To: thegagline
Wow. Rhetoric on full display here.
It’s maybe hawkish to start a war, but to strike back when attacked is neither hawkish nor retaliation. It’s the appropriate and righteous response.
27 posted on
01/28/2024 2:41:23 PM PST by
metmom
(He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus…)
To: metmom
to strike back when attacked is neither hawkish nor retaliationStriking back when attacked is the very definition of retaliation. Another word for retaliation in military action is counterattack.
31 posted on
01/28/2024 3:04:40 PM PST by
Avalon Memories
(Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats. -- P.J. O’Rourke)
To: metmom
Wow. Rhetoric on full display here. It's maybe hawkish to start a war, but to strike back when attacked is neither hawkish nor retaliation. It's the appropriate and righteous response. The soldiers were placed in Jordan to act as pawns/a tripwire. It was inevitable that they would be attacked.
The visceral response of calling for retaliation is just what the neocons want. Again, a Gulf of Tonkin incident. Thanks for playing along.
32 posted on
01/28/2024 3:07:32 PM PST by
thegagline
(Sic semper tyrannis! Goldwater in 2024)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson