamese. That's one of those imaginative but not very creative things I mentioned about the article.
Somehow he leaps from that to saying that in Afghanistan and Iraq we have to "continue the war until we achieve our objective." And he gives a definition of winning, kinda sorta: we have to either remove all the governments of "a dozen or so nations" (he only names six) who sponsor terrorism, or else make them reverse their policies and "destroy all terrorists that once had safe harbor within their borders."
Maybe Think It Over and Anne's Life know what he's talking about. But it sounds like mush to me.
I can't help but think - given what a strain the Iraq War is already putting on our military's personnel resources - that unilaterally occupying and controlling Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, the Sudan and Libya plus six other mystery countries, is a pretty tall order. We might have to have a military draft.
We might even have to ask wealthy Republicans to pay higher taxes to support their country!! Is the Freeper crowd ready for a sacrifice that dreadful?!?!
2 comments:
ah bruce, how i envy your energy, in the middle of the night too! what a voice of sanity you are. i'm really just commenting to say "thank you" for the reading you do, the analysis, linking and commentary you constantly give us. know that i read you every day, sometimes several times a day, and have come to depend on you for all of the above. i want to know your thoughts on what's happening in Saudi Arabia, do you think the govt really has a line on something?
Okay, gotcha. So if a republican says something you disagree with, they're dead wrong, and if a democrat says something you disagree with, they're dead wrong. Sounds like the issues is not who is right or wrong, just who you disagree with. Sorry, try again.
Post a Comment