Replies

Well now, Mr. Parris of "The Times" no less has weighed in with his pithy analysis of American government. From the genric of how other Western governments, all of which have needed America to come to their rescue, will now tell us how to conduct foreign relations, to the examination of how terrorists should look and conduct themselves, we have been set straight. America has always been slow to enter into foreign lands and commit themselves to war. We were pushed rather strenuously by Mr. Churchill to join the British and others to fend off Hitler et al. We finally entered the fro only to be chastised for our presence in Europe these many years later. Ironic, how we are sought after when the tough work needs to be done. It's alright for thousands and hundreds of thousands of Americans to give of their lives on European soil but now our way of handling our enemies who have attacked America on its soil is less than acceptable to the British! Our worst treatment of POWs is better than anything the enemies of America have ever given our people. This particular enemy has already shown that it will riot and kill at the first opportunity. Now we're supposed to give them that opportunity? It was Theodore Roosevelt who said, "Walk softly and carry a big stick." He knew that you cannot have peace unless you are ready to wipe out your enemies, not play "paddy cake" (a British game) with them. As far as how they appear; it doesn't take much sophistication to pull the trigger on an automatic rifle and kill Americans. It doesn't take much sophistication to blow yourself and thousands of others to bits. Frankly, I rather have the more sophisticated enemies who have a sense of purpose and want to survive. I can deal with that. This insanity that passes for a third world foe is far more dangerous and should be treated that way So, go ahead, Mr. Parris, "hold back" you'll be safer that way. In the end many of the Europeans do that any way. As for me, the only "stiff upper lip" I want to see is on a dead enemy.