[BadAndy]

Even Mr Bush is somewhat constrained. National Review’s "John Derbyshire wrote last week about a ‘1945 solution’ for Iraq. This is shorthand for the bombing of Dresden, the nuking of Hiroshima, etc. — the sort of stern measures that let an enemy know he’s well and truly whipped. But, as Mr Derbyshire points out, war abroad is determined by culture at home, and if we were fighting the second world war today, we wouldn’t nuke Hiroshima or even intern Japanese-Americans: the culture will not permit it. Nor will it permit old-school imperialism. Culturally sensitive nation-building is as aggressive as you can get these days."

This is exactly right. The problem with islamolunatics is that we fight them sporadically and humanely. We beat back just enough to get them off our throats, but not enough to crush them. The Israelis are perfect examples of this. They have been fighting the same war for 40 years. Enough is enough. I prefer the "total war" philosphy of Sherman, Pershing and Patton. Crush the enemy completely, make him scream for peace, destroy his capacity for war and put the fear of G-d into him. This enrage the liberal weanies, but their rage won't last, peace will. We will be better off for it and in the long run, so will the Islamo-scum.

[texasbluebell]

This enrage the liberal weanies, but their rage won't last, peace will.

The lefties will just find something else to rage on about.

If it's not one thing, it's another. Their work is never done.

Let them whine. At least we would have peace for a while.

[johnb838]

We will be better off for it and in the long run, so will the Islamo-scum wogs.

White man's burden bump.