[Razz]

Well said, Mr. Stone.

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

[The Raven]

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?

[Blueflag]

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.

[SamAdams76]

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.

[uncbob]

I think he makes a lot of excellent points

[PeteyBoy]

How many shots with a high powered rifle did that buck get off before "Stoney" put it down?

[neutrino]

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!)

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

In 1941 we were a people. Today we are probably nothing but a population.

[Peter Libra]

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.

[Hoverbug]

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!!

[Shooter 2.5]

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?

[Cultural Jihad]

More anarcho-ideologue bloviation.

[VRWC_minion]

What an ignorant rant.

[pfflier]

Somehow I get the feeling this weenie calling me a coward was a 2-S in the seventies and doesn't count my 9 years of active duty as "military experience".

I don't own a Barcalounger either. And, what is this "Dictator in chief" crap??

My answer to him is "Let's compare DD 214s".

[Ichneumon]

Well said, Mr. Stone.

I had to check several times to make sure I hadn't stumbled into DU by mistake...

Let's boil this twaddle down to the essence Stone keeps trying to dance around: He's saying, "it's good to speak out against a war (like Stone), but cowardly to speak out for going to war (like those who disagree with him)".

Nice try, but what's really "cowardly" here is Stone's attempt to silence the opposition by painting them as hypocrites and himself as noble.

What a childish thing to do.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to the serious business of explaining the necessity of waging war on Iraq with people who have sufficient IQs to understand the issue.

[Nick Danger]

This is crap. We can't all be 19 years old. When I was 19, I was in the military. Nobody asked me squat about whether we should go to war.

Now I'm an old fart, and the military has no use for me. But I have learned something in the intervening years, and that is why nobody asks 19-year-olds to run the country.

[VRWC_minion]

From the author

Let me be very specific: if you are in favor of any war ANYWHERE, then you are not a libertarian.

A libertarian is a person who believes that no human being has the right -- under ANY circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation. If you don't believe that, you're not a libertarian, pure and simple.

No libertarian can be in favor of any kind of war. War is totally at odds with the Zero Aggression Principle.

Now, let's forget the specifics of any given war, because they really don't matter. War -- as a concept -- cannot be waged without the initiation of force.

On a high level, war requires government, and government requires initiation of force. I know it would be nice to imagine a world in which government didn't initiate force, but it's not possible. Government initiates force against the governed. Government cannot so much as put one brick atop another without stealing money or resources to get it done. Certainly the massing of troops on anyone's border is an affair requiring billions of dollars in this day and age, and these billions must be stolen from the governed.

Government -- as a concept -- initiates force. Government without initiated force is the same as fish without water: e.g. DEAD.

For any so-called libertarian to be in favor of war is to be in favor of government. For any so-called libertarian to be in favor of government is to be in favor of initiated force. To be in favor of initiated force is to not be a libertarian.

[WFTR]

May I recommend A Great American Chickenhawk and decaffinated coffee?

[harpseal]

As one who did my 18 months in country during the Doutheast Asian war games (1968-1969) and one who tried to re-up on September 12, 1991 I take offense to this article. There are times when America must take out those who would destroy our nation. This is one of those times. Then big difference now as opposed to 1941 is that we lost about three thousand people within the USA proper. Hawaii was but a pacific territory when Pearl Harbor was bombed.

Either we take out Saddam now or we face the consequences of being attacked here in the USA in maner that will cause significantly more casualties. That lesson of September 11, 2001 should be permanently burned into everyone's mind and heart. The simple act that the anthrax attacks occured concurrently with the September 11, 2001 attack should make it clear to everyone that they were part of a coordinated plan. I note the first anthrax had to have been sent before September 11, 2001 because of incubation periods and the delay in diagnosis for the first death.

Now as to picking up a gun and buying a plane ticket I have considered same but I do not wish to screw up any ops our current active duty military are doing and it is against the law to launch one's own war without the consent of the US government. Unfortunately getting a letter of Marque is no longer easily done.

So yes I shall state we need to take out Saddam. I will take offense at absolutely anyone who calls that cowadice. Further, due to the fact that absolutely everyone's butt could be at risk I will state that evryone who calls for taking out Saddam is risking his/her life doing so.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

In 1971 I quit school and dodged the draft by joining the US Army.

In 1942 my dad, along with most of the Rice Institute football team, joined the Marines, though he ended up in the Navy. The same year, my mothers 40+ father, a surgeon, joined the Army.

In WWI my other grandfather was a Navy seaman, one Great Grandfather a Navy Captain, and a total of three of my four Great Grandfathers served. The one who did not, sent both sons to France.

I am descended from Capt. Taylor, 4th Texas Cav, CSA; General Mouton, 10th La. Inf CSA; and another dozen men who served including a Major General.

One GGGGrandfather, David McGee was with Washington at Valley Forge. A great uncle fought in Cuba, a first cousin once removed in WWII, Korea, and two tours in Viet Nam.

My 19 year old son is talking about leaving school to join the Army right now. If they would take a 53 year old, I would go in a minute.

You may call me a coward because I know I will not be allowed to go, however I am sure my family has earned the right to support any damn thing we want, war included.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

If your only participation is to call Republican talk shows, post in Web sites, write in newsgroups, or otherwise tell everyone how you think other people need to die, then I call you what you are: You're a coward.

We did go down to the recruiting station and found out we weren't wanted or needed because we were over 30. So what are we to do?