This is your third chance to explain what the hell you think would have been a reasoned response to the level of terrorism that occurred on our soil on 09/11/2001.
So far, you have evidenced no comprehension skills whatsoever on that topic.
Instead you contented yourself to call me a war lover.
We have killed tens of thousands of terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that better than them carrying out terrorist acts against our assets in the Middle-East or here at home?
Evidently not, in your opinion.
War is hell. You look at the casualties in other wars, and you tell me this is worse than any of them. If that’s what you think, you need to study up.
It’s a cold crewel world out there fella. It’s not going to get better if we crawl in a closet every time we’re attacked.
We let them skate on the Cole and the Embassies. Once again, did their animosity against us wane due to our restraint?
No, they escalated the attacks on the World Trade Center, not once but twice.
You know what, I’m going to take ownership here. I do think wars on foreign soil are better than watching our nation get attacked on the scale of 09/11/2001.
If you don’t like it, too bad.
What would you have done as president ace?
You wouldn’t have gone to war. That much is clear. So what would you have done Richard Tiffany Gere? I’d like to know.
You wouldn’t have gone to war. That much is clear. So what would you have done
Same thing Reagan did with our enemies - deter and contain. While we weren’t attacking Iraq, it was the biggest counterweight to Iran. After we attacked, it now has a gov’t that is Iran’s closest ally. 4000-plus Americans died to make that happen.
Somebody who can look at the disaster that was the Iraq war and say - as you apparently do - “let’s do it again, this time in Iran”, is definitely not on my wavelength!