Posted on 06/19/2004 8:34:25 AM PDT by kattracks
Against who? It would have been easy to declare war on Al Qaeda after 9/11, but now there are so many splinter groups that such a declaration would be meaningless. And what would it achieve?
This is the result of a policy of "containment."
Policies of containment soon lead to implementing policies of appeasement, and we all know how well that worked for the League of Nations.
Can freedom really afford a John Kerry as President of the United States?
Let's call it an early 4th of July!...;)
I noticed that, too.
Let's see Reuters decides to follow suit.
In which case John F. Kerry would announce that he would do the very opposite...
It would be nice to see the Caterpillars see some action, for sure. .......although you can be sure the UN would throw a shiite fit ;)
Probably no less true. Funny how only SOME people care about women and children, though, and only some of the time.
Are you the dreamer..........LOL
I think Mr Roth should take the Thanksgiving approach with his commentary and just stuff it.
Right. If we wanted to inflict a lot of damage we would have dropped a daisy cutter. Probably should have...
Well, let's let the President's advisors figure out the wording of the declaration. First, we have to have the will to seek a declaration. How would it help? There would be much more serious consequences politically and legally with regard to the type of over the top criticism that is coming from the left. Can you imagine Senator Kennedy spouting off if an official state of war existed? In addition, it would help the public to have a better grasp of the seriousness of the situation. With events as they are in Saudi Arabia, we may soon see as much as a 20% reduction in available oil. That will constitute an emergency that I believe needs to be backed up by a declaration of war.
Exactly. They always report women and children as facts. The message we should be sending to these women (who let their children stay in places with these men) is that you shouldn't hang around with terrorists.
Yeah? Prove it! Usually, these liars can't wait to display the bloodied bodies of their women and children so that they can weep, cry out for vengeance against the US and the Jooos while getting loads of air time on Al Jazeera TV. I think they LIE.
Even if there is a chance of some women and children being killed in the cross-fire, I say go for it, especially if there's a chance to nail Zarqawi. (sic) These 7th Century savages don't think twice before they kidnap and behead infidels or murder women and children in cars, pizza parlors, malls, etc.. The terrorist supporters' cowardly, give-in, left-wing, bleeding heart comrades can oppose these tactics all they want, while they conveniently ignore and/or excuse the barbarism of the terrorist. This is war. It's us or them...
Sat Jun 19, 9:15 AM ET
Residents of a Fallujah, Iraq (news - web sites) neighborhood walk through the wreckage of their homes which were destroyed in a U.S. airstrike Saturday June 19, 2004. A U.S. military plane fired missiles killing at least 20 and leveling houses in the restive Sunni Muslim city of Fallujah, police and residents said. The U.S. military declined comment. (AP Photo/Abdul-Kadr Saadi)
Sat Jun 19, 9:16 AM ET
Residents of a Fallujah, Iraq (news - web sites) neighborhood walk through the wreckage of their homes which were destroyed in a U.S. airstrike Saturday June 19, 2004. A U.S. military plane fired missiles killing at least 20 and leveling houses in the restive Sunni Muslim city of Fallujah, police and residents said. The U.S. military declined comment. (AP Photo/Abdul-Kadr Saadi)
Sat Jun 19, 9:15 AM ET
A residents of a Fallujah, Iraq (news - web sites) neighborhood sifts through the wreckage of his home which were destroyed in a U.S. airstrike Saturday June 19, 2004. A U.S. military plane fired missiles killing at least 20 and leveling houses in the restive Sunni Muslim city of Fallujah, police and residents said. The U.S. military declined comment. (AP Photo/Abdul-Kadr Saadi)
To me they come accross as seedy eyed liberals on a mission to cast doubt on the Iraq war and paint Bush as an insensitive, selfish tyrant who wants 'oil for blood'.
Why do we on Free Republic have to decide the wording of the declaration? I believe that we have reached the point where we need the declaration in order to make the pricce for divisive dissent greater than it is now. All I'm asking is that we urge the President to submit a declaration to Congress. He and his advisors will figure out against whom.
It would take a small step in the direction of respecting the Constitution - - - after decades of "police actions" and "executive military actions" ratified by appropriations after the fact.
Meanwhile, New York-based Human Rights Watch said in a statement it would be unlawful for the United States to hold detainees, including Saddam Hussein, after the June 30 power transfer without charging them with crimes.
The U.S. military has said it will continue to hold thousands of prisoners detained since it invaded Iraq last year and that it could do so legally until a "cessation of hostilities."
"The Bush Administration can't have its cake and it too. If the occupation is over, so is the U.S. authority to detain Iraqis without criminal charges," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch.
If the author is writing "a coupla things regarding Iraq today", shouldn't he call it that?
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.