@Thomas,
OmSigDAVID wrote:Well, if its a good strike, then yes; we might need
more than 1 strike; possibly an infantry raid.
Thomas wrote:True libertarians would oppose such a war of aggression by the United States.
Yes, u may well be right, Tom, qua a goodly proportion of them.
( Thay r a heterogeneous n disparate bunch. )
Additionally, their written doctrine will probably support your assertion
(as does Ron Paul), but I must be guided by my own Individual vu.
I gotta be
me.
I see it as self defense, instead of waiting to inflict vengeance,
after it is
too late, like 9/11/1.
I will not march in lock step with anyone with whom I disagree.
I rejected my father 's support of Roosevelt n Truman.
Thomas wrote:Maybe Rush Limbaugh and yourself aren't as different as you think.
I said that I agree with about
6O% to
7O% of what I 've heard from him.
I dunno what his position is qua bombing the Persians.
OmSigDavid wrote: I 'm very relieved to be rid of Saddam.
He was a homicidal maniac, with a grudge against us, for Kuwait.
Thomas wrote:If the objective is to get rid of homicidal maniacs,
maybe America shouldn't have supported Saddam Hussein
while he was massacring Kurds. But at the time, I suppose,
it seemed like a good idea because a fire needed to be put out in Iran.
Yeah, well we gotta prioritize.
Thomas wrote: Maybe American wars are less effective than you think at "putting fires out".
We can only do our best.
Thomas wrote:But then, I never understood how America's conservatives and libertarians simultaneously believe that the US government can't be trusted to run America's own post office, and that it can be trusted to run the rest of the world.
We need to promote our interests around the world,
including those of self defense.
David