English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

There is a saying: Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
It seems to me that we could have avoided World War Two, the Holocaust, and all that destruction, if someone would have had the balls to launch a pre-emptive strike on Hitler in ’37 or ’38 while he was still pretty weak. Instead, we had Europeans with their “negotiations” and “diplomacy”, with Neville Chamberlain saying “Peace in our time”.

So why does everyone now despise Bush for doing that very thing? People howl and moan about “pre-emptive” war? Let’s not forget that Saddam used WMD’s on his own people and on the Iranians. And for you college kids, don’t forget that in the 80’s the Israelis bombed a nuclear plant in Iraq because Saddam WAS trying to develop a nuke. (I hope they bomb the Iranian plant next.)

2007-10-05 09:31:45 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events Current Events

So, I believe that we should topple Iran and Syria next ( albeit a little more efficiently that we have done in Iraq). Unlike the Soviets, the Islamo-fascists WILL use a nuke if they get one. (At least you could count on the Russkies to use a little common sense in that regard.) We need to squash ALL states that sympathize with these murderers. Does anybody agree with me?

2007-10-05 09:31:56 · update #1

6 answers

The quote you were thinking of is one I live by" It is the doom of man if he forgets".

Iam with you on it. I support Bush, it was only a matter of time before Saddam did something to the USA. I still believe he also helped those who drove the planes into the World trade Towers. If given enough time Saddam would have been exactly like Hitler, he was already acting like Hitle by killing any who did not agree with him. The amount of mass grave tombs that have been found tells you Saddam was quite busy

2007-10-05 11:39:44 · answer #1 · answered by tebone0315 7 · 2 4

The man who is directly responsible for allowing Cambodia's killing fields to happen is the man who undermined its goverment by expanding the Vietnam War there, Richard Nixon. The man -- I'm being loose with the language here -- responsible for all the deaths in Iraq since March 18, 2003 is George W. Bush. There was no al-Qaeda presence before he went in. No one here likes Saddam Hussein, but he was keeping the real enemy, al-Qaeda, out of Iraq. Now they're in.

Liberals don't want to surrender. We want to take our troops out from where they're dying for nothing and send them where the real terrorists are, Afghanistan and Pakistan. You remember Osama bin Laden, don't you? The man who actually ordered the 9/11 hit? Iraq had nothing to do with that. Bush promised to get him, dead or alive. Well, where is he?
The name doesn't hold power. However, he is a perfect example of how to misuse the power he has been given to govern the US. He should have told the truth about his plans for Iraq in the beginning and then let the people decide what should or should not be done. I have not yet heard anything about any members of congress or the senate volunteering to leave their families behind to go fight in Iraq. If they believed in it so much, why didn't they lead the charge? President Kennedy directly challenged Castro that if he didn't back down he would lead his Navy against him.

After 9/11 USA had a chance to right it's wrongs....but failed to do so ...it needed someone like JFK as leader.

2007-10-05 19:15:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

Would that be the same Israelis who weren't supposed to have nukes? The very same ones who allowed the massacre at Shabra and Shatilla?
Saddams WMD's?Weren't the Americans supplying their old mate with anything he could chuck at that time.
Can we learn from Hitler.I think Bush is doing a pretty good impression already.
Are all Americans warmongering fanatics?Thankfully no and at last it seems the tide is turning,you are in the minority, get over it.

2007-10-05 16:52:12 · answer #3 · answered by Misty Blue 7 · 2 3

There is a lesson to stand up for what u believe in there is a poem that is called and then they came for me and it basicly states that if u dnt stand up 4 ne1 when they go after u no1 will b left to stand up 4 u

2007-10-05 16:42:35 · answer #4 · answered by sparkville13 2 · 2 1

Until someone commits a crime, we have NO right to strike at them. Until I read your text, I thought your point was going to be that we (the USA) should have learned from Hitler not to scapegoat another group (the immigration hysteria) and invade other countries.

Silly me.

2007-10-05 17:18:48 · answer #5 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 3 2

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Live by the bomb, die by the bomb.

2007-10-05 20:57:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers