"Soon, the entire world, in the form of the UN, had condemned Iraq.
In numerous resolutions, they express their profound distress at crimes against humanity taking into consideration the aerial bombardment of open civilian towns."
Iraq's reaction was to continue, and why not?
The same issues of the New York Times discussing the West's hand wringing also revealed that they were facing all bark and no bite.
"What the United States would do if the protest should go unheeded was not revealed."
As for the British, "At the moment it is inconceivable that Britain will do more than deliver protests."
"Her eyes are firmly fixed on Europe."
The slaughter was immortalized, but in fact that same month, one million American college students had shut down campuses across the country in the forth annual "peace strike" as they recited the American version of the Oxford antiwar oath:
"I refuse to support the government of the United States in any war it may conduct."
Anyone have any idea what the above is?
Take out the two words Iraq and the UN, and replace them with the words Japan and the League of Nations, and there you have it.
The same Liberal Trash that we are still fighting today would have sent us into the abyss in WWII.
*Taken from page 43, Flyboys, excerpted "campaign of death and terror" New York Times, September 24, 1937
What has changed is that we were attacked on September 11 2001. We were not yet attacked in 1937 when your quotes were made. Pearl Harbor did not come until 4 years later, and the reluctance of these students (and much of the then Republican party, led by Taft) was probably understandable. That said, the statement about not supporting the government of the US in a war effort is not defensible.