Deploying The Marines For Gays, Feminism And Peacekeeping

anncoulter.org ^ | 08/21/02 | ann coulter

[lancer256]

ON A BREAK from lachrymose accounts of Palestinian women weeping for their children, The New York Times has been trying to induce hysteria over the shocking Bush policy of deploying American troops in order to protect American interests. Such self-interested behavior is considered boorish in Manhattan salons.

The only just wars, liberals believe, are those in which the United States has no stake. Liberals warm to the idea of American mothers weeping for their sons, but only if their deaths will not make America any safer.

Thus the Times and various McTimes across the nation have touted the idea that invading Iraq "only" to produce a regime change is unjustifiable, contrary to international law, and a grievous affront to the peace-loving Europeans.

[BenLurkin]

Absolutely fight wars for American interests and Amercian interests only!
Bush has yet to make a coherent case for invading Iraq however; let's hope he does so soon.

[The Vast Right Wing]

What part of "Saddam posses WMD" is not coherent. To me it is self-evident that Saddam must be deposed and we are the only ones to do it.

[Russell Scott]

Excellent!

In other words what Ann is trying to say is "turn all logic and reason inside out so I (liberals) can run everything. It reminds me of when Lucifer said he was now God, even though he was created as an angel. He wasn't created a God, he was created an angel. And yet he got 1/3 of the angels to believe he was now God. It must have been a "warm, fuzzy feeling" Lucifer gave them, since if he was God, he wouldn't have been created, he just would have always existed. Now you know why there is no logic or reason behind liberalism, because it derives all its power from lies and deception. They are just following the liberal model satan layed out eons ago.

[BenLurkin]

Saddam is a bad guy. No question. He has WMDs. Yes.

There are a number of other nations and tin horn dictators around the world that meet this same description. Is it in our national interest to perform a global shop cleaning?

There is no just war without a first attack or an immediate threat. If there is (and there may very well be) then Bush needs to make the case and we'll have at 'em. Otherwise, covert efforts will have to do for now.

[subterfuge]

Amerians can't go fighting wars to support the interests of America! Why, that won't increase the people's dependence on government. It won't help to redistribute American's wealth. It won't start any new gov. sponsored programs for the entitled.

Americans can't go figting wars to support the interests of Americans because it doesn't make America "look good," according to our leftist traitors.

War IS hell. Go get 'em W!

Oh, and you forgot the pictures! Not for me of course, but some insist so I thought I'd flag you. ;^)

[Plutarch]

...we must first receive approval from the Europeans, especially the Germans. (Good thing we didn't have that rule in 1941!)

Well actually, we did receive German approval of sorts. Germany declared war on the U.S. before we declared it on them.

[Plutarch]

What part of "Saddam posses WMD" is not coherent.

Um, well maybe the spelling of "possesses" and the lack of a question mark.

[The Vast Right Wing]

1. When Saddam has nukes, he will be able to invade his neighbors and the US will be able to do nothing about it due to fear of being nuked.
2. Saddam is not complying with the cease-fire agreement, that alone gives sufficient cause for the US to slap him down.
3. In a world with WMD, even the smallest of probabilities that they will be used by our enemies is sufficient cause to pre-emptively destroy them, this is because the costs are so huge if they are used.

[IronJack]

I guess my question would be "To whom do we need to justify ANY military action we undertake?" I don't care how lopsided, unilateral, inequitable, ill-advised, self-serving, short-sighted or whatever else the Left wants to label it. Our interests are OURS, not Englands, not Germany's, not Saudi Arabia's. And since there's adequate evidence (absent a glowing radioactive hole in Manhattan Island) that Saddam Hussein is a past patron of terrorists, and a proud sponsor of the current batch, how is military action against him unjustified?

These jerks would send Tojo a bouquet of chrysanthemums on December 8, 1941, with an apology for shooting down a couple of their airplanes.

[onedoug]

When Saddam set the Kuwaiti oil fields on fire after being routed, he couldn't have known that American hellfighters would extinguish them within weeks, but rather seems to have hoped for their burning on for years, to their eventual possible poisoning of the entire atmosphere. That's an "immediate" enough threat for me of his intentions. We need to take him, now.

[another cricket]

There are a number of other nations and tin horn dictators around the world that meet this same description.

Actually, no. For which I thank God daily. The closest to Saddam would be Pakistan. Thankfully they are not totally out of their minds. China would like to and at some point might. We have got to get SDI up and running ASAP.

Is it in our national interest to perform a global shop cleaning?

Not possible. The Genie is out of the bottle. Taking out Saddam will make others a little more cautious and that buys us time. Fortunately for us most that have the will to use WoMD don't have the money to get them. Those who have the money are, as a general rule not so inclined. Why would you build up your country’s economy just to have it turned into glowing green glass? In return you kill a few million Americans at best. The cost /benefit ratio is disproportionate. But Saddam is old and not so stable. What does he have to lose?

a.cricket

[gcruse]

If the possible nuking of the US is a trigger
to invade Iraq (Iraq has ICBMs?  I really
don't think so.), then shouldn't we be
going into Communist China first?  They
have already professed a willingness to
render Los Angeles livable again, if
slightly radioactive, and China has the
means to deliver.  No, Anne, Saddam's
phantom ability to nuke Manhattan isn't
a threat to the United States, any more
than Slobo's ethnic cleaning was.
We don't yet have any justification
for invading Iraq.  If you're talking
national interest, then the logical
people to take out Saddam are the Israelis.

[jwalsh07]

Iraq doesn't need ICBM's to launch a nuke into America and China has nothing to do with the decision to invade Iraq except as a strawman argument for those opposed to "regime change".

[gcruse]

Iraq doesn't need ICBM's to launch a nuke into America

     Then he has no more capacity to strike the US
      with nukes than North Korea or China or any
      other nuclear power, including the former republics
      of the USSR.
 

 China has nothing to do with the decision to invade Iraq except as a
strawman argument for those opposed to "regime change".

   China is a greater direct threat to the US than Iraq.

[jwalsh07]

Then he has no more capacity to strike the US with nukes than North Korea or China or any other nuclear power, including the former republics of the USSR.

Yeah, so whats your point? That we have to deal with China and North Korea before we deal with Iraq? So basically you don't have a problem with a regime change in Iraq, you would just prefer them to be number three on the hit parade. Is that your point gcruse?

[gcruse]

If we're going to go pre-emptive, China is the greater threat. Unless Saddam can be tied to 9/11, we shouldn't be attacking Iraq at all.

[jwalsh07]

Thats your opinion. I don't agree with it and neither does the President.

How many American citizens have been killed by Chinese terrorists in the last ten years?

[gcruse]

 
How many American citizens have been killed
by Chinese terrorists in the last ten years?

What's terrorism got to do with it?  The
9/11 connection doesn't matter, remember?
This is pre-empting someone using MWD,
which China has already threatened us with.

[jwalsh07]

Look, if you want to be a yoyo talk to somebody else. Iraq is a terrorist state. Iraq has WMD's. Iraq has demonstrated that they are more than willing to use WMD"S. Iraq harbored Abu Nidal for a decade while employing him to do what he does best. Safire has identified other links between AlQaeda and Iraq. Atta met al Ani in Prague.

These are facts, not conjecture and not childish "lets do China" crap.