Bible Discussion: How To Look At The War On Terror

How To Look At The War On Terror
Posts: 68

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   Next  (First | Last)

Mark Fox
2003-09-11 21:35:32 EST
How to Look at the War on Terror
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 8, 2003


Imagine the date is September 12, 2001. Ask yourself this question:
Are you
willing to bet that two years will pass and there will not be another
terrorist attack on American soil?

I will wager that there is not one person reading this column who
would have
made that bet two years ago.

There is only one reason for this relative security that Americans
enjoy. It
is not that the terrorists have given up their violent agendas or
their
hatred for us. They have not. It is not because America’s
borders are secure
or because America’s internal security systems have been
successfully
overhauled.

There is one reason – and one reason alone – that
Americans have been safe
for the almost two years since the 9/11 attacks.

That reason is the aggressive war that President Bush and the American
military have waged against international terror and its Axis of Evil.
The
war on terror has been fought in the streets of Baghdad and Kabul
instead of
Washington and New York. By taking the battle to the enemy camp, by
making
the terrorists the hunted instead of the hunters, President Bush and
the
American military have kept Americans safe.

Now the battlefield of the war on terror is post-liberation Iraq. The
jihadists of al-Qaeda and radical Islam and Arab fascism are crawling
out of
the snakepits of Tikrit and slithering across the borders from
terrorist
bases in Syria and Iran to attack American troops, UN diplomats and
anyone
helping the American cause. Their goal is self-evident: To force the
collapse of civil order and to inflict enough casualties on American
forces
that America will withdraw.

Such a withdrawal would be a massive defeat for the forces of order
and
decency not only in Iraq but in the world at large. It would be a
dramatic
victory of the forces of evil.

If Iraq can be secured and become an American ally, then Syrian
terrorism
and Iranian terrorism and Palestinian terrorism will have no place to
hide.
American pressure on terrorists everywhere will be dramatically
enhanced.
If, on the other hand, America withdraws in defeat then terror will
flourish
again in Baghdad, Basra and Tikrit, but also in Damascus, Teheran and
Ramallah.

The way to think about the war on terror is to ask yourself who is
supporting President Bush and the American military in this life and
death
engagement, and who is not?

Help is certainly not coming from the European nations who armed and
then
appeased Saddam Hussein and opposed the liberation of Iraq and who now
refuse to aid America in securing the peace.

Far worse, with exception of fading candidates like Joe Lieberman and
John
Edwards, it is certainly not coming from the leaders of the Democratic
Party
who from the moment Baghdad was liberated have with ferocious
intensity
attacked the credibility of America’s commander-in-chief, the
justification
for our mission in Iraq, and the ability of our forces to prevail.

In this mission of sabotage, no political figure has stooped as low as
Al
Gore. In the wake of the war that went spectacularly well – the
swiftest,
most casualty-free liberation of a nation in human history – Al
Gore has
accused the President of deceit and cynical manipulation of the facts
with
the purpose of misleading the American public and sacrificing American
soldiers. By linking these accusations to the Florida election
recount, he
and other Democrats have implied that the war was merely an instrument
of a
partisan plot to deprive them of their claim to the White House.

Gore’s bottom line in his August 7 speech attacking the
President’s conduct
of the war on terror was this: “Too many of our soldiers are
paying the
highest price for the strategic miscalculations, serious misjudgments
and
historic mistakes that have put them and our nation in harm’s
way.”

Gore’s attack will be recorded as a milestone in the sad decline
of one of
America’s great political parties. In breaking bi-partisan ranks
in the war
on terror, Gore is seconded by both leaders of the Democratic
congressional
delegation and every Democratic presidential nominee with the
exception of
Lieberman and Edwards, and by the party’s politically activist
base.

It is a dark day for Americans when one of their two ruling parties
cannot
be counted on to support the flag when it is committed in battle, and
when
the battle is America’s response to a bloodthirsty aggressor
with access to
biological, chemical and perhaps even nuclear weapons.

In a Memorial Day speech to American veterans, President Bush had this
to
say about our adversary: “The terrorists’ aim is to spread
chaos and fear by
killing on an ever-widening scale . . . They celebrate the murder of
women
and children. They attacked the civilized world because they bear a
deep
hatred for the values of the civilized world. They hate freedom and
religious tolerance and democracy and equality for women. They hate
Christians and Jews and every Muslim who does not share their narrow
and
violent vision.”

The President vowed to stay the course, but noted that it is only
recently
that America has done so. “During the last few decades the
terrorists grew
bolder, believing if they hit America hard, America would retreat and
back
down.”

Perhaps the President had in mind al-Qaeda’s attack on the World
Trade
Center in 1993, when President Clinton and Al Gore backed down.

Perhaps he had in mind al-Qaeda’s attack on American troops in
Somalia, when
President Clinton and Al Gore backed down.

Perhaps he had in mind the attack on the Khobar Towers, a dormitory
housing
American soldiers, where President Clinton and Al Gore backed down.

Perhaps he had in mind the attack on the USS Cole, when President
Clinton
and Al Gore backed down.

“Five years ago,” the President continued, “one of
the terrorists said that
an attack could make America run in less than 24 hours. They’re
learning
something different today. The terrorists have not seen America
running;
they’ve seen America marching. They’ve seen the armies of
liberation
marching into Kabul and to Baghdad.” And they know and respect
the
difference.

Now we are engaged in a war to drive the enemy into the ground. We
have
taken or killed half of al-Qaeda’s leadership; we have destroyed
the regime
of Saddam Hussein – harbor to terrorists and sponsor of suicide
bombers –
and captured or killed forty-two of its top fifty-five leaders.

The enemy understands the war we are in. It knows that it is fighting
for
its life in Iraq. In sabotaging the peace in Iraq, its aim is to
intimidate
America and force our retreat. In his Memorial Day speech, the
President
addressed this threat: “Retreat in the face of terror would only
invite
further and bolder attacks. There will be no retreat.”

Al Gore and the Democrats need to heed these words and change their
course.

Unless the Democrats get behind this war, they will have no electoral
future; if they do not, the nation will have no future that is secure.

John W
2003-09-11 21:52:54 EST
On 11 Sep 2003 18:35:32 -0700, mark_fox_@yahoo.com (Mark Fox) wrote:

>How to Look at the War on Terror
>By David Horowitz
>FrontPageMagazine.com | September 8, 2003
>
>
>Imagine the date is September 12, 2001. Ask yourself this question:
>Are you
>willing to bet that two years will pass and there will not be another
>terrorist attack on American soil?
>
>I will wager that there is not one person reading this column who
>would have
>made that bet two years ago.
>
>There is only one reason for this relative security that Americans
>enjoy. It
>is not that the terrorists have given up their violent agendas or
>their
>hatred for us. They have not. It is not because America’s
>borders are secure
>or because America’s internal security systems have been
>successfully
>overhauled.
>
>There is one reason – and one reason alone – that
>Americans have been safe
>for the almost two years since the 9/11 attacks.
>
>That reason is the aggressive war that President Bush and the American
>military have waged against international terror and its Axis of Evil.
>The
>war on terror has been fought in the streets of Baghdad and Kabul
>instead of
>Washington and New York. By taking the battle to the enemy camp, by
>making
>the terrorists the hunted instead of the hunters, President Bush and
>the
>American military have kept Americans safe.
>
>Now the battlefield of the war on terror is post-liberation Iraq. The
>jihadists of al-Qaeda and radical Islam and Arab fascism are crawling
>out of
>the snakepits of Tikrit and slithering across the borders from
>terrorist
>bases in Syria and Iran to attack American troops, UN diplomats and
>anyone
>helping the American cause. Their goal is self-evident: To force the
>collapse of civil order and to inflict enough casualties on American
>forces
>that America will withdraw.
>
>Such a withdrawal would be a massive defeat for the forces of order
>and
>decency not only in Iraq but in the world at large. It would be a
>dramatic
>victory of the forces of evil.
>
>If Iraq can be secured and become an American ally, then Syrian
>terrorism
>and Iranian terrorism and Palestinian terrorism will have no place to
>hide.
>American pressure on terrorists everywhere will be dramatically
>enhanced.
>If, on the other hand, America withdraws in defeat then terror will
>flourish
>again in Baghdad, Basra and Tikrit, but also in Damascus, Teheran and
>Ramallah.
>
>The way to think about the war on terror is to ask yourself who is
>supporting President Bush and the American military in this life and
>death
>engagement, and who is not?
>
>Help is certainly not coming from the European nations who armed and
>then
>appeased Saddam Hussein and opposed the liberation of Iraq and who now
>refuse to aid America in securing the peace.
>
>Far worse, with exception of fading candidates like Joe Lieberman and
>John
>Edwards, it is certainly not coming from the leaders of the Democratic
>Party
>who from the moment Baghdad was liberated have with ferocious
>intensity
>attacked the credibility of America’s commander-in-chief, the
>justification
>for our mission in Iraq, and the ability of our forces to prevail.
>
>In this mission of sabotage, no political figure has stooped as low as
>Al
>Gore. In the wake of the war that went spectacularly well – the
>swiftest,
>most casualty-free liberation of a nation in human history – Al
>Gore has
>accused the President of deceit and cynical manipulation of the facts
>with
>the purpose of misleading the American public and sacrificing American
>soldiers. By linking these accusations to the Florida election
>recount, he
>and other Democrats have implied that the war was merely an instrument
>of a
>partisan plot to deprive them of their claim to the White House.
>
>Gore’s bottom line in his August 7 speech attacking the
>President’s conduct
>of the war on terror was this: “Too many of our soldiers are
>paying the
>highest price for the strategic miscalculations, serious misjudgments
>and
>historic mistakes that have put them and our nation in harm’s
>way.”
>
>Gore’s attack will be recorded as a milestone in the sad decline
>of one of
>America’s great political parties. In breaking bi-partisan ranks
>in the war
>on terror, Gore is seconded by both leaders of the Democratic
>congressional
>delegation and every Democratic presidential nominee with the
>exception of
>Lieberman and Edwards, and by the party’s politically activist
>base.
>
>It is a dark day for Americans when one of their two ruling parties
>cannot
>be counted on to support the flag when it is committed in battle, and
>when
>the battle is America’s response to a bloodthirsty aggressor
>with access to
>biological, chemical and perhaps even nuclear weapons.
>
>In a Memorial Day speech to American veterans, President Bush had this
>to
>say about our adversary: “The terrorists’ aim is to spread
>chaos and fear by
>killing on an ever-widening scale . . . They celebrate the murder of
>women
>and children. They attacked the civilized world because they bear a
>deep
>hatred for the values of the civilized world. They hate freedom and
>religious tolerance and democracy and equality for women. They hate
>Christians and Jews and every Muslim who does not share their narrow
>and
>violent vision.”
>
>The President vowed to stay the course, but noted that it is only
>recently
>that America has done so. “During the last few decades the
>terrorists grew
>bolder, believing if they hit America hard, America would retreat and
>back
>down.”
>
>Perhaps the President had in mind al-Qaeda’s attack on the World
>Trade
>Center in 1993, when President Clinton and Al Gore backed down.
>
>Perhaps he had in mind al-Qaeda’s attack on American troops in
>Somalia, when
>President Clinton and Al Gore backed down.
>
>Perhaps he had in mind the attack on the Khobar Towers, a dormitory
>housing
>American soldiers, where President Clinton and Al Gore backed down.
>
>Perhaps he had in mind the attack on the USS Cole, when President
>Clinton
>and Al Gore backed down.
>
>“Five years ago,” the President continued, “one of
>the terrorists said that
>an attack could make America run in less than 24 hours. They’re
>learning
>something different today. The terrorists have not seen America
>running;
>they’ve seen America marching. They’ve seen the armies of
>liberation
>marching into Kabul and to Baghdad.” And they know and respect
>the
>difference.
>
>Now we are engaged in a war to drive the enemy into the ground. We
>have
>taken or killed half of al-Qaeda’s leadership; we have destroyed
>the regime
>of Saddam Hussein – harbor to terrorists and sponsor of suicide
>bombers –
>and captured or killed forty-two of its top fifty-five leaders.
>
>The enemy understands the war we are in. It knows that it is fighting
>for
>its life in Iraq. In sabotaging the peace in Iraq, its aim is to
>intimidate
>America and force our retreat. In his Memorial Day speech, the
>President
>addressed this threat: “Retreat in the face of terror would only
>invite
>further and bolder attacks. There will be no retreat.”
>
>Al Gore and the Democrats need to heed these words and change their
>course.
>
>Unless the Democrats get behind this war, they will have no electoral
>future; if they do not, the nation will have no future that is secure.


For any who missed it, one thing President Bush said shortly after we
attacked Iraq, when a reporter asked how many nations we plan to
invade. He said quite truthfully, that there are half-a-dozen nations
that need to "straighten up." And he said he/we hoped that if we
assault one or two nations and show the world our might, we won't have
to fight the rest.

He said it is America's goal to bring these 3rd world 3rd century
dictatorships into the 21st century, where ALL men and women are FREE.

I'd say that's a noble goal, and we need not be a perfect nation to
help make the world better.

Would you ask your surgeon if he had any warts before you allowed him
to operate?


John W



In Christ,

John W

______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>


BNichols
2003-09-11 23:47:38 EST


John W wrote:
>
> On 11 Sep 2003 18:35:32 -0700, mark_fox_@yahoo.com (Mark Fox) wrote:
>
> For any who missed it, one thing President Bush said shortly after we
> attacked Iraq, when a reporter asked how many nations we plan to
> invade. He said quite truthfully, that there are half-a-dozen nations
> that need to "straighten up." And he said he/we hoped that if we

Indeed. Actually, it's not the nations so much as it is
their
governments. One that comes immediately to mind is the
United
States. :)

> assault one or two nations and show the world our might, we won't have
> to fight the rest.

Old saying regarding baby-sitting, usually used as a joke:

"If you kill one child, the rest will behave." }:)

>
> He said it is America's goal to bring these 3rd world 3rd century
> dictatorships into the 21st century, where ALL men and women are FREE.

Is this the same George W. Bush who said a couple of years
ago that
the US should not be the world's policeman & that he was
very
strongly against nation-building? <g> Guess he "got
religion," as
we say down here. :)


>
> I'd say that's a noble goal, and we need not be a perfect nation to
> help make the world better.
>
> Would you ask your surgeon if he had any warts before you allowed him
> to operate?

Since I'd be protected from infection by double-gloving &
several
iterations of antiseptic, probably not. :)


Bill

John W
2003-09-12 03:36:44 EST
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 22:47:38 -0500, BNichols <top2@cox.net> wrote:

>
>
>John W wrote:
>>
>> On 11 Sep 2003 18:35:32 -0700, mark_fox_@yahoo.com (Mark Fox) wrote:
>>
>> For any who missed it, one thing President Bush said shortly after we
>> attacked Iraq, when a reporter asked how many nations we plan to
>> invade. He said quite truthfully, that there are half-a-dozen nations
>> that need to "straighten up." And he said he/we hoped that if we
>
>Indeed. Actually, it's not the nations so much as it is
>their
>governments. One that comes immediately to mind is the
>United
>States. :)
>
>> assault one or two nations and show the world our might, we won't have
>> to fight the rest.
>
>Old saying regarding baby-sitting, usually used as a joke:
>
>"If you kill one child, the rest will behave." }:)
>
>>
>> He said it is America's goal to bring these 3rd world 3rd century
>> dictatorships into the 21st century, where ALL men and women are FREE.
>
>Is this the same George W. Bush who said a couple of years
>ago that
>the US should not be the world's policeman & that he was
>very
>strongly against nation-building? <g> Guess he "got
>religion," as
>we say down here. :)
>
>
>>
>> I'd say that's a noble goal, and we need not be a perfect nation to
>> help make the world better.
>>
>> Would you ask your surgeon if he had any warts before you allowed him
>> to operate?
>
>Since I'd be protected from infection by double-gloving &
>several
>iterations of antiseptic, probably not. :)
>
>
>Bill


Since you like old sayings so much, how about "If you can't say
something nice, how about shutting up?"


John W


In Christ,

John W

______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>


Alan
2003-09-12 08:48:37 EST
And, since you like them too, "Love thy neighbor...:

Alan


"John W" <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> Since you like old sayings so much, how about "If you can't say
> something nice, how about shutting up?"
>
>
> John W
>
>
> In Christ,
>
> John W
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD -
http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source
<><><><><><><><>
>



Bush Slaps Jesus
2003-09-12 11:00:01 EST
The 'war' on 'terror' is just a scam Bush is using to war profiteer.

Hating America and Christ, John W <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> wrote
of his inability to tolerate freedom of expression:

>Since you like old sayings so much, how about "If you can't say
>something nice, how about shutting up?"...
>John W...
>John W...

The nicest thing to say to you is that at least it's the fact that you're
an imbecile or sociopath that has you so supportive of murdering crooks
such as the scum in the Bush crime organization, of Nazism, of fascism.

Your desire to suppress dissent and discourse is just a symptom of the
damage or disease that has encumbered you to the point of bedevilment.

If you were healthy you could do better, but you'd rather not be healed.

Peter Vos
2003-09-12 12:25:50 EST
John W <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:nf92mv0ttkpc6ocpa377ll92jma68rdfjk@4ax.com:

> On 11 Sep 2003 18:35:32 -0700, mark_fox_@yahoo.com (Mark Fox) wrote:
>
>>How to Look at the War on Terror
>>By David Horowitz
>>FrontPageMagazine.com | September 8, 2003
>>
>>
>>Imagine the date is September 12, 2001. Ask yourself this question:
>>Are you
>>willing to bet that two years will pass and there will not be another
>>terrorist attack on American soil?
>>
>>I will wager that there is not one person reading this column who
>>would have made that bet two years ago.

Actually I think that is fair, but by the time we were in Afghanistan I
think it was clear these guys shot their wad. They got nothing for an
encore. Bali? Puhleeze all that does is turn the Aussies against you. Swift
move. Indonesian hotel? Puhleeze all that does is get a bunch of Moslem
clerics denouncing al Qaeda suspects in court saying "regardless of what
the secular courts decide to do with your sorry ass, we are here to tell
you are going to Hell for ever."

>>

[ton of snips....]

>
>
> For any who missed it, one thing President Bush said shortly after we
> attacked Iraq, when a reporter asked how many nations we plan to
> invade. He said quite truthfully, that there are half-a-dozen nations
> that need to "straighten up." And he said he/we hoped that if we
> assault one or two nations and show the world our might, we won't have
> to fight the rest.

No one missed it. The guy has a laundry list of countries he wants to clean
up. And that presumed strategy is an incredible risk. If folks don't
straighten up you might find yourself overextended. Oderint dum Metuant is
not a slogan to live by, at least not for long.

The real problem with "tying Gulliver down" on this global campaign is we
can't afford to play that game for too long. China is loving this. Folks in
the Middle Kingdom can count and they know we can't sustain the stretch.


>
> He said it is America's goal to bring these 3rd world 3rd century
> dictatorships into the 21st century, where ALL men and women are FREE.

I think you do that by developing the infrastructure of civil society,not
borrowing countries to use as the OK Corral.

>
> I'd say that's a noble goal, and we need not be a perfect nation to
> help make the world better.
>

Nice sentiment.

> Would you ask your surgeon if he had any warts before you allowed him
> to operate?
>

No. But I would ask him if he a license to practice. I would also ask if he
had done this procedure before and how it turned out. Finally, I wouldn't
even be there unless I knew my insurance company was covering it.

>
> John W
>
>
>
> In Christ,
>
> John W
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD -
> http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source
> <><><><><><><><>
>
>


Bnichols
2003-09-12 15:27:50 EST
John W <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<dpt2mvkvmh1om3aa8kstq063b5qkcdacm8@4ax.com>...
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 22:47:38 -0500, BNichols <top2@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >John W wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11 Sep 2003 18:35:32 -0700, mark_fox_@yahoo.com (Mark Fox) wrote:
> >>
> >> For any who missed it, one thing President Bush said shortly after we
> >> attacked Iraq, when a reporter asked how many nations we plan to
> >> invade. He said quite truthfully, that there are half-a-dozen nations
> >> that need to "straighten up." And he said he/we hoped that if we
> >
> >Indeed. Actually, it's not the nations so much as it is
> >their
> >governments. One that comes immediately to mind is the
> >United
> >States. :)
> >
> >> assault one or two nations and show the world our might, we won't have
> >> to fight the rest.
> >
> >Old saying regarding baby-sitting, usually used as a joke:
> >
> >"If you kill one child, the rest will behave." }:)
> >
> >>
> >> He said it is America's goal to bring these 3rd world 3rd century
> >> dictatorships into the 21st century, where ALL men and women are FREE.
> >
> >Is this the same George W. Bush who said a couple of years
> >ago that
> >the US should not be the world's policeman & that he was
> >very
> >strongly against nation-building? <g> Guess he "got
> >religion," as
> >we say down here. :)
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I'd say that's a noble goal, and we need not be a perfect nation to
> >> help make the world better.
> >>
> >> Would you ask your surgeon if he had any warts before you allowed him
> >> to operate?
> >
> >Since I'd be protected from infection by double-gloving &
> >several
> >iterations of antiseptic, probably not. :)
> >
> >
> >Bill
>
>
> Since you like old sayings so much, how about "If you can't say
> something nice, how about shutting up?

> In Christ,

<lol> Well, I see you don't feel obligated to actually practice
your Boss' lessons. :) The irony of your "guidance" for me's
somewhat lost on you in light of the fact that you don't feel it
applies to you as well as those you presume to lecture. WWJD? };)

Sorry, young lad -- I shall continue to comport myself on usenet
as I've been accustomed for the last decade or so, give or take.
Deal. :)

B

Bnichols
2003-09-12 15:33:46 EST
Bush Slaps Jesus wrote in message news:<mqn3mvkqmso0qhbd9oeqrdarr32hu6kfbl@4ax.com>...
> The 'war' on 'terror' is just a scam Bush is using to war profiteer.
>
> Hating America and Christ, John W <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> wrote
> of his inability to tolerate freedom of expression:
>
> >Since you like old sayings so much, how about "If you can't say
> >something nice, how about shutting up?"...
> >John W...
> >John W...
>
> The nicest thing to say to you is that at least it's the fact that you're
> an imbecile or sociopath that has you so supportive of murdering crooks
> such as the scum in the Bush crime organization, of Nazism, of fascism.
>
> Your desire to suppress dissent and discourse is just a symptom of the
> damage or disease that has encumbered you to the point of bedevilment.
>
> If you were healthy you could do better, but you'd rather not be healed.

Not to worry -- he doesn't bother me; I've seen little ones with
Keyboard Immunity Syndrome before. It takes considerably more
than schoolboy impudence to get under the old man's skin. :) He's
just fortunate he didn't tangle some of the other denizens of
r.o.m.; there are more than a few who could melt both his CRT
*&* his keyboard. <lol>

B

Pip
2003-09-12 17:11:43 EST
I only had to read, not even a quarter of your post to know you are a
complete FREAK!

The US of A is well known in the rest of the world to be a tingy wingy bit
Redneck!

My advice to you is... don't watch your news (duh - in front of telly ,
mouth drooling. with a Big Mac!!!.... getting the "lets judge"
scenario........because all Americans are like that ) Because , lets face
it, Every one with a dark skin is a TERRORIST !!!!! Which is (to me)
what you are saying

JUST remember that the 7000 men, women and childern that were killed in the
"War on Iraq" were innocent persons.

THREE QUESTIONS, MARK, (if you DARE answer them - and I wait your reply)

1) Where are the terrorists, that perpatuated the 911 crime? From the USA
which has and sells the MOST up to date weapons of War and Stealth...... Can
you not EVEN find one person or cell of "terrorists".....? ....
2) WHERE .... oh tell me..... WHERE are the absolutely terrible, horrific
WMD. ?
3) 7000 dead in Iraq and....... where ....... still is the proof and
WMD.....?

All of those that are FOR the war in the Good Old (no one can touch us here,
because we're 1000miles from anyone)USA mentalliy......doesn't wash with
people that need water, food , fuel (which, surprisingly, they have a huge
amount of..duh)/// ooo... must be Iraqy people I'm talking of.

NEWS CHECK - us in the UK have had this from the IRA for 30 years. & more
(much of our own doing admittedly) ... and YES ----You , the Good Old USA -
have funded it. It is NOT nice when people get blownapart. But it is a
realitlty. Kids alike. !!!

911 was NOT good. But hopefuly it will have grown an awareness for the
brutality of funding only one side of things. There are always two side to
all things - and in the fight to get that seen people suffer.

Like 1.5 million children dying from hunger in one year - truely
appauling....... it really puts the lifes of those that did die into (for
me ) some perspective.

Life is cheap in Africa - but a nice white American dying - jumping from a
building to his/her death.... compared to a African baby dying of hunger
barely a few weeks old (when we in the western world carry more weight than
we should!!!! and should fund an economy for them that is
sustaining) --------- what ar we ACTUALLY crying for ??????
here.?????..........eh?

Think on....








Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron