General Hawley's politically incorrect message...
Version Making the Rounds On the Web
General Hawley, is a newly retired USAF 4 star general. He commanded the Air Combat Command [our front-line fighters and bombers] at Langley AFB, VA. He is now retired and no longer required to be politically correct. A true patriot!"Since the attack [9-11], I have seen, heard, and read thoughts of such surpassing stupidity that they must be addressed. You've heard them too.
Here they are:
1) "We're not good, they're not evil, everything is relative." Listen carefully: We're good, they're evil, nothing is relative. Say it with me now and free yourselves. You see, folks, saying "We're good" doesn't mean, "We're perfect." Okay? The only perfect being is the bearded guy on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. The plain fact is that our country has, with all our mistakes and blunders, always been and always will be the greatest beacon of freedom, charity, opportunity, and affection in history. If you need proof, open all the borders on Earth and see what happens.
2) "Violence only leads to more violence." This one is so stupid you usually have to be the president of an Ivy League university to say it. Here's the truth, which you know in your heads and hearts already: Ineffective, unfocused violence leads to more violence. Limp, panicky, half measures lead to more violence. However, complete, fully thought through, professional, well executed violence never leads to more violence because, you see, afterwards, the other guys are all dead. That's right, dead. Not "on trial, " not "reeducated," not "nurtured back into the bosom of love." Dead.
3) "The CIA and the rest of our intelligence community have failed us." For 25 years we have chained our spies like dogs to a stake in the ground, and now that the house has been robbed, we yell at them for not protecting us. Starting in the late seventies, under Carter appointee Stansfield Turner, the giant brains who get these giant ideas decided that the best way to gather international intelligence was to use spy satellites. "After all, (they reasoned,) you can see a license plate from 200 miles away." This is very helpful if you've been attacked by a license plate. Unfortunately, we were attacked
by humans. Finding humans is not possible with satellites. You have to use other humans. When we bought all our satellites, we fired all our humans, and here's the really stupid part. It takes years, decades to infiltrate new humans into the worst places of the world. You can't just have a guy who looks like Gary Busey in a Spring Break '93 sweatshirt plop himself down in a coffee shop in Kabul and say "Hiya, boys. Gee, I sure would like to meet that bin Laden fella. "Well, you can, but all you'd be doing is giving the bad guys a story they'll be telling for years.4) "These people are poor and helpless, and that's why they're angry at us." Uh-huh, and Jeffrey Dahmer's frozen head collection was just a desperate cry for help. The terrorists and their backers are richer than Elton John and, ironically, a good deal less annoying. The poor helpless people, you see, are the villagers they tortured and murdered to stay in power. Mohammed Atta, one of the evil scumbags who steered those planes into the killing grounds is the son of a Cairo surgeon. But you knew this, too. In the sixties and seventies, all the pinheads marching against the war were upper-middle-class college kids who grabbed any cause they could think of to get out of their final papers and spend more time drinking. It's the same today.
5) "Any profiling is racial profiling." Who's killing us here, the Norwegians? Just days after the attack, the New York Times had an article saying dozens of extended members of the gazillionaire bin Laden family living in America were afraid of reprisals and left in a huff, never to return to studying at Harvard and using too much Drakkar. I'm crushed. Please come back. Let's all stop singing "We Are the World" for a minute and think practically. I don't want to be sitting on the floor in the back of a plane four seconds away from hitting Mt.Rushmore and turn, grinning, to the guy next to me to say,
"Well, at least we didn't offend them."SO HERE'S what I resolve for the New Year: Never to forget our murdered brothers and sisters. Never to let the relativists get away with their immoral thinking. After all, no matter what your daughter's political science professor says, we didn't start this. Have you seen that bumper sticker that says, "No More Hiroshimas"? I wish I had one that says, "No More Pearl Harbors."
THIS NEEDS TO STAY IN CIRCULATION FOR THOSE WHO HAVE OR WILL FALL FOR THE STUPIDITY GOING AROUND. PLEASE PASS IT ON!
General Hawley's Message
What He Really Said:
General Hawley said of the words now mistakenly attributed to him:There is a piece zooming around the internet that attributes some pretty forceful statements to me, Dick Hawley - one time fighter pilot, General, thoughtful consultant, neophyte strategist, master of the artful compromise. The words did not flow from my pen, but if the e-mails mean anything, those words are now indelibly linked to my name. So do me a favor
- if you receive this, please send it on to the same people to whom you forwarded the one that I did not write. It's not that I don't share many, if not most, of the sentiments attributed to me, but the piece is just not my style.Here's what I would have said if I'd been asked to comment on those five important issues.
1) Goodness, Evil and Relativity: There are some really good people in this world. They volunteer to help those who need it, and ask nothing in return. There are also some really bad people in this world. They exploit those who need help, or who have less wit or "charisma", and motivate them to join in committing unspeakable acts of cruelty against people they don't
even know. Then there are the rest of us. Average people who try each day to do no harm, to provide for their families, to do an occasional act of kindness. The evil that was perpetrated against our land on 9/11 was the product of Mullahs who see our prosperity and power as a threat to their control over the uneducated Muslim masses on whose shoulders they ride through life. And so they preach hate. They are evil.2) Violence begets violence: It's true. Violence does beget violence. But sometimes there is no alternative but to confront those who would perpetrate evil acts against us. This is one of those times. We are blessed to have courageous men and women willing to put their lives on the line to track down and annihilate those who have been so imbued with evil as to be
beyond redemption. But violence is not a strategy. It is a necessary and fully justified reaction to an unimaginable threat. But it is not a strategy. If we are to win this war, we must defeat the Mullahs. And to defeat the Mullahs, we must find ways to separate them from their uneducated flocks. We cannot kill all those who have been taught to hate us, nor should we wish to. Far better to change their minds than to change their state of being.3) The intelligence community let us down: Well, maybe just a little. Lots of senior and not so senior intelligence people became just as enamored of high tech gadgets as their political masters. The protests over our evisceration of the human intelligence component of the agency were not very loud or forceful. Keeping spies on the ground is a high risk and often
dirty business, and it wasn't just liberal politicians who didn't have much stomach for it.4) Poverty is the breeding ground for terrorists: No, it isn't; but religious extremism is. The Mullahs fear our wealth and power because it shows that a secular society with democratic institutions and a free market economy can do a better job of taking care of its peoples' needs, both spiritual and physical, than the oppressive Islamic regimes that they aspire to lead. The Mullahs are the problem, not poverty, but poverty does make it easier for the Mullahs to spread their evil - as do governments that tolerate and even reinforce their hateful message.
5) Profiling: We are at war here! We are not talking about traffic stops. If we were at war with Iceland, I would expect those charged with our defense to pay very close attention to any Icelander who ventured near our shores. In this war I expect them to pay very close attention to Muslims with ties to the places that spew hatred against us. Random checks when there are no such obvious targets available are a good way to keep the evil ones guessing, but let's not make small children and grandmothers take their shoes off while we watch far more likely candidates walk aboard unchecked.
6) Resolutions:
a. Never forget that what happened on September the 11th of 2001 was an act of war.
b. Never sit silently by while someone tries to justify what happened on that day as an understandable reaction to U.S. policies in the Middle East or elsewhere.
c. Fly our nation's flag proudly - it represents this world's greatest hope to move beyond the pain and suffering that inflict so many across the globe.
Richard E. Hawley
General, USAF, Retired
Former Commander, Air Combat Command
12 arguments against war, rebutted
Andrew Coyne
National Post
Friday, March 07, 2003To sum up: In going to war against Iraq, the United States is engaged in a unilateral, unprovoked attack on a sovereign country, whose regime it once supported. Not only is this in clear defiance of international law and the United Nations, it sets a precedent that can only invite other countries to do the same.
There is no proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Even if it does, it poses no imminent threat -- certainly none to justify the incalculable risks of war: regional instability, Muslim resentment, terrorist reprisals, to say nothing of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths. And to the extent that Saddam does pose a threat, he is and can be contained, through a combination of sanctions and inspections.
That is the case against war, in all its essentials.
Follow me now, as I attempt the world land-speed record for most points rebutted in a single column.unilateral -- At last count, more than 30 countries had declared their support, including 18 from Europe and six from the Arab world.
unprovoked -- The present conflict is best regarded as a continuation of the Gulf War, which began with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and ended with a ceasefire in 1991. The terms of the ceasefire, notably Saddam's immediate disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, have never been honoured.
a sovereign country -- Iraq gave up its right to non-interference the moment it invaded Kuwait.
whose regime it once supported -- Beside the point. If anything, it rather argues for toppling Saddam, as atonement.
clear defiance of international law -- International law is anything but clear, being no more than an evolving consensus on what the world will or will not tolerate. But for the record, the 17 UN resolutions with which Saddam has failed to comply over the last 12 years all come under Chapter VII of the UN charter, the "force" chapter; several specifically authorize their enforcement by "all necessary means."
and the United Nations -- The UN is not a world government. The Security Council is not a Supreme Court. It is France, and Russia, and the rest: countries in ruthless pursuit of their own national interest. If they refuse to enforce their own resolutions, how is that supporting the UN?
sets a precedent -- This would hardly be the first time one country had been invaded by another (or rather, 30 others): Ask France. Or China. Or any number of other countries, none of whom bothered to ask the UN before invading, and on far less principled grounds. The notion that countries decide whether to attack one another by consulting precedent -- or international law, for that matter -- is one of the more charming fictions of the current debate. India has no need of a precedent for going to war with Pakistan, having done so three times in living memory. That it chooses not to do so now is entirely based on calculations of self-interest.
no proof -- Iraq confessed to producing and storing massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, though not until high-level defectors ratted them out. It has never, in 12 years, produced a scrap of evidence to suggest it has destroyed them.
no imminent threat -- A murderous dictator with a record of aggression, a thirst for revenge, a 30-year quest for nuclear weapons, and a list of terrorist clients as long as your arm. If that's not an imminent threat, what is? Or if you don't think Saddam's a threat to the United States, how about Israel? Or Kuwait? Or Saudi Arabia? Is it to be supposed, after all these years, that this self-proclaimed Saladin, with his dreams of an Arab superpower, now seeks the quiet life? What do you think he's hoarding all these weapons for?
incalculable risks -- Anyone can come up with a list of disasters that might conceivably arise, from any action. But until you attach some probability to these, they are of little guidance. It is not at all clear that the region would be destabilized by a quick and decisive war, or that the liberation of Iraq's 20 million Islamic citizens would inspire Muslim resentment, or that terrorists need an excuse to attack. It remains possible it could all go horribly wrong. But think about that for a moment. That George Bush is willing to take that risk, with all that it would mean, not only for the region but for his own citizens -- and, to be crass, his presidency -- not to mention the hundreds of billions of dollars in proven costs, to the treasury and to the economy, suggests how great he believes the risks of inaction to be.
hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths -- There is no basis to these forecasts. No one can say with certainty how many will die, on either side. But the choice is not between war, with all its costs, and peace. It is between war now, and war later -- or a nuclear-armed Saddam, which is the worst outcome of all.
is and can be contained -- If only. Sanctions, without which inspections are useless, collapsed long ago: Saddam is selling as much oil today, legally or illegally, as before the Gulf War. The first round of inspections were a farce, the second scarcely better, with a four-year gap in between. Finally, the inspections are only happening now because of the presence of American troops. The minute the troops go home, so do the inspectors.
© Copyright 2003 National Post
US French Bashing
"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." Jacques Chirac, President of France.
"As far as France is concerned, you are right." Rush Limbaugh"They've taken their own precautions against al-Qa'ida. To prepare for an attack, each Frenchman is urged to keep duct tape, a white flag, and a three-day supply of mistresses in the house." Argus Hamilton
"The French will only agree to go to war when we've proven we've found truffles in Iraq." Dennis Miller
"What do you expect from a culture and a nation that exerted more of its national will fighting against DisneyWorld and Big Macs than the Nazis?"
Dennis MillerRaise your right hand if you like the French ... raise both hands if you are French.
Q. Why are there so many tree-lined boulevards in France?
A. Germans like to march in the shade."You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam Hussein? Because he hates Americans, he loves mistresses and wears a beret. People! He's French!!"
Conan O'Brien"I don't know why people are surprised the French don't want to help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get the Germans out of France. Still, it's essential for them to join us in the war against Iraq. They can teach the Iraqis how to surrender." Jay Leno
Q. What did the mayor of Paris say to the German Army a they entered the city in WWII?
A. Table for 100,000 m'sieur?"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag." David Letterman
"Do you know how many Frenchmen it takes to defend Paris? It's not known, it's never been tried." Rep. R. Blount (MO)
Do you know it only took Germany three days to conquer France in WWII?
And that's because it was raining."Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Donald Rumsfeld (Actually this was a Ross Perot quote during the first gulf war)
Q: What do you call a group of 100,000 Frenchman with their hands in the air?
A: The French army, of course."
Q: How do you stop a French tank?
A: By shooting the soldier pushing it.Q: Why does the new French Navy have glass-bottom boats?
A: So they can see the old French Navy....Q: How can you recognize a French veteran?
A: Sunburned armpits.Q: What do you call a Frenchman with a sheep under one arm and a goat under the other?
A: Bisexual.Q: Did you see the description on old French rifles for sale on Ebay?
A: "Never been fired, dropped only once."Q: The French have just ordered a new national flag.
A: It's a white cross on a white backgroundQ: Where do you find 60 million French jokes?
A: In France.Q: Whats the difference between a Wonderbra and the French World Cup squad?
A: A Wonderbra has decent support and a cup.Q: Why do the French eat snails?
A: It gives them speedier reactions.Q: How many gears in a French tank?
A: Six: five reverse and one forward, in case they are attacked from behind.Jay Leno, a few summers ago: "France is now being hit by an extreme heat-wave, so the French government is advising its citizens to "stay indoors and do nothing". You know, like they did in WWII...."
OK, OK, let's give the French a break. After all they did win the French Revolutionary War. But then again, they were fighting the French. In 1966 upon being told that Charles DeGaulle had taken France out of NATO and that all U.S. Troops must be evacuated off of French soil President Lyndon Johnson told Secretary of State Dean Rusk: "Ask him about the cemeteries Dean!"
So at end of the meeting Dean asked DeGaulle if his order to remove all U.S. troops from French soil also included the 60,000+ U.S. soldiers from World War I and World War II who are buried there.
DeGaulle never answered.
Ditching for Saddam
"High school and college students across the country walked out of class Wednesday to protest a war with Iraq, holding a series of rallies organizers predicted would be the biggest campus demonstrations since the Vietnam War," the Associated Press reports. We compared reports of the number of protesting students to the enrollment figures in the Information Please Almanac and came up with this table:
College Enrollment # of Protesters % of students not protesting Stanford University 7,886 300 protesting 96.20% NOT protesting University of Maryland 24,638 500 97.97% Marquette University 7,496 40 99.47% Penn State University 34,406 1,500 95.64% Miami University (Ohio) 14,914 125 99.16% University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill) 15,608 100 99.36% Virginia Commonwealth University 16,505 2 99.99% Rice University 2,856 200 93.00% New York University 18,628 100 99.46% University of California (Berkeley) 22,593 300 98.67% Rutgers University 27,939 80 99.71% The New York Times reports that an Arkansas-based protest organizer, Andy Burns of the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition, "received a panicked call from five middle school students in Los Angeles who were the only ones who had left their classrooms and were now hiding from administrators in a school restroom. (His advice to them: call the American Civil Liberties Union.)"The overwhelming number of students staying away from these protests makes clear that the vast majority of America's young people favor the liberation of Iraq. (Sources: Information Please Almanac, AP, CNN, Daily Californian, Daily Targum)
So if you're a pro-war collegian, what can you do to make your views known? Drink beer, says Joshua Claybourn of the Hoosier Review. This Friday and Saturday night, Claybourn reports, supporters of the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition "will go to bars and watering holes in solidarity with students across the country, to show our support for the war on Iraq. All students drinking and having fun at bars on March 7th and 8th will of course be celebrating their freedom to take part in such an act--freedoms not afforded to the youth of Iraq."Our own college days are long past, but you may rest assured we will be raising a glass in solidarity tomorrow night.
from Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard.
THOSE OPPOSED to military action in Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein, destroy his weapons of mass destruction, and liberate the 24 million Iraqi citizens under his control cite at least 10 objections to going to war now. These objections range from the arguable to the totally absurd. Let's examine them.(1) Rush to war. This is a favorite of congressional Democrats. But the rush is more like a baby crawl. Iraq has been in material breach of United Nations resolutions since a few weeks after the Gulf War ended in 1991. New resolutions have been approved, inspectors ousted, and the United Nations made to look impotent. President Bush has taken all the steps asked of him before going to war: getting the approval of Congress, getting another U.N. resolution (with perhaps yet another on the way), and building a coalition of supporters. He's hardly rushing.
(2) It's a war for oil. The United States could buy all the oil it wants from Iraq by lifting the sanctions and helping to reconstruct the Iraqi oilfields. It's the French and Russians who have oil deals with Saddam and thus are fixated on that issue. They don't want a war that would upset those deals.
(3) War with Iraq will bring more terrorism. This is a hardy perennial. It was claimed before the Gulf war and the Afghanistan campaign--and when bombs fell on al Qaeda and the Taliban during Ramadan. Rather than more terrorism, removing Saddam will bring more respect for the United States. Terrorists will be increasingly fearful.
(4) The Arab street will erupt. Another perennial. This is often predicted but rarely happens. A swift, decisive victory over Saddam will quiet the Arab street. So far, only the American street has erupted--against the French and Germans.
(5) Bush is doing it for his dad. President Bush the elder stopped short of deposing Saddam in the Gulf war and to this day believes he did the right thing. So do his top aides, such as national security adviser Brent Scowcroft. Instead, they agreed to a truce with Saddam conditioned on Iraq's full disarmament. Also, consider the source of this charge: Martin Sheen.
(6) Attacking Iraq would be unprovoked aggression. No, it wouldn't. Andrew Sullivan has pointed out a significant fact: There was no peace treaty, only the truce, so the state of war resumes when the conditions are violated. By attacking now, the United States would be ending the war, not starting it.
(7) Containment is working. The problem is the right threat is not being contained: the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Sure, with U.S. troops and U.N. inspectors in the area, Saddam won't attack Jordan or Syria or other neighbors. But he could slip chemical or biological agents to terrorists without anyone knowing. And that's the threat.
(8) America doesn't have enough allies. What? Forty or so isn't enough? Is the case for war weakened in the slightest by the absence of the French or the Angolans? No. And despite what Democrats like Howard Dean say, a war with Iraq would not be "unilateral," which would mean the United States would be acting alone.
(9) Win without war. That's a nice goal. Unfortunately, it's Saddam's goal. With no war, he wins and emerges as the new strongman in the Middle East, forcing people to come to terms with him.
(10) Bush is seeking a new American empire. This is a favorite accusation of Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, the man who once recited the Gettysburg Address in Donald Duck's voice. I'll let Secretary of State Colin Powell answer this one. When hectored by a former archbishop of Canterbury on this subject recently, he said: "We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last 100 years . . . and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in."
SECURITY COUNCIL'S ROTTEN SHOW A HANS-DOWN LOSER
Sat Mar 8, 4:47 AM ET
Add Op/Ed - New York Post to My Yahoo!
By STEVE DUNLEAVYHANS Blix tells us on one hand Iraq (news - web sites) is cooperating, on the other hand they are not cooperating enough, and yet on another hand inspectors need more time.
That makes Hans have three hands, which qualifies him for the circus.
Despite the so called "historic" nature of yesterday's Security Council meeting, it was just that - the traditional U.N. circus.
"Blix essentially gave Iraq another pass," said Marc Ginsberg, former ambassador to Morocco and onetime presidential adviser.
Blix saw a great breakthrough on the horizon, interviewing scientists in private outside Iraq.
Don't make me laugh.
What will the scientists do about the families they leave behind, expose them to execution?
So far, out of 3,500 technicians, scientists and laboratory staff involved in nuclear and biochemical weapons, there have been only 12 interviewed by inspectors. And do you think the interviews weren't bugged?
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, the mouthpiece for Jacques "Ch-Iraq," was typical.
"War is always an acknowledgment of failure," he said.
I wonder if his countrymen whose sorry asses were saved by America during two world wars would agree.
British Foreign Minister Jack Straw whipped back as if the tiles had slid off de Villepin's roof.
"Dominique, that's a false choice," Straw scoffed, virtually portraying the French argument as a farce.
Straw's U.N. ambassador, Jeremy Greenstock, then struck a chilling note:
"There are 6,500 chemical bombs [in Iraq] not accounted for."
Despite the eloquent addresses by Straw, Colin Powell (news - web sites) and Ana Palacio, the Spanish foreign minister, the minds of the clowns in the appeasement circus remained unchanged.
Let's face it, the United Nations (news - web sites) is about as relevant as a yak in the Gobi Desert.
But someone yesterday saw the light. It was none other than Mohammed Al-Douri, the Iraqi U.N. ambassador.
"The possibility of war against Iraq seems imminent," he said.
For all those of you who think that only war poses risks for innocent people, I would like to tell you of our experiences here in Israel. You got that right, Mo.
A Little Advice About Peace and War from an Israeli
By Naomi RagenNine years ago, we in Israel, encouraged by our own Peace-Nowers, signed a Peace Accord with a known terrorist, pulled our army out, handed him land and then sat around singing songs and painting doves because we were tired of fighting. And this is what happened: he brought in thousands of weapons, taught children to kill and be killed, set up bomb factories, and encouraged religious leaders to preach suicide bombing as a way to reach paradise. And we looked on and said: He doesn't mean it. It's just talk. And anyone who said out loud: 'There is no peace, just preparation for war from one side,' was drowned out
and vilified, called a war-monger and a traitor, told they had killed Yitzchak Rabin and told to shut up and let the party continue.And then our buses started blowing up, and our discos, and our wedding halls, and our Seder nights, and our Bar Mitzvahs and restaurants. Babies were blown up or shot in their carriages along with their grandmothers. Our country dug hundreds of graves. Thousands wound up injured, crippled for life,
sitting in wheelchairs, and burn units, brain damaged on life-support; their lives destroyed.And still the peace-nowers continued to preach: War is not the answer. There is no military solution.
At that point, we understood we'd been had. We started to speak out against them, to vote them out, to pick up our guns, and retake the areas we'd left, uproot the arms caches, the bomb factories, hunt down the
terrorists...And then the bombings got less...and less...and less. Every day, our soldiers fought the war, and every single day, new innocent lives were saved.But because we didn't have courage to speak out at the beginning, our lives were forever changed. Every place we go is now under armed guards. Half our restaurants closed down. The center of Jerusalem is like a ghost town. Our people are unemployed. No tourists come. Our children live with fears no child should have to endure. Thousands of families are in mourning. All because we listened to the appeasers, the peace-nowers. All because we let ourselves be intimidated. We let them make us think we were wrong,
and they were right, because we let them hijack the word 'Peace" until it became meaningless.Ten million British citizens signed a petition for 'peace' in 1941. As a result Neville Chamberlain signed a pact with Hitler. He declared it meant "Peace in our time." And ten million people turned out to be wrongheaded idiots. And these ten million idiots brought disaster down not only on the heads of their
own children but also on the heads of children whose parents understood the truth, but had lacked the courage to fight for it.And this is what I learned from living in Israel and I would like to share with you, to prevent your countries from suffering as mine has: Anyone who tries to prevent a just war against terrorism, is on the side of the terrorists, an accomplice. No, they don't have an opinion that needs to be respected. No, they don't have an equally valuable point of view. No, no, no.
They are as dangerous as the terrorists themselves, and will get you and your children killed just as fast.
As for the morality of war, the Bible tells us when someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first. As King Solomon said: " To every thing, there is a season, a time for peace, and a time for war." And one more piece of wisdom. Those who condemn the war against terror aren't in favor of peace. They are in favor of a one-sided war in which the innocent can't defend themselves cleverly enough to win.
UNUSUAL PROTEST SIGNS
"War Has Never Solved Anything...except for ending slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism""Protect Islamic Property Rights!" (illustrated by a woman in a burkha tied to a post)
"Saddam Only Kills His Own People! It's None of Our Business!"
"Communism Has Only Killed 100 Million People--Let's Give It Another Chance!"
"62% of Democrats in Congress Supported the Civil Rights Act vs. 92% of Republicans--Support the White Power Structure--Vote Democrat!"
IF WE LOSE THE WAR
Iraqi Military What is the Iraqi air force motto?
I came, I saw, Iran.Have you heard about the new Iraqi air force exercise program?
Each morning you raise your hands above your head and leave them there.What's the five-day forecast for Baghdad?
Two days.What do Miss Muffet and Saddam Hussein have in common?
They both have Kurds in their way.What is the best Iraqi job?
Foreign ambassador.Did you hear that it is twice as easy to train Iraqi fighter pilots?
You only have to teach them to take off.How do you play Iraqi bingo?
B-52 ... F-16 ... B-52What is Iraq's national bird?
Duck.What do Saddam Hussein and General Custer have in common?
They both want to know where the hell those Tomahawks are coming from!Why does the Iraqi navy have glass bottom boats?
So they can see their air force.When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush. Try the GET BIN LADEN Mission
Here
He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."
It became very quiet in the room.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/powell.php
Normandy Beach on the French coast.
Guess who's buried there and what they were doing to end up as one of the 10,943.
Maybe we need new friends. Enough said.
History of the U. S. Armies in Uniform
Twin Towers Memorial
with Photos Videos & News Archive of the WTC September 11 Attack
Please note that these are extremely graphic videos of people jumping
to their deaths from Twin Towers.
We have posted these pictures to show the cold hard facts about what
happened on September 11.