LIBERATING IRAQ - RushOnline.com
Hollywood radicals are wrong: America is
not alone.
Currently 40+ other countries have supplied troops and military
assistance.
"WE REFUSE TO LIVE IN FEAR"
(President George W. Bush)
The Bush speech to the nation re. Iraq was carried on
CNN and Fox only? The speech to win the hearts-and-minds over to
the invasion of another country was carried on two outlets? I realize
that the liberal media is no friend to the administration, but I
was flabberghasted that the speech was not carried on the networks.
Please comment in your monologue.
Emotional liberal/pragmatic conservative listener
* * *
9/11 was real. The danger of Saddam is also real
and he is getting more danerous thanks to his democrat defenders!
While 'thousands' protest the 'coming war with Iraq'
& serve as the base of a CBS poll that claims 'a majority of
Americans want to give the UN ' time,' the press glibly ignores
the reality that would show such an attitude as being nearly suicidal.
Because from a Middle America perspective, there are
some alarming points that should be obvious, even if law enforcement
agencies are hesitant to admit them. The shooting going on in Maryland
is not someone killing an individual or individuals he is mad at.
There is NOT (sorry, Jesse) a racial aspect to this.
The shooter is obviously skilled enough to consistently
hit a target with a single shot.
The shooter has enough support to quickly escape his
killing fields. The shooter's weapon is NOT firing the preferred
'jacketed' military rounds, which are associated with huge exit
wounds.
The shooter's weapon, though, is apparently not making
a significant noise... I have heard of no reports of a shot being
heard or of the 'crack' of a round arriving before a person was
hit.
Which means there is every chance the weapon is firing
sub-sonic munitions and is fitted with a suppressor. Which means
the killer is not out there to fulfill some gluttonous need for
violence. This is a terror cell, bringing a new and deadly aspect
of terrorism to our 'safe' world.
So while the media ignore that terrorism is claiming
innocent lives right here in our country (likely to rant that this
is 'proof' guns should be outlawed), you and I must come to grips
with the same fear that every Israeli faces every day... is someone
out there willing to kill me just because my religion/political
belief/societal structure is different from their own? Welcome to
'the world community,' America.
Regards
K Miller
* * *
Iraq / Commentary - Sun, Mar 09 2003
"When in the Course of Human Events," it
becomes basic planetary hygiene to remove the forces that seed,
exact and extend evils upon mankind, all nations should unite to
dissolve the threat which is present. Saddam Hussein qualifies as
the greatest murder of humanity since Hitler.
Hussein has been directly responsible for the death
of 4.5 million people in the last 28 years. Consider that in the
war with Iran, which he started, two million deaths occurred on
each side. The Gulf War, also a product of his greed, yielded an
unknown quantity of deaths with estimates from 100,000 to 400,000.
Insert the Kurdish gassing, the deaths of his own citizens
and easily you can cross the estimate offered. If you don't accept
the number of 4.5 million, and you take Saddam's own unrealistic
estimates, you still top 1.5 million people he has been responsible
for killing in the last 16 years alone. He has killed more Islamic
people than any man living today.
What diplomatic efforts exists that can accept and defend
the death of 1.5 million people. What negotiation tactics can justify
waiting another moment on this murderer? The righteous Germans certainly
have never practiced what they now preach. During the 1976 Munich
Games, where were the negotiation before blasting everyone at the
Airport? Could they have
not waited another hour, another moment, another day? After all,
little did it matter, they were only Arabs and Jews. They seemed
justified in their attack at the Airport, but were they really only
solving the problem in typical German fashion. They did not wait
for the inspectors, or the negotiations of the French and moved
unilaterally to end the conflict, their way.
Back in America, we have a country which can focus
for months on O.J. and the murder of two people, but are quick to
reach resolve for more rhetoric when it is obvious we are dealing
with a Stalin / Hitler clone. We are the same country that turned
on their headlights for a day in support of William Callie and his
Vietnam war crimes, yet two weeks later he was forgotten
forever.
The wake-up call is here America. This nation alone
is the catalyst for humanity and resolve and only we have the ability
to change history and stop Hussein before he develops and sends
one of his Nuclear nightmares skipping through Israel, which he
has vowed in his writings to
accomplish. The day this takes place, the World Banks, the Gold
market, the Diamond market and the standards of peaceful humanity
will cease to exist. "The evil that men do live after them,
the good is often interred with their bones." Unfortunately
for the Islamic world, there will be no good to bury with Saddam.
Michael / Santa Fe, New Mexico
* * *
I have wondered why Sadaam has never answered to the
world for the ecology after burning the oil refineries. Malosovich
has had to answer for his war crimes; why not Sadaam? We all know
what he has done, what he intends to do, are we just going to sit
around a wait for the next attack?? Then cry "they knew about
it and did nothing". I' m sick of it and I think Mr. president
knows exactly what needs to be done and Itrust he and his staff
to get it done.
That's all!
Leah & Phil / wetumpka alabama
* * *
The Beauty of Americas free speech
In our great country we can say anything we want which
is quite nice. Many voices in the air proclaim we must destroy Iraq
and rid the middle east of Saddam. But, how many of those big voices
will be in the front lines of any ground urban battle against Iraq?
NONE! Urban warfare is a disaster waiting to bury men and women
on both sides of the battle.If we move on Bahgdad-this could be
the greatest loss of
life ever in an modern battle field.
Look at it this way-An enemy decides to invade say Chicago
by land. Prior to the attack-the enemy lets us know they will defeat
us in battle. So-we give every citizen in Chicago a machine gun-lots
of ammo and hand grenades as well as shoulder fired sams or anti
tank guns or rifles with scopes. Now you have 3 million soldiers
on your front lines in a vast urban battle zone. Unless you gas
your enemy-you are dead. Or unless you level the playing field -
you don't have a chance at victory. I am for removing Saddam but
not by a massive invasion. We have special operation teams...we
need to use them instead.
Rob / Olympia,WA
* * *
Now if George wants to put on a show..I think he ought
to drop say 1
million posters with american flag parachutes attached to them over
Iraq..With
him of course in a combat uniform holding a Tommy gun with a 100
round drum
with a slogan that says " Mess with the best-Die like the rest
"
WE need to out psych the enemy before battle . I would
drop 13 fuel air bombs at max altitude that would cover the entire
Bahgdad area geographicly. At 25,000 feet at midnight they would
all go off at the same time. Equally spaced at say 10 miles apart
they would create an effect that the sky was completely on fire
over the region.The pressure wave would crumble 85% of all buildings
roof top structures-like antennas and moldings.The shock wave would
shatter all windows in Bahgdad and millions would drop their weapons
and flee like rats from a sinking ship.Millions would be blinded
for about 3 hours or more and unable to fight. Rumors would spread
over radio that we had destroyed all of Bahgdad and the fireballs
would be seen over 100 miles away.With all communication lost-troops
would feel they had lost the battle and surrender.Why fight if the
rulers and everyone else just died?
Just a thought.
Rob
* * *
Bush's Holy Crusade
In my opinion I think that the current push to GET SADDAM
is nothing
more than a HOLY CRUSADE on the part of Bush. Maybe if we looked
at it
another way.
1. the Muslems all consider us (Americans) as infidels
(we don't believe Allah is God- OK).
2. The muslems in general do not like jews.
3. America is predominately Christian; (in their eyes we worship
a Jew).
4. Bush (a Christian) is creating a "Holy War -( American
CRUSADE)"
against them because they or a lot of them (Muslems) have declared
a "Holy war" against us (9/11).
5. Didn't something like this happen about 1000 years ago?
6. What will the history books say about this period 100 years
from now?
7. Bush is "not trying to finish what his father started".
Bush is on a real Crusade - look at the way he acts - really listen
to what he is saying - this guy is getting fanatical about this
whole thing.
Yes, Saddam needs to be stopped or better yet removed.
So do it the old
fashioned way - send in the CIA. Don't create an American Gestapo
(homeland security) and don't declare war - you don't kill a dog
by cutting off its tail. Take him out - occupy the country - divide
it up like Germany and fight a muslim cold war for 50 years.
Gerry
* * *
Wake up America! Saddam Hussein has vowed to drive us
out of the Nations
of Islam. What do you think he's going to do? Throw marshmallows
at us. No matter how you look at it, he has declared war on our
country. Do you really want to wait until he has the weapons to
kill massive numbers of our troops and us? Doesn't common sense
tell you; it's better to kill a snake before it bites you than to
fight for your life after it bites?
Why should we wait for approval from the UN or our allies?
History has proven the UN and most of our allies are wimps. They
always wait until a situation has gotten so dire they have no choice
but to act. When they do decide to fight, they expect America and
the British to do most of the work. Saddam has not declared war
on their nations. He has singled out us for extermination. In this
case, they can sit back all safe and sound and hope we get rid of
Saddam before he becomes their problem. So, why should they stick
their necks out? We'll take care of the problem for them as usual.
Frank
* * *
Saddam Hussein vs. the Non-Muslim World
With rare exceptions, I don't miss your show. I may
have missed this point, but don't our "allies" and the
rest of the non-muslim world realize that if Saddam takes us out
first, they don't have a prayer of survival? They need to back us
or they're done!!!
Dawn
* * *
After Saddam....
Date: Fri, Sep 13 08:44 PM
The overthrow will be an expense that I feel should
be born by IRAQ. I
suggest we operate the oil fields to repay the US government for
the war
while we show the Iraquies how capitalism works. I think two years
should be enough time to recoup the expense and give them sufficient
exposure to freedom that they will fight to retain it.
John
* * *
: Bush and Iraq / Date: Wed, Sep 11 09:02 AM
On this day of remembrance let us remember that President
Clinton negotiated
with the Taliban government for three years trying to get them to
hand over
Osama Bin Laden for his role in the US embassy and Cole bombings
and that
the result of his failure is the reason we are all walking around
with a knot in our stomachs today.
The situation with Iraq is not much different. It has
been going on since1991, eight years of which President Clinton
was in office. The bane of the earth is not evil men. The bane of
the earth is good men who see evil and do nothing.
President George W. Bush is a good man who sees evil
and will not allow himself to do nothing. He is a leader who knows
the value of action after the words have failed.
The talking part has been done.
Jim
* * *
Saddam
Date: Mon, Sep 09 03:56 PM
Many individuals in this country see no reason to attack
and remove
Saddam. I beg to differ.
Saddam has had and currently has Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMD).
Saddam has used these and other weapons against individuals and
countries without remorse. Saddam has voiced opinions that he would
and
should strike out at America (as well as Israel). He has the means
either directly or indirectly to deliver these WMD.
Now for a metiphor, let's say that America is your personal
home and
Israel is the home next door. A punk (Saddam) with a known criminal
background for violance including the use of lethal force, is currently
on parole for past crimes (U.N. resolutions), and is currently standing
in the street, with multiple weapons pointed at your home (rifle,
a
handgun, a knife and a pipe......multiple kinds of WMD) and is screaming
that he is going kill you, your family, your neighbor
and his family.
At what point do you defend yourself against this individual?
Here is an
person that is directly threatening your life and the
life of those
close to you. He is known to have killed before, has weapons that
can
easily kill you and your loved ones at hand, and is verbalizing
his
intent to use these weapons to do you bodily harm. When are you
morally
and legally allowed to defend yourself?
Instead of allowing us to defend ourselves, our homes
and the homes of our neighbors, many in this country seem to want
us to
1) Call the police (...the United Nations) and wait
for them to come to defend us.
2) Call the parole officer or parole board and wait for action
3) Wait until the punk is in the house and in the process
of killing before we take action against him
4) Let him kill everyone and let society discuss how
the ramifications of the world, his religion and his upbringing
forced him to do these awful things, so it is really society's fault
and not the punk's fault for walking off the street after vocalizing
his intents and killing in cold blood.
I live in peace, I let others live in peace. I allow
others to differ from me in all aspects of life. I allow others
to disagree with my way of life, my religion, and my country. Discussions,
heated or calm, are just that...words. But threaten me or my family
by bring a gun to the argument, then display that gun, and threaten
to use that gun requires that I defend myself.
The difference between Saddam and others that differ
from our viewpoint is exactly this. Other countries have WMD, Other
countries have viewpoints, religions, and agendas that differ from
ours. The difference between Saddam and these countries is that
they do not have a history of attacking and using these weapons
for personal gains, they have not on "parole" for past
crimes, they have not vocalized that they are going to
kill us because they got caught and were put in "jail",
they have not actively sought out bigger guns and weapons in which
to kill us, nor have they actively recruited others to assist in
killing us.
If they do or when they do, they will become just like
Saddam, a punk with a chip and a long rap sheet that is in the street
with a gun pointed at my home. At that time, he or they will become
a direct theat to my myself, my family and my friends and he will
be neutralized with all speed and by any and all means at my disposal.
Yours,
Garry
* * *
EU Clowns
Date: Fri, Sep 20 03:01 PM
It has become quite clear that our gallant NATO allies
(with the exception of England) are nothing more than a bunch of
losers. Led by France, the most noted and historic loser, our close
friends on the European continent find themselves in a very difficult
situation brought about by their collective inability to lead. We
currently possess the ability to strike any enemy anywhere in the
world at any time. We have invested in a military that is capable
of defending US interests abroad and now have a leader who is
unafraid to exercise the right of self defense. Our NATO allies
have not invested in their militaries and are led by spineless,
non-confrontational politicians. They no longer possess the military
capability or intestinal fortitude to fight a global war or even
one just beyond their boarders. In essence, our NATO allies have
budgeted themselves into military irrelevance.
It offends them that we ignore their views and consider
them of little use militarily. The truth is sometimes very unpleasant.
As we continue preparations for, and ultimately execute a military
strike against Iraq, we should pay close attention to what our gallant
NATO allies say and do. If we find them to be more trouble than
they are worth, we may need to consider divesting ourselves of this
burden that has become NATO. Let us allow the European Union to
stand on its own and see just how seriously they are taken by the
world's dictators who will only laugh at European Union protests
and empty threats that are backed up by more empty threats .
TED W. MAUZEY / US ARMY
* * *
Reluctance of Europe threatens world once again.
I have heard many politicians, world leaders and media
personalities suggesting patience and diplomacy toward Iraq. They
say that if America attacks Iraq, it will upset the current "Coalition"
and general peace in the Middle East.
It was precisely this type of thinking that lead us into World War
II. The European Nations are now, as in the past, trying to pacify
a known terrorist and mass murderer in the hopes that the problem
will just take care of itself.
Prior to W.W.II, European Nations were understandably
tiered of war and were reluctant to take the initiative to stop
Hitler's movements to amass the strength of his military and acquire
new territories. They waited until "the wolf was at their door."
If we follow their lead this time, "the wolf" will be
at the door carrying chemical weapons, biological weapons and probably
tactical nuclear weapons. Are they blind? Do they suffer from amnesia?
When is someone going to make the connection, see the relationship
of events and say, "OK, enough is enough!"?
It's time for us to plainly state to the rest of the
world that political correctness and diplomacy are not getting the
job done. Instead, it's time to confront the neighborhood bully,
whip his ass and make an example of him. Then make absolutely sure
he will no longer have the capability to threaten anyone else. That
means take him out of power- by whatever means necessary.
Then establish a government of their people which will
be openly and forcefully monitored until such time that the new
government is secure enough to govern themselves and stop being
a threat to their neighbors and us.
Sincerely, Henry
* * *
JAMES MADISON (1793) - thoughts on War
War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war,
a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will
which is to direct it.... In war the honors and emoluments of office
are to be multiplied; and it is executive patronage under which
they are to be enjoyed. Hence it has grown into an axiom that the
executive is the department of power most distinguished by its propensity
to war; hence it is the practice of all states, in proportion as
they are free, to disarm this propensity of its influence.... It
is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the
executive brow they are to encircle.
Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature in the nature
of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced,
continued, or concluded./
* * *
I just don't understand America. I am 25, and am just
now seeking to find answers to make informed decisions. The thing
is, the more that I see the more confused and skeptical I get. I
have so many questions. Like, some one is being paid to find out
if we did have information about Sept. 11th. And at the same point
in time we have our president saying that we have evidence that
Sadam is helping this sort of thing happen. Yet, there is still
a portion of America that doesn't want to stop him. And there are
people complaining about paying for it?
Also, if Sadam can't reach us right now, he can reach
someone with his weapons, and why aren't they a little more concerned?
I don't know where all these so called reporters are? How come they
are trying to get the first story on a hurricane they can't stop
that might kill themselves, but can't find any other concerned Nation
closer to Sadam to support what we know? Sorry if this comes across
as rambling, but
nothing that I have heard so far sounds any different to me.
Scott/ Detroit Mi
* * *
Sadam
Date: Fri, Sep 27 10:32 PM
Lets hope that if Sadam hits us with a nuclear weapon,that
it lands on Daschle's or Kennedy's Senate offices or at least in
Mass. or S. Dakota.Those two and Torricelli should have been sent
to survivor island ages ago. Keep the faith Rush. Also, KK Towsend
was an embarassment to the state of Maryland on the debate on Thursday.
Thanks
.Terry Moore.
PS Seems like these democratic governors have taken
the Clinton legacy to heart. Glendenning and the Kentucky gov have
followed in Clintons tracks to the utmost.
* * *
: Petition to UN
Dear Sirs:
When I receive an Email like the two Emails asking me
to petition the UN
for peace, my blood boils. Why would someone who is not mentally
incompetent,
who is literate, has freedom of the press, and has access to any
history book ever written about the politics and wars of the twentieth
century; just why would that person ever petition the UN to not
stop a raging bully?
Sadaam Hussein has violated several treaties that he
and his nation signed when the Gulf War ended in 1991. Hussein is
building an arsenal of highly lethal weapons that not only kill
humans, but also poison the earth. Sadaam Hussein has already used
chemical weapons to kill people and to poison the earth in Iran
and in Iraq. Sadaam Hussein used poison to kill in his own country.
And no one can grow crops or use wells for water in the areas where
the chemical weapons have been used. Sadaam Hussein also set the
oil fields on fire in Kuwait, just because he was losing what he
unlawfully gained. This man, if I can call him that and keep a straight
face, has no
respect for his Mother (Earth). He has no respect for humanity.
He has no respect
for good society.
This arsenal, that Sadaam Hussein and his Ba'ath Party
are developing, is not allowed by the treaties that he signed to
end the Gulf War. The very same treaties that he agreed to follow
just a decade ago. A decade is not a long time in history. But apparently
from the number of petitioners I saw on the E-mail, many people
in the West have short-term memory loss.
YES, Mr. Sadaam has used poison gas to kill his domestic
political enemies. He KILLED entire VILLAGES of Iraqi PEOPLE. I
said, Sadaam Hussein killed IRAQI P-E-O-P-L-E, People. Sadaam did
not cause anyone to make a petition drive to the UN to deport these
domestic adversaries. Sadaam did not ask the Iraqi parliament to
vote on whether or not to deport these people. He simply killed
them in cold blood. He killed men, women, and children indiscriminately,
without warning, without a chance of the victims helping themselves
to stay alive.
History is real, it is on going, and we are living it
right now. Let's set the record straight and look at current world
events putting everything into perspective. I do not wish to repeat
history. "Peace at any price" is not worth having.
War is often the better choice. I urge you to stand
up for what is right and what is just and do not shirk away in weakness.
You have never dealt with people from the third world. People from
such nations are harsh in dealing with the weak and those in the
minority. Tolerance is not a word that is used in everyday vocabulary
in such countries.
Sincerely, Ralph - Caldwell, ID
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0513/p08s01-wome.html
http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas1.html
http://www.kdp.pp.se/halabja/11.html
* * *
With all the saber rattling that has taken place about
Iraq in the last 11 months I'm very surprised nobody has mentioned
the USS Stark which was his by two Exocet missles, fired by an Iraqi
fighter pilot in 1987. Thirty Seven U.S. sailors died in that attack
which was officially declared an accident. At the time, the US was
aiding Iraq in their war against Iran.
I believe this was no accident. The Stark asked the
fighter jet pilot several times to identify itself as friend or
foe but the pilot never responded. I truly believe the attack on
the Stark was a terrorist attack on the US and that the Iraqi leadership
covered it up in order to continue receiving US support in their
war.
The battle cry for our pending war with Iraq should
be, "Remember the USS Stark" .
Brian - CPE
* * *
PEACE - NOT BLIND HATE!
Rick
* * *
Weapons Hidden in Libya
Since there is some respectable comment about Hussein having a "bolt
hole" in Libya, why would he not hide his weapons in that country
in order to confound Bix, et. al.? "Weapons of mass destruction"
do not need to be of large size, so maybe he is so confident of
passing the inspection because he has hidden his weapons in some
other country--Libya, Syria, North Korean.
Just a thought.
Jerry
* * *
The war on terror must be as much a war of ideas as
a war of arms. If we face off against terrorism only with guns,
we will suffer the same dilemna we experienced in Vietnam: we will
be pitting ourselves against an enemy who has the liesure to choose
when and where he attacks, and who can recuperate from his losses
simply by hiding.
However, if it is our aim to win this war outright, our strategy
must consist of not only armed containment, but also the aggressive
questioning of fundamentalist ideology through the media, much like
Radio Free Europe. We must hold the high moral ground, and we need
a government body whose job it is to translate this message, not
to our enemies, but to those whom our enemies seek to enlist.
I believe the mechanism to put such an information network into
place would be more cost effective than a cruise missile, and I
think this would be an excellent bandwagon for you, Mr. Limbaugh,
to get on.
R. A. Garcia / Ocala, FL
* * *
Even when war is experienced, it does not immediatly
cease to appear as a game. The necessity that belongs to war is
terrible, wholly different from that belonging to peace; the soul
only submits to the necessity of war when escape is impossible;
and so long as the soul does escape, it lives irresponsible days,
empty of necessity, days of
frivolity, of dream, arbritrary and unreal. Danger is then an abstraction,
the lives which one takes seem like toys broken by a child, and
no more important....
Heroism is a theatrical pose, soiled by artificial braggings.
If, added to this, an influx of vitality comes to multiply and inflate
the power of action, the man believes that, thanks to divine intervention,
he is irresistible, providentially preserved from defeat and from
death.
War is easy then, and ignobly loved. But for the majority
of soldiers this state of soul does not last. The day comes when
fear, defeat, or the death of beloved companions
crushes the warrior's soul beneath the necessity of war. Then war
ceases to be a play or a dream; the warrior understands at last
that it really exists. This is a hard reality, infinitely too hard
to be borne, for it comprises death. The thought of death cannot
be sustained, or only in flashes from the moment one understands
death as a possible eventuality.
It is true that every man is destined to die and that
a soldier may grow old among his comrades, yet for those whose souls
are subservient to the yoke of war, the relationship between death
and the future is different than for other men. For those others
death is the acknowledged limit pre-imposed upon their future; for
these warriors, death itself is their future, the future assigned
to them by their profession. That men should have death for their
future is a denial of nature. As soon as the
practice of war has revealed the fact that each moment holds the
possiblity of death, the mind becomes incapable of moving from one
day to the next without passing through the spectre of death.
Then the consciousness is under tension such as it can
only endure for short intervals. But each new dawn ushers in the
same necessity. Such days added to each other make up years. That
soul daily suffers violence which every morning must mutilate
its aspirations because the mind cannot move about in a time without
passing through death. In this way war wipes out every conception
of a goal, even all thoughts concerning the goals of war. The possibility
of so violent a situation is inconceivable when one is outside it,
its ends are inconceivable when one is invloved in it.
Therefore no one does anything to bring about its end.
from Simone Weil / from her essay, The Iliad, Poem of Might
* * *
Iraq issue - Date: Wed, Jan 29 05:24 AM
If you will think back to Mogadishu, you will remember
that as soon as a
few Soldiers were killed, our infamous President (Clinton) pulled
out, showing
the world that America could not handle war casualties. This so
emboldened
the people we now know as alkiada that they attacked our main land.
If
we leave Iraq now, Sadam will be the greatest warrior for Allah
the world
has ever seen. The entire Muslim extremist world will follow this
Mad Man
to the ends of the Earth. If we leave now, there will be no safe
place on
the planet for America or her Allies. We MUST!! end this business
now and
any American seen going to or publicly supporting Iraq should be
tried and
convicted as Traitors to our country! Especially our political leaders
who
insist on undermining the foundation of our Great Nation. Thank
the Democrats for Sep 11 2001, don't let them do it again.
Ray / US Army / Bosnia
* * *
Appeasement,Churchill,WWII / Date: Tue, Jan 28 04:54
PM
I was reading James Dobson's book "Love Must Be Tough"
and came across
this statement about appeasement which was so fitting for the situation
the world now faces with Saddam and once faced with Hitler. Here's
the quote, "Panic often leads to appeasement, which is virtually
never successful in seeking to control the behavior of others. In
fact, it often leads directly to war, whether between husbands and
wives or
between antagonistic nations. Attempts by one side to "buy
off" an aggressor or offender appear to represent peace proposals,
but they merely precipitate further insult and conflict.
World Was II might have been prevented and fifty million
lives saved if British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and other
national leaders had understood the folly of appeasement in 2936-39.
Every time they offered Adolph Hitler another Czechoslovakia to
tranquilize his lust for dominion, they only fed his disdain them
and their armies. Hitler's interpretation of their yearning for
"peace in our time" as evidence of weakness and fear enticed
him to ever greater audacity. finally, it became necessary to fight
what Winston Churchill called the most preventable war in modern
times. That is where appeasement leads, whether in affairs of state
or affairs of the heart." Pg 23-23 from Love must Be tough
by James Dobson. Thanks for keeping us all informed.
Bonnie / Grass Valley, CA
* * *
Rush, I was listening to all of the rhetoric over the
impending war with Iraq today. Man, has the world gotten so young
or uneducated that no one recalls the events leading up to WWII?
Saddam is Hitler reincarnated. The old saying that history repeats
itself is playing out before our very eyes. President Bush and Prime
Minister Blair realize the world cannot afford turning a blind eye,
for a second time, to the likes of Saddam.
The attitudes of World leaders today parallels that
during the period between Hitler's rise to power & the start
of WWII. If we ignore Iraq, the problem will go away. This sounds
like a paraphrase of Prime Minister Chamberlain's public orations
prior to the Blitzkrieg of Europe. Will it take another Pearl Harbor
or 9/11 to wake people of the
U.S. & the rest of the world. I certainly hope not as it will
more than likely be Atomic or Biological. Waking up one day under
attack and realizing "Oh Hell, were being Saddamized!"
is not my idea of world peace!
Anyway, just wanted to vent & give you a healthy
Hoorah! for not letting the sick Bastards of the world thwart your
delivery of the truth.
Leland
* * *
There sure are a lot of interesting opinions about going
to war with Iraq. Of course most of them are coming from people
that chose to believe wh atever media that coincides with what they
think. I don't remember Chapman e ver saying if he has ever been
to Iraq. My guess is that he hasn't. Most of the negative opinions
are from people who have never been there. Just becaus e some actor
goes over there and reports back that he doesn't see anything b
ad about Hussein doesn't mean a thing. What do you think, the Iraqi
governme nt allowed him to see anything more than they wanted him
to see?
They take the same approach with the UN inspectors.
They have b een playing the same game since 1992. Now they don't
have to play so hard be cause they have had since 1998 to get everything
hidden. As for ties to terr orism, it is pretty obvious that Hussein
supports any and probably all, exce pt for any that pose a threat
to him of course. It is a known and highly pub licized fact that
Hussein pays the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The media
used to call that "Blood Money." It doesn't take much
intelligence to figure that if Hussein is willing to do that then
he would bend over bac kwards to help Al Quada, as long as they
don't come after him.
I've heard and read a large amount of opinions concerning this issue.
From the news media "Experts" to the actors that think
we see them as "VIPs" and that their opinions really matter.
Its laughable when you see so me actor publicly questioning the
President's position. I wore the uniform a long time with pride,
willing to protect this country and it's freedoms wit h my life.
Now for those that just went, "RAH RAH" You can kiss my
ass! I wo uldn't do it again unless MY country was being invaded.
Why, because I have found that most of the people I meet now are
not worth the sacrifice. I won' t say everybody, because there are
a large number of good people in this cou ntry. I look at the elected
officials we have on Capitol Hill and get a cold shiver down my
spine when I think that one day one of them might be sitting in
the Oval office. I get scared when people talk of how great Clinton
and Gore are and how Hillary should run in 2004.
This country used to be great, but unfortunately people like me
have sat back and have kept silent. We have allowed the draft-dodgers
and l iberals to set the standards and to influence the government.
From 1992 to 2 000 we allowed our country to be weakened to a point
where fanatical terrori st have invaded and killed thousands of
innocent people. We now live in a so ciety where you have to look
over your shoulder constantly, to protect your family and yourself.
We live in a country where protecting trees are more im portant
than protecting our children from drugs. The Constitution and the
Bi ll of Rights spells it out awfully clear to me. I'll fight to
protect my fam ily and willingly give my life for them but as for
the rest I guess you'll j ust have to fend for yourselves.
Earl
Pensacola, FL.
* * *
Texan's answer to liberal vs. conservative
The Difference Between The Liberal and Conservative
"Debate" Over The
War On Terrorism:
Question: You're walking down a deserted street with
your wife and two
small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife
comes around the corner and is running at you while screaming
obscenities. In your hand is a Glock .40 and you are an expert shot.
You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What
do
you do?
__________________________________________________________________
Liberal Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does the
man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that
is
inspiring him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think?
What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club
and
knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this
situation? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does
he
definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound
me? If
I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while
he
was stabbing me? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this
with
some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.
____________________________________________________________
Conservative Answer:
BANG!
____________________________________________________________
Texan's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
click...
(sounds of clip being ejected and fresh clip installed)
Wife: "Sweetheart, he looks like he's still moving,
what do you kids
think?"
Son: "Mom's right Dad, I saw it too..."
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Daughter: "Nice grouping Daddy!"
* * *
Dear Rush:
Here is a topic that you and maybe your listeners can
discuss/debate.
Having thought about this and listening to you and others
(you are my favorite along with the Fox News with Britt Hume) what
nobody seems to be discussing is this.
Assuming that the inspectors continue ( as our liberal
"friends and allies" desirefor the next several months)
and they come up dry, which they undoubtedly will, and Saddam requests
that sanctions be removed, which he will be entitled to do, what
will the UN do?
Undoubtedtedly the sanctions will be removed because
they really don't have any right to continue them. They could, but
with French, German and Russian support and pressure from the third
world countries, then Saddam will be free to turn up the oil pumps
and rake in billions. With this money, he can then buy more technology,
support terrorists and probably build more palaces.
But seriously, when this guy gets his hands on that
money, he can then turn the country into a true nuclear power, no
matter what the US, or the UN says.
He did it during the last 10 years, what makes anybody believe that
he won't do it with his extra cash.
Just thought this subject should be discussed. Have
not heard anybody mention this.
Ron / Hobe Sound, FL
* * *
About the Dem's on 1441
I have read res. 1441, and it is painfully clear that
the reason that the inspectors are there in Iraq is to monitor the
disarming of WMD's already known to exist, and not to find something
new. Why are dem's like Biden and Boxer along with other hollywood
heros and the like, trying to come against what clearly has to be
done to stop such a formidable threat as Saddam Hussein and any
and all other terrorist networks? Are there some other motives by
these people that I'm missing, or are they just more naive than
the behind the scenes working class citizen. I wonder.
Dan H.
* * *
The real reason
I had the misfortune last evening to hear two of the
most confused liberals on earth trying to argue against the war
with Iraq. Paul Bergalis and Jerry Springer the next US senator
from Ohio. God forbid. The discussion actually enraged me to the
point where I just had to write this to someone. So I apologize
in advance for making you read it
Weather you're a conservative or a liberal here are
undeniable reasons for going to war with Iraq. Lets see if the masses
can follow this.
Of all the Arab nations there are no repeat no democracies.
Their governments are a collection of strict monarchs, military
dictatorships and tyrannical brutal regimes.
Unfortunately for us, we as a nation, and the rest of the world
are forced to deal with these people as legitimate governments until
such time as we have a viable replacement for the oil which they
posses.
All of these regimes keep their population weak, mostly
poor and totally ignorant of all that actually goes on in their
countries. Instead of the riches going to help the people of these
nations, It is squandered on the leaders their friends and associates
and spent on a military mostly maintained should the need to control
their own population become necessary to avoid a rise against them
from within. (Since they know in our own interests our allies and
we will surely aid them in the event of invasion to protect our
own interests).
These governments also in some cases such as Saudi Arabia
use the Islamic religion as a tool to maintain control and order
by bolstering clerics that will instill a belief in a grander Islamic
world, lead by the leaders of their royal families and their descendants.
And a world led by the virtuous, women abusing, slave owning followers
of the prophet Mohammed.
To further keep their population involved in looking
at other obstacles to their happiness other then the obvious, they
portray their neighbors, those wildly democratic Israelis, our strongest
allies in the region, as the common enemy of the entire Islamic
world.
While the poor and often abused population struggles
for survival, the common thread is that it's the Jews who make our
lives so difficult. It is never the fault of the champagne sipping
tyrannical despots that run their own nations.
I'm sorry for being so verbose but I think this will
make my rantings clear.
Should the upcoming invasion of Iraq actually result
in the creation of a truly democratic nation that controls 68% of
the world's oil supply. And should the population of Iraq actually
benefit directly from the wealth of this newly created republic.
A strong educated and financially secure middle class would surely
be created.
This event would give all the other poor Arab peoples
a direct and visual example of the benefits of deposing the despots,
tyrants and thieving monarchs that now oppress and control them.
The obvious result of this would be the domino effect
we were all so frightened by during the cold war in reverse. With
the spread of democracy throughout the region creating for the peoples
of the region an opportunity not known since the beginnings of our
own nation. And a total peace in the region, since there would be
no longer a reason for aggression towards our allies in Israel.
(Nobody fights wars on full stomachs unless directly threatened).
And it would also assure the oil consuming nations of the world
that the balance of the oil produced in the region would reach our
markets without being filtered through a thought process of blackmail
and threats.
These are the facts that make a war with Iraq not only
inevitable but necessary and in our nations best interests. And
these facts are the reason we hear stories of the Saudis trying
to have the military overthrow Saddam Hussein. Their greatest fear
is that the common Arab should directly see the benefits of a free
and democratic capitalist system. These things would surely ring
the end for all the monarchies and totalitarian states that now
exist. And don't fret for the poor kings and their friends they
have plenty of homes in the us and Europe where they can live, drink
alcohol, chase women and have a grand old time on the billions of
dollars they have stolen from their own peoples over the last 45
years. As well as private cars, yachts and jets to get them there.
Oh and Mr. Bergalis do us all a favor and shut up.
Steven / New Rochelle
* * *
With regard to the situation in Iraq i believe President
Bush is wrong. Believe it or not, it is possible to disagree with
a popular president and be patriotic at the same time. President
Bush I believe is carrying out a vendetta that is family oriented
but may not be in the best interest of the country. His failure
even at this late date to produce undisputed proof of Saddam Hussein's
ability and desire to attack this country speaks to an underlying
deception on the part of the Bush Administration.
The Leader of the free world does not go out on a limb
before knowing what is before him. It makes little sense to bully
our allies and threaten the U.N.Security Counsel and now that we
have troops in place, fail when it comes to proving our case before
the entire world.
We believe the Bush family is lying as did President
Johnson as regards the Vietnam War. What is becoming apparent is
that Bush has exploited the American people at a vulnerable time?
Surely he knows that the American people really want to see someone
pay for the lives lost at 911. What he has accomplished is he has
made Saddam Hussein ( a Bush Family) enemy, a sacrificial lamb for
the 911 bombings without proof that a War with Hussein is imminent.
We've already heard that Oil Executives have already
been promised a piece of the action. We know Bush can't back out
now. Oil is really the reason the War is imminent and the greedy
and ruthless Oil Executives don't mind sacrificing the lives of
the young and poor to get it.
Its the same old soup warmed over Tax money put in the
hands of the rich under the guise as somehow benefiting small businessmen.
This is laughable. Bush's pattern is always the same. Pennies to
middle income folks to keep them quiet while Bush puts millions
of people out of work. And now an ambitious plan to take over a
major producer of oil's country.
Surely this is a major mistake. The U.S. success over
the centuries has been based upon at least in print a desire to
be a God fearing nation. This lying thats going on has many concerned.
It appears that these so called "Angry White Men" will
lie even to God himself in their arrogance.
Yet there are consequences for this arrogant behavior
that could be with us for generations. If there is no moral basis
to insist on this War but only Greed and Revenge we will pay, and
our decendants will pay a terrible price.
* * *
cowboy hats and turbins
So, what's the difference Rush? how come everybody's
all excited about a cowboy hat? Maybe it's because there's a subliminal
message ole george is sending to all those middle eastern badboys
over there...."time to start playin cowboys and terrorists
guys. and this finger i'm pointing at you might just be a gun the
next time". Maybe all those turbin-headed cloak-wearin sand
pounders are starting to worry a little bit....damn, this guys might
just pull the trigger. maybe they outta back down ....cowboys are
pretty smart. Actually, i was wondering where i could get a hat
like george's?
yours truly,
mailman jerry in augusta
* * *
MORE ON PAGE 2
ADOPT
OUR TROOPS - The Presidential Prayer Team
