Skip to comments.
Can We Finish One War Before Starting Another? [BARF ALERT] (with Poll to FReep)
about.com ^
| 9/14/02
| Charles Henderson
Posted on 09/14/2002 8:25:58 AM PDT by ppaul
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
Do you suppose this guy was raised as a "red diaper doper baby"?
1
posted on
09/14/2002 8:25:58 AM PDT
by
ppaul
To: ppaul
The author does raise a few good points. Today's voluntary arm forces are stretched too thin as it is, we certainly don't need another Vietnam or reinstate the draft.
We should just assassinate Saddam, then let Iraq split into three countries. At the same time, we should start "diplomatic dialogue" with Iran to keep them in check.
To: ppaul
This sounds like the argument in WWII that Japan attacked us. There was no reason to get into a war with Hitler until we had conquered Japan.
Hind sight shows that had we done so, Hitler would have had Atomic weapons log before we did.
Had our "Greatest Generation" followed this advice, the people making it today would not be alive to make it.
To: ppaul
If Clinton had followed Bush Senior's plan and continued to support the Kurds, none of this would have been necessary.
To: ppaul
48 yes 87 no....
To: ppaul
LOL!!! I'm wondering if anyone could find a classic picture to post of a RDDB?
6
posted on
09/14/2002 8:38:58 AM PDT
by
harpo11
To: Fishing-guy
Any suggestions on a) how you assassinate Hussein and b) how you ensure that once you have assassinated Hussein that his Tikrit tribesmen don't pickup where he left off?
To: Michael2001; AnnaZ; P-Marlowe; RaceBannon; yendu bwam; JMJ333; Dimensio; Bryan; George W. Bush; ...
Yes, but how would you analyse his arguments in light of the Scriptures?
8
posted on
09/14/2002 8:40:35 AM PDT
by
ppaul
To: Common Tator
Had our "Greatest Generation" followed this advice, the people making it today would not be alive to make it.How soon, as a nation, we have forgotten!
9
posted on
09/14/2002 8:42:06 AM PDT
by
ppaul
To: ppaul
The thing I liked best about the poll was that you could change your vote after you saw the results of the poll! Kind of makes you Democrat Congressman for a day!! ;-)
To: vbmoneyspender
Don't know, then again, I am too old for the military.
However, if my kids and relatives and 100,000 of our country men and women have to go to Iraq, we better be sure that the objective is clear and they don't stay forever, like in the Balkans, Afghanistan, South Korea, Germany, etc..
To: Fishing-guy
Here is something for you to contemplate. Right now, the United States is as much a combat zone as is any place in the Middle East. In fact, the civilian deaths that we suffered here in the United States outnumber military deaths in the War on Terrorism by a factor of a 100 to 1. So we really don't have too much of a choice in going after the nation-states that give aid and comfort to terrorists that seek to destroy us.
BTW, I am very thankful that we have troops in Germany and Japan guaranteeing that they don't ever become a threat to us again.
To: ppaul
Can We Finish One War Before Starting Another?Dear Mr. Henderson:
You seem to have a fine idea there but perhaps you don't realize that taking care of Iraq is just one more battle in the WAR, yes it's the SAME war, on terrorism!
Get it?
13
posted on
09/14/2002 9:10:06 AM PDT
by
Bigun
To: Fishing-guy; Nicki_
The guy makes alot of good points..
When he was campaigning for the presidency, George Bush criticized the Clinton administration for getting involved in "nation building," a task which candidate Bush believed was inappropriate for the United States to take on. He cited US intervention in both Somalia and Haiti as illustrative of actions that he found problematic. He also argued that one should not become embroiled in military engagement around the world without clearly stated objectives, and an equally clear "exit plan."
It just depend on it the nation builder CALLS himself a Democrat or Republican..that will determine the level of support here on FR
14
posted on
09/14/2002 9:17:45 AM PDT
by
RnMomof7
To: ppaul
Should the US go to war with Iraq? |
Yes |
|
105 votes (50%) |
No |
|
|
98 votes (47%) |
Undecided |
|
|
6 votes (3%) |
|
209 people have voted so far |
To: ppaul
So anyone who fails to uncritically and thoughtlessly agitate for war is a red diaper baby. Boy, I though freepers were smarter than that. Typical, since you fail to address a single of his arguments.
To: ppaul
And we should have finished with Japan before taking on Germany or Italy. Everybody is free to speak their minds but a reasonable inventory of his mind's content should have told this nitwit that he had nothing to say.
To: traditionalist
...you fail to address a single of his arguments.Nor did you, my friend.
18
posted on
09/14/2002 10:17:10 AM PDT
by
ppaul
To: ppaul
Why do people bother voting,"undecided". I see no point in that.Either you do or you don't. If 'for' works out for you, you're a winner. If 'against' goes bad on you, well, you take your licks and go home....it's as simple as that.
19
posted on
09/14/2002 10:18:45 AM PDT
by
shiva
To: Bigun
You seem to have a fine idea there but perhaps you don't realize that taking care of Iraq is just one more battle in the WAR, yes it's the SAME war, on terrorism. No, I don't get it. Please explain.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson