Are you telling me we have more reason to think the Arab terrorists are more unstable than the Soviets and the Chinese were? Despite calls to nuke them, sane and civilized minds spared preventive nuclear murder on a vast scale.

Exactly as I said in so many words. Thanks for fueling the fire. It’s time people understood the reality of the issues surrounding that criminally coerced war, government-controlled historical “educational” indoctrination notwithstanding.

You clearly like to bray on about what is or isn’t “legal” but those are merely evil excuses dressed in fancy language. Lawyerly verbiage to cover the stench of rotting corpses.

I also wonder if you’re part of the intelligentsia. A teacher or educator perhaps? I ask this because I’ve found throughout history an overabundance of teachers and egg heads pulling the levers of mass murder. Seems they never tire of putting people in their place, like unruly students, and those they can’t bully into obedience they “graduate” with a dose of lead.

There is a very great difference between the Soviets and the Islamic radicals. I fear the Islamic radicals much more than I feared the Soviets. They are a greater threat to us than the Soviets ever were. You know why? Because the Soviets were rational actors. They did not want to die so they could get 72 virgins in paradise! They did not want to start a nuclear war and they were not suicidal. You could talk to them and reason with them.

The same cannot be said of the radical Muslims who believe it is a wonderful thing to die in the cause of “Jihad” and that by doing so they go straight to heaven. Such people are very dangerous because they are not acting on a rational basis, indeed, they are beyond the reach of reason and that is what makes them so dangerous.

If FDR or Lincoln were alive today I highly doubt they would be going around saying that Islam is a peaceful religion. They would be saying just the opposite. If he were alive and President on 9/11/01, Lincoln would have probably suspended habeas corpus, declared martial law, and summarily rounded up any Muslims who even had a remote connection to terrorist organizaztions. He would have immediatly stopped all immigration from Muslim countries, secured our boders, and quickly deported any non-citizen Muslims who he believed to be radical. He would have shut down radical Muslim Mosques and charged any Muslim leaders who advocate terrorism with treason.

You might be quite right about Iraq. Lincoln, after taking out the Taliban, he would probably have asked for a formal declaration of war(none of this lame “authorization of force” nonsense”)and bombed Saudi Arabia, since Bin Laden and the majority of the hijackers on 9/11/01 were Saudi nationals. FDR and Rooselvelt would have kicked ass. They knew that their number one priority was to protect our nation’s security and would not have fallen for this policitally correct, Islam is peaceful, non-sense.

Everyone lambastes Bush, but his actions are quite mild in comparison to FDR and Lincoln. When, Heaven forbid, the Islamic terrorists detonate a nuclear bomb and kill 2,000,000 Americans, what will people like John Edwards say then? What will you tell the families of those two million dead Americans? That the war on terror was just a fake? That Islam is peaceful and not a threat? How many more people have to die before we admit that radical Islam is, indeed, a grave threat?

But since you brought that issue up and seem hell-bent on changing the subject over to it, I’ll enlighten you on a couple of statements made by Lincoln, himself over the issue of slavery within the United States of the 1860s. To wit:

“My paramount object in this struggle, is to save the Union and it not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it…”

“I have no purpose directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of
slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Those comments and other Lincolnian points of debate regarding the “peculiar institution” can be found at the following website…amongst others. Check it out.

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/slave07.htm

Slavery was never a real issue in the War Between The States…for either side. Lincoln explicated on it in the Emancipation Proclimation, but only as a political expedient. The Proclimation was merely a speech…not an official declaration of policy, which he didn’t have the authority to declare anyway.

Besides, to imagine that more than six hundred thousand Americans fought and gave their lives over the issue of slavery in 1860s America is nonsensical in the extreme.

As to your reference to “southern gentlemen” and their supposed “right” to own people for their personal profit, etc., you also made what you call an egregious omission. You forgot to mention the “northern gentlemen” of the northern slave states who continued to enjoy the “rights” you mentioned above throughout the war and for a time thereafter. Namely those of Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and West Virginia. You certainly didn’t mean to imply that slavery was okay there, did you?

And BTW, I’m not a Southerner.

Lincoln should have never fought the war to begin with, and having done so should never have compromised liberty, which helped the North not at all. Plus, he set a fell precedent and forged a nation from a confederacy, not at all what the founding fathers had in mind.

Ditto WWII, with the proper substitutions made.

Your whole line doesn’t work anyway. Stalin murdered and terrorized large segments of the USSR’s military and civilian population. Result? Stalin beat Hitler! See how well evil and despotism work?

You still haven’t answered how making war on Iraq, which posed zero threat to us, had anything to do with fighting terrorism against us.

During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus. He did so unilaterally and without the consent of Congress. Those who disagreed with the Union, including newspaper editors were locked up.

Result? We won the war!

During World War II, Presiden Rooslevelt locked up anyone he thought was a threat to our national security, including thousands of Japanese American CITIZENS. His actions were later upheld by the United States Supreme Court in the decision of Korematsu vs. The United States. The Court reasoned that “the Constituion is not a suicide pact.”

Result? We won the war!

And today? We argue and argue. We can’t even agree that we are in a war. We call it a “war on terror” when terror is just a tactic used by the radical Muslims. We dare not speak the truth, the uncomfortable, politically incorrect truth: that this is not a war on terror but a war on ISLAMIC terror. We lambaste all of the governments efforts to protect us from insane Muslims who would readily cut off our heads, liberal or conservative, they don’t care, we are all infidels to them. And we are ignorant of our history. Lincoln and FDR fought wars like they ought to be fought, to win! They did things that would make George Bush look like a mild mannered kindergarten teacher. Yet all we do is fight with each other while our enemies plot their next attack. God help us!