Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Anti-war rhetoric????

OKIE

New member
I posted this on another thread, but wanted everyone to see it...long, but worth it.

This was written by a friend of mine that lives in NYC. He is an Army Ranger and is currently attending Law School while in the Reserves. He is a Major and served time in Bosnia. I thought I would share this, not only because it is well written, but also because it is from the viewpoint of someone who has and will risk his life to serve this country.

I think that it's great that we live in a country that not only respects the fact that we have the right to express all of our opinions but cherishes and protects that right. So, it is in that spirit that I write to you today. The people of Iraq are not our enemies. It is the regime that controls Iraq that is our enemy. They are not just the enemy of America but of peace, justice, freedom, and decency. The regime in Iraq wasn't democratically elected. Sadam Hussein seized power in the country through murder and military force. He rules the country not by the rule of law but by terror and violence. He has killed tens of thousands of his own people. He has killed men, women, and children. He has set up rape camps where women dissidents are taken to be raped and tortured. He tortures children in front of their parents to punish the parents for disloyalty. I urge you to take a few moments to look at the CNN.com website to view some of the pictures of the horrors that Sadam has wrought upon his people. If we, as a nation, are a people of justice and liberty. If we believe at all in basic human rights, then we would support a military solution upon those grounds alone. How can we turn an eye to such suffering? Regime change in Iraq will free the people of Iraq from this murderer and his ilk. America, from its beginnings, has stood for freedom and liberty. Let us not now shrink from this latest challenge to humanity. It is our responsibility to act.

Secondly, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Sadam has used these weapons to murder his own people. What makes anyone believe that he won't use them against us? He associates with terrorists. He currently harbors Abdul Yasin who built the bomb that exploded in the World Trade Center in 1993. He has contacts with Osama Bin Laden. It is a matter of time before he puts a massive weapon in the hands of such men. The results of an attack with a weapon of mass destruction would make 9/11 seem like child's play. One liter of Anthrax released in the NYC subway system could kill as many as 20,000 people: men, women, children. Small Pox would do even more harm. Should we wait for him to act before we defend ourselves? War is a terrible thing. It should be, and is, the last resort. Iraq has defied the peaceful intentions of the world for 12 years. He has had every chance to comply with the U.N. resolutions and avoid this conflict. He has chosen not to. We must act. American soldiers might have to die to end the reign of this tyrant. It's hard to deal with such sacrifice. However, for those of you who feel like this sacrifice is too much I ask you to remember your high school history classes. This country was born because brave men;farmers, shop keepers, teachers, and lawyers, waged war against tyranny. Millions of African-Americans were freed from the chains of slavery because men went to war. Millions of Jews were spared from gas chambers and ovens because we went to war. Hundreds of thousands of Albanians were spared from genocide because we answered the call to action with force. So, war is hell, but sometimes it is absolutely necessary to bring about peace and justice. Where would we be today if the generations before us failed to stand up to evil and injustice?

On September 11, 2001, I came home from ground zero at about midnight. I spent all day recovering dead bodies and helping wounded people. I came home to find Stephanie terrified. She had spent all day treating the wounded from NYC. She was so upset. She was crying and asked me "What are we going to do?" I can't adequately explain the emotion in her voice except to say that she was terrified. Looking at her that day I decided that I would never want to see that same expression on my daughter's face. I never want to see your children have to worry about Anthrax. I never want you to have to explain to your children why 10,000 people in L.A. were killed by a radiological bomb. We should support the efforts of the President and the Armed Forces to make sure that you never have to."
 
Your boy has been brainwashed.

It is a sad world when someone who is studying to be a lawyer is so ignorant or the truth.


OKIE said:
. The regime in Iraq wasn't democratically elected. Sadam Hussein seized power in the country through murder and military force. He rules the country not by the rule of law but by terror and violence.

Yes, the USA and the UK put Saddamn Hussein in power. He forgot to mention that little tidbit of info.

I urge you to take a few moments to look at the CNN.com website to view some of the pictures of the horrors that Sadam has wrought upon his people.

Is he serious? CNN is one of the most least reliable source of information (let along objective reporting). Well, I guess this is why he is so wrong thus far.

Let us not now shrink from this latest challenge to humanity. It is our responsibility to act.

Give me a break. The US government does not care about the suffering of other people around the world. The US imposed the sanctions that have starved the children of Iraq and has stood by many times while innocents were being murdered...i.e. Rwanda

Secondly, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Sadam has used these weapons to murder his own people. What makes anyone believe that he won't use them against us?

Besides that fact that no proof has been given for the whole WMD thing, he is right about one thing. Since the USA gave Iraq the chemical and biological weapons (including Anthrax), we know that he will probably use it.
 
Re: Re: Anti-war rhetoric????

2Thick said:
Your boy has been brainwashed.

It is a sad world when someone who is studying to be a lawyer is so ignorant or the truth.

Yes, cause everyone knows that lawyers are known for their honesty and knowledge.

Yes, the USA and the UK put Saddamn Hussein in power. He forgot to mention that little tidbit of info.

Answer me this (no one has of yet), are we prevented from acting against a man/regime/etc., who turns against us, simply because at one time we aided him/them? To me this gives us more validation in removing him: "We made you, so we can also unmake you". I have asked this question before "What would you do with a pet dog that turns against you?"

Is he serious? CNN is one of the most least reliable source of information (let along objective reporting). Well, I guess this is why he is so wrong thus far.

Give me a break. The US government does not care about the suffering of other people around the world. The US imposed the sanctions that have starved the children of Iraq and has stood by many times while innocents were being murdered...i.e. Rwanda

I don't have any bond with the people of Iraq anymore than I do with those of Rwanda, so I don't feel a strong need to save them from an evil that they refuse to deal with themselves, but this shit about sanctions killing children is getting old. Saddam is spending all of the country's money on weapons, militarization, and personal fortune. Why are we culpable for these deaths yet the country's leader is not?

This idea that the US should be completely altruistic is ridiculous. Any country that truly adopts this policy is destined to collapse.

Besides that fact that no proof has been given for the whole WMD thing, he is right about one thing. Since the USA gave Iraq the chemical and biological weapons (including Anthrax), we know that he will probably use it.

Your right, so does this not justify removing someone from power if we know that we gave them weapons that they may turn on us?
 
Well, 2thick. they destroyed muster gas shells today, they announced Iraq has missiles with ranges greater than the 93 miles allowed by the UN treaty. All this lends credence to the mobile chem/bio labs, does the fact they are position scud launders in the city around mosks raise an alarm? Those are prohibited as well.

He is using his own people for shields banking that we won't shoot or bomb just because he hides among them.

We could wait for the smoking gun, sure, but then we did for Hitler, Hirohito, North Korea when they invaded South Korea, and so on.

Do you cure cancer by allowing it to harm the patient just so you have proof of its destructive capabilities and that it is going to attack you? Or do you treat it before then, because you know what it is capable of?

I see Canada is getting to you. Must be those long, cold lonely nights. :)
 
chesty said:
Well, 2thick. they destroyed muster gas shells today, they announced Iraq has missiles with ranges greater than the 93 miles allowed by the UN treaty. All this lends credence to the mobile chem/bio labs, does the fact they are position scud launders in the city around mosks raise an alarm? Those are prohibited as well.

He is using his own people for shields banking that we won't shoot or bomb just because he hides among them.

We could wait for the smoking gun, sure, but then we did for Hitler, Hirohito, North Korea when they invaded South Korea, and so on.

Do you cure cancer by allowing it to harm the patient just so you have proof of its destructive capabilities and that it is going to attack you? Or do you treat it before then, because you know what it is capable of?

I see Canada is getting to you. Must be those long, cold lonely nights. :)

Why don't we keep pushing for aggressive inspections throughout the future, and when Saddam interferes, and ONLY then attack Iraq. The CIA issued a report a little while back sayin it perseved no immanent threat from Iraq now nor at any forseeable anytime in the future. It also noted that the ONLY time Iraq would be likely to attack us with WMD is if we attacked it first.
 
I am really starting to get sick and tired of this whole reasoning of him being put into power by the U.S.


At the time it was in our interests to help him against Iran because Iran was backed by that little country Russia.

Secondly on the we gave him weapons argument. If you give your neighbor a gun to defend himself from having his house broken into and he then turns around to say he's going to use it on you and is threating your other neighbors/friends (allies) do you sit back and say, "Well I gave it to him so I guess that's what I get." Or do you go over with a bigger gun and get yours back?
 
It reads better than the standard clinton/schumar letter
 
Top Bottom