Deploying Marines for gays, feminism and peacekeeping (ANN COULTER)Slams the left

worldnetdaily ^ | 8/21/2002 | Ann Coulter

[arthurus]

. If you're talking national interest, then the logical people to take out Saddam are the Israelis.

How do you know that's not how it is going to work ?

[stumpy]

If "forced deportation" is ethnic cleansing and a war crime, why isn't Vicinte Fox indicted? By not doing anything to make jobs available to the people of mexico, he is "forcing" his people to "deport themselves" across our borders daily. Therefore he is a war criminal.

We must invade mexico, enact a regime change and introduce them to a "honestly" elected country. We can send demoncraps down there to show the dead how to vote.

[Lancey Howard]

Another great piece from Ann.
She is a genius in her ability to remind everybody of the dangerous national security threat that faces our nation when Democrats control the White House. Even though the Pentagon and the intelligence services may be able to keep a clown like Clinton from getting a hold of really sensitive stuff, a Democrat White House can still cause lots of mischief and can certainly compromise national security.

[BraveMan]

Learn something every day . . .

lachrymose

      SYLLABICATION: lach·ry·mose
      PRONUNCIATION:

ADJECTIVE:
1. Weeping or inclined to weep; tearful.
2. Causing or tending to cause tears.

[ThePythonicCow]

You're quite welcome.

[goldstategop]

Liberals hated the war in Vietnam and never said "thank you" to our soldiers who fought there for their loss and great sacrifices. Since then they've tried to make sure the American military never fights a war in which American national interests might really be on the line. Once again they're true to form. Ann says liberals are afraid of the consequences but what she didn't add is that what they're really afraid of is America winning at the same time as they find themselves irrelevant.

[gcruse]

How do you know that's not how it is going to work ?

         It might.  In which case, pre-emption by the
         US against a country that does not threaten
         us will have been avoided.  Once you make
         pre-emption a tactic to be used whenever
         one country sees the other developing means
         of attack, you set the stage for war by
         what-if.  There are too many what-ifs out there
         that never come to fruition to be going to
         war over them.

[A CA Guy]

American male cold shower BUMP: LOL!!!!

I actually love to hear her, but boy is she a treat for the eyes as well!

Thank you Ann's parents!!! She is a great lady!!!

[MissAmericanPie]

Al Queda is operating inside Iraq isn't it? How many more "clues" does one need to suspect that Saddam is a maniac that will use what ever weapons are at hand to be the King of Babylon? He's not dealing with a full deck, you don't have to read much about him to grasp that.

I'm sure that most of us have experienced the neighborhood bully growing up. Some brave soul eventually had to put him in his place and knock him on his rear. It's much the same here only with grownups.

[arthurus]

Once you make pre-emption a tactic to be used whenever

Things don't work that way. The country strong enough to preempt can do it and probably will do it. That is US. Any other country has to face the fight with the preempted country and the likelihood of incurring US's disfavor It is like civilians carrying guns. Doesn't mean folks are just going to randomly blast each other because of mutual deterrence and because wrongful killing gets the Big Guys mad at you, i.e. the State with its police and jails. In this world the US is the State and police. We can preempt or just go squash somebody just because it makes US feel good, as in Kosovo, and it will not lead China to preempt anyone it would not have hit anyway because Chinese calculation is based entirely on what will US do. US is the Big Dog in the neighborhood. We do not set examples for others. Others do or not do based on how we might react, not on how they see US behave.

[gcruse]

We do not set examples for others.

Of course we do.  If it's good enough
for us, it's good enough for India to
hit Pakistan or any other hot spot you
would like to bring up.

[ReaganIsRight]

Welcome Back! I've been a lurker since 5/97 or so, never bothered posting until some time this year. Also, haven't read anything from Uncle Bill lately.

I always kept my keyboard shut because it wasn't in my best interest to educate the unwashed masses and I used to work defense projects. Still an independent with no party affiliation.

[arthurus]

Our "example" will not affect India's decision to attack Pakistan. India will calculate the benefits and consequences rightly or wrongly for itself. US reaction will be a large part of the calculation. US willingness to jump on a country preemptively would caution India that US might just jump on India for initiating a nuke exchange or causing Pakistan to fire its nukes. Liberal ideals do not govern the actions and reactions of nations, not even liberal nations after they have been burned a couple of times.

[Mr. Mulliner]

I give Ann extra points here for her comment at the end about Vietnam. How much more to the point could she have been?