Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Rebecca Hagelin :: Townhall.com Columnist
Paying the Price to Wipe Out the Enemy
by Rebecca Hagelin
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


The headline in my local weekly paper was strikingly idiotic:

“Ending War through Diplomacy.”

The article spoke only of the current war against terrorism. I think we need to remind ourselves exactly who it is we’re at war with: terrorist thugs who, well, terrorize. Such evil-minded individuals aren’t prone to sit down for a polite discussion.

People forget that we’re not at war with Iraq -- we’re at war in Iraq. We’re not fighting a nation or a government with a designated leader. We’re fighting terrorists who scurry among Middle Eastern countries and hide out in caves.

Yes, they get cover and support from rogue dictators and are led by individuals we can identify. But you don’t negotiate with mass murderers like Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri. These are fanatics who strap bombs on children, target civilians in neighborhood markets, and burst into universities and seminaries and blow people away. You don’t hunt them down to have a chat. You hunt them down so you can rid the world of them and their evil. 

Of course, protecting our nation and freedom isn’t easy or cheap. As Congress prepares to work on its annual budget blueprint, we need to make sure they include the funds required to train and equip our military to do the job. Our brave men and women deserve better than to be put at risk because we didn’t budget enough money.

Polls suggest that many Americans think we already spend too much on defense -- never mind adding more. Others think it makes up the largest part of the federal budget. Quick: How much of gross domestic product do you think we spend on defense?

25 percent of GDP? 50 percent?

The actual number is less than 4 percent. Bet you’ve never heard that from the establishment media or liberal leaders.

To put the amount in perspective: It’s less than the 4.6 percent we spent during the Gulf War, significantly lower than the 11.7 percent we invested during the Korean War, and a fraction of the 34 percent we spent during World War II. 

Former Sen. James Talent of Missouri, a distinguished fellow at The Heritage Foundation who served on both the Senate and House armed services committees, recently offered this sobering assessment in a major article for National Review:

“Because of decisions over the last 15 years -- driven more by budgetary than by military considerations -- the Army is too small, the Navy and Marine Corps may well be too small, and much of the equipment in all the services is too old and increasingly unreliable. Without a substantial increase in procurement spending … the U.S. will be unable to modernize its forces to the degree necessary to preserve its security with the necessary margin of safety.”

This is frightening, to say the least. National security, after all, is Job 1 for our elected leaders, and many of them clearly don’t get it. Ronald Reagan did, and that’s one of the reasons so many Americans admired him. He was willing to spend what it took to ensure our safety. Reagan knew that without “freedom from fear,” our other freedoms mean little. He was the one who proved, once and for all, the validity of his policy of “peace through strength.” He also understood that the first duty of government is to “provide for the common defense.”

Today, far too many politicians seem to think the first role of government is to provide a comfortable way of life for every American. The truth is, the very notion of life in America is at risk without a strong fighting force.

As Heritage experts explain, there are two critical realities which must be addressed now:

We face serious security threats today and can see others on the horizon.  “The U.S. needs to fund defense programs that will protect the American people and U.S. friends and allies against the ongoing threats from hostile states (e.g., Iran and North Korea) and looming threats like the one posed by a hostile China,” writes Heritage Foundation defense expert Baker Spring in a recent paper.

The coming crisis in entitlement spending threatens to crowd out other priorities. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid all have claimed bigger and bigger portions of the federal budget since the 1960s -- and this growth has generally come at the expense of our defense budget. Adequately funding our defense will become impossible if the “Big Three” entitlement programs continue on autopilot. Heritage experts consider 4 percent of GDP adequate to meet tomorrow’s military threats.

As Thomas Paine once wrote, “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.” We can’t expect to protect ourselves and stand by our allies by pinching defense dollars. It’s time to stop pretending that we can.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Rebecca Hagelin is a public speaker on the family and culture and the author of the new best seller, 30 Ways in 30 Days to Save Your Family.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Rebecca Hagelin's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
We are broke
And the dollar daily loses value. We need to back up our buck with silver or gold.

Hell, we are having difficulty fixing our infrastructure.

We don't need a bigger army
We need to reduce the mission. We can't garrison the entire Middle East.

The same twisted way of unthinking...
I was in Jerusalem last week and can testify that it's still probably as safe to be a tourist in Israel as in Los Angeles or Miami. You just have to avoid the wrong places and times. On only one of my ten days there did we stay away from the inner city out of prudence as Israeli F-16's streaked overhead, bound for Gaza.

Armed soldiers, police, and civilians are everywhere. But it's kind of comforting because as a tourist you know that all those weapons are loaded and each bearer has been in the army. If something happens nearby just assume a low profile and they'll quickly take care of it!

The Jews came to Israel from all over the world. They came with vastly different cultures, habits, ways of worship. Being surrounded by a common ruthless enemy has united them, one positive result of intense adversity.

It's not the ordinary "Palestinian" Arabs that are the enemy of Israel. It's a small population of people with twisted minds who can't wait to shed human blood and earn a pleasure place in their grossly distorted image of "heaven".

We know them today as "terrorists." They've all got the same mentality, the same twisted ruthless way of unthinking.

America is preparing to choose a president. The options seem clear. Our choice is a president who will stand up and fight the enemy, as the Israelis do each day, and unite the country. Or a president who will take away the weapons our warriors need, and please foreign nations by throwing smiles and "yes we cans" as the enemy rushes upon American cities, villages, women and children...

http://mittromney.townhall.com


Ms.Rebecca
I remember reading,that President Roosevelt wanted a chicken in every pot (Metaphor).Are we to now believe, that supporters of Mr.McCain, want a TERRORIST under every bed?I am afraid,there just are not,that many TERRORIST!The American people have fallen for that "TRICK" too many times before.They have gotten up and are fully AWAKE!!!Do you have a "WAG the DOG" event in mind?

justamere
"Our choice is a president who will stand up and fight the enemy, as the Israelis do each day, and unite the country."


Dream on. Half of this country consists of American Idol watchers who have no conception of the outside world and who the enemy is. They are called Democrats. Another word for them is "liberals", an oxymoron if there ever was one, as they are the complete opposites of the dictionary meaning of the term.

MLIdiot
Who were the Muslims killing 200 years ago? 500? 1000?

Idiot.

As Hagelin stated
The headline (and the idea behind it) was indeed idiotic.

There is not a single war (including those ending in stalemates) in history which was ended through diplomacy.

Haven't you heard ...
America is the world's policeman. We protect the corporations so that they can set up trade that benefits them.

It is always said that America will fight if our interests are involved.

So what are our interests in the ME?

My heart goes out to people that are being dominated and killed by crazy people. The ME has a long history of that happening. But is that an interest of ours? Is that reason enough to spill our blood and spend our money?

I can think of specific interests that America should fight for.

Protecting the Constitution as the guiding light for our country. Any politician that does not defend the Constitution should be labeled as an enemy of the State and dealt with.

Protecting the rule of law. Without an unbiased law the powerful and wealthy will do what they please when they please. Without an unbiased law the criminal element will do what they please with the poorer and weaker people of our country. These are worth fighting for.

Protecting our way of life in these wonderful United States. Our money is being destroyed, our country will soon lose its Sovereignty thanks to Bush and the NAU and SSP, our language is being destroyed by an invadeing army of people that speak spanish, our food is being destroyed by large commercial intersts, our medicine is dominated by people more interested in selling drugs than in curing people and our faith in God is under attack by atheists that have powerful positions in government.

There are many interest WE THE PEOPLE should be taking care of and not one of them would require us to leave the shores of our late great nation.

Paying the Price.....
As I read the column, and look at that lovely smile and sparkling eyes under that blonde mop of hair. I became suddenly aware of the strong urge to vomitt growing with in.
It is not the actual price tag Americans, and I mean the lower income, everyday folks that seem to do all the fighting, dying and paying for the nations freedom, They think the cost is to high in the terms of;
1.Lost sons,
2.Lost lineages,
3.Lost friends,
4.Lost lovers,
5.Lost Fathers,
6.Lost Jobs,
7. lost incomes,
8. Lost benefits,
9. Lost health care
10. And lost freedoms.
You do not send your sons to fight, you do not pay the taxes, provide them the health care.
Currently, this administration wants to `REDUCE' T

Paying the Price..........
As I was saying, REDUCE the VA's buget on research, metal health care for PTSD, TIA's and other traumas. In crease co-pay for meds, reduce benefits, give less than Honorable Discharges to returning troops with PTSD and related illnesses. Fighting tooth and nail to prevent former Veterans from getting compensations for their now blooming desease from Vietnam.
What will happen to this great nation when, `WE THE PEOPLE, Average citizens, Say HELL NO WE WON'T GO' and not die for you wealthy blood suckers

The threat is not just military.
Well 4% doesn't seem too much except that 4% would solve the problems in the economy but the real price is being paid in lives. However Islamic Jihad is thriving in other ways and perhaps some funds should be spent combating that. The Organisation of Islamic States is pushing very hard to modify the UN Charter of Human Rights and get a resolution through the UN against religious defamation. This will give religions (any Religion) the automatic right to be respected, or else. Is it possible to induce respect by coercion? I always considered respect something that has to be earned and surely it is right to De-fame that which has not earned the right to fame.Is fame what religions are after? Would non believers get equal rights against defamation? The claim is that ISLAMOPHOBIA is at the root of the disrespect for Islam but surely DEMOCROPHOBIA is at the root of disrespect for democracy.What is the definition of a religion? Surely one of the qualifications must be that it has believers. Belief cannot exist where there is coercion. Islam is not actually a religion; it does not qualify, because there can never have been any true believers since there has always been coercion. Islam is a political Ideology.Should a Political Ideology be entitled to human rights respect privileges? This is very serious because at the moment it looks as if it WILL go through and the USA delegates do NOT seem to be very bothered about arguing the case.
Some years ago I saw a report which claimed that the Islamic Jihad of Al Qaeda was a hand with five fingers. (1)Militant Action (2)Educational control (3)Financial control (4)Religious schooling (5)National and local Government control.
So perhaps more funds need to be spent, first on some work at the UN and next on protecting our society from the insidious creeping takeover of a system which has a history of restricting freedom and producing a poor quality of life for those that live under its yoke.

this is one of the dumbest
columns I've read.

Our "enemy" aka, radical fundamentlist muslim terrorist groups who have sprung up all over he world since our invasion of Iraq, and not going to be "wiped out" by another 100 years of war in Aghanistan and Iraq.

What are you planning next, Rebecca, to bomb London? Madrid? Indonesia?

The next time you dispense advice on foreign strategy, try reading a newspaper first.

Stunned
Good God, libs are complacent, blind fools--or just very, very lazy. Do you honestly believe that there are not serious threats to our National security out there? Do you think that UN love fests will prevent ANYTHING? Do you believe that if we cut back on defense spending, the world will breathe a sigh of relief and say: "Phew, now that's over! Let's hug!" What kind of people are you that are willing to risk your loved ones' lives to enemies without consciences by ignoring the most critical job our government has, to protect us?
Shame on you all! OPEN YOUR EYES!

MDoggg
Really, now, are you serious? Ever heard of deterrence? I am making an assumption that you were around during the Cold War? Do you believe, philosophically, that a country with our resources and a weak military isn't an enormous target for anyone of any foreign affiliation?
Heard of China? North Korea? Iran? Russia? Yeah, let's downsize our military while we spend our money figuring out how to charge people for carbon footprints.

Doro
If you read this column it is based on the assumption that we need to stay in Iraq until all of the world's terrorists are dead. This is what is stupid, it's not going to happen - they are created faster than they are offed. Our invasion of Iraq gave birth to worldwide terrorism...do you remember as kids, breaking a thermometer so you could watch the mercury fall on the floor and break into ever diminishing balls every time you tried to cath it? That's what has been happening ever since 2003.

There are alot of good discussions to be had about our role in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Palestine, but this column doesn't even begin to approach them, it poses a kind of graphic novel solution to complex problems.

I've read this columnist before, what I really would like her to do is go to a good salon and get a haircut that doesn't look like 1972.


Touj
I read the article...did you? She extrapolated a great deal from her introductory argument about Iraq.

"We face serious security threats today and can see others on the horizon. “The U.S. needs to fund defense programs that will protect the American people and U.S. friends and allies against the ongoing threats from hostile states (e.g., Iran and North Korea) and looming threats like the one posed by a hostile China,” writes Heritage Foundation defense expert Baker Spring in a recent paper."

Off topic: 2 New Parodies
My Blog

DORO
You are wasting your time with touj/Mdoggie

They think GWB is the terrorist and that if we leave IRAQ the terrorist will go away. But what they dont tell you is that the 9/11 commission report, The LIBS BIBLE, that the terrorist where at WAR with us for years and we didnt recognise it.

They are the HATE AMERICA FIRST people, they claim to be Patriatic but want us to LOSE the WAR
and bring our TROOPS home with their heads hung low and that will make the famlilies of the TROOPS feel really Patriatic also with shame.

They are always crying that we REPS need to send our sons or daughters over their to fight, what they dont know is that we already have done that. The problem is that they wouldnt send there own over their becauise they KNOW THEY ARE COWARDS when it comes to defending this country.

These people are LIBS and think that the Government should give them everything for just being alive so do you think people of this mindset would go to war to defend its own country. HELL NO

Doro
How does that quote from the uber-conservative Heritage Foundation imply or infer that diplomacy has no place in foreign relations?

Sorry,
I just can't take anyone with a haircut like Hagelin's seriously.

Touj
NOW I understand the liberal vote...it's all about haircuts. Explains a lot.

Chucky
"These people are LIBS and think that the Government should give them everything for just being alive so do you think people of this mindset would go to war to defend its own country. HELL NO"

Hate to break it to you buddy, you've been HANNITIZED!

Iraq war
Sorry to bust your anti war balloons but the war is not going to be a big item for voters in the election.You can tell because the two regressives don't talk about it

They should pay also
Perhaps the key comment is that we should provide the defense necessary to protect "our friends and allies". Consider. We no longer protect Just ourselves - we are expected to pay to protect those who are perfectly capable of funding the defense necessary to protect themselves.

Perhaps the author, and indeed the Heritage Foundation, should first consider that issue. Not a single Europeon country, for example, pays remotely the amount of money per capita that we do for defense. Most are at 1/4 or lower. This is also true of Japan, Korea, Thailand etc. When do we stop paying for their defense? And when to they start paying for it? How long do we carry them or our backs? Perhaps if we pulled the cover, and let them stare into the abyss, they might finally grasp the fact that their defense and survival is not up to us - its up to them. WWII has been over for 63 years. It's time we stopped acting as if it ended yesterday.

Doro
"...it's all about haircuts"

No, actually, it's about people who seem to be trapped in 1954 and can't get out, which explains the general body of conservatives.

Touj.:
You write: "Our invasion of Iraq gave birth to
worldwide terrorism..." - a flat-out falsehood,
as I'm sure you know.

Radical Islamists have been murdering Americans
and opposing American interests around the globe
for 30 years.

9/11 (which, you may remember, PRECEDED the Iraq
invasion) was not an isolated incident, but the
culmination of a pattern of behavior that the US
tried for far too long to deal with as a matter
for law enforcement. A pattern followed by
jihadists across the entire Middle East, NOT just
Al Qaeda and their bloody-handed enablers in
Iran, Iraq, and elsewhere.

America can choose to put an end to it now, or
wait for still more murders before acting.

Since you clearly oppose acting now, I'm left
wondering: How many Americans have to die for
you and those like you to take the threat of
global jihadism seriously?

The alternate solution!
Liberals have always advocated using military funds for various socialist projects.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020215003619/www.dsausa.org/pc /pc.progag.html

AND; Each time they cause our military to become weak through attrition and obsolescence we are attacked.
Then we "go to war with the army we have" armed with an insufficient supply of the obsolete weapons they have.
Our soldiers fight and die bravely to buy time, for factories to design and manufacture modern weapons and to train recruits to use the new weapons.
Then America is victorious and for awhile there is peace!
This has happened in every war.
Weakness invites attack.
Strong Nations may choose to go to war or live in peace.
Weak Nations do not have these options.
War is far more deadly today. The cost of time has grown far more expensive.

How many lives of America's fathers, brothers, uncles and sons can we afford to spend to buy time today?

We don't need to waste any lives.
We can remain strong and live in peace!

4% of gdp so long as you dont' count...
all the other stuff needed for defense, that isn't part of the Department of Defense.

Following, is a breakdown of costs:
DoD (2008) - $515 billion
DoE (nuclear weapons) - $20 billion
Veterans Administration - $73 billion
War in Iraq - $120 billion
War in Afghanistan - $30 billion
Dept. of Homeland Security - $45 billion
Coast Guard - $8 billion
National Security Agency - $30 billion

All totaled comes to: $840 billion which is about 7% of GDP. We conservative need to look at the costs of securing our homeland with eyes wide open. Please keep those tax cuts coming.


MyOpine
Conservatives need to stop whining about liberals and take a good look in the mirror. It's often said that "the Clinton Administration's defense cuts in the 1990's hurt the military."

However, Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House for Clinton's last six years in office. As you know, the U.S Constitution says "the Congress has the power to tax and spend..." All those deep cuts originated in the House.

bulldog
"How many Americans have to die for
you and those like you to take the threat of
global jihadism seriously?"

Very tough talk, I wonder if you felt the same way when Reagan fled Lebanon in 1983, like "a monkey with his tail between his legs", after Islamic militants murdered 241 U.S. Marines?

zapdoodat:
Did you take my simple question as "tough talk"?
Perhaps you just don't want to answer it - but
you, Touj., and the rest of your ilk will be
forced to answer, sooner or later.

As to Reagan's failure to respond militarily to
the Marine barracks attack, allow me to make
these points:
(1)The US was engaged at that time with the USSR,
then a more pressing threat than jihadism.
(2)Reagan could not have foreseen that treating
jihadism as a criminal problem would not prove
effective; indeed, many today fail to grasp
that fact.
(3)Your post implies that you think Reagan
should have responded on a military level, but
that isn't true, is it?

No, you would have opposed military action at
that time just as you oppose it now.

I don't know what your answer to my question
might be, but I already know it's "more than
three thousand".

bulldog
You can drone on about the 'clash of civilizations' all you want, but any country or nation that is in danger, and even GRAVE danger say some, ask their citizens to sacrifice and not blow on, incessantly, about their precious tax cuts, in a time of war mind you. I don't think you really believe all your empty rhetoric.

zapdoodat:
To what "empty rhetoric" do you refer?

I have yet to refer to tax cuts or clashes of
civilizations; and I defy you to call me on any
misstatements of fact in my posts.

No, the empty rhetoric is coming from you, and
is designed, I think, to avoid answering my
simple question.

You WILL have to answer it eventually, though;
because the jihadists won't stop until enough
Americans gather the will to stop them.

So, sir, I'll ask again: How many of your fellow
citizens do you need to see buried before you
take Islamic radicalism seriously?

bulldog
more empty rhetoric. After Americans were buried, the Republicans were more concerned with exploding pork barrel projects from 3,000 to 14,000 projects than they were in getting the Marine Corps the equipment they needed. The Republicans were more concerned with increasing entitlement spending by $50 billion a year. More concerned with adding more debt to the national ledger than in the previous 200 years, getting the country even more addicted to foreign oil, and trashing the dollar.

When George Bush entered office in January 2001 the price of oil was $22 a barrel. Any idea what it is now? Guess where Iran gets all of its money to pursue its nuclear ambitions.

Rosie the Riveter worked 80 hours a week and was glad to pay higher taxes because the country was at war against a real enemy. Most conservatives want a tax cut so they can fulfill their dream of a 62 inch plasma TV with a HDTV subscription. All of this in a time of WAR.....WAR.









bullgod
"How many of your fellow citizens do you need to see buried before you take Islamic radicalism seriously?"

Then why did we not pursue Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell and get diverted to Iraq where the oil was? (Alan Greenspan says the war was all about oil)

Saddam killed more Islamic radicals than anyone in history. Do you know how bloody the Iran-Iraq war was? Saudi Arabia, our friend, funded Islamic radicals 100 times more than Saddam ever did.

bullgod
When the Bush administration needed civilians to go to Iraq, their political views were assessed in minute detail. Questions like "What's your view on Roe vs Wade?" were part of the questionnaire.

With over 3000 Americans buried, and the country at war, what is more important when hiring government employees for the battle theatre, political correctness or competence?

zapdoodat:
Hmm... three posts addressed to me, but still no
answer to my simple question.

And you accuse ME of empty rhetoric! I enjoy a
little irony with my morning coffee.

One more try, zap; and try to focus.

I'm not interested in your views on tax cuts,
entitlement spending, political correctness,
Rosie the Riveter, or any of the other subjects
you prefer to pursue.

What I want to know, from you and all the other
peace-at-any-price leftists, is just this:

Since 3000 dead on American soil failed to con-
vince you that radical Islam is a serious threat
to the US, then what would it take? How massive
must the attack be before you finally get it?

In short, how many dead Americans do you need to
see to make you want to fight back?

As for me, I've seen enough.

bullgod
my answer is simple, you yourself, do NOT believe in the premise of your question.

The representatives of government, who you so admire, are more interested in feeding at the public trough. That was my point about asking questions about pork barrel spending, farm subsidies, oil subsidies, pharma subsidies, a bridge to nowhere, 'no-bid' contracts, etcetera, etcetera.

Did you hear that Bears Stearns just got a $200 billion loan from the Fed, paid for with taxpayer dollars.


once again
Of course, some Islamic people are terror threats, I think we disagree with the means to annihilate them. We should have pursued Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, instead of going for the oil 'prize' in Iraq.

zapdoodat:
And STILL no answer!

Since you resolutly refuse to address my simple
question, preferring instead to spew about every
other subject under the sun, I'll just have to
guess.

My guess is this: that for you and your fellow
America-hating left-wing lunatics, NO number of
dead Americans will EVER justify fighting back;
that the advancement of your own political ide-
ology matters more than the lives of your fellow
citizens; and that your deep-seated self loathing
is so ingrained that you can't even comprehend
that many people actually love this country and
what it stands for.

I'll stand by that assessment until you can find
somewhere within yourself the courage to really
think about my question, and answer it - not
for me, but for yourself.

bullgod
the retort of last resort, you sir, should be ashamed of yourself.


bullgod
let's see if you can pick apart my poor analysis.

I took the 'red-eye' back to Atlanta Wednesday night and gladly read the Wall Street Journal I adroitly scooped up out of the trash at the terminal before boarding the plane.

In the 'Letters to the Editor' section, a Professor of Finance from Texas responded to an article titled "Dollar's Value Fundamental to Our Economy."

He writes, "It is the dollar if we wish to look only at symptoms, but it is high taxes and and regulatory costs if we look at causes."

Now I was half asleep (ain't I always) at the time, when I read this but I know the dollar has lost about half its value the past six years or so. Not too long ago it took 75 American pennies to equal the one euro, now it takes about 156 pennies. I rapidly did the math while slurping my diet coke and discomfitting the turbulence of the aerodynamically designed airplane.

On Neil Cavuto's conservative, Republican business show on Fox News, his panel constantly derides Europe as being socialist, having way too high taxes and way too much regulation. If the Euro is getting stronger, and we want the dollar to get stronger then it seems to me that we need to emulate Europe. I think this means higher taxes and more regulations are needed to make the dollar stronger.


zapdoodat:
I'm left scratching my head at your last post,
wondering what any of it had to do with what
we were discussing.

I won't try to "pick apart" your suggestion that
the US needs higher taxes and more regulation. I
disagree profoundly, but those are questions that
are a legitimate part of political dialogue.

What is NOT legitimate is to deny that the US
has a perfect right to defend itself against
enemies sworn to destroy her.

Argue tactics if you wish, but don't tell me
America is in the wrong for finally attempting
to make the bloody-handed murderers of the
Middle East stop killing Americans.

bullgod
I will answer your question. NONE. I do not believe less than 10,000 terrorists are a serious threat to our country. Especially when they have no air force or navy. In fact I find those that believe a handful of unwashed, unorganized, uneducated cave dwellers were able to plan and pull off the attacks of 9-11-01 to be idiots. Here is a question for you. What role (other than a few payments to suicide bombers families AFTER the fact) did Iraq play in planning and carrying out international terrorism BEFORE we invaded? Those that think our government would NEVER kill it's own people to further their globelist goals are living in a fantasy world. They have willingly allowed close to 4000 of our fellow citizens to be killed in Iraq FOR WHAT????????????????? To give them the freedoms that are being taken away from us here?

Face facts; The people in the middle east have no concept or desire for freedom. If they did they would take it for themselves.

bullgod
As evidenced by the past 7 years, what the United States really needs is to get even more addicted to foreign oil. That will show those oil exporters in the middle east.

bulldog
Is the copy of your post, below, text that you paste in when someone disagrees with you about foreign policy? Do you really think that I want to die, my children should die, and that we should bow down to the international Islamic terrorist threat? I dare say, you are a drama queen.'

When your Momma slapped your hand for taking one too many cookies from the cookie jar you may have said the following:
"If I don't eat, I will die from starvation, I will die, I will die, I will die."

This is good stuff too:
My guess is this: that for you and your fellow
America-hating left-wing lunatics, NO number of
dead Americans will EVER justify fighting back;
that the advancement of your own political ide-
ology matters more than the lives of your fellow
citizens; and that your deep-seated self loathing
is so ingrained that you can't even comprehend
that many people actually love this country and
what it stands for.



Former_Rep_Never_a_Dem
your last post was most excellent!

Former rep
Your suggestion that The US government itself is
responsible for the attacks of 9/11 tells me all
I need to know about you. If you have a serious
point to make, don't embarrass yourself by spew-
ing that idiotic theory, and maybe you'll get a
serious response.

As for YOU, zapdoodat; are you sure you want to
associate yourself with the moronic 9/11 "tru-
thers"? Do you believe it was an "inside job"?

If so, I'll have to downgrade my original take
on you from "misguided" to "contemptible fool".
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.