Replies

If we lived in a perfect world, we would'nt have to answer such a question would we?

I did not like the idea of the Viet Nam war either, but my son served.

I do not like the idea of this war, my granddaughter is in the Navy, some where over by India.

Do the peaceniks never think of the families that have family and friends putting their life on the line, while they sit here in their own safe little world, and instead of bitching about the war, should be giving thanks to the young Americas' that have, and still, make it possible for them to do their protesting?

Misterioso "Read the article. You may want to revise your response."
-----
You obviously read the article :)
I noticed, obviously from the replies, that others haven't, and are reacting to the title, which understandably inflames any normal, patriotic American.

The article makes the very point that the other choice is to have them be sitting ducks in the US and wait until Saddam bombs us.

From the article:

"Unlike past US military missions, such as in Somalia and Bosnia, where no self-interested or self-defensive purposes existed for America, US military action against anti-American Islamic terrorists is absolutely an act of national self-interest and self-defense.

Yet the question that began this editorial manipulatively implies that if "your child" fights and dies in Iraq it would be for no good reason, and that his only alternative is to stay home while they, the appeasing pacifists, "negotiate" a "peace process" with terrorists. At root, their question is just part of their ongoing efforts to evade the true nature of our enemies, their threat to us, and our military action against them.

But since history teaches that negotiating with dictators and terrorists only emboldens them to launch further, greater aggression against these alleged peacemakers, we must ask pacifists: "Do you want your child to die sitting home passively in America?"