The war on Iraq, and Hollywood protests....
Moms View Message Board: The Fox Hole (War-Related Discussion): The Front Line (Personal Opinions on Hot Topics/Debating Allowed Here):
The war on Iraq, and Hollywood protests....
there is some profanity in the post below. It is a letter written by someone else, and I did my best to edit, without taking away from the author's anger.
I am posting this here, because I know we have moms on both sides of this debate. I was forwarded this by my DH's commander's wife, and it really pissed me off to think about the celebrities protesting. I'm curious to see what others think on the letter....
Subject: Charlie Daniels Letter to the Hollywood Bunch
An Open Letter To The Hollywood Bunch
Ok, let's just say for a moment you bunch of pampered, overpaid, unrealistic children had your way and the U.S.A. didn't go into Iraq.
Let's say that you really get your way and we destroy all our nuclear weapons and stick daisies in our gun barrels and sit around with some white wine and cheese and pat ourselves on the back, so proud of what we've done for world peace.
Let's say that we cut the military budget to just enough to keep the National Guard on hand to help out with floods and fires.
Let's say that we close down our military bases all over the world and bring the troops home, increase our foreign aid and drop all the trade sanctions against everybody.
I suppose that in your fantasy world this would create a utopian world where everybody would live in peace. After all, the! great monster, the United States of America, the cause of all the world's trouble would have disbanded it's horrible military and certainly all the other countries of the world would follow suit. After all, they only arm themselves to defend their countries from the mean old U.S.A.
Why you bunch of pitiful, hypocritical, idiotic, spoiled mugwumps. Get your head out of the sand and smell the Trade Towers burning. Do you think that a trip to Iraq by Sean Penn did anything but encourage a wanton murderer to think that the people of the U.S.A. didn't have the nerve or the guts to fight him?
Barbra Streisand's fanatical and hateful rankings about George Bush makes about as much sense as Michael Jackson hanging a baby over a railing.
You people need to get out of Hollywood once in a while and get out into the real world. You¹d be surprised at the hostility you would find out here. Stop in at a truck stop and tell an overworked, long distance truck driver that you don't think Saddam Hussein is doing anything wrong.
Tell a farmer with a couple of sons in the military that you think the United States has no right to defend itself. Go down to Baxley, Georgia and hold an anti-war rally and see what the folks down there think about you.Please visit Clarksville, Tennessee and the 101st Airborne and talk that SH*T, please visit those Real American's.
You people are some of the most disgusting examples of a waste of protoplasm I¹ve ever had the displeasure to hear about.
Sean Penn, you¹re a traitor to the United States of America. You gave aid and comfort to the enemy. How many American lives will your little, "fact finding trip" to Iraq cost? You encouraged Saddam to think that we didn't have the stomach for war. You people protect one of the most evil men on the face of this earth and won't lift a finger to save the life of an unborn baby.
Freedom of choice you say?
Well I'm going to exercise some freedom of choice of my own. If I see any of your names on a marquee, I'm going to boycott the movie. I will completely stop going to movies if I have to. In most cases it certainly wouldn't be much of a loss.
You scoff at our military who's boots you're not even worthy to shine. They go to battle and risk their lives so ingrates like you can live in luxury. The day of reckoning is coming when you will be faced with the undeniable truth that the war against Saddam Hussein is the war on terrorism.
America is in imminent danger. You¹re either for her or against her. There is no middle ground.! I think we all know where you stand. I will stand with the soldiers, airmen, and sailors. The hard working men and women of this great country. Not the overpaid, pansy •••, Hollywood wimp wannabe's, and has beens, who can't hold a candle to real American's, the middle class blue collar workers.
What do you think? Boycott any Hollywood type that protest against the
USA.
God Bless America
Charlie Daniels
Please forward to Everybody on your MAIL List - Let Hollywood Hear
America..
Amen.
I consider myself a "real American" and I am absolutely opposed to the proposed war on Iraq. I am not anti-war, by any means. But I do think this proposed war is unnecessary, as Iraq poses no threat to the United States. North Korea is another story, and scares the bejeeezus out of me. If it is necessary to plan a war, that is the one we should be planning.
I am one of those demonstrating against this war. This particular war. I believe it will be a terrible waste of the lives of U.S. service people, whom I respect greatly. I believe it will be terribly costly, in a time when our economy is already going down the tubes. I believe it will leave us with no major allies anywhere in the world, and will produce acts of terrorism against U.S. citizens and institutions all over the world on a scale we can't yet begin to imagine. I believe it will destabilize the Middle East (already a very unstable part of the world) in a way that will take generations to overcome, if ever. And while it will get rid of Saddam Hussein and his administration, I doubt very much it will improve things in any measurable way for the citizens of Iraq, who will almost certainly hate the U.S. for invading and killing large numbers of Iraqis, including the "innocent" (because it is impossible to wage war without killing the innocent.)
I do not think it is the role of the United States to force other nations to become democratic, much as I believe a democratic form of government is the best for its citizens. Nor do I think it is possible. History has shown us that imposing democracy from without almost never works, especially in non-technological and uneducated populations. We stayed in Japan for 15 years to bring them to a democratic form of government. Do we intend to commit that kind of effort, in manpower and money, to Iraq? I doubt it, from everything the administration has said.
Nor do I think this proposed war really arises from any deep-rooted concern for the people Hussein has harmed in the past. If our government were truly concerned about getting rid of dictators who harm and kill their citizens and amass great personal wealth while depriving their citizens of basic necessities, why did the U.S. tolerate such governments in Guatemala, El Salvador, Argentina and South Africa, to name a few, as well as in many Middle East nations that are presently our sort-of allies?
North Korea has nuclear capability, has the capacity to deliver nuclear weapons to all of Asia and probably to the United States. Iran (our ally, for heaven's sake) is presently increasing its nuclear capability in defiance of all treaties. Pakistan is a volcano ready to explode, and is right next door to Afghanistan, where U. S. troops are still fighting and dying, where we have been unable to bring any move toward democracy and where warlords still rule most of that nation - and we have not committed sufficient troops, humanitarian aid, or funds to make any real difference there. We sent Bin Laden into hiding and got the Taliban out of power, but what remains is not a whole lot better for the Afghanis and we are having little effect on it.
For all of these reasons and many more, I believe the planned war in Iraq is misguided and wrong. And I will continue to demonstrate to express my beliefs.
And, as a real American, I will support Charlie Daniels' First Amendment rights to express his opinion, boycott the movies of entertainers he disagrees with, and distort the positions of the demonstrators as much as he wishes.
Right on GinnyK. Right on.
So celebrities forfeit the right to protest something they are personally against? Charlie is doing the exact same thing imho. Granted some may be swayed by the influence celebrity brings into the picture but good grief!
I don't think anyone is saying celebrities shouldn't be allowed to protest. As I read Charlie's letter, he says go ahead and protest - I'm gonna boycott you. I could wish he were a bit more courteous about it and used fewer pejorative adjectives, but then, that is his privilege. Seems to me the First Amendment is doing just fine.
I don't feel that I know enough about this situation to give my opinion on it. However, as Ginny said, I do have an absolutely horrible feeling about North Korea. And I believe that is where our attention should be focused at the present time.
Anyone can protest this impending war. Anyone can stand behind it. I am all for free speech.
However, I do not think a celebrity or anyone else should be allowed to wear or make their opinions noted on public television while promoting their wares.
Sheryl Crowe should not be allowed to wear her "No War" tshirt on Good Morning America nor should she be allowed to wear her guitar strap protesting against the war on an awards show on public television. Nor would I like to see someone wear a shirt that states "Go To War" on public television worn by a celebrity while promoting their latest movie or novel.
They shouldn't be able to use the exposure for a platform for their political opinion.
If they want to march in a rally wearing their tshirts or nothing at all, then I support them and their free speech. I may not agree with what they want to say, but that would be a different matter.
Annie, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. However, those decisions are made by the television stations, and despite your calling the "public" television, except for the actual non-profit public television programs, the rest of them are privately owned and (they hope) make a profit for their owners and stockholders. But again, you run into First Amendment stuff. The First Amendment doesn't hold only on sidewalks - it also holds on TV. I guess the TV stations could say don't wear that, but then they (a) might not get Sheryl Crowe, and (b) would probably get a major lawsuit.
The First Amendment puts no conditions on where one expresses one's opinion, except that private property owners can bar you from expressing your opinion on their property. You may note signs on shopping malls, supermarkets and the like barring soliciation on their property, which means you can't sell unless you are a tenant, beg, or hand out literature. And even shopping malls (no matter what happened in New York) cannot bar you from wearing a T-shirt or other political symbol so long as it does not show seriously profane language or pornography.
The First Amendment is one of the blessings of this wonderful nation, not least because it does not restrict how, where or when you express your opinion as long as you don't violate private property or existing laws about traffic, parade permits, noise levels, etc.
If you have a gripe about what is shown on a TV program, write to the TV station or network, or to the advertisers. Many have done that in the past about a whole lot of things, sometimes achieving their desired result.
Ginny,
I respect your opinion VERY much, and always look forward to your posts, as I was when I created this topic. I tend to agree with Daniels on this letter, and subject. I feel most of the celebs who are protesting are not in the least informed about the topics they protest. I would not go as far as boycotting them, but I do look down upon many of them for their actions. I also share your opinion on this war, even as my DH prepares to risk his life in it. I feel Korea is a much bigger threat, and we are going to war with Iraq for the wrong reasons. I was terribly upset the other night, crying over N. Korea, and what they could do to us. I am terrified they will nuke us, because they definatly have the capabilities. John tells me they wouldn't dare, because as soon as they sent one towards us, we would reciprocate. Well that doesn't save any of us! Just because they die with us doesn't mean crap to me! I'm scared for my kids, and all of our children. That guy in Korea, (who my dad says reminds him of a Korean Elvis impersonator... LOL) is CRAZY, and has no remorse. I don't trust him not to nuke us, I don't think he cares if we retaliate, as long as he kills us. Back to the topic of the celebrities, I think they abuse their status to promote beliefs they do not fully understand. They do often think that we should just lay down our arms, and hand out daisies, and the whole world will follow suit. That's naive and unrealistic, as most of us know. Well, I'm under attack by my munchkins, so I'd better end this speech now! LOL.
I have no problem with celebrities protesting. They are Americans. It is their right. I do not, however, look to them to form my own opinions on things. They are not experts in this area, although they may play an expert on tv.  I think it's unfortunate that people may follow celebs blindly just because they have seen them in movies or on tv. But that's just how it goes sometimes. I choose to gather my own info from various sources and make my own decisions on what I think is right. So when a celeb stands up to protest the war or support it, I don't pay much attention.
When a celebrity does a commercial advocating a product, do you feel that you must buy it? If Rush Limbaugh states his opinions on a political issue, does that mean it’s true? They are all just people like us. Some have the camera focused on them more than just the normal man on the street, but they have the right to think, feel and express their opinion just as we do. We can embrace their view of any given subject, or reject it as we would do in any conversation. Why do they need to be experts to give an opinion? I’m sure that most people who are celebrities would not want to appear as complete idiots. I’d bet they’d have read or collected some information before going in front of cameras. I don’t believe they are all the mental equivalent of nuclear physicist, but are about as knowledgeable on this subject of war with Iraq as we are. We are here debating the issue. They have as much right as we do to express how they feel.
I think Charlie Daniels sounds very stupid in this email diatribe. Here he is, (a celebrity) freely expressing his views on the war, while condemning other celebrities who are doing the same. May I hand you a mirror Charlie????
Bea, I did not say they have to be an expert to give an opinion. What I said was that I am not going to look to a celeb to gather my information just because I know them by name. I will look to experts in the field for that.
My dh's company designs POP displays. He's been in this industry now for 9 years. I've seen many displays and have heard much of the lingo used about them. If you want an opinion on any one in particular, I'd be happy to give it. I guarantee, however, that you are much better off asking for dh's opinion. It's his area of expertise, not mine.
Anyone is welcome to give an opinion. I have never denied anyone that. Some opinions I simply give more weight to than others.
I want use the same terminologies as Mr. Daniels, however I do agree with that they do need to step out side of their fairly tale lives and stop using this situation to put their forgotten faces on the airways in hopes someone will remember who they are. I doubt very few actually get out there and march with the common man, they just show up to mock our President. If it were there old buddy Clinton, everything would be OK. I think we should leave the decisions to the people who have the intelligence to make these decisions. This is not a time for this country to be divided. Instead of constantly critizing the President, why not spend your time praying for him and our leaders of this Country. And for those that are afraid, just trust in God, he has a plan, and he will never fail.
Here is a point of view on the protesters by an Iraqi. It's rather long.
Here's a perspective on the war from Iraqis:
Rev. Jackson, let me speak
Amir Taheri National Post 2/23/03 LONDON - '
LONDON - 'Could I have the microphone for one minute to tell the people about my life?" asked the Iraqi grandmother
I spent part of last Saturday with the so-called "anti-war" marchers in London in the company of some Iraqi friends. Our aim had been to persuade the organizers to let at least one Iraqi voice be heard. Soon, however, it became clear the organizers were as anxious to stifle the voice of the Iraqis in exile as was Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
The Iraqis had come with placards reading "Freedom for Iraq" and "American rule, a hundred thousand times better than Takriti tyranny!"
But the tough guys who supervised the march would have none of that. Only official placards, manufactured in thousands and distributed among the "spontaneous" marchers, were allowed. These read "Bush and Blair, baby-killers," "Not in my name," "Freedom for Palestine" and "Indict Bush and Sharon."
Not one placard demanded that Saddam should disarm to avoid war.
The thugs also confiscated photographs showing the tragedy of Halabja, the Kurdish town where Saddam's forces gassed 5,000 people to death in 1988.
We managed to reach some of the stars of the show, including Reverend Jesse Jackson, the self-styled champion of American civil rights. One of our group, Salima Kazim, an Iraqi grandmother, managed to attract the reverend's attention and told him how Saddam Hussein had murdered her three sons because they had been dissidents in the Baath Party; and how one of her grandsons had died in the war Saddam had launched against Kuwait in 1990.
"Could I have the microphone for one minute to tell the people about my life?" 78-year old Salima demanded.
The reverend was not pleased.
"Today is not about Saddam Hussein," he snapped. "Today is about Bush and Blair and the massacre they plan in Iraq." Salima had to beat a retreat, with all of us following, as the reverend's goons closed in to protect his holiness.
We next spotted former film star Glenda Jackson, apparently manning a stand where "anti-war" characters could sign up to become "human shields" to protect Saddam's military installations against American air attacks.
"These people are mad," said Awad Nasser, one of Iraq's most famous modernist poets. "They are actually signing up to sacrifice their lives to protect a tyrant's death machine."
The former film star, now a Labour Party member of the British parliament, had no time for "side issues" such as the 1.2-million Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis who have died as a result of Saddam's various wars.
We then ran into Tony Benn, a leftist septuagenarian who has recycled himself as a television reporter to interview Saddam in Baghdad.
But we knew there was no point in talking to him. The previous night he had appeared on TV to tell the Brits that his friend Saddam was standing for "the little people" against "hegemonistic America."
"Are these people ignorant, or are they blinded by hatred of the United States?" Nasser the poet demanded.
The Iraqis would have had much to tell the "anti-war" marchers, had they had a chance to speak. Fadel Sultani, president of the National Association of Iraqi authors, would have told the marchers that their action would encourage Saddam to intensify his repression.
"I had a few questions for the marchers," Sultani said. "Did they not realize that oppression, torture and massacre of innocent civilians are also forms of war? Are the anti-war marchers only against a war that would liberate Iraq, or do they also oppose the war Saddam has been waging against our people for a generation?"
Sultani could have told the peaceniks how Saddam's henchmen killed dissident poets and writers by pushing page after page of forbidden books down their throats until they choked.
Hashem al-Iqabi, one of Iraq's leading writers and intellectuals, had hoped the marchers would mention the fact that Saddam had driven almost four million Iraqis out of their homes and razed more than 6,000 villages to the ground.
Abdel-Majid Khoi, son of the late Grand Ayatollah Khoi, Iraq's foremost religious leader for almost 40 years, spoke of the "deep moral pain" he feels when hearing the so-called "anti-war" discourse.
"The Iraqi nation is like a man who is kept captive and tortured by a gang of thugs," Khoi said. "The proper moral position is to fly to help that man liberate himself and bring the torturers to book. But what we witness in the West is the opposite: support for the torturers and total contempt for the victim."
Khoi said he would say "ahlan wasahlan" (welcome) to anyone who would liberate Iraq.
"When you are being tortured to death you are not fussy about who will save you," he said.
Ismail Qaderi, a former Baathist official but now a dissident, wanted to tell the marchers how Saddam systematically destroyed even his own party, starting by murdering all but one of its 16 original leaders.
"Those who see Saddam as a symbol of socialism, progress and secularism in the Arab world must be mad," he said.
Khalid Kishtaini, Iraq's most famous satirical writer, added his complaint.
"Don't these marchers know that the only march possible in Iraq under Saddam Hussein is from the prison to the firing-squad?" he asked. "The Western marchers behave as if the U.S. wanted to invade Switzerland, not Iraq under Saddam Hussein."
They ignored the fact that the peoples of Iraq are unanimous in their prayers for the war of liberation to come as quickly as possible.
The number of marchers did not impress Salima, the grandmother.
"What is wrong does not become right because many people say it," she asserted, bidding us farewell while the marchers shouted "Not in my name!"
Let us hope that when Iraq is liberated, as it soon will be, the world will remember that it was not done in the name of Rev. Jackson, Glenda Jackson, Tony Benn and their companions in a march of shame.
---
Amir Taheri is an Iranian author, journalist and editor of the Paris-based Politique Internationale
Here is a speech by Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, also long:
By US Senator Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia
Senate Floor Speech, 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.
I think this is a great response to the Hollywood protesters:
>Stand Up for America Rally Speech
>by Beth Chapman
>
>I'm here tonight because men and women of the United
>States military have given their lives for my freedom.
>I am not here tonight because Sheryl Crowe, Rosie O'Donnell,
>Martin Sheen, George Clooney, Jane Fonda or Phil Donahue,
>sacrificed their lives for me.
>
>If my memory serves me correctly, it was not movie
>stars or musicians, but the United States Military who fought
>on the shores of Iwo Jima, the jungles of Vietnam, and the beaches
>of
>Normandy. Tonight, I say we should support the President of the
>United States and the U.S. Military and tell the liberal,
>tree-hugging,
>Birkenstock-wearing, hippy, tie-dyed liberals to go make their
>movies
>and music and whine somewhere else.
>
>After all, if they lived in Iraq, they wouldn't be allowed the
>freedom of speech they're being given here today. Ironically, they
>would be put to death at the hands of Sadam Hussein or Osama Bin
>Laden. I want to know how the very people who are against war
>because of the loss of life, can possibly be the same people who are
>for abortion?
>
>They are the same people who are for animal rights, but against the
>rights of the unborn. The movie stars say they want to go to Iraq
>and serve as"human shields" for the Iraqis. I say let them buy a
>one-way ticket and go.
>
>No one likes war. I hate war! But the one thing I hate more is the
>fact that this country has been forced into war --innocent people
>have lost their lives - - and there but for the grace of God, it
>could have been my brother, my husband, or even worse my own son.
>
>
>On December 7, 1941, there are no records of movie stars treading
>the
>blazing waters of Pearl Harbor. On September 11, 2001; there are no
>photos of movie stars standing as "human shields" against the debris
>and falling bodies descending from the World Trade Center. There
>were only policemen and firemen - -underpaid civil servants who gave
>their all with nothing expected in return.
>
>When the USS Cole was bombed, there were no movie stars guarding the
>ship - - where were the human shields then? If America's movie stars
>want to be human shields, let them shield the gang-ridden streets of
>Los Angeles, or New York City, let them shield the lives of the
>children of North Birmingham whose mothers lay them down to sleep on
>the floor each night to shelter them from stray bullets. If they
>want to be human shields, I say let them shield the men and women of
>honesty and integrity that epitomizes courage and embodies the
>spirit of freedom by wearing the proud uniforms of the United States
>Military.
>Those are the people who have earned and deserve shielding!
>
>Throughout the course of history, this country has remained free,
>not
>because of movie stars and liberal activists, but because of brave
>men
>and women who hated war too. However, they lay down their lives so
>that we all may live in freedom. After all - "What greater love hath
>a man, that he lay down his life for his friend," or in this case a
>country.
>
>We should give our military honor and acknowledgement and not let
>their
>lives be in vain. If you want to see true human shields, walk
>through
>Arlington Cemetery. There lie human shields, heroes, and the BRAVE
>Americans who didn't get on television and talk about being a human
>shield - they were human shields.
>
>I thank God tonight for freedom - - those who bought and paid for it
>with their lives in the past - - those who will protect it in the
>present and defend it in the future.
>
>America has remained silent too long! God-fearing people have
>remained
>silent too long! We must lift our voices united in a humble prayer
>to God for guidance and the strength and courage to sustain us
>throughout
>whatever the future may hold.
>
>After the tragic events of Sept. 11th, my then eleven -year-old son
>said terrorism is a war against them and us and if you're not one of
>us, then you're one of them. So in closing tonight, let us be of one
>accord, let us stand proud, and let us be the human shields of
>prayer, encouragement and support for the President, our troops and
>their families and our country.
>
>May God bless America, the land of the free, the home of the brave
>and
>the greatest country on the face of this earth!
Thank you for sharing that with us, Sandie. It was very eloquently stated. I am forwarded it to a few of my friends.
|
Members
