Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

General Cowardice
Sierra Times ^ | Published 02. 10. 03 at 22:43 Sierra Times | William Stone, III

Posted on 02/11/2003 5:57:19 PM PST by Razz

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last
Well said, Mr. Stone.

Unlikely to be well received on UN-Free Republic.
How long before it's pulled???

1 posted on 02/11/2003 5:57:19 PM PST by Razz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Razz
I'm sitting here wondering if we are too late. If Iraq has already dispursed their bad stuff to Islamic fundamentalists and it's here in the US.

And - I wonder if it's been here a long time. Remember when one of the terrorists said the next attack will make 9/11 look like a picnic. They have something real ugly up their sleeves.

And how will American's react. Like a witch hunt? Shoot first and ask later? Door to door searches? How will the government act with war on the homefront?




2 posted on 02/11/2003 6:05:29 PM PST by The Raven (Liberalism: The dream world called denial)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Razz
Mr. Stone is passionate, but wrong. The citizenry have other duties in the honorable support of their nation's purpose than to take up arms. Not all can or should enlist. None should act as the lone vigilante.

Wisdom and purpose should overcome passoin in this case.

3 posted on 02/11/2003 6:06:04 PM PST by Blueflag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Razz
Don't think I agree with Mr. Stone.

Being in support of a war to protect our national security while not actually doing the fighting is not cowardice. We have a very professional military to handle Saddam Hussein. I don't think the war effort would be better served if middle-aged, pot-bellied couch potatoes were to be enlisted. I suspect that Mr. Stone has an anti-war, anti-American agenda and that bears out in his writing.

4 posted on 02/11/2003 6:06:41 PM PST by SamAdams76 ('Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blueflag
*lone vigilante

exception for true self/family defense.

5 posted on 02/11/2003 6:07:32 PM PST by Blueflag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Razz
I think he makes a lot of excellent points
6 posted on 02/11/2003 6:10:07 PM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Razz
How many shots with a high powered rifle did that buck get off before "Stoney" put it down?
7 posted on 02/11/2003 6:10:31 PM PST by PeteyBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76; dighton; aculeus
I suspect that Mr. Stone has an anti-war, anti-American agenda and that bears out in his writing.

What tipped you off, Sam? ;)

8 posted on 02/11/2003 6:23:27 PM PST by general_re (APOLOGIZE, v.i.: To lay the foundation for a future offence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Razz
My, what an interesting scenario!

I, personally, believe that a mere rifle is inadequate to the problem. A 10 megaton thermonuclear device detonated over Baghdad would be more to my liking. Let's say a 5,000 foot airburst. Adding Cobalt would be even better!

Alas, I don't have the several million that a used Russian ICBM would cost (yes, North Korea would have a cheaper model, but I want yield and quality!); however, I see no reason why I couldn't start a joint venture with other investors. I dare say we could get quite a lot of interest in nuking Baghdad at $1000 per share! As an alternative, perhaps the US would be willing to sell us a missle...thus keeping the money right here in the USA.

Of course we'd have a drawing to decide which lucky participant would get to press the button and launch the missle!

So, if we can get enabling legislation passed, I'll be more than glad to start preparing the needed documents!

(Yes, I'm being silly...but the article's author started it!)

9 posted on 02/11/2003 6:25:21 PM PST by neutrino (1eV... and still able to zing along!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Razz
In 1941 we were a people. Today we are probably nothing but a population.
10 posted on 02/11/2003 6:27:48 PM PST by AEMILIUS PAULUS (Further, the statement assumed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Razz
I agree with Blue. Now if one wishes a man on man war, one could go to World War One. In England, in 1914, the recruiting offices were absolutely flooded with volunteers. In 1916 men had to be drafted. Even then, it was said at best, 6 or 7 men out of ten, would face the horror of trench warfare.

In World War Two, I believe the figure was that out of every ten servicemen, possibly only two or three were selected as front line. Why? because a modern army cannot exist without suppliers, cooks, signallers, clerks, armourers, and holding battalions.

What of a highly technical and intricate force today?. Those who think that a man can swagger in and say " Hey Colonel, let me at em, I will shoot down all of em' " must have been watching an old Jimmy Cagney movie.

Cagney of course, in one film,flew in to the parade in his own plane and then landed and told em' what HE was going to do. Hollywood hokum of course. A good read is No More Parades by Ford Madox Ford, on World War One. Yes, there was a General Headquarters- well behind the lines.

11 posted on 02/11/2003 6:36:34 PM PST by Peter Libra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS
"In 1941 we were a people. Today we are probably nothing but a population."

I am an American by birth ... free-born.
I am a patriot by decision.

The go to war/don't go to war argument is nothing more than the right of the people to be armed or gun control/dis-arm the people.

Intellectualize it all you want.

The bottom line is ... Those that would wage warfare have bloodied noses and have had their noses bloodied.

Those that would discuss and politic are cowards and have never kicked ass nor had their ass kicked.

Pain sucks but it's a part of growing up. So is winning and losing.
Determiation is discovered by winning and losing.

12 posted on 02/11/2003 6:40:49 PM PST by knarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Razz
To quote this genius: No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation.

Sure am glad I'm not this POS's wife or kid depending on him to protect me from bad guys. "Well my little daughter, I just can't justify initiating any force against this guy who broke into your bedroom. He hasn't actually initiated any force against you yet, has he? Well then, I have to just sit here until he cuts your throat, but by God, I'll let him have it then!"

Sounds to me like he's a whining, sniveling little left wing coward trying to say that those who call for military action to protect us are REALLY the cowards.

I believe it's called transference.

And BTW, the coming war in Iraq is NOT an initiation of hostilities. It is a resumption of the war started by Iraq when it invaded Kuwait, and placed on hold when Saddam agreed to a cease fire agreement. He has violated the agreement, and now the war continues. Kinda like a pause button on the VCR.

And I'm tired of you left wing morons continuing to push that lie!!!!!

Whew! Man, I feel great! You folks gotta try a good old rant every once in awhile! It's refreshing!!

13 posted on 02/11/2003 6:41:35 PM PST by Hoverbug (whadda ya mean, "we don't get parachutes"!?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: general_re; dighton; Razz
While I certainly don't agree with government warfare (it's immoral -- see my essay "State of Disunion 2003"),

Sure thing, chief. As soon as I finish Qadafi's Green Book.

14 posted on 02/11/2003 6:45:09 PM PST by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Razz
Let's go Mr. Stone. Where do we sign up? When the war starts, I hope the military drops Mr.Stone and I and a thousand other old guys right on top of Saddam's Palace.

Do you want to live forever?
15 posted on 02/11/2003 6:49:15 PM PST by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Razz
More anarcho-ideologue bloviation.
16 posted on 02/11/2003 6:54:06 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus; general_re; SamAdams76; Poohbah; BlueLancer; hellinahandcart
I'm sympathetic to someone like my grandfather, for example.

Awfully decent of you, kid.

Cripes! This thing starts at the bottom and goes downhill.

17 posted on 02/11/2003 6:56:43 PM PST by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Hoverbug

Insofar as self-avowed libertarians are also moral-liberals and moral-cowards, yes.

18 posted on 02/11/2003 6:57:05 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
More anarcho-ideologue bloviation

I was going to say something but you done said it.
19 posted on 02/11/2003 6:59:03 PM PST by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Razz
What an ignorant rant.
20 posted on 02/11/2003 7:02:20 PM PST by VRWC_minion ( Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson