Need Help with anti-war cousin — Vanity

March 12, 2003 | DemNemesis

[DemNemesis]

I have been a grateful lurker at FreeRepublic since impeachment and need your help. My self-styled-intellectual cousin recently replied to my Support-Bush email with the following screed. He is a high school teacher and I'm sure his students get a daily earful so I would really like to counter his arguments. Where else could I turn but to the intelligent posters at FreeRepublic? Thanks for all of your help refuting the following dribble!

Friends,

1.) This is war of choice--not necessity.
Iraq is not an imminent threat to the United States. Other NATIONS are and were. All during the Cold War, we never once thought about invading the Soviet Union, yet they were a much greater threat than Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, with Bush, we would invade a NATION, not a cell of terrorists. Our strikes against Afghanistan were NECESSARY, for that was the government that knowingly housed and trained terrorists, and a DIRECT LINK could be made between the 9/11 attacks and that nation. None can be made with Irag (sic) --contrary to Bush's propaganda and lies that has convinced Americans that somehow Hussein himself was responsible for 9/11. At its heart, that is blatantly dishonest. Do you remember the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Like the former Soviet Union, Hussein can be deterred and contained; however, our so-called Christian president, has catapulted war to the FIRST option so quickly, you really have to wonder his motives. In fact, Bush's motives change like the weather--we will go to war with Iraq because Saddam is evil...he has weapons of mass destruction (we think)..we want to liberate the Iraqi people....we want to change the regime.....we want to democratize the Middle East....Hussein is responsible for 9/11.............................. Invading Iraq will not make us more secure from terrorism; in fact, invading a sovereign Middle Eastern nation could actually make us even more vulnerable to terrorism and even less secure.

2.) Bush has also been dishonest and has not leveled with the American people about the potential costs of rebuilding Iraq.
"Transforming Iraq into a state with an accountable, consensual, and decent government would be the biggest, most audacious choice any U.S. president has ever made--because it doesn't just involve getting rid of Saddam, but also building an integrated regime for THE FIRST TIME. Furthermore, without U.N. support and approval, the U.S. will bear a majority of the burden in building a country that is the Arab Yugoslavia "with so many pent-up resentments." Also, Bush has also "failed to acknowledge how unusual this war of choice is and therefore has not offered the bold policies that have to go with it. Instead, the president has hyped the threat and asserted that this is a war of no choice, then combined it all with his worst pre-9/11 business as usual: budget-busting tax cuts, indifference to golbal (sic) environmental concerns, a gas-guzzling energy policy, neglect of the Arab-Israeli peace process, and bullying diplomacy."

3.) "A majority of people in the world (not to mention several million Americans) still hunger for a compormise (sic) that forces Saddam to comply, or be exposed, and does not weaken America."
If Bush really were a leader--in the spirit of Woodrow Wilson or Franklin D. Roosevelt, he would exert American power through diplomacy and not a war of choice. Of course, that takes work and cooperation.

4.) Thanks to Bush, the global post-9/11 good will toward America has been badly squandered.
Unilaterally invading Iraq will deepend (sic) and worsen our global divide and make the world even more dangerous.

We cannot live in fear, and we must work to protect ourselves; however, invading another country is not what we should be doing. President Bush has yet to honestly level with our nation nor demanded any sacrifice from any of us--except, of course, the poor and working-class soldiers representing us in the invasion. Their blood will be shed, not to mention the blood of thousands of innocent civilians. It's so easy to be in favor of something when you or no one in your family must bear the ultimate sacrifice. It's utterly amazing how so many Americans ignore one central lesson from our own history: Be very cautious about trusting your government. Your naval friend cited Pearl Harbor and such; well, the 58,000 soldiers whose names are on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial trusted their government. (Have you failed to remember that G.W. Bush used his daddy's influence to keep him out of harm's way during that war? Did you also know that Bush's dad is also very skeptical of G.W.'s war aims?) Do we need to go through this again? To quote another American general from your naval friend's time, General Omar Bradley said in reference to the U.S. invading China during the Korean War: "It would be the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time." The same applies to Bush and this unprecedented American foreign policy of his.

May peace be with you God bless America!

[DemNemesis]

After rereading his arguments, I certainly hope he is not teaching spelling.

Why anyone would hold Woodrow Wilson up as an example of Presidential leadership is beyond my comprehension. Maybe we are so far apart that there is no reaching him. Might be fun to try, though.

[Joe Bonforte]

If this article:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/863037/posts

doesn't help, I don't know what will. You'll have to go to the Washington Post to read the whole thing, but it's devastating.

[bellevuesbest]

Snappy Answers to Leftists
By Tom Adkins
Sierra Times | March 11, 2003


Tired of those stupid liberal soundbytes about the impending war against Iraq? Here are some handy snappy answers!

---

Leftists: The United States is taking unilateral action against Iraq!
Answer: So far, it's a 90-member worldwide "unilateral" coalition.

Leftists: We are in a rush to war.
Answer: An 11-year rush?

Leftists: Tough inspections can disarm Saddam Hussein without invading Iraq.
Answer: Years of inspections have done wonders so far.

Leftists: We should let the inspectors finish their job.
Answer: We did. They didn't. We will.

Leftists: Why fight? The Iraqi military is weaker than in 1991.
Answer: But their biological weapons and chemical weapons are much more dangerous.

Leftists: There's no proof of weapons.
Answer: We know they have 'em, we know they hide 'em, and we have tape recordings and photographs. What more is needed? An Iraqi rocket in Martin Sheen's shorts?


Leftists: If we invade, Saddam Hussein might use those weapons of mass destruction against us.
Answer: I thought you said Iraq didn't have them!

Leftists: But terrorists might attack if we invade Iraq.
Answer: Oh...so if we don't attack Iraq, terrorists will never strike again?

Leftists: We shouldn't go to war without a UN resolution.
Answer: ANOTHER resolution? What about the last 16 resolutions? Shall we use them as wallpaper? Or shall we use the same resolutions Bill Clinton used in Bosnia?

Leftists: We don't have a real declaration for war.
Answer: It's called "Joint Congressional Resolution #114."

Leftists: If North Korea has nuclear weapons, why aren't we invading them first?
Answer: First things first.

North Korea has not invaded two neighboring countries within the past two decades. Iraq did.

North Korea does not pay $20,000 in blood money to the families of terrorist murderers. Iraq does.

North Korea has not used nerve gas and mustard gas against invaded countries as well as its own citizens. It's merely starving them. Iraq HAS used poison gases.

Iraq, not North Korea, welcomes and houses Arab terrorists who despise Israel and its only ally in the world, America. There are more reasons, but these will do.

Leftists: European leaders are against the war.
Answer: The Reichstag wasn't attacked. The Grande Palace wasn't attacked. The Kremlin wasn't attacked. And the Jerry Lewis Lifetime Achievement Museum wasn't attacked. America was attacked. And besides, except for the tantrums of France, Belgium and Germany, only three European nations aren't willing to defend freedom. The entire rest of Europe is with America.

Leftists: The French don't support the war.
Answer: Oh...did they surrender already?

Leftists: Germany objects to this war.
Answer: Germany objected to Reagan's "attitude" towards the Soviet Union. Of course, they objected to our presence in 1943 as well.

Leftists: Belgians are against the war.
Answer: I can live without Waffles and ice cream.

Leftists: Russia doesn't support the war.
Answer: They are still angry over Reagan's brilliant Cold War victory.

Leftists: Polls show Europeans are against this war.
Answer: Polls show Europeans believe their freedom was achieved by endlessly debating in marvelous dining halls, conveniently forgetting their right to be pompous blowhards was granted with American blood, not fabulous wine and brie...

Leftists: We should build a coalition with our friends.
Answer: With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Leftists: What happens if we can't build a United Nations coalition?
Answer: Who cares?

Leftists: But the UN is the world's most respected governing body.
Answer: Not as respected as the US military.

Leftists: America has always waited until enemies attacked.
Answer: Now that oceans can't hold back enemies, pre-emptive war is forever a necessity.

Leftists: War will cost billions!
Answer: So...how much is YOUR city worth?

Leftists: President Bush says he's willing to violating the 1976 executive order forbidding assassinations of foreign leaders.
Answer: As soon as the ink is dry on rescinding that idiotic order, will someone please pull the trigger? The line forms to the right...

Leftists: Many Senators don't support Bush
Answer: Are you speaking of the Senators from Bordeaux?

Leftists: Tom Daschle says George Bush has a "credibility gap"
Answer: When was the last time we came to Tom Daschle for the truth???

Leftists: These problems didn't happen under Clinton.
Answer: Actually, they happened. But Clinton ignored them. Now, Bush will clean up his mess.

Leftists: But Clinton didn't start a war.
Answer: Unless his girlfriend was testifying before congress...

Leftists: Bush 1st should have taken out Hussein in '91.
Answer: That 1991 UN resolution forbade a march on Baghdad. Remember?

Leftists: Millions of peace activists are demanding we stop the war.
Answer: Millions of Iraqi's are begging for us to start the war.

Leftists: Thousands of innocents will be killed or injured.
Answer: That's a lot less than Hussein is killing right now. (Of course, there's only one man that needs to be killed...)

Leftists: Young Americans will die in battle.
Answer: Would you prefer they die in skyscrapers?

Leftists: Protesters have genuine objections to war
Answer: Just like they did in Somalia? Bosnia?

Leftists: People are coming from all over the world to act as "human shields".
Answer: Quick, hurry, before the bombs start dropping...

Leftists: This is about American Imperialism.
Answer: So which country do we own? What nation sends us their tax dollars? If America was imperialist, we'd already own the entire world. Who could stand in our way?

Leftists: This is Blood for Oil
Answer: The only blood is the Iraqi people tortured, starved and killed while Hussein builds massive palaces to hide nuclear weapons...all financed with Iraqi oil.

Leftists: This is a racist war.
Answer: America happily endorses a multi-cultural attitude towards anyone who dares to take away our freedom.Regardless of race, color or creed, we hunt them down and kill them.
Leftists: A U.S.-led invasion of Iraq is a great recruiting tool for terrorists.
Answer: Have fun recruiting people into oppressive misery as they enjoy their first taste of freedom.

Leftists: An attack on Iraq could seriously undermine and destabilize Arab nations.
Answer: Destabilize the region? Is that possible? Do you think? The sooner we topple these tlineoppressive 14th century terrorist regimes the better.

Leftists: Are we prepared for a multi-billion dollar occupation?
Answer: Were we prepared to liberate Europe and Japan in 1945? South Korea in 1953? Grenada? El Salvador? Kuwait? The Eastern Bloc? Afghanistan? Nations always love Americans when we rescue them from tyranny. The price of freedom is never free.

Leftists: Polls show Americans are more concerned about the threat from al-Qaeda than from Iraq.
Answer: It's not a war against Al Qaeda. It's not a war against Iraq. It's a war against terrorism. Anywhere we find it. One nation at a time.

Leftists: American opinion is against the war.
Answer: No, it's not. A majority of Americans want to fight now, not later

[Jeff Chandler]

My advice is to pummel him unmercifully with your fists until he agrees to shut up.

[Swordmaker]

3.) "A majority of people in the world (not to mention several million Americans) still hunger for a compormise (sic) that forces Saddam to comply, or be exposed, and does not weaken America."

If Bush really were a leader--in the spirit of Woodrow Wilson or Franklin D. Roosevelt, he would exert American power through diplomacy and not a war of choice. Of course, that takes work and cooperation.

50,000,000 Frenchmen can't be wrong? Of course they can... as well as the "several milion Americans."

Who was President during WWI? Woodrow Wilson? Thought so. Where was the scintillating diplomacy that prevented that war? The French tried diplomacy to prevent the war...

Who was President during WWII? FDR? Thought so. Where was the scintillating diplomacy that prevented that war? The French tried diplomacy to prevent the war...

Incidentally, who was President during the fire bombing of Dresden?

[Humidston]

Wow. Because of your post, I'm just going to have to Bookmark this thread!

[GrandMoM]

BUMP

[zeaal]

Oh dear. High school teacher, huh? Maybe it is our daughter's teacher. She came home last week and said her teacher is always making snotty remarks about President Bush and his Iraq Policy. I asked her what class it was. PRE-CALC! Oh, that makes sense, Pre-Calc. Getting ready to draft letter to the principal regarding teachers "sharing" their opinions with the students.

[Humidston]

Christopher Hitchens HERE -
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/825420/posts

[sauropod]

ping

[DemNemesis]

I should talk about mistakes ... my dribble should have been drivel. It's getting late in Colorado.

[MHGinTN]

I'll be right back.

[Ditter]

I'll watch your replys with intrest. I have a lefty cousin too. We are constantly at each other throats, by e-mail thankfully. lol

[goodnesswins]

Bump...for morning reading.

[CommandoFrank]

BANG... The head of the nail has been struck. Great post...

[DemNemesis]

Wish I could! Unfortunately, I am 100 pounds to his 200+ and he lives in Wisconsin while I'm in Colorado. I'll just have to pummel him with words.

[TooBusy]

Eugene Volokh(http://nationalreview.com/comment/comment-volokh092702.asp)
September 27, 2002, 9:00 a.m.
Some Say Deterrence Is Enough…
…but two can play at the deterrence game.

By Saddam Hussein*


Dear Madam President Clinton:
As you may have gathered by now, the nuclear device exploded over the Nevada desert today came from the mighty arsenal of the Republic of Iraq. We sincerely hope that the device did not injure anyone; its purpose was simply to show that Iraq has acquired a nuclear capability.

In fact, we are proud to say that we have manufactured many such weapons. Nearly a dozen of them are now in place in major American cities. We certainly do not want to have to detonate them, and we see no need to go that far, if you accede to several reasonable requests that essentially amount to a permanent disengagement from the internal affairs of the Middle East:

1. Immediately end all sanctions against Iraq.
2. Permanently withdraw all American troops and military advisers from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and all other Muslim countries, and agree not to become involved in any military action by one Middle Eastern country against another.
3. Stop all governmental assistance, military and otherwise, to the Jewish Entity, and all trade by American companies with it.
4. Extradite to Iraq the traitors, spies, and saboteurs that you are currently harboring as supposed "dissidents" and "opposition leaders," as well as the blasphemer Salman Rushdie, who we believe is currently visiting your country.

We recognize, of course, that your nuclear arsenal vastly exceeds ours, and that you have threatened to attack any country that detonates nuclear bombs within your boundaries. Should you attack Iraq with your nuclear bombs, you will doubtless be able to kill millions of innocent Iraqis, as well as probably killing me.

But if you do so — or if you invade Iraq using conventional weapons, or assassinate me — then this will only assure that my trusted agents will detonate, one by one, the bombs that are currently planted in your cities. Because the bombs are located near ground level, their detonation will regrettably cause not just immediate damage, but also a considerable amount of radioactive fallout. You, Madam President, would then be responsible for the deaths of millions of your fellow citizens, for the damage done to your allies (especially your Canadian allies) as some of the fallout settles in their territory, and for the deaths of millions of innocent Iraqis.

Americans recognize that you would not be morally justified in killing innocent Iraqis through a retaliatory attack. After all, your actions during your campaign in Afghanistan show that you do not take civilian casualties lightly, even when they are incidental to attacks on military targets.

And of course such civilian deaths will only lead to a righteous desire in the Islamic world for further acts of vengeance against Americans. As many of your own country's eminent thinkers pointed out when you were debating a preemptive strike against Iraq in 2002, the last thing America needs is to create still more people who want to harm it. Even your praiseworthy refusal to attempt any preemptive action against Iraq shows your wise concern about preserving life.

Now perhaps you doubt that I will make good on my threat. After all, your foreign policy since 2002 has rested on the assumption that if Iraq acquires nuclear weapons, it can be deterred from using them, because its leader is rational. Perhaps you think that I will not detonate the weapons that I now control on your soil, because that would be irrational on my part.

On the contrary; I am being quite rational here. I am in my seventies, and I have relatively little fear of death. In fact, now that I have committed myself to this plan of action, I fear more the dishonor that I would bring on myself if I retreated like a coward.

Trust me, I am deeply, deeply concerned for the possible suffering of my countrymen, but I proclaim that all of them will happily run the risk of martyrdom for the greater glory of Allah and the Arab nation; and in any event, I believe that this risk will not materialize, because I believe that my strategy will preserve them from your retaliation.

And the upside of my gamble is that I will be able to achieve what many in the Arab world have long dreamed about, and will thus glorify Allah and the Arab nation and bask myself in the reflected glory of that deed, for now and for centuries to come. Saladin is still remembered nearly a thousand years after his death; Hussein would be remembered for a thousand years alongside him. This is, I realize, a highly risky strategy on my part, but I think that it's a calculated risk. And even if you think this is an irrational plan, trust me at least that it is a sincere one.

In fact, I am counting on your rationality. Will you kill millions of your own people, and millions of others? Or will you save their lives, and your own consciences, by acceding to our reasonable requests? I am sure that you will find the answer easy, and that the United Nations, your European, Canadian, and Arab allies, and your own citizens will breathe a sigh of relief when you give that answer. Choose peace, Madam President, rather than a devastating war.

Sincerely Yours,
Saddam Hussein


*This speculation was written by Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh teaches First Amendment law at UCLA School of Law.

[MHGinTN]

You should find more than you need to stuff this appeasenik/postponenik bilge down his throat HERE and many great links, also.

Here's the URL, if my HTML skills failed ...

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post

[Hunble]

You can listen to this here:

http://media.darrylworley.com/hyf01.ram





Have You Forgotten
Darryl Worley

I hear people saying
We don't need this war
But I say there's some things worth fighting for
What about our freedom and this piece of ground
We didn't get to keep them by backing down
Now they say we don't realize the mess we're getting in
Before you start to preaching let me ask you this my friend

Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
Too see your homeland under fire and her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside going through a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry about Bin Laden
Have you forgotten?

They took all the footage off my TV
They said it's too disturbing for you and me
It'll just breed anger, it's what the experts say
If it was up to me I'd show it everyday
Some say this country's just out looking for a fight
Well after 9-11 man I'd have to say that's right

Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
Too see your homeland under fire and her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside going through a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry about Bin Laden
Have you forgotten?


I've been there with the soldiers who've gone away to war
And you can bet that they remember just what they're fighting for

Have you forgotten all the people killed?
Yeah some went down like heroes in that Pennsylvania field
Have you forgotten about our Pentagon?
Yeah all those loved ones that we lost
And those left to carry on
Don't you tell me not to worry about Bin Laden
Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
Too see your homeland under fire and her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had people still inside going through a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry about Bin Laden
Have you forgotten?
Have you forgotten? Oh
Have you forgotten?

[Shermy]

Here's some thoughts. Thanks, it was a good exercise. :)

1.) This is war of choice--not necessity.
We've been at war with Iraq since 1991. Bombing weekly.

Iraq is not an imminent threat to the United States.
What's "imminent?" What about being a threat to our allies?

All during the Cold War, we never once thought about invading the Soviet Union, yet they were a much greater threat than Saddam Hussein.
If true, so what? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Furthermore, with Bush, we would invade a NATION, not a cell of terrorists.
We never invaded a NATION before?

Do you remember the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
Yes, so what? I've seen the video of Iraqis firing on our forces.

Like the former Soviet Union, Hussein can be deterred and contained.
So he supports another twelve years of sanctions harming the Iraqi people and propping up Hussein? Another 12 years of our expending money partially enforcing UN Sanctions that the UN doesn't want enforced completely, impoverishing Iraq and Turkey and making Saudi rich off the OPEC oil allotments they took from Iraq?

however, our so-called Christian president, has catapulted war to the FIRST option so quickly, you really have to wonder his motives.
Twelve years is quickly? 18 months after he first announced his intention is quick? This is an OPEC talking point. I wonder at your susceptibility to propaganda.

In fact, Bush's motives change like the weather--we will go to war with Iraq because Saddam is evil...he has weapons of mass destruction (we think)..we want to liberate the Iraqi people....we want to change the regime.....we want to democratize the Middle East....Hussein is responsible for 9/11.............................. Invading Iraq will not make us more secure from terrorism; in fact, invading a sovereign Middle Eastern nation could actually make us even more vulnerable to terrorism and even less secure.
This argument I've never understood. If there's more than one motive, why is that "changing"? Sounds like Demo politician logic. And the "causing terrorism" bit - that was said during Afghanistan too. Should we keep Saddam "contained" and allegedly kill another million Iraqi babies? Isn't that what Osama complained about???

2.) Bush has also been dishonest and has not leveled with the American people about the potential costs of rebuilding Iraq.
Who says we're going to pay for it all? Or any? Iraq is a rich country, only if France, the UN, OPEC and liberal dupes would let it be.

Furthermore, without U.N. support and approval, the U.S. will bear a majority of the burden in building a country that is the Arab Yugoslavia "with so many pent-up resentments."
Funny, Chirac is promising that he won't be cut out of this rebuilding business. Everyone wants to make money off it. Should we not have gotten rid of Hitler because of the "cost" of rebuilding Germany? It's an odd argument, and like the others, absent is concern about the Iraqi people.

Also, Bush has also "failed to acknowledge how unusual this war of choice is and therefore has not offered the bold policies that have to go with it. Instead, the president has hyped the threat and asserted that this is a war of no choice, then combined it all with his worst pre-9/11 business as usual: budget-busting tax cuts, indifference to golbal (sic) environmental concerns, a gas-guzzling energy policy, neglect of the Arab-Israeli peace process, and bullying diplomacy."
What a mix of Arab propaganda, unrelated domestic resentments, and lefty "connection" logic. We've been bombing Hussein for 12 years. That's why we're already there. We can choose to leave. You'll be complaining about millions of dead Kurds we abandoned.

3.) "A majority of people in the world (not to mention several million Americans) still hunger for a compormise (sic) that forces Saddam to comply, or be exposed, and does not weaken America."
Where's the global poll? I've seen the polls lied about, but so what? They're fools. And why are the "several million Americans" more valuable than millions of others? Oh, becuase they agree with you.

If Bush really were a leader--in the spirit of Woodrow Wilson or Franklin D. Roosevelt, he would exert American power through diplomacy and not a war of choice. Of course, that takes work and cooperation.
We've tried. Didn't work. "Diplomacy" represents interests. Many countries have financial interests in keeping Saddam in power. That's what "diplomacy" has exposed.

4.) Thanks to Bush, the global post-9/11 good will toward America has been badly squandered.
No, thanks to Saddam and his allies. And that good will was only temporary anyway. And what was it worth...for what use would it be? To make you feel good? Bush has exposed others craveness and self-interest. And we have plenty of friends...to true ones have spoken. It was valuable to determine how shallow this "good will" was.

[blackbart.223]

BTTT.More people should read this!

[Eva]

There is an article on Opinion Journal tonight by Oriana Fallaci that is so well written that it can't help but win the argument. I was going to post it but it seems like too much trouble at this time of night, so here's a link. The rage, the pride and the doubt

[dixiechick2000]

My daughter's Physics prof felt the need to take class time to lecture on the war with Iraq. However, it was time well spent. He explained all of the reasons why it is imperative that Saddam has to be "neutralized", so to speak.

That caused me great confusion...

[Jmouse007]

Historical Justification For War With Iraq

Dr. S, Ph.D.

People talk about the "cost of war" but fail to discuss the cost of inaction. "Those who do not LEARN from history are bound to repeat it."

The nay-sayers and liberal media "talking heads" are screaming, "Why should we go to war with Iraq?" "What is the justification for taking preemptive action?" "We must not upset the apple cart in the Middle East" The answer to all of these questions is simple: History teaches us we must take action before tens, hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans die as a direct result of our inaction.

While teaching this Spring at a University in St. Petersburg, Russia I took the time to go to Piskaryovsoye Cemetery, a mass graveyard outside the city of St. Petersburg, Russia. I purposely went there as a visceral, visual reminder of what happens when people, leaders and nations of the world try to appease/make peace with or otherwise ignore madmen bent on world conquest and domination.

This site contains over 186 mass graves. I know because I took the time to count each of them and to solemnly ponder their contents. THERE ARE OVER 490,000 PEOPLE BURIED THERE! People just like you and I, people who once lived, breathed, love and dreamed of bright futures for themselves and their children. Over 900, 000 people died in the city of St. Petersburg alone (200, 000 just in Jan-Feb 1942) and MOST of them were civilians; women and children.

All of this happened because the leaders of the world, including Stalin, sought to appease a little madman who amassed weapons and an army in order to dominate his neighbors and the World, by the name of Adolph Hitler.

A week later I went to London and visited the Imperial War Museum. There, encased in glass I saw the actual Munich Pact letter signed by Hitler and Chamberlain in which Hitler "promised" in writing to end his aggression... promises always look good in writing. After the meeting Adolf Hitler said: "Our enemies are little worms. I saw them at Munich."

Neville Chamberlain waved the letter before the English press and the world and said: "...My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep." -- Neville Chamberlain, September 30, 1938.

Europe believed his hollow promises and went back to sleep. They tried to "contain" and "appease" Hitler, the exact same advice people who ignore reality are giving us today regarding Saddam... the result; HE ATTACKED THEM ANYWAY AND 80 MILLION PEOPLE DIED IN THE PROCESS... people like you and me, people like your children, your husbands, your wives, your grandparents.

Like Hitler, Saddam has given his word and made a multitude of promises for the sole purpose of keeping us from stopping his WMD programs and his ultimate aims for aggression. The World needs to be reminded that to date HE HAS KEPT NONE OF THEM. History teaches us this lesson; if we do not deal with and stop Saddam now, the cost will be far, far greater to accomplish this in the future.

So "Why act now?" Because this is the reality of our current situation; Muslim fundamentalists all over the world have declared jihad on America. They want us (civilians, men, women and children) DEAD and are actively plotting to kill, enslave and destroy us. All of this is taking place at the same time Saddam continues to produce weapons grade Anthrax, VX gas, and hastily works on developing nukes and these other "goodies" to give to toady Muslim terrorists to use against America. A report out this week details the "worst case scenario" 3 MILLION DEAD due to the release of 250 pounds of weapons grade Anthrax in either LA or San Francisco.

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/3995198.htm

America and it's leaders and people will either learn from history or repeat it. History provides us and our Allies with all the reasons and justification we need to preemptively go to war with Iraq and to rid the world of Saddam. The only other option the is to wait until he or one of his Muslim lackeys hits us and thousands or millions die.

The appeasers advise us to "wait, for “proof” do nothing, to sit around, contain, appease and take Saddam at his word... until we are attacked, the problem is then it will be too late.

America's response must be that of G. BUSH Sr.: 'Sorry, ... NOT GONNA DO IT... WOULDN'T BE PRUDENT!"

History warns us, if we do not deal with this threat now, the next attack, Anthrax, Small pox, dirty bomb, suitcase nuke, etc... (and it is coming if we don't stop them, it is just a matter of time) will make Sept. 11th look like a picnic.

Liberals get all choked up about "innocents" getting killed in Iraq. They fail to mention that 3,000 American innocents were murdered on September 11, 01. WE ARE ALREADY AT WAR, IT IS TIME WE AS A NATION DEFEND OURSELVES.

By the way, I am not some "arm chair general" who never served but is gung-ho to send others off to war (the "straw man argument). I am a former Vietnam vet... USN 68 - 71 who served in the theater of operations. I know the cost of war, but the cost of inaction is, in this case too high to contemplate.

If you don't believe me just take a trip to Piskaryovsoye Cemetery outside of the city of St. Petersburg, Russia. You will not find any names of the dead because there are nearly a half million people buried there; just 186 plus mass graves, each containing a simple marker noting the year those interred in each grave died. This is what we can expect if we do not respond to the "clear and present danger" that Saddam and Muslim fundamentalists represent to America and it's Allies.

[Dianna]

Well, the first thing you need to learn is never to send mass e-mail to people who you know are going to disagree with you UNLESS you can back it up. It makes you look foolish (as MY leftist cousin found out during the 2000 election).

He's a moron, don't waste your time.

[Diddley]

*

[blackbart.223]

"Maybe we are so far apart that there is no reaching him."

I just had a similar conversation with my democrat brother. He only repeated the same drivel the rats and un (small case letters on purpose) are spouting. They don't come up with logic or original thoughts.

I fear you are fighting a losing battle here.

[Leclair10]

DEM make this simple statement last week an Iraqi defector testified on capital hill that a 72 year old nun was beheaded by saddam last summer for praying in front of him you wanna live in a world with a guy like that your a better person then I am.

[BJClinton]

Bookmarking.

[Porterville]

I've said this before...Liberals live base lifestyles, living only to eat, crap, do drugs, and watch MTV. Since they live such a lowly existence, they tend to treat their relationships towards the same regards. Thus, liberals are little better than pot bellied pigs or dogs, except both these animals tend to have some level of loyalty. Liberals only care about their needs and their current demands. Treat liberals as you'd treat a hungry dog humping your leg, kick them in the ribs. With a bruised rib they won’t be permanently hurt, but will find it very difficult to follow around and spout off in self-righteous indignation about the “illegitimate Bush presidency.”

[Jeff Chandler]

Don't waste your words on him. What you have to understand is that his objections are really not about war, Iraq, the UN, any of those things at all. This is all about his visceral hatred of President Bush, the Republican Party, conservatives, and America in general. I know it is hard to fathom such blind, unreasonable hatred. It sounds like some sort of psychotic worldview, and it is. Think "Wellstone Funeral".

[Jeff Chandler]

The rats' REAL objection to the war, if they would be honest about it, is the possibility that it will be successful, and thus a political boon to Bush.

That's it in a nutshell.

[zeaal]

Our daughter went for a college scholarship interview earlier this week and was specifically asked about her point of view on the US's role in foreign countries. Interesting why the professor asked this because her major is nursing, not political science. Hmmmm?

[dixiechick2000]

Did that take place in Texas? If so, amazing! And, how very inappropriate!

My daughter was interviewed in Dec. for early admission to the Doctorate of Pharmacy (Pharm-D) program at Oregon State University. The only thing they wanted to hear from her was why she wanted to become a Pharm-D. BTW, she was admitted! ;o)

I would have expected the political questions from Oregon way before I would have expected them from Texas.

[DemNemesis]

The liberal academic block has become more Nazi-like than any conservative administration they rebelled against. Your daughter having to deal with such a transparent ideology question for a nursing major is despicable but typical. What did she answer?

[DemNemesis]

Thank you all – you have given me spot-on ammunition for my reply. Since my cousin sees himself as a more caring humanitarian than anyone else on the planet, I will definitely use the sanction death statistics from Joe Bonforte’s Washington Post article suggestion (Reply # 2). Replying to my cousin may be a hopeless cause but the thought of him indoctrinating his hapless students just burns me up.

[arasina]

Wow. Because of your post, I'm just going to have to Bookmark this thread!

Same here! I need some "snappy replies" to my left wing bro! Thanks!

[zeaal]

She replied she felt if the US can help a country become free, develop democracy, establish its economy, make it safe for all of its citizens and then leave ... then it is something the US should do.

The female professor nodded in agreement. The male professor (the one who asked the initial question) sat stoned faced.