|
|||||||||
Posted March 10, 2003
Note: Justin Raimondo replies to pro-war letters in "This War is Treason."
Iraqis in Coalition Uniforms, hmm?
So, the Iraqis plan to dress as coalition troops, kill their own people, then blame it on the US. The US has, and will, kill enough Iraqi citizens to make that claim a joke. I suspect it's a planted story to cover-up any abuses by Coalition forces. Like when the Iraqi tank driver got lost on the drive home from Kuwait and bulldozed his own troops in their trenches. Or the night when over 400 unarmed Iraqi soldiers, "dressed" as coalition troops, were mistakenly machine gunned to death by one of their fellow countrymen. ...
~ Malcolm G. Ratcliffe, Canada
Iraq as a Threat to its Neighbors
Promoters of an American attack on Iraq often include in their indictment of that country the assertion that Iraq is a threat to its neighbors. However much my representatives in the congress may concede that Iraq poses no "imminent threat" to the United States, still – they avow – Saddam is a threat to this neighbors and ultimately to world peace.
The recent meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference in Doha, Qatar would have been an ideal chance for a reporter to conduct a survey that could have supported that claim or, as I believe is the case, shown it to be baseless propaganda. Of course it would not do simply to have the respondents get off with a yes or a no; some probing questions and some deep inquiry would be necessary. But, in the end, we should be closer to the truth than the War Party cares to take us.
The threat to global peace is not Iraq, a shattered society that stands well below the world average in indexes of health and economic well-being, a country systematically starved and robbed of its wealth by a decade or more of sanctions, the like of which have not been imposed on a sovereign state since Rome sowed salt where Carthage once stood. The threat to global peace, to prosperity, and to the intellectual and artistic freedoms that make life worth living is the cabal which is at this time calling itself the United States. Let George Bush and his adherents disappear and the dogs of war in Spain and Bulgaria and Whitehall would return to their kennels
Democrat Grateful for Justin's Work
I have been reading Antiwar.com for a very long time. It provides a great tool for monitoring the news and checking out the facts. I am absolutely convinced of your arguments about what is really going on with this push to war. In fact, I didn't even need your convincing, because it is all readily apparent if you just turn off the TV and get real. Nevertheless, thank you so much for your work during what looks like a government takeover by warmongers and religious fanatics.
What is very disconcerting to me personally is that I have had to get critical analysis from conservatives and libertarians, whom I've never agreed with on anything. With the exception of Robert Byrd, none of the Democratic party weasels have said anything about this empire building crap. As a result, I am no longer a Democrat. I certainly will not be turning Republican, and neither the Libertarian nor America First parties are my speed. However, at this time, perhaps "partying" should be sacrificed for turning the lights out on the neoconservative movement. So I leave you with this blessing: May your shoe become hard as steel in your quest to kick some neocon butt.
My
Action
I'll tell you what I'm going to do. If the U.S. starts a war in Iraq, I will immediately cash in all of my US savings bonds. They will not use my money to finance a war.
Regarding "This War Is Treason" by Justin Raimondo:
Excellent article! Thank you again for slicing through the neocon smokescreen of war with another razor-sharp analysis.
The neocons in the Bush administration never hesitate to characterize the opponents of a war with Iraq as "traitors" and "un-American" whores at the service of Saddam Hussein. Truth is, however, that the actions (and inactions) of the neocons represent the far greater threat to American security and peace in the 21st century. Indeed, a growing threat that these same people use against the peace movement; a modus operandi known as the principle of reversal.
For example, the leading neocon Rush Limbaugh told his audience on March 7, 2003 that, "North Korea is one-half the threat of Iraq – they admit to having nuclear weapons, Iraq does not." Say what! Under neocon logic, if a country admits to the possession of nuclear weapons, it now poses a lesser threat than a country that does not, even if the latter country (Iraq) never threatened America with nuclear annihilation, whilst the former (North Korea) continues to bristle with radioactive bellicosity!
Never mind, that a war against Iraq stands to further ignite terrorist attacks against Americans and isolate the American empire still more. Never mind too, that the "doctrine of preemption" that currently unites the neocon chickenhawks, served as the basis and motivating force behind every tyrannical regime since the beginning of recorded history. Apparently, under the rubric of neocon loyalty, war equals patriotism if (and only if) it serves the leading agenda of another country, or "Greater Eratz" for the Israeli fulfillment of Biblical prophecy or otherwise fulfills another neocon objective: the aggrandizement of the communist empire. After all, how else can we as Americans explain the duplicities within Bush foreign policy? Sure their affection for Israel counts, but why not wage war against Iraq and North Korea; unless of course, you want to preserve the former and only destroy the latter.
Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Matthew Boot, Jay Sevren, and the entire disgusting haul of neocons that dominate the media plutocracy, deem the Bush policy of feeding the North Korean army as the missiles fly over the sea of Japan, "Americanism" at its best and the rubric of "loyalty" to the ever expanding American (and Israeli) empire. However, our founding fathers coined a more apt word for such individuals and their policies: Traitors to the Republic for which we stand and treason to her bucolic interests.
Alas, isn't it too bad that the peace movement rather than attacking American capitalism, never exposes the real treason and treachery amongst us – the neoconservative right and their evil agenda!
~ Mark E. Moore, Stratham, New Hampshire
Send Saddam Some Flowers
I am very disappointed in the antiwar movement. Yes I do believe that war should be the very last resort, and it shouldn't be just on a whim because Bush has a personal vendetta. But what I have been reading about appalls me. There is a group that is going to Iraq and is going to stand in the way of American troops. I cannot believe that they are willing to defend at the very most some stranger than defend their own country men who are trying to protect not only them but their families. If you want to disagree with Bush fine, but to go against your fellow country men is just wrong. It just seems to me that the American people are just being part of the antiwar movement because it's the general census. We need to look at every aspect before casting any judgment. To make peace is to prepare for war. The middle east does not like the US and it is too late to send Saddam some flowers and a card that says 'we're sorry' and expect it all to stop. Maybe we struck first or they did, that doesn't matter. Sept. 11th was a punch in the eye. And if you're in a fight and someone punches you, you better hold your respect and fight back. Otherwise you're quite frankly going to get your ass kicked. If we don't respond with something, its just gonna get worse.
Eric Garris replies:
So you are saying: We have to shoot somebody! Anybody! Don't you think it makes more sense from a practical and moral standpoint to go after the people who attacked us, rather than a people who just happen to share an ethnic background?
Regarding Justin Raimondo's reply to Max Brown's letter posted March 6:
Mr. Raimondo, first I thank Antiwar.com for printing my letter.
You responded. I have already seen the links that you replied with. I disagree. The Israeli connection to 9/11 is nonsense. That "Art Spy" scandal was weird. If this was a Mossad organized spy-op, then why are they spying on the DEA, which deals with drugs, and not with the CIA, NSA or FBI?
Also about that memo from 1997, regarding Saddam, why did Bush not go after Iraq from day one? I will be honest. Iraq is not the biggest threat now. I say that Iran is biggest threat. Israel can destroy them to.
Now answer this. Since 1948 Israel has had four wars. Why did the USA, not fight for them then? Israel is much more militarily superior to its Arab neighbors now than they were 30 years ago.
The fact is that Saddam agreed to surrender in 1991 and in return to destroy all his WMD. He has not done this. Thus we have a right to go after him.
Israel can destroy Syria in less than 3 hours and you know it.
I will make you a bet. If we go into Iraq, and dump Saddam, we will not attack any other country in the Mid East. If I am right, you will admit you were wrong, on Antiwar.com, and if I am wrong, I will eat my shorts.
Regarding "Criticizing US Foreign Policy" (Independent.org) by Alan Bock:
In an effort to attempt to understand the opinions of my antiwar countrymen, I have reviewed some of the editorials printed on this website.
I was most struck by the ignorance and stupidity (not to mention the total lack of compassion) of Alan Bock who wrote in his article "Criticizing US Foreign Policy": Life is full of tradeoffs, and after assessing the risks and benefits we might well decide that a terrorist attack now and then is an acceptable price for being the acknowledged sole superpower, etc.
Perhaps Mr. Bock would be willing to sacrifice his wife or partner, or maybe his son or daughter, or his parents to a terrorist, perhaps to bin Laden himself, in order to pay the American debt for being the sole superpower.
I submit to you that no American life lost to terrorism is an acceptable price. Mr. Bock's assertion to the contrary is tantamount to treason. I remind Mr. Bock and others who subscribe to his opinions that they are permitted those opinions because of the brave men and women in our Nation's armed forces who fight to maintain our freedoms, and because of the heroism of our countrymen and women who fight terrorism in extraordinary circumstances to preserve our Nation's security.
While Mr. Bock may be willing to sacrifice American life to terrorism, I hope he has the good sense to support our troops as they prepare to do their jobs.
~ Laura M. Cerminara, De Pere, Wisconsin
Alan Bock replies:
Frankly, it's difficult to know what to say in light of such incomprehension. I was referring to "we" as a society, and to the price we will have to pay if we want to be not just the sole superpower but the arbiter of outcomes and the forcer of regime change around the world. The decision as to whether a terrorist attack now and then is acceptable is one that advocates of an aggressive foreign policy have to make, in my view, since more terrorist attacks are among the predictable consequences of interventionism. I contend – and predictions of a greater likelihood of terrorist attacks and/or use of chemical or biological weapons by Saddam Hussein by administration officials tend to bear me out – that a less intrusive foreign policy will carry less risk of terrorist attacks, though the risk is unlikely to fall to zero under any circumstances and I have no crystal ball.
I'm sorry Laura found it so difficult to understand the notion I was putting forward – that it is advocates of a more aggressive foreign policy who will have to confront the fact that their policy preferences will lead to more terror attacks. I understand it is uncomfortable to have to confront such a notion. But I hope interventionists will have the gumption – I know some of the intellectuals do and are more than willing to write off lives callously for the sake of assuring continuing American dominance – to be honest with themselves about the consequences of what they advocate.
Democracy
...In the case of Iraq, Bush seems to regard opposition as endorsement, as an opportunity to flaunt and glory in his crusading steadfastness. The lonelier it gets, the more proof it is of the ineffable uniqueness and propinquity of his special relationship with the Father of us all. And the outpouring of popular and international opposition is merely proof that God’s work is too important to be subjected to the vagaries of democracy and debate.
In a recent interview, he sounded wistful as he asserted that antiwar demonstrators would “have their tongues torn out” if they tried to march in Iraq. He could have added, “I don’t need to tear out their tongues since I don’t listen to them anyway.” According to the evangelical model you’re saved or damned. And the damned, according to George Bush, shouldn’t have a voice.
That’s not how democracy works. And it’s why we need democracy, now more than ever. We have democracy because leaders are stupid and need to be restrained by the popular will. George Bush is stupider than most, and most in need of the moderating influence of public opinion and democratic institutions. Instead he did his best to discredit, subvert, and evade them.
If he had listened to his critics instead of the echo chamber of his own certainty; if he had acknowledged the legitimacy of political and diplomatic opposition instead of trying to co-opt and silence it; if he had chosen conciliation over confrontation – he would not be trembling on the abyss of a disastrous war whose meager potential benefits have already been discounted, and whose enormous and irrecoverable political, financial, and social costs mount daily.
Our exercise of democracy cannot stop at the water’s edge in a time of war, and it can’t stop at heaven’s gate when one man’s blind faith puts our nation and its institutions in harm’s way. Otherwise, our democracy turns into a toxic charade, a triumph of form over substance, an empty exercise in manipulation and public relations. ...
Time for a New Leader
So having an affair was enough to start an impeachment process last time around. How about transforming this great democratic nation of ours into imperialistic modern nazis this time around?
Has the whole nation gone blind and deaf? Are we really ready to follow this radical leader of ours? I certainly am not. Do we really have to wait until the damage is done before any action's taken?
If there is an effort at work to get this Bush character out of the White House, I'll definitely work for that. ...
Pope and President
Discussion of the laity’s support for the Pope of the Universal Church and/or the President of these United States isn't complete unless the underpinning legal and moral authority of each is considered. Theological interpretation and Canonical law guides the Catholic Church in the same fashion that the US Constitution provides the authority for governance and governmental policy. It is fair then, to judge each leader’s actions in relationship to their adherence while performing their affairs relative to the station of their respective office.
I, for one, affirm the Pope's adherence to accepted Catholic Church dogma and his adherence to the Just War principle. His call to the church congregation to prayer and fasting for peace reflects the pontiff's resolute steadfast call to the world community to pursue other available and existing avenues for dealing with this U.N. Iraq dilemma, rather than the US notion of a preemptive attack upon another sovereign nation.
The President, on the other hand , and those who are attempting to influence him to embrace the notion of preemptive attacks on sovereign nations (without any real moral or international legal authority) are crossing a threshold which once crossed "will" incite similar counterattack responses between nations throughout the world.
Why did the President request and receive an audience with the Pope? One must assume it was an outward sign of respect and acknowledgment. Why did the President bring the Iraqi matter to the UN? One must assume that these were outward signs of acknowledgment. and respect; otherwise it was nothing more than political posturing.
The real, foreboding and looming issue for Catholics, the US, the Vatican, and the world is this "preemptive attack" notion; something which ought to be given appropriate attention, debated and decided beyond the influence of this current administrative cabal.
My own personal experiences as a patriotic Catholic and recovering Vietnam combat veteran, taught me that support for this country means support for the just principles found in our US Constitution. The position of the President is the highest office represented within it. This position does not automatically imply absolute support for the person or the particular actions coming from the person occupying that position. A citizen who does not support and chooses to object to an unconstitutional act or policy initiated by a person occupying the position of President of the US is just as patriotic, if not more so, than the foot soldier in combat. The oath that a soldier takes reads in part, "I pledge to defend and protect the constitution of the United States...both domestic and abroad."
The last time that I read the Constitution it stated that attacking a sovereign nation is an act of war and that it is Congress’s duty to “declare war.” I don’t find any reference to preemptive war justification in it either.
To think that this is the same nation that was bogged down and placing so much attention to the infamous defining what “is” is!
Regarding "The Myth of War Prosperity" by Rep. Ron Paul:
Your article reminds me very much of the position France and Britain held after September 1, 1939. At that time, following the alliance agreement, both countries declared war with Germany following its attack on Poland. As you may know, the alliance agreement was to discourage Hitler from starting the war that he knew he could not win. Attack on any of the three countries would immediately result in war on two or even three fronts. In 1939 Hitler was unable to conduct war on two fronts. He started it, however, counting heavily on Britain and France being too sheepish to come to Poland's rescue. He was right. Many military historians now believe that French tanks would have been in Berlin in less than two weeks, had France followed up on its declaration of war and attacked on the western front. It did not. Neither did Britain. Both countries watched Europe being conquered and Jews being slaughtered while doing virtually noting. Eventually Hitler got to them as well. France fell in less than two weeks, Britain was successful defending itself but not entirely without help from German erroneous strategy. 56 million people perished in that war, including almost all of European Jews. War that could have been avoided or drastically reduced in scope.
Both France and Britain counted on Hitler stopping the march of communism. The war, as we know, did exactly the opposite. In addition, it made Soviet Union into a superpower and gave us 40 years of Cold War.
Today we have almost an exact replay of 1939. Arguments are similar, sounding almost chamberlainian: let's be careful, Congress should fight the war and not the president, it's too expensive, look at other wars that were unsuccessful, the war would make Saddam and the likes of them mad and then what, etc. etc. What we need today is leadership and conviction on the part of our elected officials that their foremost responsibility is not to become popularity queens and get reelected but to defend this country. Iraq is a clear and present danger, if not directly to the US this very moment (which we cannot be sure), certainly to the region and certainly to the US in the nearest future. Unless we are prepared to deal with Iraq as a nuclear power in the future, we have no choice but to force it into disarming. The UN can elect to follow in the steps of the infamous League of Nations into oblivion and irrelevance. They respond to nobody. The US Government does not have that luxury.
~ Peter M. Grajczak, Thousand Oaks, California
Backtalk editor Sam Koritz replies:
According to the Constitutional enumeration of powers, "The Congress shall have power ... to declare war..." Bombing, and especially invading, a sovereign nation is an act of war. Congress has not declared war and has no plans to do so. Regarding this most recent violation of the Constitution Senator Robert Byrd quoted then-Representative Abraham Lincoln:
"The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood."
As Commander in Chief, the President is ultimately responsible for leading wars declared by Congress. I'm not aware that antiwar activists argued that Congress, not Roosevelt, should have led the US effort during World War II, once war was declared – though people did argue that Roosevelt wasn't Constitutionally authorized to decide whether or not the US would enter the war.
Also, the differences between Europe in '39 and the Middle East today seem greater than the similarities. In the former case a powerful country invaded weak ones. In the latter case a weak country (zero warplanes shot down in a decade of bombing) is threatened with invasion.
Tampa Incident
I work as an EMT for a private ambulance company in Tampa, Florida. I have been very worried for some time about the growing threat of terrorist activity in reprisal for our government's intended attack on Iraq. But it has recently come to my attention in a very personal way that there are terrorist activities currently taking place in our nation that we are not being told about. We are being kept in the dark.
There was an incident at the Tampa International Airport on March 3rd involving a package containing a suspected nerve agent. Half the airport was evacuated and several people were transported to an area hospital by my ambulance company. Very little mention of this incident was made in the news and the whole thing was played off like it was just a scare and nothing to the story at all. I am appalled by this because that is not the case at all. The package really did contain some type of nerve agent, and several people were sent to the hospital for treatment for symptoms related to their exposure to the agent. I arrived at the same hospital later to find several of our ambulances and the crews quarantined until everything could be decontaminated. One ambulance was sitting on the ambulance ramp with orange cones placed in a perimeter around it so that no one could get too close to it. A large yellow plastic bag lay on the ground beside it to receive the towels that were used to clean the ambulance from top to bottom. It was quite some length of time before the ambulances and crews were released from the quarantine.
I listened to the news the next morning to see what was said about the incident, and was surprised that their was only the briefest mention that a "suspect" package had been found and half of the airport evacuated until authorities had had an opportunity to secure the area. I have heard nothing since then. There was no mention of the nature of the substance found in the package. There was no mention of the people who were treated for exposure. Very little mention indeed, especially in light of the fact that there really was a nerve agent released right here in good old Tampa, Florida. And you were not told!
According to my on-the-job fire/EMS sources, the package was left on top of a baggage carrousel in the baggage claim area of the "Blue" side of the airport. The package really did contain a nerve agent, as of yet still unidentified. The agent was mixed with an acetacylic acid base and designed to be released when heat was applied. The inside of the package was lined with Ben-Gay ointment, and as the Ben-Gay heated up, the agent was slowly released into the air. Airport officials became alerted to the agent when several people began to have respiratory difficulty, sore, burning throats, noses and eyes. The whole Blue side of the airport was evacuated, and those effected by the agent were taken for treatment.
I was told that authorities believe that the incident was a "dry-run" or a test of the delivery system. Perhaps it was a test of the emergency response to the situation. If it was the latter, then I am afraid the response was a miserable failure. I understand that some 28 emergency vehicles responded to the airport to handle the situation. I am told that the scene was a fiasco and all vehicles and personnel on the scene were contaminated and exposed to a potentially hazardous nerve agent because proper Hazmat procedures were not followed. I know first hand that all of our ambulances that responded were contaminated and quarantined. I have no reason to doubt my sources when they tell me of the screw-ups that jeopardized everyone involved. Vehicles that should have remained well out of the "hot zone" were allowed in and out of the area, spreading the contamination.
Decontamination of victims that should have taken place before leaving the scene did not take place until arrival at the hospital, causing contamination of hospital staff and potentially other patients in the hospital. In short, fire department and EMS personnel were sadly unprepared for this dangerous and potentially lethal situation. Fortunately the nerve agent was not lethal, and no one has suffered any serious, long-term harm from the incident. But it could have been a whole lot worse, and next time it will be. I am told that the same simple delivery system could easily be used to deliver any number of other potentially lethal chemical or biological agents, including smallpox. If and when it happens, the results will be disastrous, because we are unprepared for what is coming.
It seems so obvious to me that this kind of incident is preparation for what is to come in the future. Terrorists are preparing to strike in the event that Bush's attack on Iraq takes place. The British media is reporting that their troops have been advised that the bombing will begin on March 13th and the invasion on the 17th. Incidentally, the March 13th date for this proposed attack is the date Muslims the world over celebrate the Prophet Muhammad's birthday. Why are the British told of the imminent attack and Americans are not? Why are we not being told of terrorist activities right here in good old Tampa? Why were we not told when a Tampa Fire Department rescue unit was stolen last week? To my knowledge it still has yet to be recovered and authorities don't have a clue who took it or where it can be located.
Just what is going on here? Why are we being kept in the dark? Could it perhaps be that an informed public might be a public inclined to oppose the imminent attack on Iraq that will surely lead to terrorist attacks in this city? And what of other cities around this nation? Are these types of incidents happening there too? I would be willing to bet they are and that citizens in those cities are just as uninformed as we are here in Tampa. I think there is a high likelihood that terrorists are poised around this nation, waiting patiently to unleash their weapons on a sadly uninformed and unprepared nation. Thank you, George Bush. I certainly feel safe and secure with you in charge. Not!
~ E. Vaughan, EMT, Tampa, Florida
Sweet Land of Liberty
You are aiding and abetting the enemy as defined in Espionage Related Offenses -- Treason 18 U.S.C. §§ 2381 and 2382. Read about federal prison at http://www.bop.gov/.
HAVE
YOU PEOPLE EVER THOUGHT, THAT IF WE DON'T GO TO WAR BY THIS TIME NEXT
YEAR YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE THIS FORUM OR ANY OTHER TO SPREAD YOU IDEAS? REMEMBER
YOUR FREEDOM TO HAVE THIS TYPE PAGE IS AVAILABLE BECAUSE OF WAR. PERSONALLY
I THINK YOU SHOULD ALL MOVE TO FRANCE OR IRAQ OR SOMEWHERE THAT HAS THE
FREEDOM TO SAY ANYTHING YOU WANT.
THANKS FOR LETTING ME POST MY OPINION.
~ Jennifer Cox
You people think your right. Move to Iraq then.
Move to France, please! If you are so anti-American and so against our policies (that is real Americans) then move to the country of your choice that has your kind of policies like Iraq or Iran or maybe even Lybia. If you wish to continue living here then shut up and support the troops that give you this freedom you waste on pointless America bashing.
You keep on saying what did Iraq do to us? but I have a question for you what did the 9/11 hijackers do to us before 9/11. after the 9/11 attacks they said President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks and he did't do anything about it well what are you going to say if Iraq attacks us are you going to cry some more and say President Bush should have done something. IT MAKES ME SICK THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT AREN'T SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS.
PLEASE E-MAIL ME BACK.
You are either with us or you're with the terrorists. Looks like you are with the terrorists.
You are either on the side of the US or your on the side of the cowardly French (who, incidentally, many Americans including my grandfather died to liberate). There may be no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda but how many Americans are you willing to sacrifice just in case you're wrong?
If there is even the most remote chance that another 9/11 can happen. I would rather kill every raghead in the middle east than lose one more innocent American.
Hey, got to do it sooner or later. Might as well do it now. Its too late, for the US to back out. I know that seems hard to fathom, but that's the truth. Once you make an enemy of a primitive race, then your going to have multi-generational problems. There is only two cure's for this situation total annihilation of all Muslims or Apologize and back out to an underground affair, killing problem world leaders. There is no other choice. We are still too primitive to have world piece.
It is time for war before we are attacked and then complain why our country didn't do anything. Lets nuke Iraq while we are at it and take their oil. Who cares if the war might be about oil. They have it and we need it to bad. Lets Kick ASS!!!!!
Anti war that word has so many meanings, anti meaning against and war meaning peace. You cant have peace with out war, the old saying peace is war, love is hate and socialism is slavery.
If you think that my statement is wrong then you are wrong you just don't know it yet. Lets take it look at history, you say you are anti war and lovers of peace. When you look back on history, the longest lasting peace man has every known was way back during the Roman Empire. The peace was known as the Pax Roma it lasted several Hundred years. It was the golden age for Rome and it was won with iron blood and sweat, not weapons inspectors or the quasi world government The UN. The Roman people only had their peace throw several hundred years of constant unending wars. After they conquered the known world their was no one left to harm them. Well until they pissed off the Germanic people during the fall of the empire. Anyway history provides many other examples of greats peace only won after long wars. So in order to have peace their must be war. Any ways if the Romans had pacifist like you back then they would of just made you fight in the arena as galitators and that would be the end of any peacemovemnet.
Any ways F.Y.I your cute little no blood for oil should read no oil for blood. I remember the first protesters of the gulf war back in 91. If you are going to complain at least get the signs right. Please don't send me hate mail, just because you are not smart enough to debate only throw out the same old Hollywood leftist youthful idiots lines. The 60 are dead get over it, as my dad said about the area."The only good thin about the 60 was that the 1970 came and the hippies woke up from their drug stupor and got a hair cut and a job like every one else.
The
only reason that you traitors and communists and uninformed, ungrateful
people get away with such hate talk and anti-peaceful actions is because
America has freedom of speech. My father fought in WW II so that pathetic
throw backs from the Vietnam Era can make a mockery of justice and democracy.
If you read the Bible you would know that Satan is using you in fight
of good against evil and you can't even see it. If you don't like President
Bush or the USA then why don't you go back to wherever you or your family
came from or join the Muslims or who ever else you defend in the middle
East.
There are so many people like myself that want the Hollywood flunkies
and "peaceniks" to keep their opinions to themselves and leave
the country if you don't like it. If we don't fight Iraq now, we will
be wearing shrouds and dirty nightshirts and speaking Arabic in the USA.
Get a clue.
~ Grace Overcash