lo yeeOn wrote:
>
> Italy could be the center of a tit-for-tat if our president and vice
> president decide to attack Iran.
The center?
> If we attacked
> another country without their planes, ships or soldiers coming near
> our soil, then we'd be picking a fight.
So, in your mind, attacking our civilians outside of our soil means we
can't attack? What about about the planes, ships, or soldiers not coming
near our soil, but near our military vessels or troops? What if they
decide to roll tanks into Poland and start murdering Jews?
We'd be committing terrorism
> against the Iranian people;
So, I take it that you would have been against attacking Germany as they
murdered millions of innocent people.
> In fact, poor Italy will be caught in the middle of a fight. When I
> visited Italy in the early 1990s, I went in, did my business in one
> day and got out the next, which included traveling from Rome to Naples
> to Capri and back. I spent less than 3 days altogether.
In one day and out the next, that normally would also be less than 2
days "altogether", since the absolute maximum of going in one day and
out the next would be exactly 2 days. What was your rush in the early
90's? I don't recall any terrorist attacks against Americans then.
Today, the
> world under Bush and Cheney is not normal. I wouldn't be so brave as
> to travel to Europe, knowing that Bush and Cheney are the kind of men
> who are sufficiently unstable to just launch another war, despite the
> costs, the unpopularity, the gruesomeness, and the inhumanity.
The world isn't normal just because of Bush and Cheney?
What is "normal" for the world?
|