Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skip N
So i'm right....you'd rather have them set off a nuke in Chicago and then strike them. Rather than go on the offensive and protect the people of the US and save our citizens. Wow, thats some scary thinking. I;m sorry but that kinda thinking scares the %$%$%$%$ outta me. And no, you haven't learned a damn thing after 9/11. Your method will get us wiped off the planet by radical Islam. Thank god you will never be president
|
Don't want the job.. My point is that we didn't take care of business after we were hit in NY. I think we went after BinLaden half assed. We had him cornered and let a bunch of tribal dolts and crooks go in for the kill in Tora Bora. Well, who woulda guessed that plan would fail? That mountain should be a lake now. I'll stand by my ideals: don't strike first, but when struck lower the boom from hell. if you don't do it that way, if you're always striking first, you only gain enemies, and they are always trying to destroy you. If they are destroyed AFTER they hit first, whoever is still standing might see the benefit in being an ally. Just my thoughts, do you realize that if we were both from the Middle East we'd be looking for blood simply because we disagree? The whole situation is schrod-up. Chicago?