Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-65 next last
To: A.J.Armitage
"It is neither in our interests nor is it moral to gratuitously attack Afghan civilians." There will be few civilians (except perhaps young children) in Afganistan shortly. They will either side with the taliban, or with the northern alliance. The choice will be theirs to make. Excellent post, thanks.
To: A.J.Armitage
AJ - Thanks for the thoughts. This is interesting.
The United States is nevertheless one of the freest countries in the world, ...But somehow we feel it is our burden not to allow others the freedom of their choices. We get worked up over what Saddam does, or Milosovec, or bin Laden - how they treat women, in they don't want modern society, etc. We end up bombing the people because they can't get rid of someone. But we could not get rid of Clinton either.
So why did bin Laden do what he did? Why did the 16 others? We have to understand why in order to prevent it again.
59 posted on
09/24/2001 1:47:01 PM PDT by
ex-snook
To: A.J.Armitage
If it's not too much trouble, I would like to be added to your flag list as well. I'm right up in Rockford, BTW.
To: A.J.Armitage
We can make smoking or taking drugs a socially unacceptable practice such that the results are FAR better than this "war" on drugs. I do not use drugs and really hate them, but I also hate even more this stupid "war". Many people's lives are ruined by it an the vast majority of crime is for because of it. But, this nation will always be under fire because there are thousands of people and billions of dollars at stake in this "war". None of these people are willing to go find new jobs or do without that kind of money.
To: A.J.Armitage
Our war is not against Afghanistan but a rogue government that doesn't even have full control of the country. Peaceful people have nothing what so ever to fear from America, they will be peaceful, we will go in and get the job done, and they will be at least somewhat the better for it.
I do not however agree with our "war on drugs", not because it isn't a lofty idea, but because it is a lofty idea that has been corrupted. It is unreasonable to assume any war on drugs can be won while refusing to control our borders.
What results is a general tyranny in which an honest person caught driving with over 750. dollars is robbed of that cash along with his car, with no recourse or hope of recovering ones property.
The attempt to expand this tyranny by the "Know Your Customer" policy of the IRS was slapped down, now the DEA is attempting to continue this policy. It is tyranny to make everyone guilty until proven innocent. We think we find ourselves on the horns of a delima that doesn't really exist, we can still protect our rights while confiscating the assets of terrorist that have no US citizenship.
To: A.J.Armitage
"The prohibition of
drugs,"
Monomaniacal fixation!
111 posted on
09/24/2001 4:29:15 PM PDT by
verity
To: A.J.Armitage
The United States is nevertheless one of the freest countries in the world, and we should keep it that way...It all starts with a strong military. Have you finally decided to serve since turning 18?
To: A.J.Armitage
Good work, AJ. I see that this piece inspired Taxeggie to put down his blunt and flail at you in his pathetic but hilariously incoherent manner.
It seems that Congress doesn't want to give the President their sanction for the job he's going to have to do. They need to pass a declaration of war for the Constitutional proprieties to be observed. Their unwillingness to do so could be our undoing.
116 posted on
09/24/2001 5:35:44 PM PDT by
Twodees
To: A.J.Armitage
Nice job, A.J. Thanks for the ping.
124 posted on
09/24/2001 6:33:29 PM PDT by
Ligeia
To: A.J.Armitage
Your point is well taken.
Today, on my way home on the Henry Hudson Parkway, the police set up "random" checks on SUV's and other "suspicious" cars. No probable cause, just "consensual" searches.
And now the talk of National ID cards.
None of this would be necessary if the government did its job and secured the borders, as it is constitutionally required to do. Further, if we didn't extend so many "rights" to non-citizens, we wouldn't need to infringe the liberties of Americans.
And don't get me started on how we give Pell Grants to non-citizens when I still am paying off University loans...
Frankly, I don't understand why there is still a single non-citizen Arab student in this country. I can almost hear the forces of Jihad chuckling from here...
Anyone know where I can obtain a Sarin-proof gas mask?
To: A.J.Armitage
Our government has declined from its original position under the Constitution, but our old liberty can be restored or even improved upon, if enough people have the will to do so.
Here, here! Surely, the Founding Fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they knew that we have outlawed crack, heroin, and PCP. Why, we're no better than Afganistan after all!
Don't you people ever get tired of this stupid charade? I understand that addictions seem like the most important things in our lives while we're addicted. Heck, they're even important enough for some of us to try to use the current crisis to score political points. But to those of us who are not addicted, it just sounds ... well, lame.
There is no 'right to get loaded' and there never was. Sorry.
To: A.J.Armitage
BTTT
To: A.J.Armitage
".....way by not allowing opportunistic politicians to rob us of our patrimony using the conflict we're now in as an excuse."
<p.This is precisely my fear! We must watch for errosion on both sides of the aisle and be vigilant! What seems like a good idea today could be a millstone around our necks tomorrow!
170 posted on
09/25/2001 1:33:39 AM PDT by
brat
To: A.J.Armitage
I wonder if it would be wise to air-drop about a zillion tons of food and such, all labeled in Peshtu, to these folks before we start taking out the government.
Thanks for the flag.
To: A.J.Armitage
Naughty! You slipped a WOD blurb on us all! I'll let it slide this time.
To: A.J.Armitage
BUMP
To: A.J.Armitage
"...a non-tyrannical government exists to protect the persons and property of everyone inside its jurisdiction."In my opinion the first reason for existence of any government is to provide a means for the governing class to live without physical or intellectual labor of a demanding sort off of the labor of the governed. The protective functions are secondary, to maintain and facilitate the increase of the level of productivity of the subjects.
Many who enter public service are howerv just as much victims of "false consciousness" as the subjects, that is, they believe their own propaganda concerning the purpose of government.
To: bender01 ,87FXRC ,Bikers4Bush ,Bekki4Bush,Cap'n Crunch ,CincinnatiKid ,DittoJed2 ,HumbleIrish
BTTT
To: A.J.Armitage
Good article, AJ. Too bad this thread was disrupted and the topic of the article was totally ignored.
209 posted on
09/25/2001 5:37:09 PM PDT by
AKbear
To: A.J.Armitage
A.J., You Rock! Good writing.
222 posted on
12/11/2001 3:02:48 PM PST by
LibKill
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-65 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson