Well, evidently, according to the current administration, it is now suppose to be politically incorrect to use the words, The War on Terror; I am also very disappointed with the president for using “recent” apologetic language in regards to our national security. However, no matter what his administration calls it, we all know what it is…it is a “war against terrorism”, and a war against a very radical group of people that do not share the same world view as we do, and do not respect the lives of innocent people, therefore, it is not very likely that anyone can rationalize with them.—Terrorism, by definition… http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism
- The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
- The state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorizing.
- A terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.–
I could be wrong, however, civilized people generally do not kill innocent people first, then sit down, secondarily, and talk. From my point of view, talk should always precede the use of violence and force; and in the case, with these extremists, that was not the case.
So, if the president and his administration want to try feel good politics, we certainly do not have to be in agreement with them, however, “if” they are using this method so that down the road, they can say, we tried diplomacy, then perhaps I can understand this method, to some degree.
That being said, the president does have a sacred duty to protect the citizens of this country, and I pray that he does not pander us into another cataclysmic event, like 911.Neville Chamberlain thought that he could rationalize with Adolph Hitler, and look where that got him, England and the rest of the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain Yes, “peace for our time” Mr. President…”Peace for our time”. In the words of Ronald Reagan, “Trust but verify”. Wise words indeed.