I would agree to an extent. However, a lot of the impatience is due simply to the idea that Democracratic governments cannot fight long term wars for ideals.Alot of the impatience (IMO) comes from the expectations of a quick in and out like Desert Storm. But this is a totally different animal.
I would agree to an extent. However, a lot of the impatience is due simply to the idea that Democracratic governments cannot fight long term wars for ideals.
I believe that the best thing that could happen for the Middle East would be for Iraq to take shape as a strong, democratic, secular government. However, is that the best thing for America? That is the question that has to be answered in our own democracy. Whether or not I say yes has no bearing on whether or not 100 million other voters say...
There it is. That which cannot be changed by policy, soldiers, time, or good intentions...
I didn't see the speech, but read it.
Is it just me or is Bush reaching even harder to equate Iraq with the generic war against Islamic fundamentalism?
Isn't it preey much a recognized fact that the problems in Iraq right now are sectarian betwene Shi'ite and Sunni and that those problems are not related to "terrorists" in the sense that we know them?
And yet Bush wants to expand the war effort there on the theory that we are stopping Al-Qaeda there?
Nonsense.