Replies

"All of Japan was at war with us.
All of Islam is not. Yet."
Yeah, right. Just like all of Germany, Italy, and North Africa were at war with us. Even the children and 100% of the civilians. Think about it. Sometimes "innocent civilians" die in warfare. If we are so gutless and need to worry about the "Arab street", why bother? Read up on the authorizations for operations given by Congress. They clearly said Afghanistan and Iraq. You may try to justify things in your mind. Putting off the Iranian and Syrian conflicts may be prudent while we align forces. But we gave Lebanon (a failed state that harbored terrorists) a pass. I will give credit for Syria getting thrown out. Many thought that Hizb could be dismantled after that. Just did not work out that way. Nobody will talk about the KSA threat, but the Saudis are in need of a regime change as well.

Read up on the authorizations for operations given by Congress. They clearly said Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yes, they referred to "Afghanistan" and "Iraq". But neither declared a state of war between U.S. and either of the two nations. Instead, the clear targets were the terrorist elements within each state.

Read the clear language of the declarations. Read the President's even clearer statements.

Just like all of Germany, Italy, and North Africa were at war with us. Even the children and 100% of the civilians. Think about it. Sometimes "innocent civilians" die in warfare.

So, you grant that the entire population of Japan was at war with us? Guam and Okinawa would seem to support that notion.

There was a time when we had no way to discriminate between the guilty and the innocent. Now we do. "Innocent civilians" still die, but in far fewer numbers than in WW II. Isn't that a good thing?

Still, though, I simply do not understand the thinking that concludes we're better off if we have a billion-and-a-half enemies instead of several thousand (or even several millions). Isn't that asking for trouble?

Do you subscribe to the "nuke Mecca" school, as well?