Free Republic

Because they are hate personified, Steve. You arrogantly believe that since attacking and slaughtering innocents does not fit your belief system, that it won't fit theirs. This is utter nonsense. You might as well refuse to believe that the Japanese Army raped NanKing ... where they slaughtered many times more people than they lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, and far more viciously... because they have no rational reason for doing so.

If North Korea or Iraq attacked us, then we would invade and destroy them. They know that and will not attack us.

You're a fool, and an enabler.

Right....

Look at the suicide bombings, beheadings, enslavements, burnings, mustard gasings, abusive class systems, rapes, church grenadings, holy site defilings, schoolchildren bombings, and shootings in Indonesia, the Phillipines, Nigeria, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Israel, etc., that have been accelerating for the past decade... then come back and tell us how rational these slaughters have been... then you will have the answer to why North Korea and Iraq would attack.

And when did the North Koreans last attack us? How about Iraq?

Anti-Americanism is NOT dissent and disrupting our military is NOT free speech. It's called aiding and abetting the enemy (a.k.a. treason)

Once we invade Iraq, then I can no longer protest our foreign policy...

I think not!

Can you say treason? I knew you could.

I would not execute someone for blocking the entrance to a military base.

As long as he continues to thumb his nose at the West, and channel $ to known terrorists, he is a threat to us.

Thumbing his nose at us is not justification for war. There is no revealed evidence of Saddam funnelling money to Al Queda.

Disrupting military activity invites a reponse up to and including gunfire.

Shooting protestors peacefully blocking the entrance to a military base is just plain immoral.

SteveTuck signed up 2002-11-22.

I will just have to wait until I am wise like you. [/sarcasm]

Surely you don't think WE don't have a right to protest their protest do you?

Be my guest...

And I would oppose any protests that disrupted military operations. However, I do not consider those acts to be treasonous and I support other types of anti-war protests.

Too bad they were not in the twin towers as they fell.

Too bad they were not in the Murrah building in Oklahoma 
city as it was destroyed.

Too bad they were not on flight 800 as it was shot out from 
the sky.

If Bush wants to make a case for war...then he 
should....... 

Tell the truth about the Clinton administration's coverup 
of OKC and flight 800. 

Tell the people that Islam is a growing problem and must be 
dealt with. Stop calling it a religeon of peace. 

And what does all of this have to do with Iraq?

the lives of america's sons and daughters at war takes precedence over your free speech,, i hope the MP's aim small ,, hit small,,,

Do you oppose all anti-war demonstrations after we invade Iraq or just the more extreme elements within the peace movement?

". . . the peace movement has been using the buildup time to coordinate 'emergency response plans' to disrupt domestic military activity . . ."

A very small minority within the peace movement who will be arrested for their actions...

But what do they expect? That we should wait for North Korea and Iraq to get accurate ICBMs and nukes?

And Iraq or North Korea would attack a vastly superior nuclear power with WMD because...

In this case you are correct, Vinyl. Tuck is trying to blur a free speech issue into a "right to commit treason by sabotage". No such right exists, though Tuck (a DemoRat plant) wishes it did.

Try looking up "sabotage" and "peaceful civil disobedience" in a dictionary (book with lots of words and their meanings).

After 9/11/02 it is certain that the enemy is out to destroy the American way of life.

And when did the Bush administration establish a link between 9/11 and the Iraqi regime?

Instead of protesting, Jenest said, people should sit down with their children and read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and "have a discussion about tyranny and explain that these anti-war protesters earn the freedom to disagree with our governments position thanks to brave men and women who have paid the ultimate sacrifice to preserve those freedoms."

Can you say "Sedition?"

Can you say freedom of speech?

I notice you don't even TRY to dispute the accuracy of anything I said.

I don't need to dispute your assertion that every member of the ACLU is anti-American, an anti-Christian bigot, hates the Bible, and insane. Any rational individual knows that those broad generalizations are inevitably wrong. I support the ACLU about one-third of the time. Am I anti-American, an anti-Christian bigot, a hater of the Bible, and insane? Hardly...

Have you ever even HEARD of the ACLU?

Of course.

They are all anti-Americans, all anti-Christian bigots, all of them hate the Bible, and all of them are insane.

You are the one that sounds a little crazy...

Only one problem with that...Lott was born in 1941...he was only 7 years old in 1948!

And how old was Lott when he endorsed the segregationist platform of the Dixiecrats?

"In 1948, when I was a democrat, I supported those goals, then I became a republcan and changed those views."

Southern Democrats from Reconstruction to the 1970s were conservative, rather than liberal. The South was a one party region, with the Democratic Party as the dominant party. The recent dominance of the Republican Party in the South began when a growing number of Southern Democrats reconciled their political beliefs with their party affiliation by switching to the Republican Party.