May you find a nice little spot in hell waiting for you. To think that you would use the possibility that a US service man is alive as a prisoner of war in a hostile country as a point to jump on Bush is not only irresponsible, it verges on unspeakable.
Apparently, to you at least, this man is nothing more than a chip to be used. The possiblity that he is alive seems to mean nothing to you. That, in my mind, puts you in the same catagory as Hussein, Pol Pot, Lenin, Stalin and others who don’t give a damned about other poeples lives, just their own.
I hope, deep in my heart, that you meet Hussein in the real world and learn first hand how he really works. He kills people and has no regrets about it.
I’ll admit that the whole “Everything Bush does must be either stupid or evil” schtick is terribly old, but, in terms of evil, it doesn’t quite measure up to genocide. I mean, it’s real close, sure. Harping incessently on all of the president’s flaws, real or imagined, is really super evil, but remorselessly murdering hundreds of thousands of people is just, like, a hair worse. Maybe it’s just me; I see how you could see things that way. I guess it’s just a judgement call.
But hey, at least you didn’t compare him to Hitler. That would have been way over the top.
The US didn’t start this war. And the US has done a damned good job about giving food and aide to people in Afganistan. The US doesn’t kill innocent people on purpose. The US doesn’t kill people based on their religous stance. The US didn’t start this. OBL and his clan started this because they a)Hate those who disagree with them and b) kill those who disagree with them.
Miller, can you point to a US President killing “remorselessly murdering hundreds of thousands of people”.?
While there are strong grounds for questioning whether the latter two wars were either needed or moral, they were actions taken by the U.S. Government in its corporate identity for specific aims (to combat the supposed spread of Communism throughout Southeast Asia, to restrain an aggressive Middle Eastern dictator attempting to anschluss a neighboring nation on questionable historical grounds).
There is a quite specific definition of “murder” and it does not include the loss of life through acts of warfare, regardless of the morality of the war in question. The Nazis at Nuremburg were tried for aggression and for the execution of people for the “crime” of being Jewish, homosexual, etc., not for waging war per se.
As for the atomic bombing of the two Japanese cities, while hindsight may suggest to some that this was unnecessary, based on the evidence at hand in August 1945, Truman (and Marshall, Stinson, and Acheson) made the right decision, for the prevention of over a million estimated additional casualties (on both sides) in a contested invasion of Japan by U.S. forces,by gambling on A-bombing those two cities, one at a time, to try to force a surrender.
I rather like the idea that we went in and eradicated the Taliban. While I’m not particularly enamored of the warlords who have taken their place, there is a net gain to the peace of the world from terrorism and general freedom-from-religious-tyranny from their elimination.
This does not mean that I necessarily support GWB’s proposed war on he “axis of evil” – but let’s get some perspective in place.
sleestak, I’m pretty sure that Miller was pointing towards your comparison of happyheathen to the likes of Stalin et al., and not a comparison that he didn’t make between G. W. Bush and Stalin et al. I think you may want to take many steps away from this and get a little perspective. Yours is starting to resemble a Picasso.
sleestak: No, I can’t think of an American president who has remorselessly murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. As such, I would never compare a US president, no matter how much I hated him, to Pol Pot or Josef Stalin. Doing that would make sound like, I dunno, some sort of hysterical moron or something.