Posted on 10/08/2002 7:17:56 PM PDT by Miss Marple
I just heard Senator Brownback of Kansas on Greta's show on Fox say that he is getting more anti-war calls than pro.
I must admit I had not thought to call my own senators because I thought this issue was self-evident. I will call tomorrow.
Meanwhile, I would encourage all Freepers to call your senators and express your opinion about the Iraq resolution that is coming up for a vote.
It seems to me that the democrats, anarchists, and Arab sympathizers have their phone banks going overtime.
Thank you for reading this post, and any calls you make will be appreciated!
If you believe that the military is just "sitting around", and the president is waiting for approval, you have NO concept of war and what is going on. We presently have troops on the ground in nearly a dozen countries fighting terrorism, and many troops engaged in preparation for whatever air strikes and invasion we need to pursue in Iraq.
Normandy didn't happen overnight, nor did Pearl Harbor. There was a great amount of preparation going on beforehand. A similar type of preparation is now occurring... don't be fooled.
Congress should consider a declaration of war, and vote on it. And the vote should happen so that the vote is fresh on voters' minds during an election. These people are supposed to represent us - do it!!
I would challenge all to call their senators. Sometimes, we come here to complain or vent, but while that makes us feel better, it doesn't change anything. Call your senators with your concerns. They are the ones who need to hear.
In an age when the deaths of millions can be schlepped around in a briefcase, we have two choices-- Pre-emption or police state. I'll take pre-emption every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Well, I can kind of see his point, to this degree: the current plan seems to be to attack Iraq, while leaving the borders/immigration problem largely undisturbed.
Also, he is right that Saddam doesn't really represent a proximate threat to the United States itself. And I have not seen a lot of evidence tying him to international terrorism aside from paying off the families of Palestinian homicide bombers (of course, so do our "allies", the Saudis). HOWEVER, we certainly DO have interests and allies in the region, and Saddam certainly wishes to expand into Kuwait (already tried it once) and Saudi Arabia.
Saddam is also just unstable enough to lob a nuke at Israel, if he felt the need or desire. And I do not think we should just sit by and allow that to happen. I'm not gung-ho on this war, but if it must be done to save many innocent lives, so be it.
Aside from all this, though, we most certainly do need to get the immigration situation under control, and we should have a cap on total immigration of about 200,000 for the time being, as we cannot reasonably perform background checks on more than that in a timely manner. 200,000/year would allow for quicker assimilation, as well.
A war against Iraq later is even MORE nuts.
And that is the equation. Do we battle them now before they develop into a more serious threat or do we battle them later. Only an insane person would conclude that waiting till later will be safer than doing it now.
Use logical fallacies in your arguments indicates your still brainwashed by the liberals.
When i was in school I was hassled by bullies. I tried just avoiding them. Guess what happened ? I attracted more bullies. Then one day I fought a bully with everything I had. Ever since that day I was never hassled.
Not really. The military option takes months of planning and can be done in conjunction with the political.
One sentence from Joe Lieberman and all is ok. Yet, the ongoing explanations by this administration were not worth heeding.
Geesh!!!!!
Jump to conclusions much?
I didn't cite Lieberman because I revere him or think he's more credible than the Bush crew. I cited Lieberman for numerous reasons:
1. I used someone who is certainly never going to be accused of carrying water for Bush in order to counter Pining_4_TX's mistaken mistrust of the administration on this issue. This was the primary reason I used Lieberman, instead of my own reasoning or evidence from the administration.
2. Lieberman being convinced enough that there are Al-Qaida in Iraq to state it as a certainty in a national daily shows that the Administration has presented unassailable evidence of such. After all, it's not the DNC giving those Intel briefings to the Senate, it's the administration.
3. I used him to point out that this is not new business, it's old, old, old business and it is Anti-Al-Qaida business. Pining wants our home soil protected, and Saddam is colluding with the only terrorists who've killed thousands on our home soil. If she can't see the connection after that, she is contradicting herself.
4. I used him to point out that Iraq is a clear and present danger to the U.S. homeland. Those Al-Qaida boys aren't in Baghdad to go to an Amway meeting. They might just be hiding there...they might be picking up a nuke or a vial of smallpox. I'm not willing to bet millions of American lives on it.
It's time to hit them, early and often. We have not tired, we must not falter, we cannot fail.
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.