War After Weary War?

Ken H,

You said, ' President Bush, unless defeated in the 2004 election, will go on promoting the New World Order.'

Our President may believe in a one world order, but it sure did not feel like it when we went into Iraq nearly by ourselves. England, as you know, was our greatest supporter of this conflict. Spain also made her contribution, but for the most part our allies like France and Russia refused to get involved. In fact, they are not our allies; nations change and their political views also.

Some may wish not to destroy terror coming out of these Muslim nations, but I personally like it better than having them revolt in our American streets. Some officials seem to think that 2/3rds of the leadership of these terror groups are already killed or in custody. We as various nations have done a lot to stop their wicked efforts. I say a good job so far and well done.

Modern Americans want a war without casualties. How many men are buried in France because of our vested interest in destroying Hitler and liberating France? Multiple thousands . . . and yet we want a war in Iraq with no loss of lives. This is more than a little incongruous in the light of the losses in WWI and WWII.

We did not start the war in Iraqu; the Muslim nations started the war with their attack on 9/11 in New York City.

 

Would you say the same thing if we attacked, for instance, Brazil? I would be all for the war against Iraq if there were good evidence that Iraq was behind 9/11. But even the President admits that there isn't You can't have it both ways. Well, I guess if you're President with a Congress sitting it out for their pensions maybe you can.

 

The Ba'athist Party, the Fascist Party, the Nazi Party, the Communist Party, and the Imperial Japanese are all in the same category. The term "crimes against humanity" hardly applies to what the innumerable monsters of these parties have done to ordinary people in the hundreds of millions.

Now the Islamofascists of the Middle East have gathered in Babylon to mass kamikaze attacks on American soldiers, who are the finest soldiers in the history of the world by any means of measurement. God Bless Our Troops And Their Families! God Bless The USA!

 

Amen. And, God, please give us a president who cares about the troops and the interests of the citizens of this great land. </font>[/QUOTE]Ken, Since Jesus Christ himself said, There would always be wars and rumors of wars and the poor would be with us always, you must be talking about the interests of middle class citizens like yourself who DON'T LIKE the president. I think that firmly puts you in the minority camp! But go for it - That's what America is all about.

 

Support the troops. Bring them home.

 

Yep - Better to fight on streets of Washington, New York, Chicago, Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Atlanta and Dallas. That way the troops can have supper with their families.

We have two beachheads in the Middle East which are attracting all kinds of bad guys from all corners of the muslim world. Like moths to the lightbulb they are coming.

So what's better? Soldiers dying in the battle against terrorism over there or Firemen and Policemen and Civilians dying over here?

 

Hardsheller, you're behind in your reading. Even Bush admits that Hussein/Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

But I don't think that will stop you, because that line ("I'd rather fight them there than here") is a clever sound-bite even if it has no connection with what's really going on.

In what numerical order would you place these three things: 1) the number of terrorists we're killing (a good thing), 2) the number of civilians we're killing (a bad thing for most of us), 3) the number of terrorists we're creating(a bad thing).

I was going to mention the enormous financial burden that this will place on future generations, but remembered that you consider the printing presses at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to be an infinite supply of money, so I left it out.

 

Hardsheller, I agree with you one hundred percent! Every Islamofascist in the Middle East has crawled out from underneath his rock and is slithering towards Babylon to commit kamikaze against the innocent. The crimes against humanity done to the common people of Iraq under the Ba'athist Party are sickening.

People who want Bush removed have set aside their reason to find any point from which to launch a political attack. To proclaim the Ba'athist Party was not a threat to the USA when we had to pay in blood and treasure for ten years of no-fly zones in north and south Iraq is to just forget history. Were we supposed to have continued this military effort of air power until the end of the world? Indeed, the political enemies of Bush seem to be the isolationists from the 1930s who did not want to stop Italy in Ethiopia (those people live in mud houses), Japan in China and Manchuria (those people live in mud houses), or Germany in Czechoslovakia (those people became the first displaced persons of World War II for "peace in our time").

Hardsheller, I would tell the political enemies of Bush that one cannot appease Islamofascism. Clinton tried it. But these people are going to force the Democrat Party to nominate Dean to give them a referendum on the war. And Bush will win in a landslide against Dean.

 

This talk of an empire sounds like warmed-up French, German, and Belgium leftovers. That was the European propaganda line. Have you been reading Pope John Paul II? Why would anyone in his right mind try to make an empire out of Babylon? LOL!

 

It is a Hoosier tradition to drink kool-aid, Ken. Jim Jones, a Disciples of Christ denomination minister, got his start here in Indianapolis--try to get someone from Indianapolis to talk about it. (I am from rural Indiana originally.) Jim Jones (Peoples Temple cult, for you young folks) was very popular here in Indianapolis because he gave big baskets of food to the poor when the cameras were on him. Afterwards he talked people into signing their property over to him and moving to California. His building here burnt down soon afterward. It is no surprise that whenever Jim Jones moved away, his old building burnt down.

You Libertarians frightened me away when you linked to famous people in your political party and you listed Howard Stern and Dr. Demento. The Libertarians have two problems: 1. No issues. 2. No worthy candidate for President.

You would be better off voting the Democrat Party in 2004, Ken. Not even you can find an issue for the Libertarians, Ken.

 

There is actually a very major difference between the parties. The Democrats tend to favor a strong, federal government with social spending financed by taxes and tariffs, while Libertarians want minimal government (of any kind, but a particular horror of federal intrusion into private business) and no, or almost no, taxation.

If I understand it correctly.

Then, there seem to be two factions of Libertarians: some want a pure, unfettered free market (let the strong be strong and the weak perish) and some don't mind some regulation of business, but want freedom in their private lives.

 

You Libertarians frightened me away when you linked to famous people in your political party and you listed Howard Stern and Dr. Demento.

Hmmm...don't forget those GOP voices of morality like David Duke, Arnold, Ted Nugent, Jim Kolbe, Bo Derek. Clean up your own house before throwing stones at someone else.

 

Hmmm...A strict literal interpretation of the US Constitution is the Libertarian issue. Something neither the GOP or the Democrats believe in anymore.

Have you read any of his posts? The Libetarian party as well as the Constitution party (a party I greatly respect and might consider some day) are all about issues and Constitutional authority and not about power which is what the Democrats and the GOP are about.

 

Really, Kiffin, you are starting to sound like Tip O'Neal. You know perfectly well that David Duke has been shunned by the GOP. Why do you say things like that? How does it help your cause? And how does it prove to other Americans that you are anything but a fringe element that will say anything to gain power?

The natural alliance should be between the Democrats and the Libertarians since both are out of power and both are vehement critics of the GOP. Why would any self-respecting Republican join with the Libertarians after the strictly partisan attacks that the Libertarians have mounted against the GOP? Notice that most of the material used by the Libertarians is discarded Democrat ideas. And notice that the Democrat Party has been getting a pass from the Libertarians. One wonders if most of the members of the Libertarian Party are not more like Howard Stern than anyone else?