Posted on 09/22/2001 7:32:10 AM PDT by gg188
Experts cited in other FR posts tell us there are MANY terrorist cells here among us now. Who do we have to fear more---THEM or POLITICAL CORRECTNESS??
ALL NON-citizens of middle eastern countries must be rounded up and removed from this country.
Citizens of this country are not to be bothered in any way by our government unless there is some reason to be suspicious. Simply decending from middle eastern peoples is not reason enough.
OTOH, you could seek professional help of your own choosing to treat your, let's say "condition", before the state mental health authorities make the choice for you.
200 years from now, I want their children's children's children's children to cower and cringe in fear whenever they hear the sounds of jet engines overhead because their legends tell of fire from the sky.
I want them to hide in dark caves and holes in the earth, shivering with terror whenever they hear the roar of diesel engines because the tales of their ancestors talk about metal monsters crawling over the earth, spitting death and destruction.
I want their mothers to be able to admonish them with "If you don't behave, the Pale Destroyers will come for you", and that will be enough to reduce them to quivering obesience.
I want the annihilation to be so complete that their mythology will tell them of the day of judgment when the stern gods from across the sea .. the powerful 'Mericans .. destroyed their forefathers' wickedness.
As it needs be done, it best be done quickly.
From a strictly military point of view, even if someday we do have to have this so-called "clash of civilizations," we don't have to have it right this minute, do we? We managed to put off General Patton's wished-for follow-up to WW2, and defeated the Soviets without launching a single missile. Patton was right that the USSR was going to be our next enemy, but as it happened we didn't have to go after them right away after all.
Anyway, right now a lot of Islamic countries' governments are at least nominally on our side. What military purpose is served by making enemies of allies?
Because of this it is ok to murder billions.
ideas echoed by (or echoing) a large chunk of conservative sentiment in the nation, and to one degree or another reflecting all conservative thought on the issue.
I did not know that wrapping oneself in the flag in order to justify eliminating billions was a conservative notion. Sounds like a left wing or right wing nut to me, like Hitler or Stalin to me.
No one said anything about rounding up university professors, etc.
In your words, "Political correctness must be addressed, not only should it be hunted down and killed..." You said it - hunted down and killed. What do you propose? Nuke a football stadium during homecoming?
Finally, I think it is shameful that you would TAKE THE LORD'S NAME IN VAIN particularly using the handle of Andrew Jackson.
I find what you contemplate obscene. In your own words , the ONLY way we are going to stop them is to reign so much destruction on them....
Most military officers are talking about focused attacks on terrorists and those who support them. They are not talking about taking on most of the rest of the world over a difference of opinion. Futhermore, they like to avoid creating gratuitous enemies. Fewer enemies means higher likelihood of success.
Shakespeare's view of war is pretty much summed up in Hamlet "slew the sledded Pollock on the ice." What could be sillier than to fight a bloody battle over a piece of ice that will melt in the summer. But you missed that subtlety.
And do you really think that Kipling is eulogising and rhapsodizing over the ignorance and prejudice of the Cockneys he portrays so accurately? Do you really? Try reading him again.
You will notice that I didn't use any excerpts from "Hamlet" in my profile. I selectively chose the St. Crispin's Day Speech, and you cannot tell me that THAT speech has any subtlety to it beyond its direct call to arms. I could have also chosen the Harfleur speech ... you know, the "Once more into the breech" recital; that, as well, doesn't lend itself to your Shakespearean "anti-war" theory either.
Finally, for Kipling, yes, I would agree that some of his poetry and stories do contain some irony and sarcasm; however, nowhere in those do you find anything in opposition to the soldiers themselves ..."Tommy" brings to mind the position of the soldier in relation to the society that hates him until it requires him to put himself into the line to defend them. "Hymn before Action" most definitely does not fit within your theory of "anti-war" Kipling. Kipling's sarcasm, to me, appears to be directed to the political and social foundations that place the poor soldiers in the position of defending against hopeless and overwhelming odds and which didn't do anything to support those forces before they were needed.
So, I would say that you have selectively chosen to misrepresent what can be found in Shakespeare's and Kipling's writings. Like any written source, you can cherry-pick until you find things that you like and that back up your position. I will readily admit that I have done so ... I do not like "Hamlet" overall; although there are some lines and scenes in it that I do enjoy. That's why I did not select anything from it.
But I guess that the fact that I am a "war-monger" means that such things are beyond my understanding. You go ahead and believe that; it is, after all, the very liberal position to take when asserting your superiority over we poor soldiers.
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.