You, Greybird, are a LOSER if you believe the lies of this article.
You, Greybird, are a LOSER if you believe the lies of this article.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 . . .
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.):
“It’s one thing to have a civil discourse on the merits of a preemptive strike or war. It’s 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?”
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.
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?
If I could be counted amongst such ilk as Mahan I would die a happy man.
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?