Why would FDR be a failure? Hitler was dead and Germany unconditionally surrendered within 3.5 yrs of declaring war.
What did FDR fail at? Victory was achieved over the enemy in under 4 yrs.
Has AQ unconditionally surrendered yet?
Has the Iraqi insurgency?
When they do, then we can compare the two.
"When they do, then we can compare the two."
But you are comparing the two.
Two completely different enemies. AQ is not a country and there will never be a surrender - we just won't here from those types anymore. You're being naive and inanely idealistic.
He wasn't a failure. But using Kerry's standard, one could argue he was right up to the point of the surrenders of Germany and Japan.
Hitler was dead and Germany unconditionally surrendered within 3.5 yrs of declaring war. What did FDR fail at? Victory was achieved over the enemy in under 4 yrs.
You completely missed the point.
When did I say AQ had surrendered? Never. When did I say FDR was a failure? Never--I said by Kerry's silly standard he would be considered one.
Has AQ unconditionally surrendered yet? Has the Iraqi insurgency? When they do, then we can compare the two.
Nope--we never CAN compare the two.
You seem as out of it as Kerry. My original point was that it was silly to claim that the War on Terror was the failure Kerry is trying to make it seem merely by focusing on the capture of one leader. The WOT and WW2 are completely different, and they can never be compared as you seem to want to in your final points.
MY only point was that measuring success based on the capture of a leader within 4 years--Kerry's point--is stupid. Apparently you seem to think it's not, and I can't help you with that.
If even our own FReepers can't grasp the difference between the WOT and a conventional war, with conventional yardsticks for success, we surely are in deep trouble.