| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
30 Oct 2003 08:54:37 AM |
| Object: |
If you start a war, you should fight in the war |
In June 1917, long before O'Brien was born, Townley asked a crowd at
Buffalo Lake, N.D., "Who started this war? I will tell you who started
this war. It was the big-bellied, red-necked plutocrats.
"And I will tell you how to stop this war. Place these big-bellied,
red-necked plutocrats in the line of battle. Their big bellies will
stop more bullets than the bodies of (the) slim young men they are
taking from our families.
"But this is not the reason why the war would stop. It is because they
would not stand for being targets of German bullets. These
big-bellied, red-necked plutocrats would take care of their precious
bodies by seeing that U.S. participation in this war were brought to a
close."
True words in 1917.
Truer still in 2003.
From The Madison Capital Times, 10/30/03:
http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/column/nichols/60107.php
If you start war, you should fight war
By John Nichols
On the last day of the Wisconsin Book Festival, Tim O'Brien joined a
panel discussion on civic life and politics that, as is appropriate in
these times, devoted a good deal of time to the current war in Iraq.
O'Brien - author of the acclaimed novels "Going After Cacciato," "The
Things They Carried" and "In the Lake of the Woods" - is a Vietnam
veteran.
And he has some firm ideas about the duty of political leaders in a
time of war.
On Sunday, bemoaning the lack of serious debate about matters of war
and peace, O'Brien offered a modest proposal.
Recalling that traditionally, those who declared wars then led the
troops into battle, he suggested that President Bush, Vice President
***** Cheney and members of Congress ought to ship out to Iraq, or ship
their children off to the front lines.
Officials who declare and support wars ought to be afforded an
opportunity to back up their rhetoric with a physical commitment,
O'Brien explained.
Or they could send their sons, daughters and grandkids.
The prospect that presidents, vice presidents, defense secretaries and
members of Congress might - along with their loved ones - be suiting
up for combat would, the author allowed, lend a very different flavor
to the discourse.
O'Brien was, of course, correct.
And the crowd at the Orpheum Theatre clearly loved what he had to say.
But as I listened to his proposal, I was struck by the notion that the
debate would take an even more interesting turn if the executives of
defense contractors and their economic children - investors in those
firms - also headed for the front lines.
Just think of it.
Halliburton lands a hefty contract in Iraq, and the CEO of the company
gets to lead a platoon of stockholders into battle.
Bechtel accepts a check from the Pentagon, and all the executive vice
presidents trade their suits and ties for fatigues.
_____________________________________________________
The Chickenhawk database is at;
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks
Harry
Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone
else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by
personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of
experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.
.
|
|
| User: "Larry Bud" |
|
| Title: Re: If you start a war, you should fight in the war |
30 Oct 2003 12:17:52 PM |
|
|
"But this is not the reason why the war would stop. It is because they
would not stand for being targets of German bullets. These
big-bellied, red-necked plutocrats would take care of their precious
bodies by seeing that U.S. participation in this war were brought to a
close."
True words in 1917.
Truer still in 2003.
Woah. That would have been a ***** for Roosevelt to fight in WW2,
being a cripple and all.
What a stupid idea.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: If you start a war, you should fight in the war |
30 Oct 2003 12:33:17 PM |
|
|
On 30 Oct 2003 10:17:52 -0800, (Larry Bud)
wrote:
"But this is not the reason why the war would stop. It is because they
would not stand for being targets of German bullets. These
big-bellied, red-necked plutocrats would take care of their precious
bodies by seeing that U.S. participation in this war were brought to a
close."
True words in 1917.
Truer still in 2003.
Woah. That would have been a ***** for Roosevelt to fight in WW2,
being a cripple and all.
What a stupid idea.
Be careful..Larry...be very careful. You're using logic here...Libs
can't stand logic; it has no "feelings."
Have a nice day!!
Cheerio,
Dennis, Proud America-Loving NEOCON Finest Kind Irish/English
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
