Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

It's True: 'Liberals' Wanted Saddam to Beat U.S.
Newsmax.com ^ | April 18, 2003 | Newsmax.com

Posted on 04/18/2003 1:47:08 PM PDT by RetiredArmy

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last
To: RetiredArmy
In the local 'alternative newspaper,' writer Tom Robbins (not to be confused with actor Tim except in ideology) was quoted saying much the same thing: that the US is a bully and he hoped that Saddam would beat us.

Doesn't matter that Saddam is a murderous-torturing bully over twenty-two million impoverished people, does it?

41 posted on 04/18/2003 3:59:23 PM PDT by JoeSchem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mark17
That day will arrive in February, 2009, shortly before or immediately after Hillary's inauguration. I don't know how we can have it out militarily with those slimebags if the military works for them. Nobody is a bigger RKBA/Second Amendment supporter than I am, but this war in Iraq pretty well proves that fedayeen with AK-47's are militarily insignificant against American mechanized/armor units. We might not do much better.
42 posted on 04/18/2003 4:04:25 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 ("They appear willing to die. We are trying our best to help them out in that endeavour.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
BTTT:

Gary Kamiya, executive editor of the left-leaning Internet journal Salon, confirms what some Americans have suspected: Liberals were cheering for the enemy in Iraq, the Washington Times pointed out today in an item headlined "Cheering the enemy."

"I have a confession: I have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong," Kamiya wrote. "Wished for the Iraqis to be more nationalistic, to resist longer. Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I'm not alone: A number of serious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war have told me they have had identical feelings."

43 posted on 04/18/2003 4:04:25 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie (Wheat is Murder! (Tilling slaughters worms.....))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan is King
"The unbelievable thing is that the con artists [Salon.com] just got $800,000 more in financing from some sucker."

You're assuming that the "sucker" was looking at this as a business investment instead of a political investment. More likely, it was some rich liberal (or group of liberals) who want Salon.com to keep pumping out it's Leftist propaganda. They don't expect to make a financial profit; they expect to make a political profit (just like buying campaign advertising).

Besides, when the stock tanks, the investors get to write off the financial loss on their taxes. That means that, ultimately, it's the taxpayers that wind up footing the bill for this propaganda machine.

44 posted on 04/18/2003 4:06:03 PM PDT by SpyGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
Sorry, I posted on wrong thread.
45 posted on 04/18/2003 4:12:26 PM PDT by kcordell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
"this war in Iraq pretty well proves that fedayeen with AK-47's are militarily insignificant against American mechanized/armor units. We might not do much better."

One significant difference is the will of the fighters. In Gulf War II, the vast majority of Iraq's military did not believe in their cause (protecting Saddam), whereas the vast majority of the US military did believe in our cause. Morale and "will to fight" are HUGE factors in the effectiveness of any military.

Now, let's suppose you are correct and the Federal Government, under some Leftist like Hillary, orders the US military to wage war against Americans (which I doubt will happen--see my next post). The roles will be reversed: the freedom-loving American citizens will be very determined to fight, even to the death, whereas the US soldiers will likely not be committed to killing fellow (conservative) citizens. In fact, we could probably expect a large number--perhaps an overwhelming majority--of the military forces to disobey orders or even turn on the decision makers.

46 posted on 04/18/2003 4:19:51 PM PDT by SpyGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
"[A US civil war] will arrive in February, 2009, shortly before or immediately after Hillary's inauguration."

I disagree, although sometimes, I think that may be the only way to restore freedom in the US. The reason this won't happen is that, while Communists achieve totalitarianism through violent revolution, the Socialists are more patient and insidious. The Socialists achieve totalitarianism by the "silent" invasion of our schools, our governments, our judiciaries, and our social institutions. They disguise their true agendas and mask their true identities. They take advantage of the ignorance, complacency, and greed of the masses to gain power and control.

Yes, there are Communist revolutionaries in America: people who would like to quickly and violently overthrow our form of government. But they are the fringe element. The more dangerous--and vastly more widespread and powerful--are the Socialists who every day are patiently chipping away at America's Constitution, sovereignty, and way of life. These are people you know: Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman, etc. These people are the malignant cancer that's metastasizing through the body politic. They intend to achieve totalitarian revolution--and will likely do so--without having to fire a shot.

47 posted on 04/18/2003 4:42:48 PM PDT by SpyGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
I knew this months ago. It's all about Bush and their hatred of capitalism, conservativism, and Israel. These folks are mostly communists, whether they admit it or not. And communists have never shrunk from mass-murder. Why should they hesitate to support a brutal dictator and hope for the slaughter of our soldiers?
48 posted on 04/18/2003 5:14:15 PM PDT by Anamensis (New axis of evil: Syria, Iran, Hollywood)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine; Mark17; ez; RetiredArmy
Well, y'all, look on the bright side. Dubya WILL win in 2004, the GOP will gain more seats, and if you think these folks are wretched now, 2005 will finding them swinging gently from rafters, and leaping off of bridges and ledges in droves. (Not that I'd ever look forward to such a tragic thing, of course!)

Heh heh heh...

49 posted on 04/18/2003 5:21:08 PM PDT by Anamensis (New axis of evil: Syria, Iran, Hollywood)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SpyGuy
"Between two types of men who seek to create inconsistent kinds of worlds, I see no alternative but force. It seems all societies rest upon the death of men." I don't know who said that, but I think it accurately describes the situation we have between the Leftist/Liberal/Marxist-Leninist/Anti-Capitalist/Naderite/Tree-huggin', fur coat spray-paintin', Free Mumia-hollerin' Nebuchadnezzar Division of the Democratic Guard and the Conservative/Libertarian/Constitutionalist patriotic Americans.

I have little faith in the Republican Party. I think they will blow the 2008 election, and when the Clintonistas get back in they will make sure they are NEVER out of power again. I do not think I am alone in that assessment, thus my prediction that we will have it out militarily with these slime bags around Inauguration Day, 2009, when it becomes brutally obvious that there is no alternative. I am not particularly optimistic that right will prevail in that struggle. I fear that the whole concept of an armed citizenry being the reset button on the Constitution has been overtaken by events and technology. The Fedayeen Saddam were highly motivated, suicidally so, but their motivation availed them little against M1 Abrams and Bradleys and AAV's and thermal imagery and highly trained, body armor clad soldiers and Marines. The same or even more advanced technologies and skill sets that conquered Iraq could be turned on us by the Hillary regime, and by that time all we could do is choose to die on our feet rather than live on our knees.

50 posted on 04/18/2003 5:44:59 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 ("They appear willing to die. We are trying our best to help them out in that endeavour.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: browardchad
Darn it, I just got the wife to let me buy a 500sl.

Oh, well. I'll buy another truck instead.

What the hell, it will be more usefull.

51 posted on 04/18/2003 5:59:07 PM PDT by patton (DUCT TAPE! Get the DUCT TAPE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
Briefly, "scumbag liberals"!!!
52 posted on 04/18/2003 6:04:15 PM PDT by pointsal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy


53 posted on 04/18/2003 6:49:16 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
"I have little faith in the Republican Party. I think they will blow the 2008 election"

Actually, that shows considerable faith in the GOP. They managed to blow the 1986, 1990, 1992, 1996, and to some extent 1998 elections.

So if you are waiting for 2008 for the next time the GOP 'blows it is a good sign' - that means 3 good elections in a row - 2002,2004,2006.

54 posted on 04/18/2003 8:12:41 PM PDT by WOSG (All Hail The Free Republic of Iraq! God Bless our Troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
"I have little faith in the Republican Party."

That's because the Republican Party of today, is the Democrat Party of yesteryear. There is no viable conservative political party today. Sure, there are a few true conservatives in the Republican Party, but they have been overwhelmed and drowned out by an influx of liberals masquerading as Republicans (the "RINOs"). Yet even as the Republican Party accelerates to the left, the Socialists that make up the backbone of the Democratic Party loudly proclaim that the Republicans are "ultra-right wing fascists." And yet, the majority of people in this country are willing to accept that characterization. If not, then why do so many "mainstream" districts continue to vote Democrat?

And that is what I'm talking about: the Socialists do not need a violent revolution in America. They are progressing quite expediently with their "silent" revolution. They have seized control of the schools and universities and successfully turned them into leftist indoctrination camps. (In particular, they have a 95%+ control over the schools of law, the schools of journalism, and the departments of history, sociology, political science, and all other departments leading to a career in education or academia.) They control many of the courts and judicial benches and virtually all the powerful media outlets. They have infiltrated churches and social organizations. They have tremendous power over industry through the labor unions (as well as access to the union dues). The Socialists OWN the Democratic Party and are quietly taking over the Republican Party. And they have completely pervaded the government bureaucracy at all levels and have implemented policies and programs that ensure the growth of their power and the eventual downfall of America: elimination of private property rights, punitive taxation, gun control, welfare, social security, ADA, hate crimes legislation, UN subservience, uncontrolled immigration, etc. (We all know about the unchecked Mexican immigration, but did you know that their are federal programs to actively recruit and assist the immigration of muslim Arabs into America, supposedly in the name of "diversity".)

The bottom line is that Americans have been--and will continue to--willingly hand over their freedoms to the Socialists. And by the time "we" realize that we are living in a totalitarian state, it will be too late to do anything about it. Unfortunately, at that point, there will be no freedom-loving superpower to rescue us the way that the US rescued the Iraqi people from their totalitarian government.

"...and when the Clintonistas get back in they will make sure they are NEVER out of power again."

First, you must realize that Bill Clinton was just another useful idiot. He was never really about Socialism--or any other hard-core political cause. He was simply about himself: his ego, his wealth, his power, his celebrity status, his ability to get laid. For him, Liberalism was more a symptom, rather than the disease. Hillary, on the other hand, is far more dangerous than Bill ever was. But she is also very smart and cunning (in the same way that all totalitarians are smart and cunning). I think she will employ every illegal and subversive means possible to obtain and retain the presidency for two terms, and to ensure that her chosen candidate succeeds her. But I don't think she is stupid enough to try to order the US military to attack Americans.

55 posted on 04/18/2003 8:30:54 PM PDT by SpyGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
Pigs!! They should all move to the island paradise of Cuber . . .
56 posted on 04/18/2003 8:34:47 PM PDT by Babu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
"One Million Mogadishu's", Michael Moore's ranting, top Demorats attacking the president in time of war, anti-war marchers holding hate America first signs -- I can imagine some intriguing campaign commercials in the works for 2004.
We've got these pukes on tape. Hee, hee.
57 posted on 04/18/2003 8:38:33 PM PDT by garjog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: garjog
FYI:
ABC's NightLine just led off with this intro:
"Tales from the US's long and bitter war with Iraq"

Long??? Bitter??
I swear...if you had to rely on the liberal pukes at ABCCBSNBC for your news, you'd surely be convinced that we LOST this war!!

58 posted on 04/18/2003 8:43:34 PM PDT by TheGrimReaper (o)(o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
But we all knew this all along. This guy was just foolish enough to admit it. Like CNNs phoney angst over their deadly, sleazy yellow-journalism from Iraq...
59 posted on 04/18/2003 11:03:17 PM PDT by lainde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing; John Robinson; All
14 - "Oh, the lurkers on FR from SF-IMC CANNOT change that picture (above) now since it is hosted by FR friendly sources ! "

That is questionable to me, and while I hope you are right, if you right click on the image, you will find under properties, the image address to be:

http://www.fairpress.org/images/shootofficers.jpg

so, John, is this image actually located on a FR server, or only a link to the fairpress.org server?
60 posted on 04/19/2003 1:14:19 AM PDT by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson