Free Republic

You want the resources of the US NOT to be directed at bringing to justice the people responsible for murdering 3,000 innocent civilians, but instead used to round-up people picking tomatoes and oranges.

Look Luis, that's what Afganistan was all about. Iraq did had nothing to do with the attack. You are getting the two confused.

Finally, I want to say to all who answered my remarks with such venom and passion, I think you people need to personally participate in this war. Based on the intensity of the comments you'd think I was telling you the religion you have believed in all your life and every value you have ever had and everything you have ever done was false. Maybe opposing this war represents each of these things to you people. It is an irrational position and I will not argue it further.

This article spells out why you and others like you no matter what the reasons are failing to think clearly

Not think clearly, think like you. When those Iraqi troops come over the hill towards my house, then I'll be convinced. There's always some boogie man out there, and the technique works so well. Shame actually.

See MY POST # 6 this thread.

The Peace Lobby has no real right to tell everyone to shut up.

I agree. If you look at the responses on this thread, you'll see that the only ones who seem to want people to shutup (ck out longcut's remark (lead follow or step aside) are the pro war crowd.

And yes I do think we'd be much safer if we don't go to war because of the escalation potential to WWIII.

(I really hate to get into it with you, but here goes....)

"I suggest you move out into the country" A statement absolutely breathtaking in its inherent self-centeredness, Sir!

If you hold the position that no matter how good the intentions are, the govt cannot protect our cities from attack (and again I repeat myself The VP and the SecDef have as much said so) than aren't we all really on our own?

If you hold that as true, is not my recommendation to move to the country a logical and rational idea (not to mention the best shot at survival)? Isn't that smarter than staying in the battlezone waiting to get hit?

(And if it makes you feel better, I am sorry those people died, all they were trying to do was earn a living. I am also sorry that our President didn't fire the FBI and CIA directors for their intelligence failure and the fact that there were no intercept jets on duty at Andrews AFB on the day of the attack.)

I am not a libertarian because I do not agree with their policies, especially that of open boarders. For the 2nd or third time, I would shut the boarders and remove illegals and those of questionable foreign background from our mist.

You are, though, guilty of being what Mr. Brooks was talking about: parochial. For you, it's all about what happens here.

Sir, you are spot on accurate! You have me pegged perfectly. That is my position and it's set in concrete.

As for your nuclear bomb aniexty, I suggest you move out to the country. Dick Cheney has warned we will/might be nuked. I believe him. I do not believe the govt can protect us from this threat no matter what they do.

Your comments proving, once again, the old adage: you can lead a Populist to the truth, but you can't make him drink

I can live with that label. I'm a live and let live kind of guy though, so libertarian would be closer to the truth. (OK I voted for Bush and I am a Republican - but that doesn't obligate me to support their policies when they do something stupid.)

Oh longcut knock it off. I went round and round with you on this weeks ago and I see no point in repeating it.

In spite of the sniping about President Bush on this site, he is true heir of Ronald Reagan.

So you think Reagan would've tripled the funding of the ATF?

Bush was responsible for not pressing the attack fwd on Bagdad - the congress was out of the game at that point. Matter of fact Bush could've just destroyed Sadam's Republican Guards and Sadam's power base would've been destroyed without the casualties that would've occurred if we had gone into Bagdad. But he didn't do that. It is Bush that put us in the situation we are in today through vacillation and a desire to create (his words now) A New World Order.

(The actual quote was, "Out of these troubled times, a New World Order can emerge under a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders." GHWB Sep 11,1990 State of the Union Address.)

Think of the money we could save if the Germans threw us out.

One might say, taking the war to the enemy rather than hunkering down and waiting for him to kill some more Americans.

But I thought they were already here, their sleeper cells are already here, their weapons of mass destruction are already here.

If those facts are true (and I believe they are, specficially since every govt spokemans who talks about this issue says, "It's not if but when...) then regardless of what we do overthere...we will reap the whirlwind. We need to concentrate on this issue domestically and stop adventuring overseas.

Sir, I am not a liberal. Opposing a war doesn't make you a liberal.

Look, I'm not an advocate of smoking dope. Frankly, we need more people to get involved in their communities and start holding our constantly growing govt accountable for its action. However....

Let dopers be dopers. It's too expensive and a waste of time to continue drug prohibition in this country.

It's absolutely hysterical that anyone who opposes war is a leftist.

When the govt stops funding, sheparding, and encouraging illegal aliens to come to our shores, when they remove those same aliens from the US and delete their drivers lisc, welfare payments, social security payments and voter registration, when they start to control our boarders, when they stop trying to centralize federal power, stop sending all our industrial businesses overseas (because overregulation makes it impossible to compete for US constructed products) when we stop buying oil from Sadam to finance his operations, then I would believe that the govt is waging an effective war on terrorism. If the war is here, what are we doing there? (And THANKS for the condecending comments - it really elevates the discussion).

...Excluding present and future company, I'd like the participants of FR to use logic, reason and facts to back up their arguments/debate, but, it might be too much to ask...

I guess it would be too much to ask for you to back up your comments with specifics.

Mr Brooks, it's easy to argue for war when you can't see yourself doing the dying.

And remember Mr. Brooks, the real beneficiaries of this evolution (should it go as planned) will be the narrow business interests who will receive contracts based on the reconstruction of Iraq and the extraction of it's oil. All of this will be paid for of course by US Taxpayers, either directly or through front organizations such as the IMF, World Bank, UN, etc.

Boy what a mismash this is

"[The Democrats]...didn't vote for the Gulf War, Desert Storm. They are handwringers and appeasers. They believe we ought to dream of peace rather than going out and fight for it.

Reminds me of another democrat, Wilson, who after running for reelection on a platform of "No War" did everything he could to get us into "The War to End All Wars" - sorta like a junkie who says, "This is the last time, really."

"Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted and illegal," Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, reportedly complained.

Under what standard is it illegal? If the congress gave the Pres a declaration of war it would be wrong (in my opinion) but under our constitution (I don't recognize UN Law) it would be perfectly legal.

"Their real feelings are coming out as much as they can right now, which is that they're desperately dying to provide aid and support to al Qaeda."

Ann, although I usually respect your arguments, please remember to focus on the fact that al Qaeda and Sadam are separate entities, that they are in fact unrelated to each other.

I guess it's too much to ask any of these people to be consistant with their arguments. If they would base their political foundations on the principles laid out in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and George Washington's departure speech (beware of overseas entanglements") we'd have some coherentcy of thought.

Bush better get his war and do good. What has he to show for his time in office without it?

(I can remember during the first weeks in office when Karl Rove talked romantically about the Union of the Americas - a giant free trade zone using a single economic system (and by implication currency) stretching from the North Pole to Tierra Del Fiego. That's shot to hell now...thank God.)