1 posted on
10/01/2002 3:13:22 AM PDT by
Greybird
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
To: Greybird
No, this war is different. This war is special. We won't get fooled again!
2 posted on
10/01/2002 3:20:17 AM PDT by
Petronius
To: Greybird; Jim Robinson
This is just the latest attempt by the dems to get something to stick to President Bush. I have heard the spin word "lie" about 14 times in the last two days, and only from democrats.
![](http://www.freerepublic.com/images/demo.gif)
You, Greybird, are a LOSER if you believe the lies of this article.
To: Greybird
From your homepage claptrap:
We are going to war, apparently, in a manner befitting an imperial power, and not a FREE REPUBLIC ... so some thoughts on this and related subjects are worthwhile, to give us pause, serious or satirical:
Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been unfurled, there will [Americas] heart, her benedictions, and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy."Tell me please, if America had not gone abroad in WW II, where would every Jew in Europe now be?
Up in smoke, perhaps?
Where would Hitler now be?
Imperially enthroned, perhaps?
Have you completely forgotten what happened on September 11, 2001?!
America did not start this war, but she is damn sure gonna finish it.
To: Greybird
Yes, the price of the war will be high, in dollars for sure, perhaps in lives.
But the price of not removing Saddam is the end of America, perhaps civilization as we know it.
Either way, its a high price, but we must choose what we are willing to pay, and live/die by the consequences.
7 posted on
10/01/2002 3:35:38 AM PDT by
joyful1
To: Greybird
President Roosevelt "eventually pushed the Japanese to the wall by a series of hostile economic-warfare measures" Robert Higgs is a MAROOON!
I suppose Roosevelt also pushed the Japanese to rape Nanking in China and kill several hundred thousand Chinese (before we imposed export restrictions on the Japanese) and brutalize Indochina and take Koreans as sex slaves.
And to compare our current Republican President to the Democrat President Johnson! Johnson lied during the 1994 election about what he was planning to do in Vietnam, while Bush is pulling no punches in letting us know his intentions in regard to Saddam Hussein and Iraq before this election.
To: Greybird
Business as usual.
12 posted on
10/01/2002 3:41:31 AM PDT by
R. Scott
To: Greybird
<< So Bush may be telling the truth. >>
Bet your life on it.
[Convincing Argument: FRogs are green. This tree is green. Therefore this tree must be a FRog]
To: Greybird
Bill Clinton approach worked fine, right?
Bluster and posture, fire a few missles timed to remove headlines from the papers. This lead OBL and radical Muslims to believe America was weak and they could gain admiration and power with their misguided followers by poking the US in the eye.
And why not? America wouldn't do anything about it. America was past it's prime, old fat, gluttonous with a sign on it's back saying "kick me".
This may be your vision of how America should be, but many more have pulled their heads out of the sand since 9/11/01.
Saddam has and continues to commit horrors against his people, he continues to starve them for a source of media propaganda while he builds his palaces filled with who know what evil.
To: Greybird
Professor Higgs, a wise and erudite man and author of
Crisis And Leviathan, arguably the best book ever written on the subject of Federal expansion, is unfortunately off base here.
In his other indictments, he is largely correct. However, no reasonable doubt remains about the Iraqi nuclear and bioweapons programs, nor about the significant chance that Iraq would use them in a war of aggression against a neighboring state, nor about the unacceptable risk that terrorist groups would get access to weapons of mass destruction by way of Saddam Hussein.
The entire warlike enterprise is about Black Tuesday: September 11, 2001, and all that has flowed from it.
Black Tuesday was not the sinking of the Maine; this is not the Spanish-American War.
Black Tuesday was not the Zimmerman Telegram; this is not World War I.
Black Tuesday was not the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution; this is not Vietnam.
Black Tuesday was a belated awakening to the identity and ferocity of those who hate America and her ideals most fervently.
This case really is different. The pity of it is that, to those of us with a grasp of history and a knowledge of the political bases of previous wars, it should be so difficult to set aside those earlier, shameful episodes, so that we can proceed without crippling doubts. Of course, there are numerous voices raised at this time in the attempt to intensify those doubts. I trust that, in Professor Higgs's case, it's a matter of sincere misunderstanding rather than an attempt to deflect war through obfuscation and deceit.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
To: Greybird
Do unto others before they can do it to you.
To: Greybird
Remarkable how often Democrats have lied to get us into war. The WWII example is quite remarkable; 80% of the American public was isolationist on Dec 6, 1941.
The immediate results of FDR's success in getting us into that war were 20,000 casualties in the Philipines and loss to U-boat action of about 400 ships before June 1942.
Most interesting of all was the reason for FDR's eagerness to fight. FDR was an anglophobe. Who else was allied with us in WWII? The Soviet Union! And FDR's enthusiasm for the fight seems to date from June 22, 1941; there seems to be no example of a major US policy which did anything to disadvantage of the Soviet Union.
FDR recognized the USSR the year he took office . . .
To: Greybird
Ah, but how you are confused....
WORLD WAR 1
United States President Woodrow Wilson declared a U.S. policy of absolute neutrality on the same day Britain declared war, 4 August, an official stance that would last until 1917 when Germany's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare - which seriously threatened America's commercial shipping (which was in any event almost entirely directed towards the Allies led by Britain and France) - forced the U.S. to finally enter the war on 6 April 1917.
WORLD WAR 2
"Yesterday, 7 December 1941-a date which will live in infamy-the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan."
President Roosevelt, 12/8/41
We did not start these wars. Our enemies did. Saddam likewise created the conflict with America when he occupied Kuwait in 1991, and refused to comply with U.N. demands for his immediate withdrawl. It is true that a former American mabassador to Iraq told Hussein, on the eve of his invasion, that the United States would "take no interest" in his impending military action. However, only a fool would have taken this mans words as official policy. Saddam severely underestimated American concern with the delicate balance of the Middle East.
The events of Sept. 11th clearly justify our actions in Afghanistan as well as Pakistan. However, American intelligence has failed to show a clear link between members of Al Quaida and the Iraqui regim. Do not blur the two conflicts by suggesting a connection absent of evidence. A second Gulf War would be motivated by a policy of pre-emption. The fear is that Saddam could, at some point in the future, either launch a direct nuclear/biological attack, or supply terrorist cells with these weapons.
We should have ousted him from power in 1991, when his military machine was crippled and his global support waning. However, for political reasons, Bush Sr. signed a desperate Iraqui-offered cease fire with American troops only miles from Baghdad.
To: Greybird
Good Article.
To: Greybird
71 posted on
10/01/2002 12:08:56 PM PDT by
Poohbah
To: Greybird
Saddam is no little brown brother to us. He is a murdering dictator who would love nothing better than seeing the terrorists use saddam's WMD against the USA. There is no analogy between what this conman mr. higgs is telling us (the Filipino-American war), and what we want to do to saddam. FREEPERs are no sheeples.
To: Greybird; .30Carbine
I wrote this Robert Higgs a note:
You, sir, and Saddam Hussein are Butchers and LIARS !!
And I sent him the link and the text of this article:
Democrat Leadership Should Control Rank-And-File Saddam Apologists
WASHINGTON, Sep. 30 House Republican Conference Chairman J.C. Watts, Jr. (R-Okla.) issued the following statement on the mission to Baghdad by Congressmen David Bonior (D-Mich.), Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) and Mike Thompson (D-Calif.):
Its one thing to have a civil discourse on the merits of a preemptive strike or war. Its another to fly to Iraq and take the word of a tyrant over the American president and the American people.
At a time when America is fighting a war on terror, talk like this only helps enemies of freedom.
Instead of lobbying for Saddam, these guys ought to come home and lobby Senate Democrats who are blocking important priorities for Americans like a Department of Homeland Security, prescription drug coverage and pension security.
Three Democrat members of Congress in Iraq defending Saddam Hussein ought to warrant a reprimand from Minority Leader Gephardt. Surely they do not speak for the Democratic Caucus. Or do they?
To: Greybird
The reference to Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Lyndon Johnson left out JFK. He involved us in the Cold War over a non-existant missile and bomber gap. These four have cost the US a fortune in resources and most of the loss of life in military action in the 20th century. Their combined actions have resulted in 34 cumulative years of war
The 20th century Republican Presidents that presided over initiating a war (George Bush and... well there are no others), cleanly won the war with minimal casualties and in two weeks. It seems one party, the war party of the Demoncrats sees war as an economic and political tool while the Republicans see war as something to be won.
115 posted on
10/01/2002 3:36:02 PM PDT by
pfflier
To: Greybird; All
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) was recently in Iraq and said on national television that President Bush would "mislead" the American people about Iraq and war, and that we should take Hussein "at his word." Now, Greybird, I ask that you answer this one simple question with an up or down "yes" or "no:"
Do you stand with Rep. McDermott?
122 posted on
10/01/2002 3:59:11 PM PDT by
rdb3
To: Greybird
influential expansionists such as Captain Alfred T. Mahan, Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and their ilk. If I could be counted amongst such ilk as Mahan I would die a happy man.
129 posted on
10/01/2002 4:26:14 PM PDT by
tet68
To: Greybird
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) was recently in Iraq and said on national television that President Bush would "mislead" the American people about Iraq and war, and that we should take Hussein "at his word." Now, Greybird, I ask that you answer this one simple question with an up or down "yes" or "no:"
Do you stand with Rep. McDermott?
133 posted on
10/01/2002 4:52:45 PM PDT by
rdb3
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson