Quote:
|
Originally Posted by superart
I agree, sometimes this is necessary(such as WWII), but such an action requires a strong and qualified leader. I can't see how you can compare FDR to bush. FDR did what he did because he knew what he was doing. Theres a reason he was elected into office four times. Bush wasn't even elected once.
Also, it's not fair to compare WWII to Iraq. In WWII, we had allies and world support. Also, at the time Germany posed an immediate threat to our national security. The Iraq situation has none of that. I agree that Saddam being out of power is good, but first we should have taken care of the terrorism problem. Instead we gave the terrorists ammunition to recruit more followers.
"Before we went into Iraq, there were no terrorists there. Now it's got all of them"
-- John Stewart
|
When we joined WW2 we had only the British and their Commonwealth...everyone else who held out for peace where learning to speak German.
Sorry I forgot about the Russians..but over half of them were living under occupation