Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
To me, and everyone I've talked to in the last 50 years, 'Pearl Harboring" brings sneak attack to mind.
|
Pearl Harbor was a unilateral, unjustified attack; without any acceptable reason and based only upon fears and lies. Pearl Harbor was rationalized because a "preemptive strike" and "surprise attack" somehow are not the same thing. Of course they are same - militarily. Yes, they appear different in an emotional perspective. But they are same AND both occurred for same 'big dic' political reasons. We "Pearl Harbored" Iraq without even being attacked, by hyping fears and lies, and without even declaring war. UN refused to approve this "Pearl Harboring of Iraq". Even Mexico and Canada and other close American allies in S America and Africa condemned it.
We know that Saddam had no WMDs and had no interest in attacking or threatening the US. She claims a 'preemptive strike' is justified by fear. Therefore "Pearl Harboring" is OK? No wonder she must then argue about the title. Otherwise 'big dic' rationalizations that created Pearl Harbor would be exposed. Same 'big dic' rationalizations created Gulf of Tonkin and the Vietnam war. So instead complain about the irrelevant.