[Vision2020] FW: STRATFOR WEEKLY: Sorting Through the Accusations
Donovan Arnold
donovanarnold@hotmail.com
Sat, 27 Mar 2004 16:15:23 -0800
<html><div style='background-color:'><P><BR>The problem with this article is that is tries to compare "War on terror" to "War with Japan". One is a noun, and one is a verb. You can locate and attack a noun. You cannot do this with a verb. Further, terror is a subjective word. For example, to me the Bush Administration is sheer terror. To others, it could be the Clinton Administration. What may be one person's terror could be another person's dream. Hard to fight that. Now if we mean terror by blowing things up and killing innocent people, or funding organizations that blow people up, well, then the USA has to declare war on itself, because it has killed more people than just about anybody in the last 60 or so years.</P>
<DIV>
<DIV class=RTE>
<P>Secondly, it forgets that if the "War on Terror" is so important to the stability and security of the United States than why did Bush choose at the most critical time to veer off $120 billion and 300,000 men and women to go capture Saddam. One could argue that Saddam was in someway connected to terrorists, which may be true, he knows Bush Sr. and Rumsfeld however, Bush Jr. has said live on public TV that there is NO connection between Saddam and the War on terror. </P>
<P>IMHO, there is no real comparison between the so called "War on Terror" and WWII. To suggest otherwise is just plain arrogance. </P>
<P>I do however think that 4 more years of Bush could lead to WWIII, the entire world vs. US.</P>
<P>Donovan J Arnold<BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr> <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMBENUS/2728??PS=">FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!</a> </html>