PDA

View Full Version : Why Americans Think As They Do



Hiraghm
03-18-2003, 05:27 PM
I grabbed a text file to respond to an assertion by Beamtracer, and in searching for the part I reread the document again. I think it's worth sharing with the world, especially when so many Americans seem ignorant of it.

The quote is from Patrick Henry, during a debate over rebellion against the British Crown. Originally, it was thought he was going to concede the argument.

I just wish I could get a translation into the hands of Iraqis.


Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.



Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.



I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!



They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.



It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Beamtracer
03-18-2003, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775
Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

At least Patrick Henry, in 1775, got to make that choice himself. It could also be taken the other way... that the Iraqi people should fight the invaders. Fact is, in post-war Iraq, democracy and liberty still won't be available to the people. One dictator will be replaced with another oppressive one, yet to be announced. The democracy talk was just rhetoric.

Anyway, I'll augment the 1775 speech with a more modern address to the United States Senate...



Speech by US Senator Robert Byrd, Senate Floor - Wednesday, February 12, 2003

To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.

In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.

But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

Rory_L
03-18-2003, 11:39 PM
Anyone here read the War poets? Time you did.

Dulce Et Decorum Est
by Wilfred Owen


Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.

GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.--
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

mattclary
03-19-2003, 06:37 AM
God, I love Google. Neville Chamberlain following the road to peace.


Neville Chamberlain
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
September 1938
after signing the Munich Pact with Hitler

"We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe.

"We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again."

Wild cheers erupted, the crowd reiterating, reverberating the last syllables of the Prime Minister's statement. He continued.

"We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."

Later at 10 Downing Street, he added,

"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time... Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."

Hiraghm
03-19-2003, 01:51 PM
You're trading quotes from a former KLANSMAN with quotes from Patrick Henry? That's like swapping quotes from Queen Victoria with quotes from Xaviara Hollander ("The Happy Hooker"). He's a semi-articulate (aka mumbling) DEMOCRAT (aka willing to do or say anything in opposition to the President), noted for bringing more pork home to his district than any Senator in existence, gave Clinton a pass on his perjury. In short, sir, he is no Patrick Henry.


Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

Just as Senator Byrd was silent during Clinton's forays into Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Haiti, and Somalia. There was no debate as of February 12, because the Congress had already given the President the green light to do what was necessary to make the world safe for Americans.


We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

In fact, the "discussion" in the editorial pages of U.S. newspapers (the only ones that should matter to a Senator) was largely in favor of such engagement.


The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list.

Actually this doctrine dates back to the early 19th century when we took out the Barbary pirates, and more recently under President Kennedy when he went to the brink of war over the Cuban missiles (missiles 90 miles from our shores... the same distance our missiles in Turkey, at the time, were from Russia. The missiles weren't even deployed, yet.) This is something Byrd knows full well, being as old as the hills. It is *not* in contravention of international law (a term that seems oxymoronic to me,) nor is it in violation of the U.N. charter, which asserts a nation's right to defend itself, without stating how. As Kennedy asserted, in this day and age we can't wait for them to lob the missiles before taking them out.


High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together?

Because those same officials are aware of the fiasco in Viet Nam, caused in large part by attempting to limit our military response. If our troops are subjected to chemical or bio weapons, we have have no choice but to retaliate with nukes, since a large part of our military force may be out of commission directly, or by caring for those affected.

What could be more destabilizing? Letting tinpot dictators continue to threaten the world. Paying the Danegeld. Globalism has tied the vital economic interests... and who is responsible for this? Democrats and other communists. Byrd has been in the Senate for decades, he never once fought against those policies that sent American industries overseas, nor for policies which sealed our borders against illegal trafficking, nor for tariffs to make "free trade" into "fair trade". But he always sent the pork home.


There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

Senator Byrd is either lying, or woefully foolish. No cracks are emerging; the cracks have been there from the beginning. The mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and envy have been there from the beginning. We've attempted, for 50 years, to buy the friendship of people who don't value us, but value the fruits of our success. The alarming rhetoric comes from other nations, such as France; it is truly alarming when a nonentity nation such as France decides to solely determine the policy of the U.N. security council. When France asserted that they would veto *any* resolution that included the use of force as an option, they were deciding for all the member nations of the U.N. that force would not be an option in a U.N. resolution, regardless of the views and wishes of the rest of the membership, including the 10 security council nations which favored force as an option. Yet we're called "rogue".

What solid global alliance against terrorism? I hear global rhetoric against terrorism, but not alliance. Words came easy on Sept 12, even from nations that cackled from behind their hands. Only one people truly expressed their sympathy for our loss, a tiny African tribe who sent us 9 cows. I value those cows and those people more than all the gold in all the banks of Europe. To hell with 26 billion to bribe Turkey into doing the right thing; send it to that tribe.


Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur.

Well, duh, kind of the point of terrorist attacks is surprise. Could anyone have seriously predicted the Sept 11 attack? If so, what could they have suggested the 50,000 people who worked at the WTC, and in the Pentagon, do about it? Not work because it *might* be a target? Typical Democrat, treating the citizenry like so many sheep unable to take care of ourselves.


Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

Family members signed up to be called to active military duty; it's time for them to fulfill their part of the contract. Again, Bryd thinks of government as God, that it's supposed to know how long the war will take, or what the enemy will do. Every soldier has a pretty good idea what he's going to face, just as every construction worker has an idea what he's going to face. There is no evidence that, as a result of our war preparations of Feb 12 any community has less than adequate police and fire protection. Many States and cities face budget shortfalls, because they foolishly increased their budgets more and more during the false economic boom of the 90s, without consideration for inevitable economic downturns. The mood of the nation, even now, is not grim, but impatient. Fuel prices have dropped 9%, and are expected to go still lower.


This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

This administration inherited the problems the previous administration did not deal with. That record, in light of all that has happened and was deferred until now, is exemplary. As I stated before, Byrd is blaming the janitor for dirtying the toilets he's attempting to clean.

In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see

The surplus was projected. That means it was subject to future events. Events such as 9/11. Events such as corporations finally being discovered in their creative bookkeeping. The inevitable correction of the stock market. Not even Democrats complained when the money was due to be doled to wage the war on terror, or give relief to the families of the attack, or to increase terrorism response efforts nationwide. Of course not; they knew that once the deficit was assured, they could complain and blame the President.... one teeeeeeny little fact stands in the way, a fact Democrats like Byrd shun like the plague....

The Constitution gives CONGRESS responsibility for the budget. Not the White House. Senator Byrd's party controlled the Senate until 2002, and still attempts to control it from the minority.

Hiraghm
03-19-2003, 01:52 PM
This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.

Not one word of the above is true. Again, Congress controls the purse strings. The Administration's policies have not slowed economic growth, the stock market collapse, terrorist attack, and uncertainty of war have slowed economic growth. There is no crisis in health care for the elderly, other than the eternal refusal to implement socialist programs. The Administration was the first to put forward funding for homeland security, and if the Congress feels the submitted budget for homeland security is inadequate, they have the ability to increase said funding. While the Administration *has* been reluctant to seal our borders, it also inherited a corrupt and dysfunctional INS, which it is now in the process of cleaning up. I don't need to state from whom the administration inherited it.


In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO.

And shortly after this speech, we pick up two high officers of Al Quaeda, one of whom is possibly more vital than bin Laden himself, proving we're doing just fine in the hunt for bin Laden. We still don't know that we, in fact, heard from bin Laden, or that he's even still alive. Byrd is also suggesting with this rhetoric that the war is a war with Usama bin Laden; it is not. The War on Terror is a war with terrorists and those who give them assistance. Be it Al Quaeda, the IRA, Iraq, Hesbollah, Palestine, or France.
The U.N. was never an "order-keeping entity". Perhaps that was a one-time intent of the organization, but it has never done so, except by following the lead of the U.S. The U.N. is our handmaiden, not the other way around. Bryd intentionally (I'm sure) fails to point out that NATO is obsolete anyway. Its purpose was to defend free Europe from communist Europe (a problem created by Truman). Nothing prevents the U.S. from forming a new atlantic alliance based on the current political realities.


This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.

Ah, now we come to it. First, I have never experienced this "traditional" worldwide perception. In my entire life, the U.S. has always tried to do what was right, and the rest of the world has always tried to put the worst face possible on it. The threats came from France, in the threat of veto. The name calling has come from France, Iraq and Democrats in the U.S.
But the important point to note here is Byrd's reference to "intelligence" and "sensitivity". It is a Democrat BIGOTRY, that any Republican in power is stupid and crude. From "bumbling" Gerald Ford, to "Senile Cowboy" President Reagan, to "inept stooge" GHW Bush, to the current Republican in the White House. For Senator Byrd, a former Klansman portraying a Confederate officer in a recent movie, to suggest that the Administration is unintelligent and insensitive is the height of irony.


Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good.

This is called "The Truth". Some countries are evil, such as the communist nations. No powerful European allies have been referred to as irrelevant... just France and Germany. They are neither powerful nor relevant in the modern world. Such "crude insensitivities" do our great nation much good. Great people should not pander to little people's egos.


We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth.

More talk of buying friendship. "Newer found friends" should be attracted by their sharing of our VALUES and respecting our ideals.


Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

Which is why our awesome military machine is busy taking out those who might deliver another such attack. Our military manpower is hardly stretched thin; with almost 3 times the population we had in WWII, we haven't deployed as many troops as we did then, while supplying the rest of the Allies. Of course, thanks to Senator Byrd and his ilk, we do lack the manufacturing capacity we had then...
I'm sure we can have the augmenting PURCHASED support of Turkey, with troops. They'd love for us to pay them billions to send their troops in to take control of Iraq's northern oilfields.


The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

Entirely untrue. We've been more successful in less time in Afghanistan than both the British and Soviet Empires.


Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

Make up your mind, Senator; have we won the war already or not? In fact, we haven't won the war yet because it is a war on global terrorism, not Afghanistan. Pakistan is indeed at risk of destabilizing forces, and yet they are still able to help us capture Al Quaeda officers.


And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?

In fact, the President has laid-out a postwar plan for Iraq. while Byrd makes my mouth water by suggesting we will seize control of the oilfields, that is neither our track record nor the Administration's stated intent. To answer the Senator's last question... we intend to hand the reigns of power to the Iraqi people, just as we did in Afghanistan.

Hiraghm
03-19-2003, 01:53 PM
Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

Not if the Moslem world is true to its rhetoric, suggesting that the forces of Wahabism are a controlling minority. I hope it's clear to the Moslem world that if Israel is attacked, it will retaliate with nukes. After all, such a threat kept the Soviets from attacking the U.S. for 50 years. If Jordan and Saudi Arabia are overthrown by radicals, at least we'll have Iraq and Afghanistan to use as staging areas to launch our attacks on those nations, to install benign governments.


Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession?
Yes, so could an invasion of space aliens. So could the destruction of the world's capitals by U.S. nukes. So could a mismanagement of the various economies of certain European and far-eastern nations.


Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

As we haven't used bellicose langugae or callously disregarded the interests and opinions of other nations (as we should,) it can't be the cause of any race to grab nukes. However, what we do to Iraq might well send the message to potential nuclear racers that trying to get nukes is bad, mkay?


In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

The Administration isn't reckless, and I hope to God that the most powerful office in the world is indeed arrogant. Arrogance is good, when you can back it up. If indeed the Administration has initiated policies the past 2 years which may reap disaster, it can't be anything compared to the DECADES of policies which the Democrat-led left in this country have initiated, changing the very fabric of society, and giving us the disasters we have today. Feral, uneducated children, deviancy, 50% divorce rate, abortion-on-demand as a right, not a tragedy, sexual perversion equated with traditional sexual practices, the dissolution of the nuclear family, suppression of religious expression, "moral relativity", "political correctness"... and what disasters will the policy of minority control of the Senate create in the future, Senator Byrd?


Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Sure there is... "Timely".

On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

Actually, it's only business as usual for the Democrats, since the Democrat minority is in the middle of a filibuster to prevent the consideration of Istrada for the circuit court bench. This is, of course, disrupting the business of the Senate Republican majority.

By making war only "a last resort" you ensure that it will indeed be a desperate thing, almost certain to take place. The fact is, there's nowhere else for diplomacy to go. France has left us no other diplomatic option.

Typical of a pseudo-communist Democrat, Byrd puts the burden on the U.S., when the burden should be on the rest of the world.

I watch the Senate and Congress quite regularly. This speech is as unsurprising as it is inaccurate.