Maybe there is a freeper out here somewhere that could word smith this so that we could just fill in the blanks and it would almost guarantee passage.
Posted on 01/25/2003 9:29:30 PM PST by BlueOneGolf
Edited on 05/07/2004 6:46:47 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
On Thursday night, in a rare exception to the anti-American folderol coming out of city councils across the country, the Louisville Metro Council voted 17-9 for passage of a Resolution to Support our Troops. The make up of the council is 15 Democrats and 11 Republicans. Six Democrats crossed party lines to vote for the Resolution with the entire Republican Caucus.
(Excerpt) Read more at courier-journal.com ...
OMG,we better not defend ourselves because the enemy will use chemical and bio weapons. That is really insane thinking.
I just heard this yesterday from another useful idiot. do you DU'ers get together and make this bs up?
Knock it off, eaglebeak. I've seen another sample of your work -- calling kattracks "sick" for merely posting an article -- and it's damned unimpressive.
BlueOneGolf, welcome to FreeRepublic.
Ousting a 'popular' mass murderer, who has invaded several neighbors in an attmept to expand his resources, has killed many of his own people, has been ignoring sanctions, has been building up his military infrastructure in defiance of world-body resolutions and cease-fire agreements, has been encouraging others to attack us in the event of war, has been playing catch-me-if-you-can with weapons inspectors for about a decade, and is eager to build the super-bomb that will lay waste to his enemies...
If this doesn't sound familiar, then you really need to crack open a history book. Adolf Hitler went through the exact same process... except he hadn't used WMD's against his own people ("just" assembly line exterminations).
Our our men and women in the military welcome the chance to prevent history from repeating itself. They are not the cowards you imply that they are (a little transference, there, perhaps)?
BTW, we lost less than 300 in the first Gulf War (148 battle deaths, 145 non-battle deaths, 467 wounded out of 532,000 soldiers: that's a mortality-rate of 0.00055, or about one-twentieth of a percent), which is fewer than would have died if they were stationed at home for the same time period (due to training accidents, traffic accidents, etc.). Remember the "for the first time ever, our troops are safer in battle " line that the newsies kept spouting? If you're so worried about their well-being, maybe you should hope for war with similar results.
Of course, we aren't given much in the way of analogous details or actual logic to support the position, but that's hardly surprising.
This is NOTHING like Vietnam. Vietnam never posed a threat to the United States proper, as does Saddam, who both possesses and has demonstrated his willingness to use chemical weapons.
We supported his regime during the Iran-Iraq war, thereby enabling him to become the torturer and murderer that he is today. The United States has a moral responsbility to remove the monster that we have created. Yes, it will cost lives, and no civilized person can help but regret that. Remember our military is all-volunteer.
Well stated.
Maybe there is a freeper out here somewhere that could word smith this so that we could just fill in the blanks and it would almost guarantee passage.
So, supporting the troops, who have no choice but to go, is a bad thing?
I wore a POW/MIA bracelet during Viet Nam and I hated that war. I, also, had a husband that was flying 2 to 3 sorties a day over N. Viet Nam. BTW, eluding SAMs is not fun, in case you were wondering. I lived on base with the wives of POW/MIAs. I watched their children grow up without their father. I watched the POWs come home, and I watched the families of MIAs have memorial services with empty caskets. I have a feeling I know more about the effects of war than you do.
With that being said, I just have to add one thing. Your post to me was nothing but an insult and it made you look like a coward.
BOG, thanks for trying to explain things to him/her. I hope eaglebeak is a woman...I would hate to think that drivel came from a man.
Yes, but there were easily four to five times that many infants conceived by the troops screwing each other aboard ship and in the rear in the rear echelons, thus it was a net gain.
If Saddam Hussein's Iraq enjoyed a free press, freedom of association and freedom of speech, there could be a moral unjust pre-emptive strike argument. But that is not the case with Iraq. There is no frame of reference, by western standards of civilization, for comparing Iraq. For the controlled Iraqi press, even a Holy Bible requires an image of Saddam Hussein. You did know that, right?
An ostrich like stance on Iraq will not make Saddam Hussein behave or go away. Sanctions were violated, inspections thwarted, and a new paradigm of warfare emerged, state sponsored terrorism. Laurie Mylroie, President Clinton's advisor on Iraq, states there is little doubt the first WTC attack was an Iraqi state sponsored terrorist act. In the book Study of Revenge: The First World Trade Center Attack and Saddam Hussein’s War Against America, Mylroie also makes a good case the 9/11 attack was too. With that in mind, a pre-emptive strike against state sponsored terrorism is somehow unjust?
The horrific cruelty of Saddam is beyond belief. Former UNSCOM inspector, and now peace activist Scott Ritter, described an Iraqi children’s political prison. Ritter asserts in a Time Magazine story if we knew what went on in that children’s prison, even the peaceniks would demand war with Iraq. Freeing the Iraqi people from this brutal repression has no purpose?
With all due respect, this Gulf War Veteran disagrees with you. The Iraqi people have suffered long enough. It is time to liberate Iraq. If you are not quite convinced yet, please follow this 9/11 attack hyperlink.
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.