What does it take for these wacko peaceniks to declare war? Those A$$H*&ES!
Posted on 09/25/2001 8:04:00 PM PDT by ppaul
Refreshing simplicity. Why argue with these leeches and parasites? Hopefully, there will be more like you "telling it like it is" -
confronting these traitors to America and exposing them for what they really are.
I hear you; however, you need to define "screwing" and define "repercussions". It appears to me that nothing in our foreign policy amounted to initiating an attack on foreign civilians, although a lot of it was drifting or reactive. We were a superpower without a national interest firmly in mind, trying to sort out everyone's civil wars, but we did not earn the attack.
It is then incumbent on our government to bring closure to this and that means war, and not police action, because as soon as we punish one set of individuals there will be another.
Defense of Liberty , for your comment.
Mr. Bungle, #2 is classic!
What does it take for these wacko peaceniks to declare war? Those A$$H*&ES!
Oh lord, don't even get me started on this subject! But I can't help wondering ... where've you been?
President Bush has a most capable cabinet to assist him in his quest to end this subversion of our freedom. Had our Founding Fathers taken on this pacifist attitude, we would not be here today.
I disagree with your analogy. That woman's husband obviously believed in protecting our country or he would not have been in the armed forces. In a way, she disgraces his honor!
I am really having a terrible time even trying to understand you. I suggest you study history, let alone what happened! They hijacked our planes on our shores and killed 6500 innocent civilians, not to mention our financial capital! You go to work tomorrow and get trapped like those innocents--then tell me what you will say. Take up arms? Put up or keep quiet!!!!!
I am afraid your are right . Do I really have to get out our shotgun.
Craig was, evidently, useful only for carrying water. Why didn't he join the Peace Corps?
Thank you for your reply.
> I hear you; however, you need to define "screwing" and define "repercussions". It appears to me that nothing in our foreign policy amounted to initiating an attack on foreign civilians, although a lot of it was drifting or reactive.
I would argue differently. If, by "nothing in our foreign policy amounted to initiating an attack on foreign civilians," you mean that we have not mounted "blitzkrieg" style operations where citizens were killed, then yes, we are innocent. Unfortunately, our aggression is far more subtle, yet still yields, IMO, the same deadly results.
In 1953, we did not invade Iran (although the British seriously considered the option), instead we funded and fomented and managed the overthrow of a democratically elected government. Because of these actions, civilians were killed.
As part of our plan, we then installed the infamous Sha of Iran into power. Norman Schwartzkopf Sr. is even reputed to have helped the Sha develop his vicious SAVAK secret police. This regime had one of the worst human rights records going at the time, and yet we continued to support the regime we created. Thousands were jailed, beaten and killed. Millions were coerced into acceptable behavior.
When our buddy the Sha was overthrown, we again encouraged the killing of citizens by promoting war between Iraq and Iran. We set about arming and funding the Iraqi war machine. Millions were killed.
And when this Iraqi war machine we created did what we created it to do (engage in aggression against neighboring countries) we went about killing Iraqis to stop our own creation. Today we continue to kill Iraqis through sanctions (most reports put the figure at 5,000 Iraqi children killed per month).
This is what I mean by "screwing" people. The "repercussions" of this policy were seen on September 11.
Let me make this clear. Nothing excuses the killing of American innocents. Likewise, nothing excuses the killing of Iranian and Iraqi, to use my example, innocents. And whether we want to admit it or not, there is a definite connection between our policies and the resultant terrorism.
> We were a superpower without a national interest firmly in mind, trying to sort out everyone's civil wars, but we did not earn the attack.
No innocents ever earn an attack. As to the earlier part of your statement, we may not have had a national interest firmly in mind, but I suspect someone had some interest in mind. It was not for entertainment that we installed and supported dictators in the M.E. and looked the other way when they used our resources to kill innocent civilians.
Defense of Liberty , for your comment.
I read your paper and found it to be an elegant exposition of your position.
Unbelievable! But true.
Imagine yourself a US diplomat in a country that is on the brink of a civil war or revolution. Civilians will die on both sides with or without US involvement, but you see the national interest in supporting one side. Why is that necessarily wrong?
Our policy in the Middle East tended to be in support of stability, and so in support of the established regimes, no matter how undemocratic. I don't see it as a priori wrong, although it could be unwise.
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.