If an Islamic terrorist group nukes a U.S. city, then what?

[Gem]

A history professor at PITT told my class that in fact, the rationing the government implemented in WWII was in large part, unneccesary, the government simply did it in order to make sure that the people back home felt that they were doing something - were reminded everyday that we were at war and that it was very serious.

Sounds to me like FDR was quite aware that the public needed to be a bit scared in order to make the sacrifices neccesary to win a war.

Imagine today if we found out Bush had "manufactured" a shortage of something in order to make us "feel the pinch" because we were at war. The Dems would have him impeached faster than you can blink...

Not to mention the fairly convincing evidence that FDR knew about a Japanese plan for attacking us somewhere (had several advisors pointing at Pearl Harbor) but did nothing because he had promised the British he would get the US into the war...and lets not forget his BLATANT abuse of the treaties and agreements the US made prior to the War as we helped Great Britian and screwed over Germany....

FDR lied, cheated, stole, and abused American citizens to get us into WWII...but wait, I forgot...thats ok cause he was a Democrat...

 

[GeeWhiz]

So everyone thinks FDR's phrase, "there is nothing to fear but fear itself," is right up there with Junior's, "Yellow Cake do you hear me? Yellow Cake"

 

[Gem]

No...most would agree that Bush is nowhere near as eloquent as FDR. More importantly, however, is that the two quotes are completely incomparable since they are dealing with two enirely different matters - a President telling the nation how to respond to a national tragedy and a President quoting foriegn intelligence that could indicate a potential threat to our nation. This glaring difference and poor choice in comparisons makes it obvious that you are more interested in bashing Bush without thinking than engaging in rational discussion.

How does your statement do this, you ask? Simple. You could have chosen any of Bush's soundbites regarding how Americans should act and prepare after 9/11 or throughout the war. The first one that jumps to my mind is when he got on television and told Americans that the best thing to do after 9/11 is go shopping. I'm paraphrasing, of course, but the point is the same - rather than telling us to be strong, or better yet - imploring Americans to show the terrorists that when they hit us we only come back stronger by donating our time, money, effort into volunteer activities and charity. Imagine what a difference Bush could have made if his speech wasn't "Go about your daily lives, go shopping..." but rather, "Show the terrorists that by attacking us they have done nothing but reignited our will and desire to make the United States of America the best country in the world, full of the kindest, most giving people in the world...people willing to give all that they can to their neighbors and to strangers in need."

Bush, in my opinion, really blew a prime opportunity to give a speech that could have matched JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you..." speech, and certainly FDR's "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Instead...he made a petty plea for continued consumerism - yes, keeping the economy going was very important...but I think the speech could have been much better written and therefore, more relevant. But thats Bush...

However, since the British have not, as of yet, backed down an inch from their claim that Saddam was interested in making business deals in Niger for urainium you example above looks less like an intelligent response and more like petty anti-Bush nonsense.

 

[GeeWhiz]

Gem,

The reason I chose the yellow cake comment is because for some reason Junior and Cheney was angry about Wilson exposing the Yellow cake hoax.

This anger of Junior and Cheney only tells me that they wanted to whore out that hoax and milk it to con the people, but Wilson wrecked it via his op ed.

 

[Gem]

Gee Whiz,

You chose it because you seemingly really want to believe that Bush and Cheney "outed" Plame in an attempt to get back at Wilson. There are a few problems with this.

1) The more we learn about "Plamegate" the more it becomes clear that neither Bush nor Cheney "outed" her. And that Wilson and Plame are desperately trying to milk this situation for as much money and publicity as they can get.

2) And this is the one I'm far more interested at this point in time...by stating that you chose the yellowcake issue as your "quote" for the reason you did you prove, yet again, that you are more interested in bashing Bush than discussing any real issue.

I'm not sure if this is going to make a difference, but I'm going to try anyway...

I believe you might have valid points, interesting opinions, ideas that could actually be useful and thought-provoking on this board. The board desperately needs rational, calm people to express why they are against the war or against Bush...unfortunately, when you choose quotes that don't apply to the conversation, or refer to the President in silly, derogatory nicknames you instantaneously show yourself as a particular type of poster - one that most people don't take as seriously as you probably deserve to be taken.

As someone who posts on "liberal" message boards, I can completely sympathize with being the "odd man out." But you don't get people to listen to you by showing that you can't hold yourself together for the five seconds it takes to write a post without falling into some sort of silly "I HATE BUSH I HAVE TO CALL HIM NAMES!" tantrum.

If you are here to call Bush silly names and "piss off" the "stupid 'Junior' supporters," then thats fine, thats your right. You'll probably enjoy trading barbs back and forth with some here...but if you are actually here to learn why people have such different opinions from your own - to learn if they actually have reasons that make sense for feeling the way they do or if everyone who supports Bush or the war is really an idiot...you might want to try putting a bit more thought into the posts...rather than reaching into your "I hate Bush" bag, and pulling out whatever non-relevant quote is on top.

 

[GeeWhiz]

Gem,

I appreciate your advice. I really do. I would like nothing better than to have an intelligent discussion on serious issues facing our country today.

You feel that Wilson wrote the op ed for money. But did you know that the United Nation Weapons inspectors knew about the document and even stated to the U.N that United States will not turn over that document.

The United States did turn it over after the State of the Union Address. The U.N inspectors found it to be a forgery within four hours, after they were handed the document.

Ask yourself, why did the United States stall on handing it over prior to the State of the Union Address? was it because they were afraid the document would be exposed as a hoax and thus ruin the key part of the State of the Union Address?

Think about it.

Also, did you know that two journalists in Denmark are facing trial for making public a secret document from the United States. That secret document stated that it was doubtful Iraq had WMD's. That document was given to Denmark officials prior to the War on Iraq. Think about it.

 

[Mr.Conley]

A history professor at PITT told my class that in fact, the rationing the government implemented in WWII was in large part, unneccesary, the government simply did it in order to make sure that the people back home felt that they were doing something - were reminded everyday that we were at war and that it was very serious.

Sounds to me like FDR was quite aware that the public needed to be a bit scared in order to make the sacrifices neccesary to win a war.

Imagine today if we found out Bush had "manufactured" a shortage of something in order to make us "feel the pinch" because we were at war. The Dems would have him impeached faster than you can blink...

Despite what I think are some obvious differences between al-Quada and the Nazis, I'll give you that what FDR did there was a bit underhanded. However, I disagree with the assessment that the rationing was done simply to scare the population into submission. The bombing on Pearl Harbor generated enough national anger that FDR didn't really need to impoverish an already poor nation. As you said, many of the rationings were genuinely nessecary, or at least they provided much appreciated extra resources.

I also wouldn't blame FDR totally. A lot of the minutae was carried out by the Department of War, the War Production Co-Ordinating Committee, along with various other federal, state, and local programs.

Not to mention the fairly convincing evidence that FDR knew about a Japanese plan for attacking us somewhere (had several advisors pointing at Pearl Harbor) but did nothing because he had promised the British he would get the US into the war...and lets not forget his BLATANT abuse of the treaties and agreements the US made prior to the War as we helped Great Britian and screwed over Germany....

What's even less known in the "FDR Planned Pearl Harbor" debate is that US Naval Intelligence did actually try to warn Pearl Harbor about a possible attack. Unfortunately, the wire wasn't labeled priority as most people expected any possible Japanese surprise attack to occur in the Phillipines, which recieved an immediate warning. The commander of Pearl Harbor did eventually recieve the communique, a few hours after the attack occured.

And I wouldn't call them blatant abuses. I would just say that he was rather creative when it came to aiding the British. If anything, we got a great deal from it.

FDR lied, cheated, stole, and abused American citizens to get us into WWII...but wait, I forgot...thats ok cause he was a Democrat...

Come on now. It wasn't because he was a Democrat. History is written by the winners, and FDR was a winner (plus he died in office, historians love that). Plus FDR did win WWII, the single most significant war in the history of mankind, which spanned three continents and most of the world's population. Bush, on the otherhand, seems incapable of winning a comparably small war involving less than 1% of the worlds population.

 

[Gem]

Gee Whiz:

I don't think that Wilson wrote the Op-Ed for money, actually. I think that he wrote it because thats what he found when he went to Niger. I think he followed the guided tour and reported back.

But we really aren't discussing why Wilson wrote his report. What we were initially discussing was whether or not "Junior" as you call him, outed his wife on purpose...and the simple fact of it is, he didn't. And the assertion that Bush or Cheney outed Plame as a way to get revenge on Wilson simply doesn't hold water.

Much of American intel WAS flawed, this has been revealed, admitted, and should be screamed about. For our nation to invest the amount of money we spend on military and intelligence operations and still have to rely on intelligence as faulty as some of the intel we used is pathetic.

However - the report Bush quoted in the State of the Union - from the Brits - has not been denied by the British. They are sticking to it. Iraqi generals and paperwork taken from Iraq has also supported that Saddam was talking to Niger about "trade agreements" now, since Niger doesn't have much of anything aside from yellowcake and mint juleps...it doesn't take a huge amount of deduction to determine what Saddam wanted from Niger.

Why did the US stall at handing info over to the UN? I don't know...it definetly is a question. My guess would be that they were trying to build a case for going to war in Iraq to the UN that was against the idea - and were concerned that it would stall the process. Should we have waited? Probably - we certainly hadn't planned enough for the aftermath of the initial invasion - however since there were, in my opinion, numerous reasons to invade Iraq - and since the intel on Saddam wanting to do business with Niger is still pretty sound - I'm not sure its a huge warning bell of BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED - so much as a questionable call - just like every President has to make. (For examples, look at all the "questionable" things FDR did leading up to WWII...but thats ok, cause the war worked out in our favor).


Mr. Conley,

I think you have hit it squarely on the head when you say that FDR is remembered fondly because he was a winner, but if FDR had made the choices he made then today - he only would have survived had he been a Dem.

In today's equivalent, what you are basically implying is that FDR allowed 9/11 in order to get us into war with Iraq. But that was ok, because once a stable democracy was established in Iraq - other nations followed and terrorism was all but wiped out - proving that FDR knew that sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omlet...but the world is a much safer place now...

FDR got away with it then because the media was interested in supporting America first and because the people of this country believed that their nation was right.

FDR gets a pass today because he was a Democrat who started a lot of social programs and because we won WWII.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The threats from terrorists goes very far back and has been around for several decades. There were two sets of people that testified before Congress in the mid 90's one of the sets, which we will call the experts, warned Congress that the terrorists are on a learning curve making meaning the terrorists will become more dangerous as the years goes on. The other set were members of the PNAC, there input was to convince Congress to go imperialism.

The two sets were not on the same plane. The set that ended up controlling the White House is the PNAC, not the experts. We ended up going into a war with Iraq which had zero to do with 911 but was a target for PNAC imperialism.

I have read the transcripts between the two sets, what is shocking is the Republican controlled Legislative Branch opted for the imperialism over protection for the people of America. The experts were up against deaf ears.The fear rhetoric is nothing more than a con job to get the people to going along with this imperialism policy.

Yea, everyone has their opinion, how about throwing in a few facts?

Imperialism? You fucktard, those marines who are dying are fighting against imperialism just as our country always has. You fucking dimwitted liberals would rather see us lose in Iraq just because it would make Bush lose. You are a coward and a traitor.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

No, if you compare the leadership of the Second World War with the leadership of today, you will note a night and day difference.

Pearl Harbor was bombed backed then but the leadership at that time didn't work night and day to scare the people, the leadership told the people there was nothing to fear. They were a warrior class.

Today, the leadership is a chicken class, the boogeyman is under your bed, that sort of talk is what is going on.

Yea, the boogeyman is under your bed. What a fucking idiot. I think you should send this post of yours to all those people who were on planes targeted in London recently. NAAAAAAAAAAhhhhh, terrorism isnt a real threat, its just a boogeyman.
9/11 Didnt really happen, it was our own government that brought down the twin towers. The pentagon wasnt hit by a plane, it was hit by our own US rockets.
And its nice to glamourize the leadership of the past, but if you did any REAL historical readings, you would find FDR wasnt really all that great of a commander in chief, nor honest with the American public. We won in spite of him, not because of him.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The topic is basically that of the use and abuse of propaganda if you want to really get down to it.

The propaganda today is one of using fear to con the people into going along with current policies.

The learning curve of the people is going in the direction of realizing that the war in Iraq is not related to the real issue which is Terrorism. This creates a propaganda problem for the current administration.

Oh yea, I get it. From "what should we do if the terrorists dropped a nuke on us" to "topic is basically the use of propaganda" ITS ALL SO CLEAR NOW. HOW COULD I MISS IT.????

Speaking of propaganda....

 

[Mr.Conley]

I think you have hit it squarely on the head when you say that FDR is remembered fondly because he was a winner, but if FDR had made the choices he made then today - he only would have survived had he been a Dem.

I disagree. For one I don't think we can really compare what FDR did then to now because the difference between current times and the 30s and 40s are just so vast. That said, I don't think the fact that FDR was a democrat would guarantee him his position today. As we've seen the democrats haven't been winning elections for the mere virtue of being democrats. It takes far more than that to guarantee an election, unless your districts been gerrymandered that is. That's a problem with both parties though.

In today's equivalent, what you are basically implying is that FDR allowed 9/11 in order to get us into war with Iraq. But that was ok, because once a stable democracy was established in Iraq - other nations followed and terrorism was all but wiped out - proving that FDR knew that sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omlet...but the world is a much safer place now...

I disagree again because I don't believe that FDR knew that the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. Only that he had some idea that the Japanese might attack us somewhere in the Pacific sometime in the future, and that that place was probably going to be the Phillipines.
Even still, if we assume that FDR did know what was going down I wouldn't compare them to current events. The Nazis and the Japanese were a far greater threat then al-Quada, and the connection between them was far less tenuous then the supposed one between al-Quada and Iraq.
Secondly, thus far events haven't been as rosy as you've pictured them, especially when compared to WWII. Iraq is in no way a good example of 'stable' democracy in action. Nor has terrorism been wiped out.

FDR got away with it then because the media was interested in supporting America first and because the people of this country believed that their nation was right.

Again I disagree. I seriously doubt that the only reason "the media" let FDR "get away with it" was because unlike, as you imply, today's media, the media of the 30s and 40s didn't hate America. I attribute it more to the fact that the media as we know it didn't exist in those days, and what did exist didn't know the FDR was planning Pearl Harbor (which I still contend he wasn't).

FDR gets a pass today because he was a Democrat who started a lot of social programs and because we won WWII.

Again, I disagree. Party affiliation doesn't really play a major role in presidential rankings. If being a Democrat is nessicary to considered an effective president, then why are Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan (though admittedly less so on Reagan, not because of partisanship though, he simply hasn't been dead long enough) considered good Presidents?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Yep, I remember hiding under desks at school for air bomb drills. Yea, scare tactics were invented by the Bush administration.

Can you believe this moron, topic is how would you respond to a nuke attack, he starts attacking Bush like a good "no plan dem" would do, and then he bitches that someone calls him a bushbasher. HAHHAHAHHAHAh

Where does the looney left get these people Is Hagbard running some sort of school for the mentally disadvantged?

I don't know if you had parents, grandparents or some relatives that lived through WW2, but your assumption that fear of attack was not prevalent, because FDR's administration was of a different mindset is way off.

My parents lived in the S.F. Bay area of California during WW2, and both my parents shared with me how frightened folks were. Japanese subs roamed the West coast at will back in the early stages of the war. In fact a few oil tankers were sunk off the Oregon coast by Japanese subs. One such sub actually surfaced off of Long Beach and proceeded to shell the coast line.

My parents as well as all the other folks in the Bay area had to use special headligh covers on their automobiles, to keep the lights from being easily spotted by potential Japanese Bomber planes. They had to use black-out shades on their homes at night so that the lights from their residences didn't get spotted by enemy bombers too.

My father worked in war related industry right near where SFO Air port is, building war ships for the war effort.

One day my father along with thousands of other ship builder/workers were rounded-up by the U.S. Army unexpectedly and all put on buses under armed rifle-point guard and transported up into those barren mountains above South San Francisco. They stayed all stayed up their in those buses under guard by the arm for a few hours. Finally they were all busee back down to the ship building yards in Brisbane(between S.F. and South S.F.) and were released to start working on their ships again.

You know what had happened? It was that sub in Long beach that shelled the shoreline that brought that on.

Were we scared back then. You bet! People on the West coast of the U.S. were absolutely petrified/worried about an unexpected invasion by the Japanese Imperial Navy fleet. To this day, there are still remnants of the old artillery implacements guarding the entrance into the Golden Gate.

People were told by the government to be wary of suspicious acting people, and to be watchful of aircraft, and to report any and all things.

Foods were rationed for the war effort. My folks had ration coupons for foods, and gasoline. Everyone who was sane had some amount of fear.

After the unexpected attack on Pearl Harbor, our country didn't know where the Japanese Imperial fleet had sailed. We didn't know if the West Coast(California, Oregon, Washington) was their next target/objective. We had a few aircraft that patrolled the Pacific coast line, but it wasn't very effective against submarines and we really didn't have the military hardware to stop an all-out invasion. We were really vunerable. We didn't know the total intensions of the Japanese. We didn't know that they were just attempting to cripple our Naval presence in the Pacific so that they could take the Phillipines, and other strategic American interests in the Central and Eastern Pacific.
......
Now getting back to nowadays..............You are so way off in saying that this administration is not doing similarly to the WW2 administration of FDR. There were plenty of posters, radio messages, and newspaper messages reminding main-land Americans that the danger of invasion was real or possible imminent.
.....
Every heard of Dutch Harbor, Alaska. We lost many G.I.'s up there pushing the Japanese off that piece of land as well as some others on the American Alleutian island chain.

Our government infact kept the Japanese siezure of Dutch Harbor, Alaska insulated from the American people. Very few Americans know that our very mainland was occupied by the Japanese for a short duration during WW2.

Very bloody ground and air battles were fought on the Alaska coastline to rout the Japanese army. In fact one Japanese contingent of several thousand soldiers actually refused to surrender and committed suicide. Only less than 20 Japanese prisoners were taken out of thousands of enemy combatants!
........
Japan launched high altitude ballons from their country that floated clear across the pacific on the prevailing jet-stream toward N America. These balloons were armed with incendiaries/bombs that were timed to drop on our forest lands throughout Oregon, Washington, California and on-Eastward into the Idaho/Montana......and farther if possible. One such balloon actually reached all the way to Minnesota!

These balloons were intended to cause widespread forest fires all over the Northwest and North central U.S. to basically overwhelm us with economic and man power drain.

Fortunately these balloons didn't work too well, but they did claim the life of some Oregonians that were picnicing. Once-such balloon and it's contents were found by a picnicing family, and ended up exploding when it was touched/handled. It killed some children, I believe.

People had good reason to be scared, and nowadays, people have good reason to be scared as many thousand Arabic speaking folks are being picked up crossing our Southern border with Mexico. Law inforcement and Border agents are catching people of Middle East decent that have been learning rudimentary Spanish in order blend in with the Mexican border jumpers. These middle eastern border jumpers are usually hiring Coyotes that are professionally armed too. They are paying $20,000.00 to upwards of $70,000.00 to be ferried across the Southwest U.S. border by heavily armed guards.

One such law inforcement officer, on cable news showed a jacket left by a border jumper, that had embroidered patches with pictures of an airplaine hitting the twin towers, and another with the lion's logo that is Al Queda.

The border law inforcement folks say that Hezbollah, and other cells are definitely in our country. This didn't start with GWB attacking Iraq either. This has going on before his administration. It is an ongoing thing that spans many years.........We do have a good reason to be fearful. We should have an administration that keeps us informed of danger, and potential danger. We need to be vigilant.
......
You can't live in denial, and also play politics because you don't like GWB, when it comes to war against your nation.

When WW2 happened, the American people pretty much dropped politics and just plain got behind their President. This new war is not battle ships lobbing 16" shells, or Zero's bombing us or armed soldiers jumping out of land crafts on the shores of our beaches..........yet it's just as dangerous, as it's insidious, and being waged slowly, and stealthily from withing and from without.

Look what Timothy Levey did.........from within........but now we have cells of his type, in our country..............who see death of innocent American adults, and children as a means to be glorified with their twisted God..........and their selfish carnal desires to have perpetual sex with multitudes of virgins.

Fear stimulates people to be careful, and also rattles a nation into reality; a reality that is long-over due for the U.S..

The "hell no, I won't go", and "make love not war" attitude has brought the U.S. to a place where it's left open to ridicule, and disgracing treatment from many nations.

In some ways, the Muslim religion sees the U.S. as a melting pot of non ethics and crumbling morals. Just look at our movies, the proliferation of pornagraphy on the internet, etc. In some ways we have just fueled their twisted, pharisitical anger towards us.

Understand that our country's moral, ethical breakdown does not give any entity the right to bring death of innocents upon us, but we do have a responsibility as a nation to project ourselves as a moral/ethical beacon to the world if we are going to keep and earn our right to be a super power that intervenes in the world in a humanitarian vain.

I believe that GWB not only is doing what he believes will protect our country from terrorism, but also is attempting to project and renew an interest in our citizenry in an ethical/moral vain too.

I don't agree with his border protection policies, but I believe that he's more correct in his policies than he's incorrect.

We need to support our country in this very unsure, and trying time.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

So everyone thinks FDR's phrase, "there is nothing to fear but fear itself," is right up there with Junior's, "Yellow Cake do you hear me? Yellow Cake"

Well at least its not as bad as slick Willies the dress staining sex addicts bombing aspirin factories.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Come on now. It wasn't because he was a Democrat. History is written by the winners, and FDR was a winner (plus he died in office, historians love that). Plus FDR did win WWII, the single most significant war in the history of mankind, which spanned three continents and most of the world's population. Bush, on the otherhand, seems incapable of winning a comparably small war involving less than 1% of the worlds population.

FDR won WWII? What a joke. We would have won it much quicker with a decent commander in chief. You dont take advantage of your adversary by letting hiim destroy your entire pacific fleet to start the battle. WE WON because of the AMERICAN PEOPLE, not because of the commander in chief.

Bush won in afghanastan, something the soviets couldnt do in their own backyard, and they werent hampered by a defeat and retreat opposing party.

To characterize the war in Iraq the way you do shows you merely want to add your own propaganda and do bumper sticker mentality discussion.

Oh, and by the way, the most important war in the history of mankind was the AMERICAN revolutionary war, not WWII.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Well despite the fact that nothing you replied to was in anyway intended for you, I'll reply.

FDR won WWII? What a joke. We would have won it much quicker with a decent commander in chief. You dont take advantage of your adversary by letting hiim destroy your entire pacific fleet to start the battle. WE WON because of the AMERICAN PEOPLE, not because of the commander in chief.

Err...the Japanese didn't destroy the entire Pacific fleet. They got quite a few battleships, but those were obsolete anyways. The aircraft carriers were out at sea and those were the important ones.

But, just to make sure I'm getting this straight. FDR, the man who oversaw the entire US war effort, was unimportant to our winning the war?

Bush won in afghanastan, something the soviets couldnt do in their own backyard, and they werent hampered by a defeat and retreat opposing party.

Well, resurgent Taliban aside, and the huge differences in the capabilities of the Soviet Army near the end of that empire's reign and the American military at its best, I find it strange that only Bush was responsible. What ever happened to the AMERICAN PEOPLE? I like 'defeat and retreat' though. Cut and Run was getting kind of old for a reductionist political chant.

To characterize the war in Iraq the way you do shows you merely want to add your own propaganda and do bumper sticker mentality discussion.

So the War in Iraq is actually a stunning success that went exactly as advertized?

Oh, and by the way, the most important war in the history of mankind was the AMERICAN revolutionary war, not WWII.

That's great.

 

[pegwinn]

Since I already replied on topic, I can throw in this off topic commentary for free.

FDR knew the Japanese intentions in at least a general way. I am not sure he personally knew PH was the Dec 7 target, but he knew exactly which buttons to push to get the Japanese to attack. Cut off the oil they needed.

FDR wanted in on the war. America didn't. He absolutely needed something to enrage a populace that was strongly isolationist. So, what to do, what to do? How else can we goad our enemies to attack or declare war? The Lend/Lease program. And lets not forget the Flying Tigers.

Another key difference was the rules of engagement. When my unit went to Iraq, anything that shot at us was flattened even if we never saw the shooter. Now, you must have a positive ID and literally account for each and every round fired.

In FDR's time everyone understood that the goal of a war was to win. IN Bush's time we have evolved so that winning is secondary to not causing a single non-combatant death. Trust me, I would love to not have civilians in the range fan. But, our current enemies don't operate that way. Check out the school houses in Lebanon.

Oh, and last time I checked, FDR is the only US President to create a set of concentration camps based on race.

 

[Ramapo]

 

[Gunny]

Work hard on that response?