Amazing, we never here about this in the news

[PackerBacker]

Amazing, we never here about this in the news

http://www.glennbeck.com/home/rally.shtml

[ELECTRONIC1]

Good news doesn't sell ad space!

[Fullmonte]

You can say that again!

[chevy]

I was ther in Atlanta on Saturday. We have a morning radio show hosted by the "regular guys". One of them Larry announced he would be there so me and some friends showed up. It was a real moving experience. The war protesters should get a one way all expense paid ticket to Iraq. The plane should arrive in Iraq 10 minutes before the bombing starts.

[stuffy]

Does everyone know where the largest concentration of Arabs are in North America??? Dearborn, Michigan. Now, everyone heard about the kid from Dearborn Michigan who wore the "George W. Bush is a terrorist" story....

But - has anyone heard about all the Arabs that have gotten together and had their own prayer vigils and are organizing ways to help the Iraqii people when it is safe???? No, You bet your butt you haven't heard about that, but it is happening. Not only that, but every single one of the Arabs that have been interviewed from there have all totally supportive of this war. These are the people that we need to hear from!

They realize, more than we do, that the cost of lives involved may be many, but they are still for this effort. That in itself has got to tell you something..... They need HELP!

The media needs to show that they need help instead of people who march around in their own tidy little back-yards without fear of retribution from the leader of their country when they are done. Anyone can do that, what hypocrits! I wonder how many of them wake up the next morning to find that one or more of their family members have been taken away - never to be seen again? Not One of them has this fear - but the Iraqi's do.

How self-righteous it is for those who sit in countries where freedom is considered a "right" - to tell those in Iraq that they have to continue to live with the terror that they have lived with. May God forgive you.

Stuffy

[NotHome]

How self-righteous it is for those who sit in countries where freedom is considered a "right" - to tell those in Iraq that they have to continue to live with the terror that they have lived with. May God forgive you.

Stuffy

Stuffy
I do realize the peril of good Arabs in the US. They will be in danger should more attacks be forthcoming. They should rally their support publically and make their opinions known.

I can be "self-righteous' because my ancestors fought to give me that freedom. I do not support removing Sadam because it would free Iraq, I support it because a free Iraq will make the US a safer place.

It is up to the people of Iraq to use this chance to create a free and open society. It is not the job of the US to do this. That we will cause hardship in Iraq makes it our duty to set it right again. That is the only reason I support rebuilding a democratic Iraq. We should put in place the foundation for a new and better government, not create a nation. Creating the nation is for the people of Iraq to do IF they are ready for democracy.

NotHome

Edit - I just reread your post Stuffy and it seems we agree. I should have read your post a litle closer. This subject makes quite a few of us very jumpy. The "peace people" don't realise that the threat of extreme retribution WILL keep the peace much better than flowers and song.

[bill41]

- I just reread your post Stuffy and it seems we agree. I should have read your post a litle closer. This subject makes quite a few of us very jumpy. The "peace people" don't realise that the threat of extreme retribution WILL keep the peace much better than flowers and song. [/B]

And I for one haven't heard Saddam singing " Give Peace a Chance"

[scottfga]

u must not watch fox news....they had it running

[phoztech]

when you are pushing a cart and one of the wheels starts squeeking or rattling... you lubricate or oil that wheel. the question is did you ever take notice or tend to the other 3.

[NotHome]

I would take care of all the wheels while I was at it, but the loudest would get most of my attention. We have ignored too many squeeky wheels lately and now need a whole lot more than some oil to fix it. Some preventive maintenance would have kept all the wheels quiet and running smoothly.
This situation should have been taken care of ten years ago.

NotHome

[phoztech]

nothome i agree... i would take care of everything ...
i was just making the point that the reason these things are on the news and get the attention is that the protestors are the loudest (squeeky wheel)cause they are not getting it their way... where as most of this country(the other 3 wheels) are sitting at home eiher not caring which way it goes or in favor of this war.

protestors and anything out of the norm is news... murder is newsworthy where as birth is not.... it would be interesting if instead of having murders reported on the news they showed happy new mothers and their babies.... it would alos be interesting if the news agencies wehre required to have a 1:1 ratio for good:bad... like if they have a story on someone stealing they need to have a story on someone donating.

[NotHome]

Phoztech
Your point was well received. I don't demostrate for the war because I am not 'FOR' the war. I support the war because I feel it is the only way to settle this issue.

Had Bush Sr. marched to Bagdad this would be history. But He listened to the UN and stopped hostilities.

Had Clinton taken Bin Laden out when he could we would be in a much different position. But Clinton followed the polls and not the advice of his military advisors.

So is the situation we are in our fault - you could say we could have nipped it in the bud a long time ago, but it is not our fault. Now all of the wheels are squeeling at once.
Those demonstrators should get on their knees and kiss the militaries feet for giving them the freedom to publically disagree. Actually, let them pull a Monica, you wouldn't want them to mess up your boots.

NotHome

[Kuni]

War is bad, but Saddam is worse.

What would be good watching is that a group of Pro War protesters descend on a group of Anti War protesters. Seeing that the latter are pacifists, they would not put up any resistance. A Public Bloodbath to rival those of the Roman Coliseum, that's good Free TV viewing.

[stuffy]

You guys are all right. The squeaky wheel does get taken care of 1st - but I think it was the people of Iraq who were the first to squeak. Although it was not loud, because we know what would have happened, they have proven the point that in order to get any real attention at all you need to be loud. :( But, what happens when people cannot be loud - ie. the people of Iraq? Do we just allow people to bully us into believing that because they are the loudest that they are more right/moral than those that are not loud? All in what they deem is the name of Peace?

I do not understand these people at all. I would have more respect for them had they spent the last decade doing something to help the people of Iraq and thereby had invested sweat-equity into their Peace marches. But to just wake up one day and decide to march against something that may actually give freedom to a group of people who have been silently calling out for help for so long is irresponsible.

There is only 1 country that can pull this off, and it is the US. I wish that Canada was able to give aid in this effort - but we physically cannot. I just hope that we will be able to help out when all this is done. And if we don't - then shame on us!

[NotHome]

I feel for the people of the world who do not enjoy the freedoms Americans take for granted. The problem is we, the Americans, cannot afford to free oppressed people simply because they are oppressed. It is both a matter of money and legality.
Our constitutional rights do not extend to non-citizens. Therefore, to deny a military member his/her right to life in order to extend the persuit of happiness to persons not covered by the bill of rights is blatently unconstitutional. Morally, yes we should do it, but legally we can only do it if the oppression creates a situation that is dangerous to the US and her citizens. At that point our president must, by his oath of office, take any action necessary to protect the people.

NotHome

[majrmembr]

America is not attacking Iraq for the sake of freeing the people of Iraq. That may be the effect but it is not the cause. America is doing this in self defense. The self defense in an action against a potential future threat(s) that cannot be ignored in the face of 911. That is the only reason a regime change is needed, because a potential threat cannot be removed if the billionaire Saddam, and his rich terrorist supporting allies, remain in power. A conventional military threat, such as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, can be easily removed by repelling Saddam with military force, and still allowing him to remain in power. But eliminating the possibility of a future attack by Iraq or sponsored by Iraq vis a vis terrorist means, cannot be eliminated without a regime change. Or ignored by the American government. This should be obvious. After 911 it has become clear that the approach to self defense of America has changed to not only beef up homeland security, but eliminate potential threats before they are allowed to materialize. It is a fundamental change in US policy, and it is taking the World a while to warm up to it. However, in a world where America is continually at a threat of being caught unawares by massive and deadly terrorist attacks, a state of perpetual war against terrorism and state sponsered terrorism is really the only alternative at America's disposal. The sad part is George W Bush and his government have been blundering their attempts to sell this arguement politically to the world community. Saying you can go ahead and do it regardless certainly doesn't help.
Its always going to be a difficult sell to get other countries on board to defend your own country, especially when you aren't even asking for their help, and there is no immediate danger of a war. I think if they would have taken a different approach to this situation politically, and actually called on the international community's support, instead of using blackmail, bribery, and other questionable tactics to illicit a forced UN resolution to authorize force against Iraq, things would have turned out much differently, and many countries would have supported them. And the entire effort would have been a lot easier with help of more of its allies, because I think in the end the removal of Saddam is seen as beneficial to most countries in the world community.