Posted on 03/12/2003 8:30:47 PM PST by The_Expatriate
Edited on 03/12/2003 8:31:33 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - First it was French fries and French toast. Now the bones of U.S. servicemen are being dragged into the conflict between France and the United States over war in Iraq.
Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla., plans to introduce a bill Thursday proposing that the families of the thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen buried in France and Belgium be allowed to dig up their remains and have them shipped home.
Bwahahaha! That's rich. Or else, what? Don't beat around the bush. Speak clearly.
If we make war unjustly, then we sacrifice our freedoms and evenutally have nothing left to preserve.
We have defined the enemy.
You have named them enemy, but you seem to be unable to present any evidence to support having made such a declaration.
Why is it wrong to attack any and all who are in the way?
Because when you live by the bromide of "Might makes Right," you are no different than any other tyrant or destroyer who has roamed the earth. Liberty has no meaning in that context.
By the way you are supporting France. I lost family there and you tell me to "cut the soil bit". That I do not understand.
Are you saying that your family gave their lives in France so you could bully them into voting to let you wage war against a country for nefarious purposes? I've never heard anyone put it that way before, and I doubt they would approve.
I wrote her a letter telling her that what she proposes is right up near the top of the most unwelcome, repellant, and infantile initiatives I've ever heard from an elected member of the US Congress, and have urged her to reconsider out of a sense of decency.
Some of you may not agree.
It's not a matter of whether I want to "cancel" the cease fire. In a non-hypocritical world, what I'd hope for is acknowledgement of the reality, that Iraq has violated the cease-fire. The problem is that France (because they are jerkwads) is not even pretending to evaluate that issue sincerely, they are just trying to block whatever the US does.
And that is why I'm mad at the jerkwads.
Don't you understand yet? All I'm trying to do is explain to you why I'm mad at them. You seem to be taking the position that for some strange reason I "don't have the right", or am not allowed, to be mad at France. Don't you understand how unsupportable a position that is? Of course I have the right to be mad at France for what they are doing. It is ridiculous to suggest or imply otherwise. It is perfectly valid and normal to be angry at someone for taking despicable actions. And I consider the rank hypocrisy, disingenuousness, and hostility of France - the campaigning for votes against us for example - to be despicable actions. Perhaps you disagree that they are despicable actions, perhaps you even think they are noble. I do not give a rat's ass. You have your opinion, and I have mine. Are you going to try to argue that I don't have the right to this opinion of mine either?
The US can stamp its feet and threaten retaliation all it likes, but it cannot conduct a just campaign against Iraq on those grounds without the blessing of the UN security council.
Begs the question of how you define "just". Since I suspect we operate from different definitions of that word, it's not worth pursuing this line.
Now, if you've got some other justification you would like to put on the table, have at it.
Justification for what? For me being mad at France? Don't need it, I'm perfectly within my rights to be angry at a given group of people in reaction to something that group of people does. (I still don't even understand how you could possibly try to argue otherwise.) I've tried to explain for your benefit why I'm mad at France, but if you're gonna sit there and obstinately pretend that I have no right to be mad, go right ahead. You're wrong - but go right ahead.
Or maybe you mean justification for the war? No need. That argument was settled last October when our Congress approved military action. It's a done deal, the discussion already took place, and our representatives already decided against your position. Sorry to inform you but that train's left the building. Now we're just talking about why France is such a bunch of jerkwads.
If what you say is true, then consider this: at least their darn textbooks mentioned D-Day. When's the last time you saw an American textbook that mentioned the same?
In other words, what you're acknowledging is that a state of war already exists between our two countries.
Hey, that's what I just tried to tell you. If you're gonna revert to this "but we've been doing bad stuff to them" argument, you've got a problem, because even if accept your complaint then I also come to the realization that We're At War With Iraq.
And call me crazy but I'd rather win the war we're in than lose it.
By the way, I wonder if you might explain how it is that we can justify bombing a ground-to-ground missile installation while conducting No-Fly-Zone missions?
Obviously this is an act of war on our part. Why? Cuz We're At War With Iraq.
Like I said.
(And that makes Iraq our "enemy".)
You have named them enemy, but you seem to be unable to present any evidence to support having made such a declaration.
It's not my job or davisdoug's job to do that in the first place. Presumably it's the Commander-in-Chief's job. And guess what? He already did it, last October.
Furthermore, in doing this, he doesn't have to convince you, let alone France, that Iraq is a threat to the US. The only jury that matters is the US Congress whom we elect. France doesn't get a say in the matter.
And the US Congress already decided in the affirmative, to authorize military action. So your whole point is moot.
You couldn't be farther from the truth. The Europeans are sweating bullets about the Euro's appreciation. Their economies are too weak to handle the loss of exports (to the U.S.).
You have mischaracterized my position. Of course you have the "right" to be mad at France. Heck, the ignorant woman who proposed the legislation to dig up the bodies buried in France even has the "right" to propose such trash. What I have done is challenged you to present some evidence to support your position. But, if it is based upon emotion, that's fine. Again, it is your right to respond based upon emotion.
That argument was settled last October when our Congress approved military action. It's a done deal, the discussion already took place, and our representatives already decided against your position. Sorry to inform you but that train's left the building.
I'm sure that's true. Bush will have his war. The warmongers are at the helm. The oilfields will be under US control. The government of Iraq will be established at our whim and will serve as a satellite, just like Afghanistan. We'll probably even build upon our success and attack other nations in turn. It's grueling work to build an empire. Requires lots of blood to fertilize the soil.
What "position" is that? That I'm mad at France? Here's my evidence for this: "I'm mad at France." Happy?
I'm sure that's true. Bush will have his war. The warmongers are at the helm. The oilfields will be under US control. The government of Iraq will be established at our whim and will serve as a satellite, just like Afghanistan. We'll probably even build upon our success and attack other nations in turn. It's grueling work to build an empire. Requires lots of blood to fertilize the soil.
Bravo, brilliant speech professor.
I think you should show it to some randomly-selected Iraqis, post-Hussein. See how impressed they are by you.
And now I'm off for the night. You all pat yourselves on the back for the great job you've done. I'm sure there will be plenty of death on CNN to cheer and drink to soon enough. 'Night.
Oh, man. I didn't think anyone was really going to stoop so low as to repeat that discredited bit of propaganda. There is no link between Iraq and 9/11. Even the circumstantial evidence of peripheral contact has been discredited and shown to be based upon lies.
It's odd that you can't explain how it "militates against" my "words", and which particular words. We are messing around with the UN because Blair really seemed to need it, that's all. How, exactly, does that reality contradict anything I said?
Guess you were just too tired to explain in any detail. Pity.
It must feel great to be so morally superior to everyone else.
It's funny how I'll be responsible for all the "death on CNN" you anticipate, yet no responsibility for the thousands of deaths caused by Hussein (which aren't broadcast on CNN) accrues to you. But, I guess that's one of the benefits of being so morally superior: you're allowed to look at only one side of the equation, and ignore the other side. Sleep tight.
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.