... and we all should have figured what Ron Paul's answer to Pearl Harbor would have been:
Posted on 10/09/2007 3:34:14 PM PDT by Jay777
For the most part, the whole debate was a snorefest in my opinion. One of the only things that woke me up was this little spat. As always, Ron Paul opens himself up and asks for it. Quite entertaining.
(Excerpt) Read more at stoptheaclu.com ...
Here we go!
Giuliani stepped in it by advocating that Dubai can take over NASDAQ.
He’s another Bush clone globalist.
Whatever. No one has to worry about Paul. No one.
RonMoonbat should read the war powers act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act
We have one commander in chief, not 500+. War is one thing, preventing an attack is another.
No imminent attack on us? 2/26/93, 9/11/01? 23 attacks?
Chris pounded the GOP candidates re: whether or not the president can use force, constitutionally, without Congressional approval. He refered to some apparent legislation by Hillary that requires the president to get Congressional approval before striking Iran.
In light of Bill Clinton’s past, how can this be a serious question framed within the Hillary context, and why did he hound the GOP so much on it but not call Hillary on her hypocrisy. Someone tell me when Clinton got Congressional approval to bomb Iraq in 1998 (3 days after the Monica story broke).
Chris also asked whether they would take action even if Congress denied authority, which is precisely what Clinton did in Kosovo. How long will this charade continue where the GOP is pounded for being willing to act in the threat of danger in light of recent history where a president acted in light of no imminent danger to the US (Kosovo) and against a country we’re now supposed to believe was no threat to us at all and had no weapons?
Chrissy needs to be called on this so that he asks Hillary to explain her hypocrisy, or perhaps Hillary needs to have another talk with Bill about why the rules are one way for him but different for her, as was recently shown to be the case with torture and the ticking time bomb scenerio.
I can see the dems and their media enablers are going to try to play the Goldwater Daisy meme by painting the GOP as wild press the button types meanwhile, history has shown a) Clinton bombed a country w/o Congressional approval and b) he did so when there was no threat whatsoever to the US and in the face of explicity Congressional denial of authority. Clinton had the US engaged in more conflicts than Bush. Bush got Congressional authorization, unlike Bill, from people now claiming it was a sham and yet they claim they have the judgment to lead when it was their judgment in part that lead us to Iraq.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1908878/posts
I’m not voting for Rudy...that is for sure. I still enjoyed watching him do this slap down.
Problem is neither one is strong on the War on Terror
Giuliani’s law firm deals with UAE/Dubai...and supports NASDAQ being bought by a terrorist state. Paul supports the same deal
This Giuliani being strong on WOT is bordering now on tinfoil
That is why he won’t get my vote. I’m not rooting for Rudy for sure.
I’m not a Rudy fan but he hit a home run here.
It will be fun watchiing the Paulbearers’ responses, however.
Didn’t see the debate but did watch the exchange. Japan did attack us so both Rudy and Ron missed that one. Have to go with the Ron that it was 19 thugs and not a nation. Rudy pointed out Pakistan and Afghanistan, as a country they had nothing to do with the attack. But since he suggested these two countries he should have thrown in Saudi Arabi who made up most of the terrorist.
Rudy should know that Pakistan is one of our allies, or at least they claim to be.
I totally agree with you. Rudy did nothing to set himself apart from anyone else. Add in his liberal social issues which was never discussed and he really did nothing to advance himself as a reason to like him over anyone else.
You know... I didn’t really have a reason to dislike Paul. But I do now.
Give me a break. Rudy didn't hit nothing just like the Yankees against the Indians. Let Paul and Rudy go one on one in a foreign policy debate. He'd wipe the floor with Rudy's blonde wig.
Also Paul served when his draft number was called, while Rudy hid underneath some lawyer's desk.
I think my hubby and myself found a good reason at this debate too!
Governor Romney, that raises the question, if you were president of the United States, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities?
Mr. Romney: You sit down with your attorneys and tell you want you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what’s in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress...
Mr. Matthews: Did he need it?
Mr. Romney: You know, we’re going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn’t need to do. But, certainly, what you want to do is to have the agreement of all the people — leadership of our government as well as our friends around the world where those circumstances are available.
Mr. Romney: But the key thing here is to make sure we don’t have to use military action against Iran. That’s what you hope to be able to do and that’s why we’re going to put a lot tougher sanctions on Iran — economic sanctions, credit sanctions.
We’re also going to have to get serious about treating Ahmadinejad like the rogue and bafoon that he is. And it was outrageous for the United Nations to invite him to come to this country. It was outrageous for Columbia to invite him to speak at their university.
This is a person denied the Holocaust, a person who has spoken about genocide, is seeking the means to carry it out. And it is unacceptable to this country to allow that individual to have he control of launching a nuclear weapon.
And so we will take the action necessary to keep that from happening.
And I think each person on the stage, certainly in my case, I would make sure that we would take the action necessary to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon.
Mr. Matthews: I guess I want to get to the basic constitutional view here of you gentlemen. I want to start with Congressman Hunter. The same question. If we get — I’d like to get a number — response. This couldn’t be more important. Do you believe that Congress has to authorize a strategic attack, not an attack on — during hot pursuit, but a strategic attack on weaponry in Iran — do you need congressional approval as commander and chief?
Mr. Hunter: Answer, Chris, it depends on one thing. First, I think the president does not need that if the target is fleeting. We live in this age of terrorists with high technology. And, if you have a very narrow window to hit a target, the president’s going to have to take that on his shoulders.
Mr. Hunter: He’s going to have to do it.
He has right to do that under the Constitution, as the commander in chief of the military forces.
If he has time, then certainly you want to go to Congress, as we did in Iraq, and get the approval of Congress. So it’s a matter of whether or not the target is fleeting.
And with respect to Iran, Iran is walking down the path to build a nuclear device. They’ve got now about a thousand centrifuges. They claim they’ve got 3,000. At some point, we may have to preempt that target. If we do, it should be done, hopefully, with allies, but perhaps by the U.S. alone.
Mr. Matthews: The same question down the line, gentlemen. It’s so important.
Congressman Paul, do you believe the president needs authorization of Congress to attack strategic targets in Iran, nuclear facilities?
Mr. Paul: Absolutely. This idea of going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don’t we just open up the Constitution and read it? You’re not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war.
Now, as far as fleeting enemies go, yes. If there’s an imminent attack on us. We’ve never had that happen in 220 years.
Mr. Paul: The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the United States is preposterous. There’s no way. This is just...
(CROSSTALK)
Mr. Paul: This is — this is just war propaganda, continued war propaganda, preparing this nation to go to war and spread this war not only in Iraq, but into Iran, unconstitutionally. It is a road to disaster for us as a nation. It’s a road to our financial disaster if we don’t read the Constitution once in a while.
Mr. Matthews: Around the...
(APPLAUSE)
Governor Huckabee, same question. Do you need Congress to approve such an action?
Mr. Huckabee: A president has to whatever is necessary to protect the American people. If we think Iran is building nuclear capacity that could be used against us in any way, including selling some of the nuclear capacity to some other terrorist group, then, yes, we have a right...
Mr. Matthews: Without going to Congress?
Mr. Huckabee: And I would do it in a heartbeat.
Mr. Matthews: Without going to Congress?
Mr. Huckabee: Well, if it’s necessary to get it done because it’s actionable right now, yes. If you have the time and the luxury of going to Congress, that’s always better. But, Chris, the most important single thing is to make sure.
Mr. Matthews: And if Congress say no, what do you do?
(CROSSTALK)
Mr. Matthews: If Congress says no, what do you do, Governor?
Mr. Huckabee: You do what’s best for the American people and you suffer the consequences. But what you don’t do is what you never do, is let the American people one day get hit with a nuclear device because you had politics going on in Washington, instead of the protection of the American people first.
(APPLAUSE)
Mr. Matthews: Senator McCain?
Mr. McCain: We’re dealing, of course, with hypotheticals. If the situation is that it requires immediate action to ensure the security of the United States of America, that’s what you take your oath to do, when you’re inaugurated as president of the United States.
If it’s a long series of build-ups, where the threat becomes greater and greater, of course you want to go to Congress; of course you want to get approval, if this is an imminent threat to the security of the United States of America.
So it obviously depends on the scenario.
But I would, at minimum — I would, at minimum, consult with the leaders of Congress because there may come a time when you need the approval of Congress. And I believe that this is a possibility that is, maybe, closer to reality than we are discussing tonight.
Mr. Matthews: Senator Thompson?
Mr. Thompson: On this question? Yes, I think John has it right.
I would add that under the War Powers Act, there’s always a conflict between the Congress and the president as to the exact applicability of that when an engagement lasts for a particular period of time and when they must come before Congress.
I don’t think anybody running for president should diminish the power of the office before he gets there and take side in a hypothetical dispute. But I would say that in any close call, you should go to Congress, whether it’s legally required or not. Because you’re going to need the American people and Congress will help you if they’re voting for it or if they support it, or leaders, especially in the opposite party, are convinced and looking at the evidence that this is the right thing to do, that will help you with the American people.
Mr. Thompson: And we have learned that, over the long term in any conflict, we’ve got to have the strong support of the American people over a protracted period of time.
Mr. Matthews: Just to bring it up to date on this, the political context — you know, Mayor, that Hillary Clinton has proposed — she’s co-sponsored legislation to do just this: require the president to come to Congress for any decision to go to attack a nuclear facility in Iran.
Mr. Giuliani: It really depends on exigency of the circumstances and how legitimate it is, that it really is an exigent circumstance. It’s desirable, it’s safer to go to Congress, get approval from Congress.
If you’re really dealing with an exigent circumstance, then the president has to act in the best interests of the country.
And the point of — I think it was Congressman Paul made before — that we’ve never had an eminent attack, I don’t know where he was on September 11th.
Mr. Paul: That was no country.
(APPLAUSE)
That was 19 thugs. That had nothing to do with a country.
Mr. Giuliani: And since September — well, I think it was kind of organized in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And if we had known about it, maybe — maybe hitting a target there, quickly, might have helped prevent it.
In any event, we’ve had 23 plots since September 11, where Islamic terrorists are planning to kill Americans, that we’ve had to stop.
So imminent attack is a possibility, and we should be ready for it.
I think all the other candidates could hit a homerun against Paul. He kind of came off nutty.
Enough_idiocy should read what Paul wanted to do after 9/11.
Paul, calling the World Trade Center terror attacks an act of "air piracy", introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. Letters of marque and reprisal, authorized by the Constitution, Article One, Section Eight, would have targeted specific terrorist suspects, instead of invoking war against a foreign state.[34] Paul reproposed this legislation as the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
POS pro-abortionist Rudy isn't fit to shine Paul's shoes.
What part of this do you disagree with?
Yes, he did. I'll agree with you there.
I love how passionate it gets in here. I’m still undecided, but I know I am not voting for Ron Paul or Rudy Giulliani. Its fun to post a debate thread on two candidates I’m not interested in and watch their supporters go at each others throats.
It’s the race Rudy would win, heh heh.
The part I disagree with is after that...where Ron Paul says we haven’t been attacked by another country in 200 something years. Read History. Pearl Harbor.
It's all good. In the end, we're all conservatives & we'll support whoever the GOP nominee is as long as it ain't that fascist pig Rudy.
Believe me, my hubby was wide open. Paul really worried him. LOL!
I myself, don’t quite know what to make of him. Thats not a good thing.
Rudy, I know, that ain’t good either!
We were invaded by the British in 1814 too.
No spin guys. Paul came a little unhinged during the debate. There’s going to be a YouTube video clip of him shouting just like the one with Bill Clinton poking his finger at Chris Matthews.
Hawaii wasn’t a state until 1959.
Paul is a traitor,short and sweet
What a joke! Cash of fifty million for OBL and 25 million for Zawaheri with million more for lesser AQ figures - just for information that would lead to us getting him - hasn’t flushed out these rats BUT privateers would do it for the right to take possession of Al Qaeda's caves and all they contained - in the middle of nowhere. What a joke!
You left out the rest of Paul's answer:
"...as far as fleeting enemies go, yes, if there's an eminent attack on us, we never had that attack in 220 years."Of course you now know Paul forgot Pearl Harbor. But he also forgot the War of 1812, the Mexican attacks that precipitated the Mexican-American War, the Seminole attacks that led to the Seminole Wars... But Paul's policy positions require him to know little American history.
“Letter of Marque to fight Al Qaeda terrorism” It’s also against international law (though we’re not a signatory to the particular treaty [Treaty of Paris I believe] it bans merceneries, which is what this would fall under). On the other hand, in principle I do like it. We need civilians in the fight, i.e. border control, neighborhood watches, internet watchers (laura mansfield), etc. and so in principle he’s got something there. But all in all the guy is wacked.
agreed re: $ incentives. he doesn’t understand these guys and their supporters.
Well, if Rudy is the Republican Nominee...I’m voting for him. Yes, Rudy being from NY...he does a great job at slapping down the loons. Ron Paul is delusional...
... and we all should have figured what Ron Paul's answer to Pearl Harbor would have been:
Dr. Paul proposed $1-$2 billion and would have let Blackwater types go after Al-Qaida without worrying about screeching Democrats or Rules of Engagement and other hamstrings that are impacting our military now.
Man, y’all are pretty dense. The question was about one of these “imminent” Jack Baur moments that get y’all so terrified that your Supreme Leader has to start wiping people off of the map without the consent of congress. RP’s response to Guliani about who attacked NY on 9/11 was accurate, but did not directly target the knee-jerk impertinent “9/11/9/119/11” response from Guliani.
Here’s how RP should have responded to Guliani:
Benito Ghouliani: I disagree with RP that the U.S. has not been attacked in such a way as requiring a Presidential act of war without the consent of congress in 220 years. Where was he on 9/11?
RP: That wasn’t a country that was 19 thugs.
Ghouliani: But they were from Afghanistan and Pakistan
Should have been RP’s response: No they weren’t. They were born in Saudi Arabia and lived for years in places like Venice, Fl. where they worked with Germans, Austrians, and Americans such as Wolfgang Bohringer, Rudi Dekkers, Arnie Kruitof, and Wally Hilliard and where they worked within the milieu of the international cocaine and herion trade and were monitored by U.S. intelligence operations such as the military’s Able Danger project.
So why are you bringing up 9/11 anyway? Are you suggesting that this is an example of where you may have needed to nuke Venice, Florida or Saudi Arabia without the consent of Congress?
Is the best example you can come up with of an imminent Jack Bauer moment where the President must must nuke civilians or torture kittens without a declaration of war from congress?
Those were internal conflicts (within our continental territory) with the exception of War of 1812, and even then the British were present in Canada and in the Upper Great Lakes region. We still declared war and defended ourselves against them, remember? I think what Paul was talking about was a direct invasion or attack on America by another military from another sovereign nation. (OK, Pearl Harbor I'll concede may qualify, maybe the Spanish-American war if the Spaniards really did blow up the Maine .) But I admit that Paul did a horrible job at presenting his case though. He's got to remain calm because he was screeching like a banshee in that video clip.
As for "Declarations of War", it doesn't appear so. Here's an excellent link to a Congressional Reporting Service report "Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2001". It states "In eleven separate cases (listed in bold-face type) the United States formally declared war against foreign nations." And the 1st Seminole War is not among them.
During the Civil War some Confederates invaded Vermont from Canada, I believe...and others invaded Ohio, Maryland, and Pennsyvlania from the Confederate States of America. Then the US was already at war (but no declaration of war since Lincoln's theory of the war would have collapsed if he had treated the CSA as a sovereign nation).
Howz that shrimp kool-aid taste? The after effect is throwing your hands in the air of surrender after a rectal/cranian inversion.
Ron Paul is a suicide surrender monkey who is too much of a simpleton to understand the global threat. Ron Paul and his idiot useful idiot minions won't even listen to the Jihadist's own words.
Chutzpa on parade.
Howz that shrimp kool-aid taste. Haha, you’r cute.
Name the nation that attcked us on Sept 11th? If you respond Saudi Arabi, since most of the hi-jackers were from there and if you open a book you will find the money came from S/A, than you win a popcicle. You’r choice in flavor. I dont think there is a shrimp tasting one.
I will add, Mitt had the best answer, sit down with his attorney’s!!!!! Ask the troops who are in harms way how that attorney thing is working out? If anything, Mitt is the surrender monkey. Never in my life would I see/hear/read how troops are being investigated, jailed, going to court to defend themselves for defending this nation.
“even listen to the Jihadist’s own words.”
Only thing I can agree with you on. Strange how we are bombing them over there and inviting them to live over here and celebrating ramadan in the WH. Cut off immigration from Terror nations including our great friends the Saudi’s (sar) till this WOT is over. But we are too PC for that so lets go put in more foot baths in public places.
"We watched the Republican presidential debate yesterday on CNBC and came away with the following notes: Firstly, Ron Paul may be a libertarian and he may have the closest philosophy to ours, but he is a nut job. His performance last night was devastatingly bad."
Dennis Gartman has historically been a Ron Paul supporter, he is a staunch libertarian, he is an originalist, he is even a hard money goldbug.
While most in the financial community do not agree with his opposition to fiat currency, they value Gartman's excellent analysis of trends in the commodity markets and he has a big Wall Street following as well as a Main Street one.
If someone as naturally sympathetic to Ron Paul's worldview as Gartman thinks Ron Paul is crazy, Ron Paul is crazy.
Gartman has not declared support of any GOP candidate and doesn't much like the field, but he says the least offensive candidate so far is Huckabee - although he doesn't give him much of a chance.
The reason we are cleaning up the middle east is because of Jimmy Carter (Ron Paul like) foreign policy.
Tyranny is on the run, yet it has it's proxy defenders here in America, and even Freerepublic.
cleaning up the middle east is because of Jimmy Carter (Ron Paul like) foreign policy.
That is simply a weak explination. Thought better of you.
If you include Carter you might as well include Reagan, GHWB and Clinton too in your weak logic foreign like thinking. Dropping a few bombs did nothing except take our attention away from domestic issues. Hate to include Reagan, but you can’t condemn a couple of nitwits without including a great one in there. Our response to the bombing of the Beirut USMC Barracks, was to lob a couple of bombs in Lebanon and invade Grenada. I do know however we all cheered when he bombed Ghadaffi. Shut him up for years. Course it was even before Carter that we already had our issues with the M/E.
Now since you are privy to the master plan, tell me that it does include invading S/A and Pakistan as well. We just can’t be selective in our Foreign Policy as we have been througout history because it suits us or our best financial interest. Also, F worrying what the Arab World thinks as W tends to do in matters of invasions and how we invade.
Didn’t mention Iran because, well, we will invade it, IMO, before 2009. That should appease a lot of us most notably the computer desk warriors who sit and type tough but would never themselves go or send family to fight. We know a lot of them. I’m sure FR has a few too.
The tyranny on the run... Cute, I can tell you hijacked that from another website. If that were the case, how come we continue to allow them into our country.
We will agree to disagree on this issue. Bet we agree in principle on other issues.
What’s really sad is Hillary will win and W will be too happy to give her the keys to the WH. The same policies will continue that Sr started, Clinton planned (patriot act) and W implimented. IMHO, they are one in the same. GL2U.
Your "thought" process is flawed so no surprise there eh Einstein?
"If you include Carter you might as well include Reagan, GHWB and Clinton too in your weak logic foreign like thinking."
Nope, during Carter, tyranny was on the march, and many countries fell to communism and tyranny. Iran being the most lethal.
"Dropping a few bombs did nothing except take our attention away from domestic issues."
Carter didn't drop any bombs. What failed educational system did you slime out of?
"Hate to include Reagan..."
Then don't. However, this is a typical Paultard deflection scheme. It also diminishes Reagan's name in order to bring Prawn Paul's name up.
"Our response to the bombing of the Beirut USMC Barracks, was to lob a couple of bombs in Lebanon and invade Grenada."
Wow, that history lesson was just stunning. I always thought the invasion of Grenada was about Cuban expansion, but silly me for not consulting with a Paultard. Paultards also no what really happened on 9/11 too.
"I do know however we all cheered when he bombed Ghadaffi."
For some reason, I'm thinking that YOU didn't cheer.
< /heavy sarcasm >
"Course it was even before Carter that we already had our issues with the M/E."
Yes, it was around the year 700, and his name was Mohamed.
"Now since you are privy to the master plan, tell me that it does include invading S/A and Pakistan as well."
You and I do not sit in the White House and look at real time intelligence or consult with foreign governments and agencies. You prefer to snipe at things you know absolutely nothing about.
Only a suicidal idiot would make such an assumption based on nothing but talking points which are echoed by Moveon, DU, and even Al Qaeda.
"We just can’t be selective in our Foreign Policy as we have been througout history because it suits us or our best financial interest."
Yes we can, and we must. Our survival has proved it, and it must continue for us to continue to survive. The world is not as simple as simpletons would wish it to be.
"Also, F worrying what the Arab World thinks as W tends to do in matters of invasions and how we invade."
This statement is truly sick. What the "Arab World thinks"?
How do you continue to keep a Freerepublic account with moveon posts. "Didn’t mention Iran because, well, we will invade it, IMO, before 2009."
Oh yes, based on your credibility, your opinion is as worth as much as Home Depot gift card in Tehran.
"That should appease a lot of us most notably the computer desk warriors who sit and type tough but would never themselves go or send family to fight. We know a lot of them. I’m sure FR has a few too."
This too is a popular talking point of the Jihad's Useful Idiot brigade, democRATs, moveon.org, DUmmies, Cindy Sheehan, Harry Reid, Nancy Peloci and other anti-american traitors. "The tyranny on the run... Cute, I can tell you hijacked that from another website. If that were the case, how come we continue to allow them into our country."
I don't blame you for trying to divert the subject from toppling tyrants, to allowing tyrants "allow them into our country"? The stories are popping up all over the web. Rush Limbaugh read from one today. Saddam is gone, and Iraq is well on it's way to becoming a stable democracy. Doing so will have a profound effect on the region. An effect not favorable to the Paultards in the world, i.e., YOU
Nice try though.
"We will agree to disagree on this issue."
I prefer to put it this way...
You are wrong on the most important issue of the 21st Century. You anti-war views are completely counter to the views of the Freerepublic community. I invite you to leave this forum, forever, or continue to see your day consumed by "conversations" like this one. I hate anti-war kooks and have nothing more important to do than to make your day a bad one.
"What’s really sad is Hillary will win and W will be too happy to give her the keys to the WH."
Damn strong kool-aid you drink too.
"The same policies will continue that Sr started, Clinton planned (patriot act) and W implimented. IMHO, they are one in the same. GL2U."
A kook consiracy idiot couldn't have said it better.
Please, leave Freerepublic. It's not going to be fun for you here.
Name call all you want sweetheart. Reminds me of a little 6 year old girl whining at the world because the tooth ferry only left her fity cents. You just getting a high school education has left you bitter and angry. Sad, very sad.
I would retort your points, but its like vapor, you have no points. Other than the one below since you did not comprehend.
This statement is truly sick. What the “Arab World thinks”? Since you didn’t comprehend what I wrote, it is sick, but that is all W cares about. Hence his not wanting to condemn Turkey for killing christians as France has already done. Don’t want to upset the muslims.
Now keep typing tough so as to impress all your little friends...in your head.
Flaming hypocrisy alert!
"Reminds me of a little 6 year old girl whining at the world because the tooth ferry only left her fity cents."
I'm sure the Ron Paul campaign and Paultards are very familiar with whining little girls.
"You just getting a high school education has left you bitter and angry. Sad, very sad."
You got the emotion right, but the premise is as screwed up as your foreign policy views. There is no need to tell you what I'm degreed in, but one thing for sure, you definitely didn't get a degree in History, unless it is from Columbia or NYCU.
"Hence his not wanting to condemn Turkey for killing christians as France has already done. Don’t want to upset the muslims."
Oh yeah, the "diversion" tactic by Paultards. I usually don't buy it, but I'll hit this one out of the park as well since it is a setup pitch for me.
Did Turkey kill Christians (Armenians) as you say? Surely you are using the same "history to keep you ignorant" book you keep referencing here. I thought it was the Ottaman Empire that did this atrocity. Perhaps you will have all of White America apologize to all of Black America for things done by the Confederacy?
"Now keep typing tough so as to impress all your little friends...in your head."
I don't need the help of any "friends" here. I can handle anti-war chumps like you in my sleep, 10 at a time. Why don't you call in the remaining suicide brigade that is left here on Freerepublic. You will need all the support you can muster.
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.