--No, I guess we can just ignore history and pick and choose apparently similar circumstances to say that the behavior of some group of people is consistent for all time.---
----The point is that this is an emotional appeal and nothing more. The "US Army" of 2000 is not the same as the "US Army" of 1960 or the "US Army" of 1940 or the "US Army of 1914", any more than the US policies of Bush can be consistent with the US policies of Clinton or of Johnson or Nixon or Kennedy.--
Why I am not surprised that when confronted with unpleasant facts, many US and Bush apologetists try run away with just ignoring them?
And about US army being not same as US army of 60s or Bush being unlike Clinton - you probably mean that Bush is "passionate neoconservative", haha. And US army even now still represents the same country, which sent thousands to Vietnam and massacred peasants at Mai Lai. About the arabs and mongols- this comparison is not valid at all, because they all belong to different states, if you understand that.
----The point is that this is an emotional appeal and nothing more. The "US Army" of 2000 is not the same as the "US Army" of 1960 or the "US Army" of 1940 or the "US Army of 1914", any more than the US policies of Bush can be consistent with the US policies of Clinton or of Johnson or Nixon or Kennedy.--
Why I am not surprised that when confronted with unpleasant facts, many US and Bush apologetists try run away with just ignoring them?
And about US army being not same as US army of 60s or Bush being unlike Clinton - you probably mean that Bush is "passionate neoconservative", haha. And US army even now still represents the same country, which sent thousands to Vietnam and massacred peasants at Mai Lai. About the arabs and mongols- this comparison is not valid at all, because they all belong to different states, if you understand that.