News Is Supporting Troops More Important Than Protesting Government Decisions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kerrie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Support
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the complex relationship between supporting U.S. troops and opposing war. Participants express the importance of showing care and compassion for soldiers deployed overseas, emphasizing their sacrifices and the harsh realities they face. While some advocate for supporting the troops regardless of personal views on the war, others argue that true support cannot be separated from the ethical implications of the conflict. The conversation highlights differing perspectives on military service motivations, with some asserting that many join for practical reasons like education, rather than purely for honor or duty. There is also significant debate about the morality of war, the role of patriotism, and the responsibilities of soldiers versus the decisions made by government leaders. Ultimately, the thread reflects a struggle to reconcile support for individual soldiers with broader anti-war sentiments, questioning how one can advocate for peace while also backing those engaged in combat.
  • #31
so here's food for thought...instead of protesting how our government is making choices, lend some care, compassion and support to the men and women who are sacrificing by sending letters, care packages, pictures and words of love and support for the tremendous courage they have for being on the forefront of this nation's security

It is impossible to support the members of any armed forces who go to kill other people in a war if you disagree with the reason for the war. The two things just do not stand together. There is an inconsistency. The point that everyone is missing is that no member of the American forces (or any other country) can be forced to go into battle and kill other people against their will. No matter the reason they joined the military they can refuse to fight an unjust war. There may be serious consequences for them if they do but standing up for the right principle has always had a cost.

Laser Eyes
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Originally posted by Monique
Hi Njorl, that is good logic, for a selfish person. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to offend you, I am interested in the views that people have and how they go against their own believes.

A leader only leads a country if the people support him. Support should be measured in standing for the actions that are being taken, not about being patriotic. That is where things go wrong, if people were standing up for their believes in Iraq, they would probably be able to overthrow Saddam Hussein themselves. Instead they are 'patriotic' and will fight for their leader, just because he is the leader (and in case of Hussein, fear of torture plays a role).

I mentioned the word selfish, since Americans are attacking Iraq out of patriotic believes, if one is against a war, but is being called upon to fight, one should object and spent 3 years in jail, if that is what it takes to stand up for an opinion. It SHOULDN'T be logically about wanting the soldier to be safe, if that very same soldier is going to inflict damage upon other people.. I realize that it IS that way, but it shouldn't.

No Monique, you do wish to offend me. You have called me immoral and selfish. You then cravenly add a disclaimer that you don't wish to offend me. Had you truly not wished to offend me you could have pointed out how my opinions were wrong. Instead you insult me and ramble illogically about patriotism.

Let me put this argument in the simplest possible terms. Imagine your son is in the army, and is sent to fight. You opposed the war, though he did not. Do you want your son to receive a faulty gun, so that he will die instead of the enemy? That is not unselfish, that is unnatural.

Njorl
 
  • #33
What objectives ?

If there's one objective the US is not going to achieve with this war, that's preventing further terrorist attacks. Quite the contrary. The moment you remove Saddam, the next in command (until this lady takes over) will sell all the weapons to the highest (terrorist) bidders and escape.

I'm surprised elementary logic is beyond Bush and co. Actually no ... I'm not surprised.

- S.
 
  • #34
Originally posted by Njorl
No Monique, you do wish to offend me. You have called me immoral and selfish. You then cravenly add a disclaimer that you don't wish to offend me. Had you truly not wished to offend me you could have pointed out how my opinions were wrong. Instead you insult me and ramble illogically about patriotism.

Let me put this argument in the simplest possible terms. Imagine your son is in the army, and is sent to fight. You opposed the war, though he did not. Do you want your son to receive a faulty gun, so that he will die instead of the enemy? That is not unselfish, that is unnatural.

Njorl

I didn't call YOU immoral or selfish, I called your arguments that way. There is an ever so slight difference. I am not attacking you as a person since I don't know you, and your nuances.

It is very clear that that argument you just presented is selfish, you cannot deny that. A son is sent into war, a parent doesn't want him to get hurt, ofcourse, but how about the people that he is going to attack? Just who is right and who is wrong in these fights? Whose lifes are more important?

And it is clear to me that Americans are very patriotic and sometimes (more often than not as I have observed) say things that are offending to non-americans. I live here in a very multi-cultural community and I am not the only one with this opinion.
 
  • #35
Bush: 'New and undeniable realities'
South End Editorial Board



The president's ultimatum to Saddam Hussein and his sons last night could best be described as pure Shakespeare: "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

In his rehash of the same noble-sounding rhetoric that the American people have been listening to for months, Bush built his justification for a pre-emptive strike on the nation of Iraq from our "sovereign right to defend ourselves" to insinuating that "the security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now."

Yet the demand resounded hollow. Only Saddam and his sons were ordered to leave, under threat of attack from the United States to take place "at a time of our choosing."

Our president cannot rally the nine members of the Security Council to his cause, yet he claims to know what is best for the world. Our president has boldly pulled out of treaties and defied the will of the United Nations, yet he claims to be making the world safe for peace and democracy. Fear and perpetual war do not make peace. Ignoring popular opinion and usurping the democratic process do not furnish democracy.

His message to the Iraqi people, military and officials was absurd. From warnings not to harm the oil (and wine) to a sly Nuremberg Trials reference, Bush made it a "war crime" for an Iraqi citizen to defend his or her homeland.

Removing Saddam and his sons, should this farce of an ultimatum be complied with, will do little other than disrupt the region. It is not a viable solution, and our administration knows this.

This can be construed as little other than an attempt to feign a peace process and start war. Ironically, the president might have a higher approval rating if he would stop lying about his true intentions.

http://www.southend.wayne.edu/days/2003/march/3182003/oped/bush/bush.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
The replies are really shocking.
Now i understand how US works.
First, all citizens put some guy as their president.
Then they accept the president even if they didn't like him (maybe this is not really a bad thing, if it is used right).
After that, they see what the president will do.
The president takes a certain action.
They start thinking if they are with that action, or against.
Some of them think the action is right, some of them think the action is wrong.
Eventually they all support the president, and the president does what he wants, and no one tries to defend his point of view.
So it does not really matter if they were with or against the action of the president, cause eventually they will support it.
And the role of the people stops the moment they choose the president.
So all the people eventually drop their morals and follow the 'leadership'.
 
  • #37
Monique,

Calling the desire to have your loved ones continue to live selfish is ridiculous. You might as well consider exhaling selfish - it adds to global warming. So everyone on Earth should drop over dead or be considered selfish? Selfishness is the expectation of unreasonable benefits at unreasonable costs to others.

Njorl
 
  • #38
American People ARE NOT the American Government

Originally posted by STAii
The replies are really shocking.
Now i understand how US works.
First, all citizens put some guy as their president.
Then they accept the president even if they didn't like him (maybe this is not really a bad thing, if it is used right).
After that, they see what the president will do.
The president takes a certain action.
They start thinking if they are with that action, or against.
Some of them think the action is right, some of them think the action is wrong.
Eventually they all support the president, and the president does what he wants, and no one tries to defend his point of view.
So it does not really matter if they were with or against the action of the president, cause eventually they will support it.
And the role of the people stops the moment they choose the president.
So all the people eventually drop their morals and follow the 'leadership'.

STAii...please remember that there are Americans who do not support the government...what can one individual do about this war? they can only protest, but that doesn't get anything changed...

this thread was dedicated to our American troops who are away from their families for a reason (to me) that is uneccesary...idealy, no war should be fought on this planet, but reality is taking us on a differnet course...

so, STAii, i believe your general opinion is unfounded about the Americans, because there are many of us who are supporting those who are unwillingly fighting...do you think my friend's husband wants to be out there in Kuwait during the sandstorms being commanded to shoot? no, there maybe few men and women who are gung-ho for this war, but i assure you the majority of them do not want to be there, and will celebrate the minute they are told to go back home to their families...

i suggest you speak to more general americans about how they individually feel about this war, and stop passing a general judgement on us, as here in america, we are not passing a general judgement on the arabic people either just because of this pending war...
 
  • #39
Originally posted by STAii
The replies are really shocking.
Now i understand how US works.
First, all citizens put some guy as their president.
Then they accept the president even if they didn't like him (maybe this is not really a bad thing, if it is used right).
After that, they see what the president will do.
The president takes a certain action.
They start thinking if they are with that action, or against.
Some of them think the action is right, some of them think the action is wrong.
Eventually they all support the president, and the president does what he wants, and no one tries to defend his point of view.
So it does not really matter if they were with or against the action of the president, cause eventually they will support it.
And the role of the people stops the moment they choose the president.
So all the people eventually drop their morals and follow the 'leadership'.

No Stai, that is not how America works. People will continue to protest this war. Some of these will be prominent people speaking on national television. Others will speak out against the protesters. Others, like me, will speak out for the war, and for the right of the protesters to express themselves without being considered traitors. The United States is one of the few countries in the world in which this is true. You can still be imprisoned in France for speaking out against the government. You can still be fined in Britain and Australia for speaking the truth, if it is considered libelous. That can't happen to you in the US.

Njorl
 
  • #40
Laser Eyes needs his vision re-checked...

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
It is impossible to support the members of any armed forces who go to kill other people in a war if you disagree with the reason for the war. The two things just do not stand together. There is an inconsistency. The point that everyone is missing is that no member of the American forces (or any other country) can be forced to go into battle and kill other people against their will. No matter the reason they joined the military they can refuse to fight an unjust war. There may be serious consequences for them if they do but standing up for the right principle has always had a cost.

Laser Eyes
i see you have SRS (selective reading syndrome)...please re-read and re-consider HOW i said to support our troops, otherwise don't quote my words...


lend some care, compassion and support to the men and women who are sacrificing by sending letters, care packages, pictures and words of love and support
 
  • #41
Kerrie,
I did not mean to make a general statement about everyone (and i am sorry if i did), i meant to talk about majorities.
About what you said (your friend's husband).
A person that really cares about his principals will defend them.
That is, if the person is against war, he will not go to fight, he will prefer being prisoned then fighting against his beleives.
Therefore i see that those fighting will either be :
1-Someone that sees the war should happen.
2-Someone that sees the war should not happen, but still is fighting because he will hate being prisoned.
3-Someone that is against war, but still is fighting cause he wants to take the benefits of being a soldier.

Well, in the case (2), the person is a cowerd.
In case (3), the person has no principles, since he will prefer his own good on doing what is 'right'.

So if you are a person that is against war, you should see that the soldiers do not really deserve your lovely support (as explained before).

No Stai, that is not how America works. People will continue to protest this war. Some of these will be prominent people speaking on national television. Others will speak out against the protesters. Others, like me, will speak out for the war, and for the right of the protesters to express themselves without being considered traitors. The United States is one of the few countries in the world in which this is true.
And ... no one will hear all of this ? (i mean there will be no reaction from the government when they see that lot of people are against what they are doing ?)
 
  • #42
STAii, what you may not realize is, America gives great incentives to men and women who join the military RESERVES, different then the active military...by offering one weekend a month/two weeks a year of their time to train, they receive money for college, assistance for buying a home, and part time income...because the possibility of war is generally a very low one, my friend's husband (in his case specifically) joined the reserves for college reasons...his committment time would have been up this summer-thus not required by law to go to Kuwait-if he had not showed up for duty after being called up, he would face jail time, and probably end up owing a lot of money back for college (this fact i am not 100% sure of)...so in his perspective, he is probably not supportive of the war in general, but is doing his duty because the military provided him a lot of help with college in return for his pledge to serve his country...

again, please remember, this thread is not about protesting the war, but it is to lend encouragement to the men and women facing one of the scariest realities of our time-regardless if it is a good or bad reason, they are still dealing with something most of us would see as a nightmare...
 
  • #43
I would change one word of that...'instead' to 'also'. You can supprt the troops and protest at the same time!
I completely agree. It saddens me how few people can require that not supporting a war means not supporting the troops. Supporting the troops is ENTIRELY about hoping the come back alive. What they fight for or even IF they fight is irrelevant to the desire to see them return alive. Example:

Therefore i see that those fighting will either be :
1-Someone that sees the war should happen.
2-Someone that sees the war should not happen, but still is fighting because he will hate being prisoned.
3-Someone that is against war, but still is fighting cause he wants to take the benefits of being a soldier.

Well, in the case (2), the person is a cowerd.
In case (3), the person has no principles, since he will prefer his own good on doing what is 'right'.

So if you are a person that is against war, you should see that the soldiers do not really deserve your lovely support (as explained before).
Though I disagree with your 3 case, I'll go with them. In any of those 3 cases, is your gripe with that person bad enough you wish them to DIE? Because failure in a mission means death. Patriotically supporting the troops is NOT about supporting the war, it is simply showing that you hope they don't DIE:

1. Misguided, but you are an American so I hope you don't die.
2. Coward, but you are an American so I hope you don't die.
3. Mercenary, but you are an American so I hope you don't die.

Do you realize that by your stance you are expressing a hope that our sodiers DIE? Whether you truly believe it or not, that's how it comes out. Hoping for Americans to die is unpatriotic.
 
Last edited:
  • #44
russ_watters: That's right. My appeal can be interpreted as simply hoping that the war, since it probably can no longer be prevented, happens as quickly and bloodlessly as possible.
 
  • #45
I know I'll be 18 when the 2004 Presidential election rolls around and will most definitely not be voting for President Bush. It is this ridiculous double standard that's being applied by Bush that I object to most: that we should punish Saddam Hussein for going against the UN by going against the UN.
 
  • #46
USA ! USA ! USA ! :smile:
Originally posted by zk4586
I know I'll be 18 when the 2004 Presidential election rolls around and will most definitely not be voting for President Bush. It is this ridiculous double standard that's being applied by Bush that I object to most: that we should punish Saddam Hussein for going against the UN by going against the UN.

The UN is a bunch of magots and politicians worried
about their own jobs.
It is abvious that there can NEVER be real consensus
in the UN about ANY war by ANY country, for the
simple reason that countries don't vote for what is
"right", but rather for what's "beneficial" to them
and each country has different interests.
It is fortunate that a super-power like the US exists
and can act without this corrupted institution.
(Of course, as the saying goes - "Absolute power corrupts
absolutely." :wink: But, the history of the US appears
to prove this saying wrong, so far.)
Otherwise, no one would "raize a finger" in ANY
conflict ANYWHERE until WW3 would begin in full force.

The price of freedom is eternal vegelance.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #47
Originally posted by Greg Bernhardt
you bet kerrie, even though I have a few friends stationed in the middle east I still support the war. we can't sit and wait for another act of terrorism. I just hope it can be quick, successful and with minimal loss.

I agree with that idea, but the war has given to these groups the legitimation of continuing their attacks. And it has made from a local problem a religious question, and this is without doubt the most dangerous variant.
On the other hand, in Egypt and Algèrie there are groups that are much more dangerous than the troup of Saddam.
 
  • #48
Originally posted by drag
USA ! USA ! USA ! :smile:


The UN is a bunch of magots and politicians worried
about their own jobs.
It is abvious that there can NEVER be real consensus
in the UN about ANY war by ANY country, for the
simple reason that countries don't vote for what is
"right", but rather for what's "beneficial" to them
and each country has different interests.
It is fortunate that a super-power like the US exists
and can act without this corrupted institution.
(Of course, as the saying goes - "Absolute power corrupts
absolutely." :wink: But, the history of the US appears
to prove this saying wrong, so far.)
Otherwise, no one would "raize a finger" in ANY
conflict ANYWHERE until WW3 would begin in full force.

The price of freedom is eternal vegelance.

Live long and prosper.

I can agree with this in parts. I do think that at the moment there are a lot of countries that only vote according to what benefits them most (and i believe that this also partially true for the states). I also think that the way the power within the counsel is distributed should be changed. It hasn't changed since the end of WW II, while the world did change a lot. So no more veto's for countries like france . Actually i think they should stop using veto rights because it doesn't help making decisions.

However, to state that it is fortunate that there is a superpower like the US, who can change the world in their favor without anybody able to do anything about it, is exactly the sort of arrogance that countries like france and germany are aggitating against. Perhaps it is naive, but i refuse to believe that Chirac vetoed only because of inland politics. I think a lot of countries at the moment are "against" the states because in the past few years (from the beginning of this administration) they have operated very unilateral. The US boycots treatise like the kyoto protocol and the international court only because it might, perhaps hurt the american economy.

Anyway, now that the war is here, i wish the troops fighting in the middle east all the very best. I also wish the Iraqi people all the very best. I think that they are the true victims of all this...
 
  • #49
Originally posted by heumpje


However, to state that it is fortunate that there is a superpower like the US, who can change the world in their favor without anybody able to do anything about it, is exactly the sort of arrogance that countries like france and germany are aggitating against. Perhaps it is naive, but i refuse to believe that Chirac vetoed only because of inland politics.

France invaded Rwanda in 1994, on the side of the Hutus. When Britain and the US asked the UN to impose sanctions on the warlord dictator Charles Taylor in Liberia, France fought the prroposal and forced a weakening of the original intent in the final Security Council resolutions. France supported Laurent Kabila after he removed his pro-Tutsi Rwandan and Ugandan advisors. It supported Mobutu in Zaire, turning against him only when he attempted to improve his relations with the US. France invaded the Ivory Coast this year, without asking the UN for approval, because Ivoran rebels were threatening Abidjan and San Pedro where 20,000 French settlers live, and the rebels would have kicked them out. France supported the U.S. invasion of Yugoslavia without UN approval, because it did not want to have to accommodate the mostly Muslim refugees from the Yugoslav civil war that were starting to knock on France's door.

Knowing all this as well as I do, you still think that France
threatened to veto because of anything other then self interest?


Anyone who knows even just the tip of the iceberg of French foreign policy these past few decades that I outlined in the first paragraph of this post, who is able to simultaneously believe that France really stands for the position "that unilateral warmaking by any state without the compliance of the UN is unacceptable" might be interested in coming to Brooklyn, I have a nice bridge to sell you.
 
  • #50
It is fortunate that a super-power like the US exists
and can act without this corrupted institution.

Fortunate? I find nothing fortunate in the fact that the US is a country which uses it's power to bully other nations into submitting to whatever suits the US. I find nothing fortunate in the fact that a country which was founded on the ideals of freedom and liberty would use its military strength and economic superiority so aggressively that its image becomes one of capriciousness, arrogance, and brutality.
 
  • #51
Knowing all this as well as I do, you still think that France
threatened to veto because of anything other then self interest?

Chirac threatened to use the veto for the same reason the US threatened to invade Iraq with or without an UN resolution.

If you can't believe that Chirac is acting out of principle and the common opinion of his public, then there is similarly no reason to believe that the US is invading Iraq to remove Saddam.
 
  • #52
Originally posted by FZ+
Chirac threatened to use the veto for the same reason the US threatened to invade Iraq with or without an UN resolution.

If you can't believe that Chirac is acting out of principle and the common opinion of his public, then there is similarly no reason to believe that the US is invading Iraq to remove Saddam.


I was talking about the hypocrisy of the French government, which repeatedly sent its soldiers to foreign territories without UN approval when it decided it was in its national interest to do so, but decided to insist on the requirement for UN approval only when the US government decided it was in its interest to do so. That is a very blatant example of hypocrisy on the part of France regardless of who one would prefer to be his president (Schroeder perhaps, Chirac probably not), regardless of whether one voted for Bush or not (I did not), regardless of whether the American decision to go to war against Iraq is right or wrong (I think at this point it may be the lesser of evils), and regardless of whether the U.S. is equally hypocritical (which it is).
 
  • #53
If you can't believe that Chirac is acting out of principle and the common opinion of his public, then there is similarly no reason to believe that the US is invading Iraq to remove Saddam.
The reason is obvios , US And UK Want the fields of Oil , and wants to remove the most powerful arab country .
There's also a reason for UK to follow US, which is that The English Currancy is Going Down because of the success of the Euro , and if the Euro completes it's success , this will lead to make the Euro competor to The US Dollar .

Here In Jordan , we rely on The Us Dollar , but some investors are changing into Euro , becuase they see a very bright future for this currancy.

Back to the main subject , I think we have the right to suport the iraqi side , Not becuase they defend Saddam , but Only becuase they are arabs , and arabs are brothers .
 
  • #54
The reason is obvios , US And UK Want the fields of Oil
If we had wanted to keep the oil, we would not have put out the fires then GIVEN THEM BACK to Iraq and Kuait in 1991. You will soon see (again) how wrong you are.
 
  • #55
I was talking about the hypocrisy of the French government, which repeatedly sent its soldiers to foreign territories without UN approval when it decided it was in its national interest to do so, but decided to insist on the requirement for UN approval only when the US government decided it was in its interest to do so.
France is in fact fighting an unsanctioned war in the Ivory Coast right now. No UN approval was sought or given. Are they wrong for fighting it? Does it make them hypocrites? Absolutely.
 
  • #56
The following are random examples:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2622511.stm
I draw your attention to the following line:
Former colonial power France has some 2,500 troops in Ivory Coast in a bid to enforce the fragile ceasefire.
http://www.iht.com/articles/85092.htm
See:
Virtually no one in France, Africa, the United States or the United Nations has attacked France's involvement in the Ivory Coast, its richest former colony in Black Africa, as neo-colonialist or unwanted. Indeed Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, and a number of West African chiefs of state, came to Paris as part of the supporting cast over the weekend that was meant to give the Ivory Coast accord a look of gravitas.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/2/5/235723/8626
meanwhile, what is the United States doing? where are the troops, the stealth bombers, the high-powered diplomats? dithering outside iraq. the French -the French!- are left to try and avert this potential catastrophe.

Now, there is a critical difference here. The French are here to enforce a ceasefire. They were called on regarding a conflict that was already occurring, and they are in agreement with the UN. The same is not true for america. The situations are explicitly different. So no hypocrisy.
 
  • #57
Now, there is a critical difference here. The French are here to enforce a ceasefire. They were called on regarding a conflict that was already occurring, and they are in agreement with the UN. The same is not true for america. The situations are explicitly different. So no hypocrisy.
Is there a UN resolution in force regarding this action? Did France even seek one? Unless the answer to BOTH of those questions is yes, then France is indeed hypocritical on this issue. It doesn't matter WHY they are doing it, just that they are doing it WITHOUT UN SANCTION.
meanwhile, what is the United States doing? where are the troops, the stealth bombers, the high-powered diplomats? dithering outside iraq. the French -the French!- are left to try and avert this potential catastrophe.
Further deepening the hypocrisy. Whoever is expressing that opinion chastizes the US for making France go it alone. But France refuses to support the US - in fact France is actively HINDERING the US.

Clarification: I left out an important word in my last post.
Are they wrong for fighting it?
*NO!*
 
  • #58
anyway, i hear a lot of people bad mouthing the american president about the possibility of war, here in hippie land (that would be orygun) there are many marches for peace...yet i don't see the same loud support for our troops that are away from home, their families, sleeping on the floors/sand/ground etc, away from any communication source to call their wife, their children...

so here's food for thought...instead of protesting how our government is making choices, lend some care, compassion and support to the men and women who are sacrificing by sending letters, care packages, pictures and words of love and support for the tremendous courage they have for being on the forefront of this nation's security...

you bet kerrie, even though I have a few friends stationed in the middle east I still support the war. we can't sit and wait for another act of terrorism. I just hope it can be quick, successful and with minimal loss.



I AGREE! I supposrt the troops and I too hope this war goes by quick, with minimal loss. Thank you for making this topic Kerrie I was looking for something like this!
 
  • #59
FZ you have much of your post backwards. Like:


meanwhile, what is the United States doing? where are the troops, the stealth bombers, the high-powered diplomats? dithering outside iraq. the French -the French!- are left to try and avert this potential catastrophe.


Hmmm I recently recall the French getting caught with secret trade with Iraq along with a cetrtan number of suspicious things...


BTW FZ! THIS IS A THREAD TO OFFER SUPPORT TO OUR TROOPS AND I DO NOT SEE YOU DOING THAT SO PERHAPS YOU SHOULD GO POST THIS IN ANOTHER THREAD!
 
  • #60
Hi Nicool,

Please try to refrain from yelling. It's likely to start flaming. Thanks.

Hi FZ+,

If you wish to discuss the political aspects of the current situation, feel free to start another thread or continue with another discussion concerning this (as I am sure there are plenty of them).

Thanks Nicool and FZ+
 

Similar threads

News Should the US intervene in world problems?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
News Renaissance and reaction to Islam.
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
7K
News Can someone normal become a terrorist?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
13K
News How long until the left labels Zell Miller a traitor?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
News The Roots of Terrorism and US Foreign Policy
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
News A Scary Look at Past Work Experience of a US President
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
6K