2007-03-06 10:22:07 · 5 answers · asked by gregdean 1 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Yes there is a difference. We are fighting a war against terrorists. If it were for revenge then we wouldn't have troops on the ground trying to distinguish between terrorists and civilians. For revenge we would just bomb large population centers.
2007-03-06 10:31:59 · answer #1 · answered by bill j 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
On 9/11, George Bush suggested in so many words that revenge was the appropriate reaction. We're long past that now. Revenge is never an appropriate reason for war, regardless of what Bush had suggested. The only reason why we should continue military action against terrorists is to prevent further terrorist mayhem, but a lot of people disagree how far we should go with that thinking. Unfortunately, it has been proved innumerable times in history that the use or at least the threat of force has become necessary for peace.
2007-03-06 18:32:18 · answer #2 · answered by Scythian1950 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it's the war to prevent another nine-elevens.
2007-03-06 18:32:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
there is no difference.
2007-03-06 22:00:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no diffrence in my opinion :-)
2007-03-06 19:42:52 · answer #5 · answered by ~*~Basketball_Babe~*~ 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋