Posted on 10/10/2002 5:36:55 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
1. John J. Duncan (Tennessee, 2nd District)
http://www.house.gov/duncan/
2. John Hostettler (Indiana, 8th)
http://www.house.gov/hostettler/
3. Amo Houghton (New York, 31st District)
http://www.house.gov/hostettler/
4. Jim Leach (Iowa, 1st)
http://www.house.gov/leach/
5. Connie Morella (Maryland, 8th)
http://www.house.gov/morella/
6. Ron Paul (Texas, 14th)
http://www.house.gov/paul/
Here is what you said. The clear implication of this statement is that Hussein is justified in shooting at our pilots because they are bombing Iraq. Aside from the fact that you have the situation exactly backwards, i.e. we are bombing the Iraqis in order to prevent them from shooting down our pilots. your statement clearly suggests that it is okay for Hussein to shoot at and even kill our pilots. Your statement is sick and pathetic and demonstrates that you don't give a hoot if some of our pilots are killed by Hussein.
Saudi Arabia asked for troops after Hussein threatened to swallow it up in 1991. If the Saudis asked us to leave, we'd be out in ten days.
Whether you like it or not, oil is the engine of the global economy. Insuring stability in the market is vital.
America doesn't "start wars." We finish them, and we're about to finish one, albeit ten years after we should have.
I don't think you understand the kind of enemy we are facing. You and Ron Paul would choose to try to isolate yourselves in the hopes that your Garden of Eden would remain intact.
These Islamists don't need a reason to kill us; they do it because their warped religious sentiment commands them to bring all things under the domination of Allah.
You clowns insist on trying to Neville-Chamberlain the West to death. Thank God there are visionary leaders who recognize your folly.
September 11th happened because we have American troops stationed in the Middle East and provide military equipment at U.S. taxpayer expense to Israel.
You want to embark the U.S. military on a war against any nation that could threaten us? Do you intend to storm your neighbor's house and kill him if he doesn't turn in his gun to you?
The argument that Saddam is not a threat isn't even accepted by the mainline liberals--he is dangerous and to a degree not seen in perhaps a generation or two.
Hussein is interested in staying alive and keeping power. How does attacking the U.S. further that?
Saddam seeks weapons to use them, and there is not a doubt in my mind that he would use them on Americans if he could get away with. The sooner he's taking a dirt nap, the better.
Why would he give us a reason to obliterate him by attacking us with a nuclear weapon? Why does MAD work on a mass murdering sociopath like Stalin or Mao, but not Hussein?
Let's examine a few facts about the U.S. and Middle Eastern oil:
In 2001 the United States economy consumed ~19.4 million barrels of oil per day. At the current price price of ~$25 that comes to a shade over 177 billion dollars spent on oil in the United States. Now, of that oil a little over half is imported. Of the half that is imported about one quarter comes from the Middle East. (Over half of our imported oil comes from the Western Hemisphere.) So, we taxpayers funded a military to the tune of ~279 billion dollars in order to protect "business interests" that only amounts to ~23 billion dollars to the U.S.?
Do you consider that wise? Whose investment are we protecting here?
It is not the duty of the American taxpayer or American soldier to fund and fight wars to try and 'stabilize' a commodity price. By taking our money by force through taxation and spending it on a military to protect the overseas investments of the politically connected the true cost of oil is disguised. If Middle Eastern 'instability' led to higher oil prices it would provide the profit incentive to explore for greater supplies (which we see enormous quantities of in the former U.S.S.R. and Western Africa). In addition, the profit motive would encourage development of alternative sources (driven by market demands, not bureaucratic grant allocation) that would reduce the income of those barbaric nations back to the stone age it was in before we found the black gold they're sitting on.
By supporting the posting of American armies in the region you are inviting the attacks we have suffered and perpetuating the problem.
Where is the faith in neutrality, peace and free markets among professed supporters of a Free Republic? What is your return for the investment of American taxpayer armies in the Middle East? Is it dead relatives in Lebanon? Saudi Arabia? Kuwait? Iran? Afghanistan? New York? Washington, D.C.?
If it's too dangerous for foreign businesses to have oil wells in the Middle East then let them spend the money to build new ones somewhere else, or pay to defend them themselves. Don't let them hire the U.S. military to protect their investment at the cost of American lives abroad, at home, and liberties surrendered to their 'war'.
I hear ya. I was looking for someone from Ohio, but was very pleased not to find one from the home State. I was looking for one from my second State, Texas, and was getting excited until...
You know.
Can anyone say "RINO"
Houghton is also the richest elected man in Washington. His company has huge optic fiber plants in China, going full bore.
You might want to read the Cease Fire Agreement. He agreed to the no fly zones and we agreed to stop kicking the hell out of his army. He broke his part, now we are about to solve the problem.
Houghton is an ex marine...
I think we'll ship Ron Paul to California.
His Libertarian views would go better in San Francisco.
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.