1 posted on
08/15/2002 7:30:56 PM PDT by
Pokey78
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
To: Pokey78
Were not going to set foot in Baghdad, these people need to get a grip.
2 posted on
08/15/2002 7:34:53 PM PDT by
Husker24
To: Pokey78
There are about six different articles today about these weenies and a bunch of Brit weenies saying the same dang thing. They are the same group the presided over the end of the Viet Nam conflict and thereafter. That is why they are not part of the current administration. They all should get back to their retirement. We either finish this now or get used to nine-eleven like events and give up one or two liberties a day for the rest of our lives.
3 posted on
08/15/2002 7:38:35 PM PDT by
AdA$tra
To: Pokey78
This good news. The traditional thinkers are jumping ship.
We are in a new era folks. Bush is thinking outside the box and is not just looking to oust Saddam, but to reconfigure the entire political structure of the Middle East.
Go to CSPAN and listen to his key speeches.....he's not f***ing around. He is patient and will do what he says. This involves Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan and the "Palestinians".
Once Iraq goes, Iran is surrounded by US forces and infuence.....it all seems to be taking shape.
4 posted on
08/15/2002 7:39:01 PM PDT by
zarf
To: Pokey78
Kissinger and Scowcroft work for the Chinese communists, period.
ChiComs are against it, Kissinger and Scowcroft are against it.
5 posted on
08/15/2002 7:39:08 PM PDT by
tallhappy
To: Pokey78
...there is a feeling that you need to give great consideration to what comes after, and that unless you're prepared to follow it through, then you shouldn't begin it," Hear, hear! I'm as disgusted with Saddam, Iraq, and their 'Islamic brothers' as anyone else, but I am afraid that the administration hasn't completely thought this through. After an invasion/regime change, then what? How do we keep the region stable? Do we keep troops there? How many? How long? How will it affect our other commitments (Afghanistan, Korea, Japan, Europe)?
Someone in another thread said that we must constantly review our policies and reduce our presence if possible. We may eventually find ourselves in the position of having troops all over the world but with none to protect the homeland.
6 posted on
08/15/2002 7:39:53 PM PDT by
Skwidd
To: Pokey78
What this proves is that we've learned absolutely nothing from September 11th. People like this always say unless we have proof that he has nuclear weapons or is going to use them against us we shouldn't do anything. They would rather wait for another 3,000 innocent people to be slaughtered and then boy, you better watch out because now you've really made us mad!! What a bunch of whiney little girly boys!! Scared of their own shadow.
To: Pokey78; RAT Patrol; AdA$tra; Free State Four; TroutStalker; The_Reader_David; rwfromkansas; ...
"DO NOT FORGET"
I sat in a movie theater watching "Schindler's List," asked myself, "Why didn't the Jews fight back?"
Now I know why.
I sat in a movie theater, watching "Pearl Harbor" and asked myself, "Why weren't we prepared?"
Now I know why.
Civilized people cannot fathom, much less predict, the actions of evil people.
On September 11, dozens of capable airplane passengers allowed themselves to be overpowered by a handful of poorly armed terrorists because they did not comprehend the depth of hatred that motivated their captors.
On September 11, thousands of innocent people were murdered because too many Americans naively reject the reality that some nations are dedicated to the dominance of others. Many political pundits, pacifists and media personnel want us to forget the carnage. They say we must focus on the bravery of the rescuers and ignore the cowardice of the killers. They implore us to understand the motivation of the perpetrators. Major television stations have announced they will assist the healing process by not replaying devastating footage of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers.
I will not be manipulated.
I will not pretend to understand.
I will not forget.
I will not forget the liberal media who abused freedom of the press to kick our country when it was vulnerable and hurting.
I will not forget that CBS anchor Dan Rather preceded President Bush's address to the nation with the snide remark, "No matter how you feel about him, he is still our president."
I will not forget that ABC TV anchor Peter Jennings questioned President Bush's motives for not returning immediately to Washington, DC and commented, "We're all pretty skeptical and cynical about Washington."
And I will not forget that ABC's Mark Halperin warned if reporters weren't informed of every little detail of this war, they aren't "likely -- nor should they be expected -- to show deference."
I will not isolate myself from my fellow Americans by pretending an attack on the USS Cole in Yemen was not an attack on the United States of America.
I will not forget the Clinton administration equipped Islamic terrorists and their supporters with the world's most sophisticated telecommunications equipment and encryption technology, thereby compromising America's ability to trace terrorist radio, cell phone, land lines, faxes and modem communications.
I will not be appeased with pointless, quick retaliatory strikes like those perfected by the previous administration.
I will not be comforted by "feel-good, do nothing" regulations like the silly "Have your bags been under your control?" question at the airport.
I will not be influenced by so called,"antiwar demonstrators" who exploit the right of expression to chant anti-American obscenities.
I will not forget the moral victory handed the North Vietnamese by American war protesters who reviled and spat upon the returning soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines.
I will not be softened by the wishful thinking of pacifists who chose reassurance over reality.
I will embrace the wise words of Prime Minister Tony Blair who told Labor Party conference, "They have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the innocent. If they could have murdered not 7,000 but 70,000, does anyone doubt they would have done so and rejoiced in it?
There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror. Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must!"
I will force myself to:
-hear the weeping
-feel the helplessness
-imagine the terror
-sense the panic
-smell the burning flesh
- experience the loss
- remember the hatred.
I sat in a movie theater, watching "Private Ryan" and asked myself, "Where did they find the courage?"
Now I know.
We have no choice. Living without liberty is not living.
-- Ed Evans, MGySgt., USMC (Ret.)
Not as lean, Not as mean, But still a Marine.
10 posted on
08/15/2002 7:42:42 PM PDT by
jonefab
To: Pokey78
The NYT is at it again, using news stories as editorials for reasons not to go into Iraq.
What do they mean "top Republicans"? You have one renegade Senator, and 3 former Secretaries of State (people in that position are not known for being hawks on anything).
If this was a Cabinent Secretary going on the record or something, that would be one thing, but this headline and story should be on the ediotrial page. I love the anonamous statement from a "senior official" involved in "foreign policy".
Dick Armey voicing his reservations was real news, he is a top member of the House Leadership, but he is retiring so its really watered down. What a damn joke the Times is.
11 posted on
08/15/2002 7:42:49 PM PDT by
frmrda
To: Pokey78
Kissinger is right Saudi Arabia and Iran are the main enemy not secular Iraq. The only good thing about Iraq is than we can then invade both Iran and Saudi by land if we want.
12 posted on
08/15/2002 7:42:53 PM PDT by
weikel
To: Pokey78
Last I checked Bush has not released any strategy. The NYT's published something they claim as the "Startegy" and it was debunked. Now they manage to get a few so-called "Top Republicans" to state their opinion on a strategy that the NYT's claims to be Bush's. The NYT's is just doing what thay always do on every issue..... They try to divide republicans with bogus and manufactured stories.
13 posted on
08/15/2002 7:45:47 PM PDT by
MJY1288
To: Pokey78
I'm not very optimistic about Gulf War II, but if East Coast establishment figures like Kissinger, Scowcroft and Powell are opposed to the idea of attacking Iraq, then something very big must be upsetting the old boys at Pratt House.
To: Pokey78
Henry Kissinger, Mr."Peace With Honor".
To: Pokey78; aculeus; Orual; general_re
Bump for the NY Times, which is always good for hitting a fresh bottom.
17 posted on
08/15/2002 7:50:42 PM PDT by
dighton
To: Pokey78
It never ceases to amaze me when experienced, educated, rational people begin to use these three same attributes to estimate the possible actions of psychotic, ignorant, never been out of the country, dictator. As if they are dealing with a contemporary.
The publisher of a French newspaper was asked by St. Exupery if Chamberlain was impressed by Hitler. The answer was yes. The question was also asked if Hitler was impressed by Chamberlain. History has provided the answer as to what impresses common criminal thugs that rise to become dictators of nation states.
18 posted on
08/15/2002 7:53:03 PM PDT by
elbucko
To: Pokey78
Who the hell writes this crap? Were these people even on this planet last year. I get so sick of this kind of liberal spin rhetoric. How is it that these people can only stay upset about their own country men being murdered for only a month. Then they start waffling. I am not a liberal, and the reason I can say this with confidence is that I AM NOT A COWARD!
To: Pokey78
"Maybe Mr. Perle would like to be in the first wave of those who go into Baghdad."Maybe Senator Hagel would like to be the target of a Saddam-provided terrorist Ebola attack.
As I said on the other thread, Scowcroft was scared to death of the Soviet Union breaking up. He was totally behind 41's "Chicken Kiev" speech, which warned of instability if the Ukraine left the USSR. He was also against going to Baghdad in 1991, again because he thought instability was worse than leaving Saddam in power.
Scowcroft has a mindset and it's not going to change in spite of the overwhelming evidence from the USSR's breakup and Saddam's continued reign of terror.
To: Pokey78
I knew when Bush was put through the crucible of the election that he was being prepared for some very tough times, I believe he will stand against it all to do what he believes is right. May God bless, guide and keep him.
24 posted on
08/15/2002 8:01:44 PM PDT by
Mahone
To: Pokey78
"Top Republicans?"
Looks to me like a bunch of has-beens and used-to-bes. I can't imagine that any of them has inside access like they used to.
To: Pokey78
nor made the case I think that is true, so far.
"The failure to take on Saddam after what the president said would produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on terrorism."
That's a problem
To: Pokey78
"Senior Republicans"....
Translation:
The old farts who are scared because they didn't buy any puts or have great positions in oil futures yet. Once they get their positions corrected, they'll jump on board. God, how pathetic.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson