RushOnline.com * Visitor Index * Topics * War On Terror * GO TO PG 3

Liberating Iraq - RushOnline.com THIS IS PAGE 2 OF 3 This is the strangest thing! I have tried repeatedly to post the following message to the AOL message board that is listed on their cover page under "Vote" for whether attacking Iracq would generate more terrorist attacks. While AOL has no compunction AT ALL about posting the basest and most vile name-calling and slurring messages there, they seem to be unwilling to post this one..... I had no idea who to tell about this unbridled and definitely one-sided (wrong-sided) censorship, but I thought you might like to know. Regards, Bill The Next Terrorist Attack. War¦.is inevitable regardless of whether we go to war with Iraq now, or wait until they attack us more directly. The President of the United States and the Secretary of the United States, based on the best human intelligence they can get, satellite photos, and intercepted Iraqi voice traffic, are telling us clearly and emphatically that we must stop Saddam. We know there is more evidence that cannot be shown without compromising ongoing intelligence activities, and sacrificing our own agents. If there is one lesson we should have learned from our own history, it is that we cannot wait too long to stop a despotic dictator who is amassing weapons that will empower him further. We waited far too long to stop Hitler, and millions of innocent people lost their lives in gas chambers and concentration camps as a result. Saddam has already brutalized his own citizens repeatedly, and invaded his neighboring country once. Our leaders presented evidence to us yesterday that Saddam is sponsoring, equipping and harboring the terrorists who struck America on 9-11. As we learned in World War II, and again in the Cold War with the Soviet Union, peace is always achieved through strength. There are times when a peace-loving nation, in order to protect itself and other innocent civilian lives, MUST project its strength into foreign countries BEFORE evil men complete the development of weapons and delivery systems that threaten them. Our leaders are telling us, and offering evidence, that this is one of those times. Whether you personally voted for President Bush or not, he is the President of the United States and we have a responsibility to our country to support him as long as he is in that office. We owe that not only to him, but to each other. As President Abraham Lincoln noted, a house (nation) divided against itself cannot stand. The United States of America cannot be overthrown by a foreign power; it can ONLY be defeated if we fight so bitterly among ourselves that we fail to present a united front against our enemies - the enemies of freedom. While a debate of the issues and approaches and strategies is always healthy, the kinds of base name-calling and criticism I am seeing many folks post on this site are not constructive. They fuel the fires of internal divisiveness, they bring evil to the surface here among our own people, and bring smiles to the faces of bin Laden and Hussein. * * * War Iraq - Date: Thu, Feb 06 12:35 PM Dear Rush: What really blows my mind...is with the Sept .11 tragedy...(which I think was supported..by Iraq....people still talk...about wait etc..don't go to war..Nobody likes war...but what do iraq and bin laden..have to do to get ourattention.. Wasn't...sept 11...enough?? Thanks * * * Rush I made a big mistake today, I tried to reason with a Liberal. You’re right; it’s a lost cause. I’ve listened to your program for the last 13yrs. and I should of known better. The Liberal was a co-worker, and the only Liberal in the room, there were 6 of us good guys, or what your Liberal would call right-wingers. The conversation was about, why we should remove Saddam Insane from the face of the earth. (4 out of the 6 of us good guys have been in the military and served in Viet-Nam and the Gulf war) But do you think we could talk any sense into this Liberal? (Hell NO!) It was,”lets give the man a chance, we haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction”. Or “lets wait and see what happens”, and then we’ll get him”. Or “ the French and the Germans think we should back off and give the inspectors a chance to find the weapons”. He even had the quall to say, “I’m tired of fighting all these wars’. (He’s never been in the military!!) At this point I wanted to reach over and choke the eyeballs right out of his empty Liberal head, but being a foreman for the company for 28 yrs.it just wasn’t worth it. Anyway after we let him have it from every angle with things like,” he’s been in violation of the U.N. Arms Treaty for 11 years”, He’s gassed his own people, “ He’s built palaces on his own peoples hunger, He’s one of the worst polluters of the century, when he invaded Kuwait and polluted the oceans and blackened the skies form the oil wells he set on fire (where’s the tree huggers on this one?) Needless to say this didn’t even faze this clown. But he showed his true Liberal colors when he said,” Bush’s old man should of ended it when he had a chance, and it’s all about oil, and Bill Clinton or Al Gore would be able to negotiate with Iraq and there would be know treat of war”. Well I did have a final say and it was,”get your ass back to work, this conversation is over”. Democrat orRepublican or even Mickey Mouse in office, Saddam is, INSANE. P.S. Keep up the fight Rush and I’ll keep listening and learning. Tim, Iowa * * * Who Needs the French? "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion." * * * Inspection Collection "Speaking to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday, Secretary of State Colin Powell made so strong a case that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is in material breach of U.N. resolutions that only the duped, the dumb and the desperate could ignore it. Which is what the French ambassador did, calling for three times the number of inspectors currently in the country." - Columnist Cal Thomas * * * NEARER THAN YOU THINK. I just want to say that this whole mess with Iraq is actually the beginning of the end of wars. To understand what is happening one must go back to Biblical times. When you go back there you will discover that this whole issue is not about weapons of destruction or biological or chemical warfare. It is about the oil and is definitely a racial and religious thing. America after 09/11 has become so crazed with terrorism. Do you know who the first terrorists were and what race they were? They were the Europeans who came to this country and massacred the Indians and TOOK by force land and anything else they could. So as far as terror goes, the United States has been been the biggest terrorist of all terrorists and that terrorism lives on today in a more subtle fashion in the government and amongst the high and mighty rulers of this country. While America is fighting terrorism and evil I think the Europeans here should start here right at home and dispose of the Ku Klux Klan who has been a terror since its conception, don't you? Everything America has gained came through violence, distruction and death. If you did not know it, the Caucasian race as it is has not been on the earth very long, only a span of 5,000 years. For 5,000 years you have ruled the world but the end of the reign is quickly coming to and end. The people of color all over the world including the Arabs and Asians will soon reign again. Read your history books. Bush has gone insane with this pleading to the United Nations to let him go to war. The issue is not whether Saadam has weapons of destruction, the whole issue is the oil. Saadam is not bothering anyone, he's minding his business , which is what the United States should do. Europeans have been warmongers every since they took over this country. I know that America has far worse nuclear power, chemical and biological weapons than Saadam could ever dream of. Who appointed the United States to police the whole world. Search your Bible, Iraq was once Babylon, a country ruled by far worse kings than Saadam Hussein and it was destroyed. America is considered the daughter of Babylon so now the mother and daughter are now going to war. It is inevitable. Bush will be the one to open up the Pandoras box which will trigger the war of all wars. It will not be a short one. Those Arab countrys siding with America will soon come to be sorry that they did, after all they are going against their own people. America has blinded them. America will also suffer because of this inevitable war a war that will not be stopped in spite of inspections. There will be more poverty, homelessness, hunger and raising of prices than ever was and the only people who are to benefit from this war will be the rich and walthy ones. The poorer ones who now say they are for the war will soon eat those words and grovel in sorrow. THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT IS Lydia * * * I sent the message below to the Group calling themselves "Americans Against The War With Iraq" The first draft was much more inflamatory...I allowed myself to tone it down taken aback by diplomatic aspirations hoping there may be a few neophytes within their crowd... I will be very much surprised if I ever recieve a response. To: "Americans Against The War With Iraq" All of you banner waving idiots should go back to school to learn what Hitler did between the years of 1920 and 1939 after the German Nation had agreed to disarm... The world looked on in silence as they built a war machine the free world promised never to forget...Thank God our nation and a few others had the courage to stop them before they were able to complete their nuclear ambitions... Yes read your history, if you are not completely daft you will certainly understand why we must stop the ambitions of Saddam Hussein as soon as possible. I stand behind our elected officials as you should... They must make the hard decisions they were elected to make... If they decide military conflict is necessary to free the people of Iraq to join the rest of the free world then we must all join in to help in any way we can... God only knows the Iraqi people sit on enough natural resources to buy all of the food, clothing, housing, medicine learning institutions and anything else they need... The people of Iraq deserve the chance to share in the wealth of their nation... We in the United States fiercely guard this right as one of the rights born to us... Put down your banners and instead count your blessings... Your energy will be much better spent encouraging our men and women who are currently in the Middle East or traveling there to strengthen our country by standing up for freedom... Your organization is a like a cancer that has set out to weaken our great nation during a time when we must prove our strength to the rest of the world...You and all those within your organization should be ashamed of yourselves you can not truly call yourselves Americans...Americans are proud and strong people that help the weak. Lannis * * * I sat in a movie theater watching "Schindler's List," asked myself, "Why didn't the Jews fight back?" Now I know why. I sat in a movie theater, watching "Pearl Harbor" and asked myself, "Why weren't we prepared?" Now I know why. Civilized people cannot fathom, much less predict, the actions of evil people. On September 11, dozens of capable airplane passengers allowed themselves to be overpowered by a handful of poorly armed terrorists because they did not comprehend the depth of hatred that motivated their captors. On September 11, thousands of innocent people were murdered because too many Americans naively reject the reality that some nations are dedicated to the dominance of others. Many political pundits, pacifists and media personnel want us to forget the carnage. They say we must focus on the bravery of the rescuers and ignore the cowardice of the killers. They implore us to understand the motivation of the perpetrators. Major television stations have announced they will assist the healing process by not replaying devastating footage of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers. I will not be manipulated. I will not pretend to understand. I will not forget. I will not forget the liberal media who abused freedom of the press to kick our country when it was vulnerable and hurting. I will not forget that CBS anchor Dan Rather preceded President Bush's address to the nation with the snide remark, "No matter how you feel about him, he is still our president." I will not forget that ABC TV anchor Peter Jennings questioned President Bush's motives for not returning immediately to Washington, DC and commented, "We're all pretty skeptical and cynical about Washington." And I will not forget that ABC's Mark Halperin warned if reporters weren't informed of every little detail of this war, they aren't "likely -- nor should they be expected -- to show deference." I will not isolate myself from my fellow Americans by pretending an attack on the USS Cole in Yemen was not an attack on the United States of America. I will not forget the Clinton administration equipped Islamic terrorists and their supporters with the world's most sophisticated telecommunications equipment and encryption technology, thereby compromising America's ability to trace terrorist radio, cell phone, land lines, faxes and modem communications. I will not be appeased with pointless, quick retaliatory strikes like those perfected by the previous administration. I will not be comforted by "feel-good, do nothing" regulations like the silly "Have your bags been under your control?" question at the airport. I will not be influenced by so called,"antiwar demonstrators" who exploit the right of _expression to chant anti-American obscenities. I will not forget the moral victory handed the North Vietnamese by American war protesters who reviled and spat upon the returning soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines. I will not be softened by the wishful thinking of pacifists who chose reassurance over reality. I will embrace the wise words of Prime Minister Tony Blair who told Labor Party conference, "They have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the innocent. If they could have murdered not 7,000 but 70,000, does anyone doubt they would have done so and rejoiced in it? There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror. Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must. I will force myself to: -hear the weeping -feel the helplessness -imagine the terror -sense the panic -smell the burning flesh -experience the loss -remember the hatred. I sat in a movie theater, watching "Private Ryan" and asked myself, "Where did they find the courage?" Now I know. We have no choice. Living without liberty is not living. Ray * * * Link sent in by John A war With Iraq - “Asymmetrical Warfare” & Just War" (A Moral Obligation) - by Michael Novak - http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak021003.asp * * * http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/5098402.htm Truckers tell of Iraqi buildup Philadelphia Inquirer / http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/5098402.htm | 2/4/03 | Mark McDonald Turks ferry oil and see ragged troops gathering. / By Mark McDonald Knight Ridder News Service HABUR GATE, Turkey - The tough Turkish truckers who make weekly runs to Saddam Hussein's oil refineries in northern Iraq are bringing back accounts of a massive Iraqi military buildup in the region, along with descriptions of a panicked population and barracks full of hungry and bedraggled Iraqi soldiers. Go to website listed above to get the whole story..... * * * Read the Liberal attacks on conservative "AeroJoe" on Mandolin Cafe! Date: Sat, Feb 08 11:35 PM There is a website called http://www.mandolincafe.com/, a site devoted to the mandolin and related music (bluegrass in particular). On one main Post, called "After Hours" http://www.mandolincafe.net, any topic can be discussed. The current one is called "No Apologies", concerning the looming war with Iraq. Please read the first few posts to get the jist of the thread. Then, read the posts made by "AeroJoe". He obviously loves his country, its people...and the liberal left-wingers are crucifying him!!! He bluntly told one poster (Bunnylady) that while she is advocating tolerance and political correctness for Islamic terrorists, they are plotting how best kill her. And she called him a racist!!! Take the time to read what he has to say, and the resulting responses. It is a great example of liberals, their thinking, and their actions. * * * I am the mother of a son in the Navy on the way to what ever is going to happen in the middle east. Although I pray for the safety of my son, I do not pray that there will be no war. Something must be done to stop Sadam and the torrorists that rob us of peace, and freedom. My son understands that there will be no peace or freedom for his children and my grandchildren if America keeps backing down in the face of terrorism. When people say that we should first fight the war on terrorism I think there is no better place to start than with Sadam. I would not be surprised to hear that they found Osama being sheltered in Iraq. Karen . * * * 1. We don't need a tax cut. We do need tax reform. 2. We don't need to liberate Iraq. The Iraqis need to liberate themselves. 3. Anyone that believes marching into Baghdad will eliminate terrorism is an absolute fool. 4. We do need to eliminate bin Laden. The events of the past few days should convince even an idiot that to kill a snake (terrorism) you must cut off the head. 5. With all our military brilliance and high-tech hardware, how and why was the back door left open at Tora Bora? Robert E. Lee would never have allowed that to happen. 6. All Muslims are not terrorists. Most terrorists are Muslims. The terrorists we need to fear are right here in our country. Eliminate them. Ship them home or bag them and ship them out. Bob - Cumming, GA * * * I have a question I would like you to address on your show. I question why it is that our nation would ever extenuate the dangerous game the world has permitted Sadam Hussein to play for far too many years. The French who can veto a UN security council resolution prominently insist that we wait and permit more time for the inspection process. When did the French come under attack by Islamic criminals who enjoy state sponsorship in various countries? When were French embassies bombed, when were French garrisons deployed overseas the victim of truck bombers, when was an Air France jumbo jet full of French soldiers blown up over Europe, when were French warships attacked and nearly sank in Arab ports, when were French diplomats gunned down in the middle east, when were French journalists last kidnapped and murdered in that region, when was the French government assailed by public demonstrations in cities and countries across the middle east, when has the French government been demonized in Islamic schools across the middle east, when was France declared war upon by Islamic criminals yet no government and no prominent Islamic clerics denounced such an overt act of hatred, and finally when was Paris last attacked by a number of its own airliners hijacked by Islamic criminals that destroyed the Louvre and the Arch de Triumph? No nay sayer is under attack - only us. Can we survive until the French grow weary of our slaughter or do we simply ignore sanctimonious jealousy and defend ourselves like a sovereign nation? We have a model of success with this type of trouble in that part of our world already on the shelf of American history. Unbridled international criminals must be stamped out by decisive overt action just as we did with the Barbary pirates about 200 years ago. It is long past time to dust off this proven model. I would greatly appreciate your sharing my thoughts with your audience. John from Atlanta * * * I LOVE YOUR SHOW AND I LISTEN TO IT WHEN I CAN. I AM A PSYCHOLOGIST IN UPSTAT E NEW YORK AND HAVE AN INTEREST FOR YEARS IN POLITICAL SCIENCE. I HAVE A FEW THOUGHTS. THE REASON THE NARCISSIST BILL CLINTON HAS BEEN SHOWING UP ANYWHERE WHERE SO ME SYCOPHANT MEDIA CULTIST IS WILLING TO PUT A CAMERA OR MIKE IN FRONT OF HI M IS WHAT BETTER WEEK THAN THE BLIX REPORT FOR HIM TO DRAW PUBLIC ATTENTION. THE GUY PSYCHOLOGICALLY NEEDS TO BE AT THE CENTER!! HE IS GOING TO GET ALL OF THE ATTENTION HE CAN USE THIS WEEK. THE GUY IS SO SELF ABSORBED THA T HE CAN'T POSSIBLY SEE THE DAMAGE HE IS GOING TO OTHERS OR TO HIS COUNTRY G IVEN HIS WORLD VIEW THAT HE IS THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE. SECONDLY, OUR FRIENDS THE FRENCH. I AGREE WITH FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE KISSINGER THAT FRANCE IS TRYING TO POSITION ITSELF AS THE PROTECTOR OF THE ARAB W ORLD AND THE NEW CENTER OF EUROPE.. I WORRY THAT THEIR MOVEMENT OF THEIR CAR RIER TO THE MEDITERRANEAN IS TO POSITION IT IN FRONT OF OUR FLEET OR WORSE, EVEN CHALLENGE OUR FLEET. THEY ARE NOT OUR ALLIES. WHAT BETTER FALSE GESTURE THAN TO STATION THIS CARRIER THAT CAN BARELY FUEL ITSELF SO AS TO SAY WE THE FRENCH ARE ALIVE AND STRONG AGAIN. IT ISN'T REALITY OF COURSE BUT THE FRANC OPHILES MAY NEED THIS SHOT OF DIPLOMATIC VIAGRA TO KEEP IT UP. WHAT A DISGRACE TO THE MEMORY OF CHARLES DEGAULLE. IN SOME SENSE THE FRENCH AND CLINTON HAVE MUCH IN COMMON. NEITHER CAN SEE TH E FOREST FROM THEIR OWN TREE. DR. MOONEY * * * February 19, 2003 -- U.S. and British intelligence are tracking three giant cargo ships suspected of carrying Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to keep them away from U.N. inspectors, a London newspaper said today. The Independent reported that Saddam Hussein sent the three ships to sea late in November, just after inspectors began searching Iraq for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The chartered ships - carrying the flags of three different countries - have spent much of their time sailing in deep waters of the Indian Ocean, and have maintained radio silence - in violation of international shipping laws, the Independent said. The ships' captains have also failed to provide legally required information on their cargo or destinations, said the report. It's unclear why British or U.S. forces haven't stopped and boarded the ships - but the Independent noted that if they are carrying Saddam's weapons and were sunk at sea, the environmental damage could be catastrophic. Meanwhile, according to another report, an Iraqi diplomat booted from the Philippines received a phone call from a Muslim extremist's cell phone - and the same phone was later used in a failed attempt to trigger a bomb. Iraq denied the diplomat, Consul Husham Husain, had any links to Philippine dissident groups. Post Wire Services * * * Saddam Hiding WMD Underground, Says Former Iraqi Scientist (CNSNews.com) - A former Iraqi nuclear scientist is telling the world that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has "mastered" the ability to conceal his weapons of mass destruction, many of which are hidden underground. Fox News on Tuesday played a videotape of Hussain al-Shahristani, who said Saddam has directed thousands of security officers to hide proscribed weapons. Saddam does not have the ability to deliver those weapons beyond Iraq's borders, al-Shahristani said, so "he's using terrorist cells that were trained specifically for this purpose." Al-Shahristani said Saddam also has mobile weapons labs that are able to stay a few steps ahead of weapons inspectors * * * Following is an excerpt from an email I got off another list: I found this one lady's quote quite interesting......."As you know, I speak French fluently. I also travel through France quite often. A few months ago, I was having dinner by myself in a restaurant in Paris. I usually never announce or demonstrate that I speak the language; it's more fun this way. At the table next to me, a man and a woman were also having dinner and they were talking loudly. So, I said to myself, reading the International edition of USA Today, "ha ha, dinner entertainment." So the lady said to the man, in French, but I will translate: "The Americans just want to take over Iraq and the oil. We need that oil." The man replied, "No, they want to get rid of Saddam and get rid of terrorism. Don't you remember "le onze septembre", September 11? If we do not stop terrorism and Iraq and other similar regimes, they will come after us next."... Jim Mc Coy * * * Why the French Reject War, 2/19/03, Molly Ivins This piece belongs with all the apologists and hand-wringers in history - buried by reality. Why do the French reject war with Iraq? Simple. Their hands are all over Iraq's oil and weapons' systems. This is reality. The trouble with the anti-Bush crowd is they try and mask their real political objections behind lies and deceit - just like Saddam Hussein and the socialist left. Sorry, that ploy is passe', like the French. This is my first and last time wasted on Ms. Molly Ivins. Thomas / Miami, Florida * * * I am the wife of a retired Air Force NCO, mother of two sons, and grandmother of six, one of whom is 16 today. I joined peace protestors in the '60's...but I was young and my husband has forgiven my stupidity. I hate the thought of young men and women dying in another war, but I have seen first-hand what our protests meant to the soldiers coming home from VietNam. Why do we continue to heap our own fears on men and women who are dedicated to doing the best job they know how in defense of our country and freedoms? Did we not learn from the shame we forced on them? I will support our President because I believe in my heart he is a good man doing a very hard job. I will support our military, because I believe they need our UNDIVIDED AND UNQUALIFIED encouragement and praise. Hollywood has a web site to let the liberals whine and news anchors to spout the onesided views of the elite...where do I go to express my support? Can we march for war? Not likely or even very tasteful, but I would love for my voice to be heard. Thank you for this chance to vent. I TOO HAVE A VOICE. Sue * * * Bravo, Bravo, on your comments today regarding the president of France and his long "friendship" with Saddam. It seems that the left does not want this sort of thing to become widespread public knowledge. The "Revs." Sharpton and Jackson would have a hey day if this were the sort of thing that helped their side. Again, Kudos * * * The attached article was sent to me by a close personal friend who will always remain in that category...I will always respect and value his political views..and I know that I can always count on his friendship.. The same article appeared in the Palm Beach Post yesterday and I feel compelled to respond to it for my own peace of mind... .I know that many who I send it to will reject it out of hand..as I am doing..but I have no way of knowing that..There is bound to be several who, I'm sure, without forethought of malice towards me will thoroughly disagree with my positions. As I sit here pondering over what I shall say, I am mindful that my oldest son, a Captain in the Navy, is sitting off shore of Iraq, on a large air craft carrier/troop ship and when the button is pushed, he will be in a position to commit forces in harm's way and as many in command / leadership positions, will hope, they will expect their countrymen to support their effort...to the fullest extent. Unfortunately, many retired men who receive this will know, as I remember, what is was like not to receive that support. How can I forget that when I returned to duty from Vietnam having been assigned to Washington, DC, in 1968, I went to work in civilian clothes to preclude the people in the Capitol area of thinking we were a militaristic nation. My uniform, my decorations for combat, my Purple Heart was confined to the closet..just to preclude some long haired, under the influence of drugs, peace sign hippy, from throwing red paint on my uniform...or referring to me as a "murderer." So having said this and recognizing my own rights to express my opinions against those who would like us to return to the Vietnam War Syndrome.. of disrespect to our country's leadership, I offer the following: The article that I took offense to, was written by a flaming, female, liberal, a dyed in the wool biased Democrat... the likes of Jane Fonda, Hillary, Barbara Striesand and other disrespectful Hollywood homophiles...if not misguided individuals ... actors and actresses that could best be helped by a Muslim surgeon who is learning how to do a lobotomy. There are those who believe Maureen Dowd has an anointed pen; I chose to believe that she is an insensitive, depraved idiot... and this is not the first time she has proved it..That the article was first published in the New York Times was totally fitting to the absurd contents. Every morning, the complete run of the New York Times should be delivered to a Third World Country that does not have indoor plumbing. The liberal Democrats hoot and holler behind the doors of a political insane asylum that is managed by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle. They are perfect examples of inmates who are in charge of running the Democrat Congressional "nut house"....without portfolio. It is such a pity that the liberal Democrats firmly believe that whatever is good for the United States is bad for their power struggle and control of the country. They thrive on deceit...and non-accountability ... public turmoil and frightening the elderly is a never ending objective. The more people complaining and are financially hurting outside the Washington Beltway as concerns the economy...the sweeter the sound is to their misguided cause for return to power. The Democrats do not want the economy to rebound...it would be politically damaging for them...they would have to find a way to deflate it again. Their idea of a by -- partisan effort is to foster the Hatfields' and McCoy'srelationship. The Democrats insisted that Bush consult the Congress..about Iraq...he did. The Democrats insisted that Bush go to the United Nations ...he did. Roger // GySgt USMC Retired * * * I am a 55 year old male western Canadian and pro American. I want to start out by apologizing for the conduct of our Prime Minister. All Canadians owe their freedom to the United States. Our Liberal government has depleted our armed services down to a group that would have trouble taking on the salvation Army. Our culture is American, not Canadian. We speak the same language, both use dollars as currency ( though ours is a little low ) and we all watch the same television programs and have all our lives. My ancestors came up from the US and settled in southern Alberta as farmers with thousands of others. I support the US in it's fight against Iraq and it upsets me when I hear all those bleeding hearts who protest against the US and side for Saddam. These people are ignorant and take our freedom for granted. I agree that Saddam is a terrible threat and that as soon as he can he will supply anyone with weapons to be used against the West and all democracy. I thank and admire Tony Blair for standing up for what is right. Chretien is anti American and please believe me when I tell you that he does not speak for western Canadian and is despised by most. I am proud to be America's neighbor and friend and I thank you for what you are and what you stand for.. and I trust President Bush. Doug * * * Rush, You and many members of the Republican Party seem to equate disagreeing with the president with hatred of God, country and apple pie. Since when d id excersizing our Constitutional right to free speach, peaceful assembly and petition of the government for redres of grievances become unpatriotic? I supported the first Gulf War because I felt that Saddam's blatant agressio n and his ambition to control the oil reserves of the Middle East was a thre at to the national security of the United States. I think Saddam is ev il, but I also think the leaders of Pakistan, Israel, Cuba, North Korea, Chi na and Sudan are also evil. So the fact that the leader of a country i s evil is not cause belli to invade. There is serious doubt as to whether Saddam has large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. You seem oblivious to the fact that more weapons were destroyed by inspectors after the Gulf War than during the actual war i tself. When Saddam did use chemical weapons in the 1980s, the Reagan A dministration, including then National security Advisor Colin Powell, tried to blame the Iranians. Furthermore, the Administration of George Bush Sr. derailed a bill that would have condemned and outlawed genocide. N ow, after 12 years of successful containment of Iraq, you bring these issues up again as a justification for war. And I have no doubt you will get your war, and the war will be won quickly, but the consequences will not be so easy to live with. And then who wi ll you blame. You control the White House, Congress and the courts.&nb sp; When American troops get caught in the crossfire of battles between the Kurds and warring factions of Muslims, when acts of terrorism inspired by ou r invasion of Iraq and the inevitable deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians wreak havoc in our own homeland, it will be too late to blame liberals and protesters, Bill Clinton or Monica. You will bear the responsibility. Sincerely, Chris * * * Subject: Not all French are pro-Iraq Sirs, I am an internationally recognized stone sculptor--perhaps the only politically conservative artist in the USA. I come from a family in which 5 languages were spoken--not because we were brilliant-- but rather because we were run out of 3 countries due to religious and political oppression before finding opportunity and tolerance in the USA. Our family is loyal to America. My uncle won a silver star on D-day and a bronze star two weeks later. He also lost his eyes. Other uncles fought the island hopping battles in the Pacific. My cousin, a marine heliocoptor pilot was killed in Viet Nam. Numerous others have served and by God' grace, returned safely. Because of my profession, I travel to France. I also speak the language. I can tell you that judging France by the polls taken in Paris is like judging the US by polls coming out of Berkley. I have traveled all over France. Everywhere I go, the people still express gratitude for our help in WW II. They may not always agree with US policy, but truly love the people of the US. A large number, maybe not the majority--but a growing number of French people are concerned with the Islamic influence in France. Moderate Islamic people in France who love their country and its freedoms openly condemn the Islamic extremists. There are problems--growing anti-semetic feelings, anti-capitalism, anti-US agitators, Green Party extremists, etc. But in their heart of hearts, most French people would rather have a France patterned after the US than after any other model. As you bash the French, keep in mind that in every country in the world we have our supporters and our detractors, including in our own. Part of the problem that we have is that we do a terrible job of communiticating our ideas and values. I am always amazed that we can sell the world eveything but ourselves. Thanks for your time, A. Solomon * * * Peggy Noonan: Gut Time Opinion Journal ^ | 02/10/03 | Peggy Noonan Colin Powell has persuaded me. At this point Iraq is, for each of us, a gut call. We probably have as much information and hard data as we're going to get. There are different ways to interpret the evidence, to understand the peril. No one can prove containment will work in the future, for instance, and no one can prove that it won't. There will be a price to pay if we invade. There will be a price to pay if we don't. And ultimately you have to go with your instinct, your gut sense of the world and of men. George W. Bush looks at fact patterns, as they say, and does not shrink from coming to conclusions if he thinks the facts demand them. This can't be said of all political leaders. Coming to a conclusion means having to take a stand. Taking a stand is dangerous. They would rather observe the drama from a distance (a distance that may not hold, for the drama may come to them) and, if it ends happily, come forth to say this is indeed what they hoped for, what they quietly helped. The success of the American operation was, we feel, partly the child of our criticisms. But it would be wrong to take credit, let us simply say we are pleased. If it ends in disaster they will say: Ah, that is why I could not support it. That's politics. President Bush in this respect isn't a politician. He's an actual leader. He has come to conclusions and taken a stand. This is not small but big. It's moving, and it's impressive. But it doesn't in itself mean he's right. Some people have been put off by, and some people are inspired by and grateful for, the degree to which the president's Christian faith seems to play a part in his leadership. A New York media person or intellectual will say, Bush thinks God put him in the presidency "at a time such as this," and that gives me the creeps. This reflects a misunderstanding about Mr. Bush's faith. He actually prays for guidance, for wisdom, for strength. Mr. Bush told an audience the other day that he thinks the most generous gift one person can give another is a prayer. He said, "I pray for strength. . . . I pray for forgiveness. And I pray to offer my thanks for a kind and generous Almighty God." This doesn't make him strange. It puts him in the normal range of Americans. He doesn't think I'm God's guy, he agrees with everything I do. If he did it would be disturbing to say the least. But he's not John Brown saying God himself told me to start this war, and he's not an ayatollah saying death to the Great Satan. He's just a Christian asking God for help and trying in turn to do what is helpful. When you do this you're acknowledging your inadequacy and dependence. It's a declaration not of pride but of humility. To a Christian it's like declaring reality. It's like saying, "There's weather outside." So Mr. Bush doesn't shy from conclusions and he isn't embarrassed that he asks for and needs God's help. Fine and good. A lot of people are able to feel a certain comfort with Mr. Bush because he's authentically himself, not led by polls, a man of faith, a man who tries to stay plugged into the current of big love. But it still doesn't necessarily mean he's right. Which gets me to Colin Powell's testimony before the U.N. Security Council. From the early days of the debate I listened to the secretary of state closely and with respect. I was glad to see a relative dove in the administration. It needed a dove. Mr. Powell's war-hawk foes seemed to me both bullying and unrealistic. Why not go slowly to war? A great nation should show a proper respect for the opinion of mankind, it should go to the world with evidence and argument, it should attempt to win allies. A lot of people tracked Mr. Powell's journey, and in a way took it with him. Looking back I think I did too. Mr. Powell now stands where the president stands: Saddam Hussein must be stopped. This is what Mr. Powell asserted, and in my view established, in his U.N. testimony: Iraq has developed and is developing weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has deliberately hid the weapons, in contravention of international agreements. Iraq has relations with and is supportive of terrorists who mean to strike at innocent people. You have to ask yourself: Why is Saddam developing these weapons, and what might he do with them? Will he do nothing with them? That would not be in line with his history. His history is one of aggression: invasions of neighbors, mass killings of his opponents in his own country and in others. Doing nothing with his weapons would be at odds with what appears to be his personal pathology: He is sadistic, a torturer. He likes bloody floors. Should we think past is prologue? It would seem realistic to think that, especially when we see his increased hunger for more and bigger weapons. The anti-invasion people don't address what they think a man like Saddam will do in the future if no one stops him. Recently I asked a friend, an intellectual who is passionately antiwar and anti-Bush, what he thinks Saddam will do if we do not remove him. At first my friend dodged the question with anti-neocon invective, but when I pressed he admitted he had no idea what Saddam would do if he were not stopped--and he didn't care. But you have to care. It's irresponsible not to. How is Saddam a threat to world safety? Well, you don't develop chemical and biological weapons to establish world peace. You get them, you spend your treasure to get them, to use them, one way or another at one time or another. He's used the weapons he has in the past--both conventional weapons in his invasions, and unconventional weapons in his gassing of the Kurds and Iranians. He seems never to shy from violence. Do we want him to go nuclear, and then deal with him then? That would seem an unwise gamble. If Saddam means to do mass harm with his weapons, whom does he mean to harm? He has long pointed to America and Israel as his great foes. He was thwarted and humiliated by America 12 years ago when he tried to take Kuwait. He was infuriated by Israel 22 years ago when they bombed his nuclear reactor. Whether you think America and Israel were right in those past actions or not, they are history, and they suggest who Saddam sees as his ultimate targets: them, and their allies, such as Britain and Italy. When America in the Gulf War spared his life and left him in power, he solemnly agreed to stop developing weapons of mass destruction. The world turned its attention elsewhere as he merrily resumed developing such weapons. It is hard to believe Saddam's future plans are benign. It is also hard to assume an invasion of Iraq would be as smooth, short and low-cost in terms of casualties as the first Gulf War. Maybe it will. U.S. military power is somehow always stronger and more overwhelming than one expects. But this looks like Saddam's last stand, and it is hard to imagine he will not hide and use the weapons he has. American troops appear to be prepared for this, but the unarmed civilians of Iraq do not. If Saddam uses all he has and goes out in a blaze of inglory, it could yield a terrible human toll among his own people, to whose safety he's long given little thought. Those who implacably oppose war will use these civilian loses to paint America as a mindless behemoth scattering bodies in its wake. But a great nation cannot allow its decisions to be determined by the pictures its foes will paint. War is ugly, damaging, chaotic and, in its individual application, often wildly unjust. It is as William Tecumseh Sherman said, hell. But Gen. Sherman didn't say the Civil War was wrong because war is hell. He fought hard and hellishly for the Union. President Bush's foes warn of body bags. There will be body bags. But the question does not seem to be "invade and get body bags" versus "don't invade and no body bags." If that were so we'd all say fine, no invasion. The question is: "invasion body bags or noninvasion body bags?" Removing Saddam and taking losses, or not removing Saddam and waiting for the losses that will no doubt follow. Saddam is a body-bag bringer. Where he is, loss follows. What good can come of an invasion? A successful invasion would mean Saddam removed and, in his place, someone almost certainly better. Maybe a more benign dictator, or an Iraqi leader who is already helping the CIA and has silent Iraqi support, or a hopeful democrat, or a claque of men who hate what Saddam's leadership did to abuse their country and people. U.S. forces would obviously be there for some time, and maybe a long time. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction could be found, removed, destroyed. This will be difficult, all of it. It may not work, or work completely. But if it removes Saddam and removes his killing weapons it may well sober up our allies in the area. And it will hearten the civilized world more than we imagine. For the first time since Sept. 11, 2001, the civilized world will be able to feel that it can seize control of its fate again. It would also be a real and psychological blow to terrorism and terrorists. "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse," Osama bin Laden said in a post-Sept. 11 videotape. America, he implied, was the weak horse. Will it be bad for the world if the civilized West gallops into the chaos and removes the weapons cache? I think it will encourage a more robust sense that nonterror states do not have to be the victims of bad history in a bad era. So: a blow to terrorism, the destruction of horrific weapons, a reassertion of Western spirit and values, and the stopping of a rogue nuclear program controlled by a sadist. This would seem to be worth a lot. And millions of Iraqis would be freed from oppressive and pathological rule. That would be worth something too. A more stable Iraq may well contribute to a more stable Middle East, and a more stable Mideast would contribute to a more stable world. And in the context of that enhanced stability the U.S. would hopefully feel free to be a more effective encourager of the hard steps needed to calm the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is not the only source of but the obvious modern source of our current woes. Much needs to be done in a troubled world, and surely the removal of Saddam is part of it, a needed step. We cannot expect a successful invasion of Iraq to result in a new age of peace and security. Islamic terrorism won't stop until all the terrorists themselves are jailed or killed. They will probably do terrible things again before the West decides once and for all and en masse to stop them. We are in for rough times. It cannot be said often enough that we are in the era of weapons of mass destruction. It is one thing for a Hitler to plan a war, build up his military and move strategically to get what he wants. It is quite another when a thousand little Hilters get their hands on one huge weapon and passionately, nihilistically go forth to kill. There will be plenty more heartache before the drama is done. But we can't dodge history. History won't let us. We'll have to deal with it, do our best, lead for the good. Iraq is part of the pattern of world terror. To move against it is a gamble. But to do nothing is a gamble too. It's gambling on Saddam's future goodwill, a new reluctance on his part to use what he has, a change of heart, mind and character. Does that strike you as a safe bet? A good one? Me either * * * Rush would love the poem "Hey Barbra" at the Poets For The War Website at http://www.poetsforthewar.org/ In fact, he would lovethe entire site. Eyelyn * * * Pure speculation. France and Germany is fighting this war ,tooth and nail, because they have probably been selling illegal items to Iraq. You say, well they could just start up the paper shredders, but they cannot depend upon Saddam to start his up. Yes, France and Germany are worried about what materials and documentation we will find after invading Baghdad. This is pure speculation now, but remember France sold nuke equipment to Iraq in the past. - Rex * * * history repeats... repeats...repeats "Why of course the people don't want war...That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the county to danger. It works the same in any country. "~Herman Goering , Nazi Officer;during his Nuremberg war crimes trail. Cathy * * * Hello, Rush. There is an excellent article in the latest Naval War College Review entitled "Letter from France." It is the Winter 2003 issue, Volume LVI, No. 1, just mailed. You should be able to find it in a good library. The article, by a NWC professor, relates his observations about military preparedness in several European countries and provide important insights for the situation currently in the UN. Those countries are not prepared to offer any significant assistance in an armed conflict and are embarrassed but refuse to admit that. The basic reason is socialism, which extracts so much economic vitality that there is very little left for any defense establishment. --//-- Thank you for your efforts to present the truth to the Americans who are looking for it. Best regards, Arthur * * * (Here's his web site:) http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=ctax&v1=Top/Opinion/Op-Ed/Columns Tell the Truth - By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN I was listening to the French foreign minister make his case at the U.N. for giving Saddam Hussein more time to comply, I was struck by the number of people in the Security Council chamber who applauded. I wish there were someone I could applaud for. Sorry, I can't applaud the French foreign minister, because I don't believe that France, which sold Saddam his first nuclear reactor, the one Israel blew up, comes to this story with the lofty principles it claims. The French foreign minister, after basking in the applause at the U.N., might ask himself who was clapping for his speech back in Baghdad and who was crying. Saddam was clapping, and all his political prisoners — i.e., most Iraqis — were crying. But I don't have much applause in me for China, Russia — or the Bush team either. I feel lately as if there are no adults in this room (except Tony Blair). No, this is not a plague-on-all-your-houses column. I side with those who believe we need to confront Saddam — but we have to do it right, with allies and staying power, and the Bush team has bungled that. The Bush folks are big on attitude, weak on strategy and terrible at diplomacy. I covered the first gulf war, in 1990-91. What I remember mos are the seven trips I took with Secretary of State James A. Baker III around the world to watch him build — face-to-face — the coalition and public support for that war, before a shot was fired. Going to someone else's country is a sign you respect his opinion. This Bush team has done no such hands-on spade work. Its members think diplomacy is a phone call. They don't like to travel. Seeing senior Bush officials abroad for any length of time has become like rare-bird sightings. It's probably because they spend so much time infighting in Washington over policy, they're each afraid that if they leave town their opponents will change the locks on their office doors. Also, you would think that if Iraq were the focus of your whole foreign policy, maybe you would have handled North Korea with a little less attitude, so as not to trigger two wars at once. Maybe you would have come up with that alternative — which President Bush promised — to the Kyoto treaty, a treaty he trashed to the great anger of Europe. You're not going to get much support in Europe telling people, "You are either with us or against us in a war on terrorism, but in the war you care about — for a greener planet — America will do whatever it wants." I am also very troubled by the way Bush officials have tried to justify this war on the grounds that Saddam is allied with Osama bin Laden or will be soon. There is simply no proof of that, and every time I hear them repeat it I think of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. You don't take the country to war on the wings of a lie. Tell people the truth. Saddam does not threaten us today. He can be deterred. Taking him out is a war of choice — but it's a legitimate choice. It's because he is undermining the U.N., it's because if left alone he will seek weapons that will threaten all his neighbors, it's because you believe the people of Iraq deserve to be liberated from his tyranny, and it's because you intend to help Iraqis create a progressive state that could stimulate reform in the Arab/Muslim world, so that this region won't keep churning out angry young people who are attracted to radical Islam and are the real weapons of mass destruction. That's the case for war — and it will require years of occupying Iraq and a simultaneous effort to defuse the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to create a regional context for success. If done right, such a war could shrink Al Qaeda's influence — but Al Qaeda is a separate enemy that will have to be fought separately, and will remain a threat even if Saddam is ousted. It is legitimate for Europeans to oppose such a war, but not simply by sticking a thumb in our eye and their heads in the sand. It's also legitimate for the Bush folks to focus the world on Saddam, but two years of their gratuitous bullying has made many people deaf to America's arguments. Too many people today no longer accept America's strength as a good thing. That is a bad thing. Some of this we can't control. But some we can, which is why it's time for the Bush team to shape up — dial down the attitude, start selling this war on the truth, give us a budget that prepares the nation for a war abroad, not a party at home, and start doing everything possible to create a global context where we can confront Saddam without the world applauding for him. Article sen in by: Sherry * * * France Date: Sun, Mar 09 03:53 PM If it turns out to be true that the French are selling arms to Iraq, and there is supposed to be a boycott against it, why should France be allowed to stay on the Security Council? This should take their veto power away from them. Bob * * * I'm Disallusioned with the Democratic Party - Date: Tue, Mar 11 2003 Hi Rush, I never thought I'd be writing you but at almost 40, I realize the Democratic party is truly bought by their benefactors. For the first time, I am in total agreement with your position on Iraq. I feel sorry for President Bush's circumstances and the measures he has to take to protect America and it's population. He is doing the only thing that makes sense in these times, post 9-11. I even feel he may have waited a little too long to strike at Iraq, but I believe it's Colin Powell's insistance on getting approval from the UN which has delayed our strike. As far as the UN is concerned, I feel the body is irrelevant to our foreign policy. When countries are unwilling to unite for what is morally right because of old financial obligations, then it is time to do away with this 21st century "League of Nations." At a minimum, I think the US should step away from UN meetings after we strike Iraq and tell Kofi Annan to find a new meeting place. I just read the new ABC news poll (1032 adults) where 86% of Republicans support a war, while 52% of Democrats oppose it. I am quite amazed that I am in that 48% of Dems. The Democratic party is thinking with peaceniks (who wouldn't go to war if their families were in a firing line) and with their pocketbooks. This sickens me. I have come to the conclusion that I will look at each issue with independent eyes from here on. Thanks for your clear rhetoric on your radio show. When you started talking about the strike on Iraq, I said to myself, "Wow. For the first time, I totally agree with Rush. He is speaking what my mind has been saying for months now." Yours Truly, Kathy from Sylmar, California * * * War with Iraq Date: Sun, Mar 09 11:29 PM Whether we have a war with Iraq or not - whether we win the war with Iraq or not - terror attacks on the United States will continue. I feel we should apply those billions of dollars on a real Homeland Security System to aid and assist those victims of the attacks here in the United States that will be forthcoming. Those in Bush's government - and maybe they really believe it - are telling our citizens that getting rid of Saddam is getting rid of terrorists. That is not true. The terror cells exist all over the world and do not need large armies or large amounts of monies to continue. I do not think Bush should bankrupt our country over there in Iraq. We should spend those monies for Security here in the U.S. - and bring those troops home. Kate // Syoset, N.Y. * * * RATHER INTERVIEW WITH SADAM Date: Sun, Mar 09 11:29 PM DAN RATHER DONE US A SERVICE BY SHOWING HOW OUT OF REALITY SADAM IS. FOR THE FIRST TIME I REALIZE THIS EVIL MAN MUST GO, NOW THANKS DAN. Woods * * * Hi, I'm not the kind of person who usually listens to the likes of Mr Limbaugh. In fact I'm a member of Tony Blair's Labour Party in the UK. Anyway, the poi nt is we had a member of parliament, Tony Benn, who interviewed Saddam recently. (You may have seen it - and I didn't get a chance to see Dan Rather's interview). He too was "sucking up" to Saddam Hussein - "Your excellency" etc, and very soft questions - very different from how you would interview a the leader of a democratic country. But the point is that you simply wouldnt be allowed to ask Saddam Hussein anything too tough - it wouldnt be aired. We shouldn't blame the interviewers for being so obsequious, I think everyone knows that much of the politeness was false - its for viewers back in the US to decipher what Saddam really meant. I think to criticise the interviewer for "sucking up" is to miss the point. Oliver, London, England, UK * * * Invading Iraq - Date: Sun, Mar 09 2003 O.K. It looks like invasion is inevitable. What do we do with this scenerio? When the U.S. attacks Iraq, terrorist cells strike several of our vulnerable sites - nuclear plants, oil storage areas, SSears tower, etc. It was in Al-Qaida notes that they would do this) In Israel, they say the Israeli Army is very helpful in assisting the wounded and looking for other terrorists. It would be wonderful if we had 300,000 troops within the United States to help and administer to U.S. citizens when terrorists attacks occur. Who is protecting our borders when so many of our soldiers are overseas? Kate * * * I continue to be amazed at the attitudes of the "human shields" or the peace mongers. Don't they understand that they are supporting a cruel and vicious dictator and not Iraq and its people? Further, let's assume that Saddam continues to vacillate as he has for the past 12 or so years: The parallels to Europe's appeasement of Hitler are frightening. It seems abundantly clear that unless he is forcibly removed from power, his efforts to acquire a nuclear capability will continue unabated and, with the support of France, Germany and other countries of their ilk, will probably be successful. His dedication to this end is clear. Continuation of the laughable "UN inspection" serves only Saddam. The past decade has allowed him, with unlimited financial and human resources, to build his storehouse of weapons of mass destruction in a manner that is probably undetectable. Somehow, the fact that he can amass scientists and specialists and draw on today's technological expertise seem to be forgotten. The rest of the world is not dealing with an uneducated or unintelligent madman. President Bush should immediately authorize the invasion of Iraq with the express and widely disseminated purpose of freeing the Iraqi people and capturing Saddam. It is my belief that he should have taken such an action long ago. Destroying a few probably outdated missiles behind a fence and with bull dozers is another comic routine. Rest assured that he continues to have and to improve his missile, nuclear, biological and chemical capabilities. Don * * * I'm disturbed by the Vice-President of Iraq calling for a dialogue with the United States. This is just more stall tactics to continue to win the hearts of the the left of this world and gain support for continued terrorist activity. If I were President Bush, I would simply tell Iraq that the United States does not negotiate with terrorists. we all know that Saddams weapons are sitting on a boat in tha Indian Ocean. Kevin * * * I am a married, 59 year old, white male, USMC Viet Nam Vet, Right-Wing, Proud Conservative Republican who doesn't believe that Iraq and Saddam pose such an immediate threat to America that we should spend even the life of one of our servicemen, or servicewomen, to over-throw him. What I really don't understand are those who are pro-war with Iraq who describes anybody who disagrees with them, such as I, as being some kind of 'Left-Wing Liberal' or even worse! All this type of talk does is to alienate fellow conservative voters and create a 'Us vs. Them' situation. Why can't people understand that even our Founding Fathers disagreed on many issues so why is it difficult for them to accept that fellow conservative people may disagree on certain ideas but still be on the same side? In closing, I feel that everyone should look into their own hearts and decide for themselves if they would be willing to give the live of one or more of their loved-ones in exchange for the over-throw of Saddam. If they answer 'No,' then they should oppose the up-coming war with Iraq as I do. Although I am only one lone voice I always remember the old saying, "It's better to light one candle than to curse the darkness." Semper Fi Gilbert * * * The Elephant in the Room Being Ignored in the Iraq Debate http://www.bannerofliberty.com/BOL-03MQC/2-21-2003.1.html By Mary Mostert, Analyst, Banner of Liberty (www.bannerofliberty.com) February 21, 2003 They are called the largest ethnic group in the world that does not have its own nation. The United Nations Refugee Agency reported "continuous and silent ethnic cleansing" against them and other minorities in the region. They are the 25 million Kurds, scattered mostly in Iraq, Turkey, Iran, Syria and Lebanon. From 1980-1992 Saddam Hussein expelled or killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds and confiscated their lands. As Hitler did with the Jews, Saddam has attempted to create a "purified" race in Iraq by driving out or killing Iranians, Kurds and Shiite Muslims. According to a Revolution Command Council, Decree #474 signed by Saddam Hussein on April 27, 1981, "An Iraqi husband whose wife is of Iranian origin, is offered four thousands ID (if military) and two thousands five hundred (if civil) in case of divorce and deportation of his wife." And, as was the fate of the Jews of Europe in the 1930s, the media and heads of state largely ignore the plight of today's Kurds. For rest of the story go to: http://www.bannerofliberty.com/BOL-03MQC/2-21-2003.1.html * * * DEAR RUSH THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT WE SHOULD NOT GO TO WAR, WE SHOULD JOIN THE FRENCH AND GERMAN PLAN FOR MORE INVESTIGATORS, WITH A SMALL ADDENDUM. WE SHOULD OFFER 150,000 TRAINED INSPECTORS TO ACCOMPANY THE UN INSPECTORS, SO THEY COULD COVER MORE GROUND QUICKLY. OF COURSE, SINCE THE UN DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH HELICOPTERS, AND AUTOMOBILES, THEREFORE, OUR INSPECTORS WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE THEIR OWN TRANSPORATION. OF COURSE OUR INSPECTORS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO ANYWHERE THEY CHOOSE SINCE THEY ARE PROVIDING THEIR OWN TRANSPORTATION. OF COURSE SINCE THEY WOULD PROBABLY NOT BE ACCOMPANIED BY IRAQ SOLDIERS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BRING GUNS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM THE DEADLY SNAKES. WHAT DO YOU THINK? MIKE / FROM KC * * * I was never more proud to be an American than I am today February 15, 2003. We stood up to the Bush Administration war machine. We told him and his henchmen to stop this nonsense and get back to the business of running the country and not wasting money and lives on what is at the very least a petty vendetta. If Bush is so interested in "getting" someone, he should concentrate on Bin Liden. He is the enemy. He is the one who attacked us, not Iraq. But we all know why Bush isn't going after Bin Liden, because he can't find him, so he turns to a more convenient bogie man. It's a sham and a shame. When was the last time Bush even mentioned Ben Liden's name? Does he think we are so stupid not to see what he's trying to do? Do I even have to spell it out? Deflection, obfuscation and duplicity. The more we hear from the weapons inspectors the more we see that the real liar in all this is the Bush Administration. Dubba is the only man in the world who can make Hussein appear honest by comparison. What is most gauling about this situation is the arrogance of Bush Administration. They act as if they are the only ones who knows what's best for the rest of the world and as a result of this hubris our standing in the world has hit a low not seen in recent memory. It has taken him only two years to turn our foreign policy into a terrible hash. Eight years of unprecedented peace and prosperity have been turned into a geo-political and economic nightmare. Thank you so much Reinquist and friends. And you wonder why the Democratics are fighting so hard to keep anymore of their kind off the Supreme Court If the Bush Administration is trying to export this kind of democracy, don't bother. When fair elections and "one person one vote" really mean something in this country then we can show the rest of the world about democracy, until then let's concentrate on making our own country a better place to live. One of the groups at the rally here in Chicago today that gladden my heart the most was the U.S Army Vets Against the War. I'm proud to say I'm veteran of the U.S. Army and I'm proud of that. I'm also proud that I brought my 10 year old son with me. I want him to know what real patriotism is. GO TO PAGE 3 GO TO: Main Index * Topic Index * War On Terror * Bumper Stickers * Visitor Index Engagements.com * ElectionSpeeches.com * HomeVideos.com * MurderMysteries.com