Posted on 09/08/2002 3:42:53 PM PDT by adam stevens
I don't read the nation, as I understand it to be a very far-left publication, so it would seem a good thing that it would even entertain the right of America to defend herself.
There are a lot of New York Leftists that have witnessed the attacks personally and lost friends and family in the attacks. It's a good opportunity to win friends and inflence people.
inflence = influence
Sorry about that! Where's that auto-spell-check feature?
They were, whether you felt it or not.
the Cubans,
I always thought of Castro as funny and was only really leery of the Soviets jerking his strings.
the Sandinistas,
Ugh...But the Contras were no better.
the ANC
Good and bad to be found here.
or the PLO as enemies.
Criminals, gangsters, et all.
At least, Adam Shatz got this one right.
The only problem is that he's asking the left to become more like the right -- i.e., to exercise "intelligent synthesis". But, I'm not at all sure they're up to the job.
Boy, you can say that again.
It was all over my monitor for what seemed like the longest darned time, too.
Anyone catch this line? One thing that has remained a constant since 9/11, is the Left's pathetic insistance that an awakening for the need for sensible security measures is equivalent to America automatically becoming a totalitarian police state.
But I remember going to the top of them. The view was incredible. If you look at pictures of the old skyline, you can see how the Twin Towers were twice as high as all of the surrounding skyscrapers.
What happened on September eleventh, 2001 is something I will never forget.
It was the Iraqi army, backed by the US, that kept Khomenei from over-running the Persian Gulf, something he swore he would do.
Never mind that the radical Shiites of Iran are sworn enemies of the Sunni fundamentalists of Al Qaeda.
This a truism that passes for wisdom, but is actually quite overdone.
Iran opposes the Sunni regimes, but Iran's Shia insurgents and the Sunni insurgents in Lebanon and the West Bank manage to agree to both attack Israel. Iran and Iraq and Saudi Arabia all support Arafat, and it was a ship full of weapons from Iran that was seized recently headed for Gaza. Iran opposed the Taliban, and supported the Northern Alliance, but has also provided refuge to Al Qaeda. And has helped to fund Al Qaeda operations.
Hardly had the Taliban collapsed when a new war was declared, a war on terror with a long list of enemies (almost none of them related to Al Qaeda) and no obvious endgame.
The war was only incidentally against the Taliban, in that our real target was Al Qaeda. And who is Al Qaeda? That is the Muslim insurgency funded and managed from Riyadh. Osama Bin Ladin was their titular leader, but his movement was funded by the Saudis, and facilitated by both Iran and Iraq. They were active in Chechnya, Chinese Turkestan, the Phillipines, and Indonesia. Some of their people have recently taken refuge in Georgia, Iran, and Iraq itself.
Look where we are sending our soldiers and it dovetails quite nicely with the list of countries where Al Qaeda is operating.
In other words, Katz is prevaricating.
As far as weather we should attack Iraq or not, I say we'd better have some good intel before we do, but only to make sure they don't already have nukes with ACBM's already. (China?)
Personally, I'm not in the mood to get nuked!
IOW's, TIME IS OF ESSENCE. Better before than after.
"If you're actually certain that you're hitting only a concentration of enemy troops...then it's pretty good because those steel pellets will go straight through somebody and out the other side and through somebody else. And if they're bearing a Koran over their heart, it'll go straight through that, too. So they won't be able to say, 'Ah, I was bearing a Koran over my heart and guess what, the missile stopped halfway through.' No way, 'cause it'll go straight through that as well. They'll be dead, in other words."
If they are coming for you tomorrow, you must strike today. If they already have a nuke, best strike before they have two.
And remember, it doesn't take a ballistic missile to deliver it. It just takes a cargo ship. Or an airliner. In fact, a ship or a civilian plane is far superior, in that it is very deniable. No one would ever be able to prove who sent it.
I do that as a matter of course in discussing the political parties with others.
When people ask me why I call them socialists I say the democrat party since the mid 60s has been taken over by socialists. They want more people depending on the government economically and socially. They also don't like private property rights, nationalism or strong families which are an impediment to socialism.
One teacher asked me what was wrong with socialism. I said this country was not founded as a socialist society. Our Constitution should be followed as it is a bulwark against socialism, and one of the main reasons for our success as a nation.
A democrat wants people to come here for opportunity and to become an American. Socialists want people to come here for handouts and medical benefits and keep there foreign culture intact so they won't become Americans. And to use their US citizenship to weaken this country by voting themselves someone elses money to further the socialist and global agenda. - Tom
In other words, any kind of mass murder and terrorism as long as it is for the glorious communist cause. What sick puppies without any moral compass these leftists are!
I can't argue with this at all. I am totally against shedding American blood trying to get the children to play nice.
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.