Posted on 03/28/2004 10:46:43 PM PST by quidnunc
Still, I've always been a strong advocate of Israel; supporting any and all military, financial, or political assistance from the US.
It is time to take Israel, Egypt, and the other Middle Eastern countries off welfare. Like all welfare policies, they have failed to improve the situation for either the recipients or the "donor" (hard-working American taxpayers).
This American doesn't want to hear any talk about supporting these savages. Remember the policy toward terrorists? You're with us or you're with the terrorists. The author of this crummy piece is with the terrorists
We support israsel in far more ways than just giving them money, and in any case hanson does not make an issue oif aid to Israel.
If you don't like the idea of aid to Israel don't tell me or Hanson, go to Dubya's house, knock on the door and tell him.
Or maybe it would just be better to send him an email.
Hey, no big deal, it was an honest mistake. And thouh my suggestion may have sounded flip, I really do recommend An Autumn of War very, very highly. I don't think I've ever read a better book of collected essays.
Still, I've always been a strong advocate of Israel; supporting any and all military, financial, or political assistance from the US.
See posts 57, 71, 72 and further down. We have some useful idiots in the thread who call themselves freepers. Don't mistake them for trolls (although there is a resemblance) they just don't feel like fighting evil. It costs too much, surely you understand...
And hey, just because Osama bin Laden wants us to do it doesn't mean it's a bad idea, right?
Our forefathers cried "Millions for defense, but not a penny for tribute!" A columnist from Decatur Alabama recently wrote that Commodore Decatur's sails billowed with those words. But as Israel suffers under the spiritual heirs of the Barbary Pirates (who certainly mean us as much ill as they do Israel), you say doing the right thing costs too much.
George Washington said the American cause was "the cause of mankind." But you say, "Hey, you're on your own, baby." I'm sure you would have opposed Lend Lease as well. Wouldn't want to get involved in a European "blood feud" would we?
Oh, and did you miss this in the article? (line breaks removed)
Israeli public figures routinely threaten the United States with terror attacks. Bin Laden is a folk hero in Tel Aviv. Jewish assassins murder American diplomats and are given de facto sanctuary by Israeli society. Israeli citizens celebrate on news that 3,000 Americans have been murdered. Israeli citizens express support for Saddam Hussein’s supporters in Iraq in their efforts to kill Americans.
How in the world is it not an American defense aim to oppose people who threaten us with terror attacks, lionize bin Laden, have been killing Americans since the 70s, harbor the killers of Americans, celebrate 9/11 and seek common cause with those who kill our troops now?
Palestine is not just Israel's enemy, but ours. And even if they hate us only because of our support for Israel (a ludicrous assertion, but we'll pretend for a moment) why would we appease people who hate us because we figured Holocaust II was something to prevent? Do you enjoy being pushed around by half-literate barbarians?
Oh, never mind. Let's just ignore the terrorists. It worked so well in 2001.
How did you miss the point of the article? These are all things Palestine has done. He merely rephrased them as if they were Israeli acts to show how ludicrous it is for anyone to be neutral or pro-Palestinian in this fight.
Please, enlighten us with your list of the ones we shouldn't have. Your comments on Israel/Palestine indicate that you would have opposed Lend Lease and, hey, why not just ignore the German declaration of war on 10 December? Just because a nation threatens to come kill your women and children doesn't mean you should fight them, or even help somebody else they're fighting. Hitler hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor, so no worries, right?
Please, share your wisdom: Why exactly should we ignore nations that harbor, train and fund terrorists? Because it worked so well in Afghanistan?
Also, if we hadn't supported the newborn Israeli state, there would have been a Holocaust II on the shores of the Med. You think that was an inappropriate move, then?
mind-boggling anticipation that these people of a primitive culture would WELCOME our dragging them into the twenty-first century.
Well of course people would hate to be rescued from having their tongues cut out or their daughters raped to make political points. What an arrogant bunch we are to think that all humans prefer peace and freedom to being terrorized by some tinpot idiot. How silly to believe that it's not the secret police or the brainwashing school systems that are the problem, it's really the basic inferiority of the Arab, it's so plain! </sarcasm>
Amen, sir.
Because we don't have a clue, NOT A CLUE, as to how to retaliate effectively against terrorists. That's why we chose to fight a CONVENTIONAL war against a toothless old tiger.
Your other points are just as flaccid so I won't waste my time addressing them.
Amen to that.
MM
Hmmm...I wonder why you left the end of my line off when you quoted it? You know, the part where I asked, "Because it worked so well in Afghanistan?" I think you left it off because you don't have a clue how to respond effectively to it. What exactly are we supposed to do, sit around waiting for the next September 11th with our fingers up our noses? Three thousand Americans get killed by 19 guys with boxcutters in an hour and a half and you figure our response should be what? Anything but busting up training camps and killing terrorists? And if it's such a bad move, why are all of Khaddaffi's WMD programs deader than Disco? When a terrorist regime voluntarily gives up the means for nuclear blackmail, was it because our total inability to respond to terrorism scared him so much?
Oh, and I'm sure that Saddam's neighbors would be glad to hear your insights on his toothlessness. I'm sure every American pilot who got shot at those 2,500 times by Mr. Toothless will be glad to hear that hostile acts against American airmen no longer count as an act of war. I'm sure Al Qaida would love to hear about it, since they were working with him. Will you also be telling Mullah Omar that his Afghanistan was a mighty military power? Will you be telling all those people raped and tortured by Saddam's regime that they shouldn't have worried, because he was toothless?
Your other points are just as flaccid so I won't waste my time addressing them.
Suuuuuuurrrrreee they are...just like my mention of Afghanistan. Very convenient.
LOL.
Yes. You're right.
That's what military historians do.
Now you probably think that was a profound statement, and newcomers to FR might "agree" with you. However, I have been here long enough to see the banality and pettiness of that silly remark.
When you find yourself very deeply in a hole, the best way out is...
Stop digging.
My best advice to you is in the limey vernacular.
Do everyone a favor and P**s off.
Enjoy your abysmal ignorance and faux moral posturing.
The answer to that is quite simple, I could not tell if you were being sarcastic or not.
How many were shot down?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.