DemocRATs rallying for America to lose!!!

[nickg]

Democrats rallying for America to lose!!!

f**king anti-American liberal pigs spout their snouts.
>:(
----------------------------------------------------

Can We Call You Unpatriotic Now That You're Rooting For Your Own Country To Lose A War?

Some of the left-wingers at the Democratic Underground are now openly rooting for Iraq to prevail if we go to war.
------------------------------------------------------

CatWoman: "I'm wrong to feel this way, and I know it. But I can't help myself -- no way do I want to see the United States succeed in this "war" with Iraq. This may sound traitorous to some. And I'll understand your flames.
But I am enraged at the thought of attacking a country for no reason at all. Well there is a reason. Maybe that's why I feel so strongly about this. The reason(s): greed -- for both oil and power.
Power corrupts.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely."


Voltaire: "I am in full agreement with you. I hate to think what it may entail, but I feel that any quick victory will make matters worse for all of us. It will simply add to the hubris we are forced to witness each and every day."


Marymarg: "I agree, Catwoman. How can we "win" an immoral, if not illegal war? Looks like a lose/lose to me."


arcane1: "the Bush cabal is an enemy of the United States of America there is no shame at all in wanting to see them fail. By feeling this way, you are showing that you are a true patriot, of that word still has any meaning at all..."


psyntist: "Why do you feel you are wrong to feel this way? It makes no sense to feel wrong about your worries about the potential outcome of this war. Afterall, there has been little to no talk about what happens the "day after" I have a firm belief that the US will win the ground war but will we succeed in anything else is a matter of much debate and very doubtful. "


Solly Mack: "Heck, my husband is military and I feel that way. We just can't keep raiding countries for their resources and call it "national security"
We're not spreading democracy...we're spreading American rule.
I don't want anyone..American or Iraqi...or anyone else...to die for Bush's "vision" of the world."


dbt: "Right on, CatWoman! No matter how the regime spins it, an attack on Iraq makes us an agressor nation. That country is no threat to anybody, much less the US."


Cujo: "I really can't blame you. The inspectors have yet to find any evidence of WMDs and Bush still says we may have to attack them. It is obvious this administration cares nothing for the American people and unfortunatley a bloody war may be what it takes to make people wake up and see this"


Schreader: "You are not wrong to feel this way This is a dirty little war for profit -- nothing more, nothing less. There isn't even a "righteous cause" to sugar-coat it (e.g., the Second World War).
We all know that the victory of American imperialism in Iraq means more swaggering arrogance from Bush & Co. And that arrogance will be directed as much against us (working people in the "homeland") as it is against the Iraqis -- perhaps more, over the longer term. The only difference is that the army Bush will use against us, our unions and our livelihood will not be solely BDU-clad. It will be multi-hued (police blue, strikebreaker gray, politician pin-stripe, etc.).
Eugene Debs was right when he said that "the defeat of 'one's own' government is the lesser evil."
Trust your instincts, Midori."

[Lance]

Nick: Tell me where this is so wrong.

This "war" is NOT about Iraq. It is about paybacks. Oil, daddy Bush, and so on.

If our President was a *real* leader, he'd be putting forth measures to get us off a foreign oil dependency.

I would also ask this. What gives us the moral right to dictate that another country may not have a certain type of arms? Particularly when we are the only country in the world that has ever used them in an actual conflict.

This is NOT about right and wrong. Its about power, pure and simple.

[SENOR DON GATO]

I have to agree with Lance, here.

This is not about national security. This may be about national (and private) oil interests.

But another factor I think figures in prominently is Israel and its desire to see most of the Arab world obliterated if that is a possibilty.

[Lance]

Yeah, that too.

Also wartime makes it easier to get away with the excesses of government. After all, its for "national security".

[nickg]

right, wrong, or indifferent you do NOT hope that your country goes into battle to lose.

i see their tripe as simply political:
"gee, if we lose the war and the economy tanks then that means Dubya won't get elected again!!"

or

"gee, if we lose this war then maybe we will be put in our place and those mean islam guys won't hurt us anymore."

give me a break. i may not be behind going into iraq, or anywhere for that matter, IF it can be avoided. BUT i am NOT going to rant and rave that if we are there "i hope we get our asses kicked and thousands of our troops get killed and that'll fix that Bush guy and then we can get hilary in there"!!

get a f**king clue.

[Bassman]

Nick: Tell me where this is so wrong.

This "war" is NOT about Iraq. It is about paybacks. Oil, daddy Bush, and so on.

If our President was a *real* leader, he'd be putting forth measures to get us off a foreign oil dependency.

I would also ask this. What gives us the moral right to dictate that another country may not have a certain type of arms? Particularly when we are the only country in the world that has ever used them in an actual conflict.

This is NOT about right and wrong. Its about power, pure and simple.

He is-ANWR.It's at least a start,but the very same caterwauling libbies will fight him tooth and nail,and send out the sock puppets with their commercials showing the bunnies and the birdies and the frolicking caribou they say will be harmed.
I'm opposed to war in Iraq-at this point.The lefties are oppsed to it because it's GWB in charge.Opposed philosophically my ass.They were ready to drop Fat Man and Little Boy on Baghdad in 98 when their Sainted Leader was in charge.

What I REALLY hate about the libbies is the way they're willing to sit by and let the economy tank to better their chances in 04.

[nickg]

QUOTE:
"What I REALLY hate about the libbies is the way they're willing to sit by and let the economy tank to better their chances in 04."


EXACTLY.....and like i said, they want us to lose lives and be pummeled into the ground so they can say "see, we told you Bush was no good. now it's time for a lib to show you the evil of your ways in '04"

f**k you!!!

[sodaknomad]

Nick: Tell me where this is so wrong.

This "war" is NOT about Iraq. It is about paybacks. Oil, daddy Bush, and so on.

If our President was a *real* leader, he'd be putting forth measures to get us off a foreign oil dependency.



Bush did. It's CommieTommie D'Asshole and his minions who are standing in the way.

[sodaknomad]

Nick: Tell me where this is so wrong.

This "war" is NOT about Iraq. It is about paybacks. Oil, daddy Bush, and so on.

If our President was a *real* leader, he'd be putting forth measures to get us off a foreign oil dependency.

I would also ask this. What gives us the moral right to dictate that another country may not have a certain type of arms? Particularly when we are the only country in the world that has ever used them in an actual conflict.

This is NOT about right and wrong. Its about power, pure and simple.

He is-ANWR.It's at least a start,but the very same caterwauling libbies will fight him tooth and nail,and send out the sock puppets with their commercials showing the bunnies and the birdies and the frolicking caribou they say will be harmed.
I'm opposed to war in Iraq-at this point.The lefties are oppsed to it because it's GWB in charge.Opposed philosophically my ass.They were ready to drop Fat Man and Little Boy on Baghdad in 98 when their Sainted Leader was in charge.

What I REALLY hate about the libbies is the way they're willing to sit by and let the economy tank to better their chances in 04.


Hate to correct you, pal, but Truman was one of us...The last truely Conservative dem to hold the White House.

[Lance]

sodaknomad: I am not talking about drilling in Alaska or other "US oil" alternatives. I am talking about a non-oil based economy.

And with both our President and Veep being oilmen, the proverbial snowball has a better chance.

Its a fossil fuel. And sooner or later we will run out.

[IM]

I think that when 74 percent of the AMERICAN people do not want us going to war, and this was a poll taken by Crossfire last night. More than 10,000 viewers called into this poll in less than 10 minutes.

The economy is going to tank because of the policies of the Bush Administration. The trickle down has already been a proven failure, yet those who are rich want to keep getting handouts.

Bush had support to fight Al-Quaeda. Yet he has not yet been able to show a relationship between Hussein and Al-Quaeda.

But that don't matter to you people. And you all support ther naked aggression we are about to unilateraly use to take oil therefore padding Bush and Cheney's pockets. Once we do that, yo ucan best beleive that we will have turned the world against us. And you dumb assses probably think we can win a war against the rest of the world.

Government has grown under this, a conservative republican government. They have taken away your freedoms under the guise of Homeland Security. Bush does not consult congress before making decisions and republicans in the houses do not like this.

But that's O.K. with you guys, just as long as he's conservative he can take away all of our freedoms. As long as he is conservative he can act as a dictator and while doing so place every single one of our lives in jeopardy. And that is what he has done. The man who was not elceted by the majority of the people, a man whose very election came down to help from his brother.

But all of this is O.K. as long as he is conservative.

Bush has done all this, the conservative congress has now for the 8th consecutive year not finished the job it was supposed to be doning. Since the republicans took over in 1994, congress has never gotten their appropriations done. NEVER! Liberals were not inchargfe of this process. This year thousands of people have ost jobs, and faced the real possibility of not having unemployment insurance. This is the job of CONGRESS, and CONGRESS is not lead by liberals.

WE have gone from creating thousands of jobs per month, to losing jobs. And Clinton did not do this. During Clintons time we had growth. Bush came in saying that his program would make things better than they were during Clinton's time. Well they are not, and it's not Clintons fault because HE IS NOT THE RESIDENT NOW!!!

Harry Truman said "The Buck stops here." Bush has claimed that he was ushering in a era of responsibility, not blame. Yet when the skillet is hot, he starts blaming.

All of this is fine to you guys just as long as a conservative does it. You can't blame the "libbies" for shit. Conservatives are in comtrol, and the FACT that you must face is that the "libbies" were right about what would happen if conservatives came to power and were able to move their agenda for america.

[arod]

sodaknomad: I am not talking about drilling in Alaska or other "US oil" alternatives. I am talking about a non-oil based economy.

Hey, swell. No doubt you have a plan which, if we started now, would make foreign oil substantially irrelevant within the next five or ten years.

Let's hear it, meathead. This oughta be a riot. :D

[jeny]

10,000 people calling in to cross fire? Gee, there's a scientific poll. ::)

[arod]

I think that when 74 percent of the AMERICAN people do not want us going to war, and this was a poll taken by Crossfire last night. More than 10,000 viewers called into this poll in less than 10 minutes.

A call in poll on CNN, with its decidedly left-leaning audience, isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.

The economy is going to tank because of the policies of the Bush Administration. The trickle down has already been a proven failure, yet those who are rich want to keep getting handouts.

The economy may well tank, but anybody with half a brain knows that it takes years for the actions of any particular administration to show any effect. What's more, the consequences of 9/11 on the travel industry have been devastating - and Clinton policy arguably set the stage for the putative Bush administration failures which allowed it to happen.

Bush had support to fight Al-Quaeda. Yet he has not yet been able to show a relationship between Hussein and Al-Quaeda.

There has been so much evidence of it, no one can keep track of it.

But that don't matter to you people. And you all support ther naked aggression we are about to unilateraly use to take oil therefore padding Bush and Cheney's pockets. Once we do that, yo ucan best beleive that we will have turned the world against us. And you dumb assses probably think we can win a war against the rest of the world.

IOW we should lick our attacker's boots in the hope of obtaining mercy.

WE have gone from creating thousands of jobs per month, to losing jobs.

Those dotcom jobs were mostly companies whose worth was all on paper. They weren't real.

And Clinton did not do this. During Clintons time we had growth. Bush came in saying that his program would make things better than they were during Clinton's time. Well they are not, and it's not Clintons fault because HE IS NOT THE RESIDENT NOW!!!

LOL!!! ;D

Harry Truman said "The Buck stops here." Bush has claimed that he was ushering in a era of responsibility, not blame. Yet when the skillet is hot, he starts blaming.

All of this is fine to you guys just as long as a conservative does it. You can't blame the "libbies" for shit. Conservatives are in comtrol,

Not true, as any fool knows. The Senate only turned in the last election, and the administration is still riddled Clinton appointees whom Bush doesn't have the power to fire, not to mention Clinton appointed Federal court judges.[/quote]

[wendy]

Nick: Tell me where this is so wrong.

This "war" is NOT about Iraq. It is about paybacks. Oil, daddy Bush, and so on.

If our President was a *real* leader, he'd be putting forth measures to get us off a foreign oil dependency.

I would also ask this. What gives us the moral right to dictate that another country may not have a certain type of arms? Particularly when we are the only country in the world that has ever used them in an actual conflict.

This is NOT about right and wrong. Its about power, pure and simple.


If I'm not mistaken we import less than 15% of our oil from the middle east.

[Meshuga Mikey]

They are NAUGHT but Sniveling Little befuddled undifferentiated JUVIE PUKES -that DONT LIKE MOMMY AND DADDY VERY DAMN MUCH---THEY MUST ACT OUT THEIR PATHETIC RAGE against AUTHORITY in this way--SCREW EM~!! NO GUTS NO BRAINS NO NOTHIN !!!!!!

[Lance]

arod: Actually, I do..

1. Increase R&D for new energy sources and better utilization of existing technology substancially. Nuclear fusion, solar, geothermal, et al. This effort should be on par with the space race or cold war.

2. In the short term, utilize nuclear fission for electrical energy. Also increase R&D for handling nuclear waste. This is a stop-gap solution that hopefully will be moot in 50-100 years. Ideally, nuclear fusion will solve the problem with a virtually inexhaustable fuel supply.

3. Better conservation measures. For example, I have a 95% efficient furnace in my home. Last year, my gas bills were reasonable. My neighbors..NOT! We are already seeing hybrid cars (gas/electric) on the streets, continue this trend. Research fuel cell technologies.

4. For the very short term, explore for more oil, gas, and coal in this country.

5. Increase usage of mass-transit systems. Why in the hell we allowed our rail network to decay is beyond me, but that needs to be revived. Utilize rail more instead of trucking.

Thats a start. 8)

[nickg]

If I'm not mistaken we import less than 15% of our oil from the middle east.


THE TOP TEN COUNTRIES FROM WHICH WE IMPORT OIL:
1. Canada (believe it or not)
2. Saudi Arabia
3. Mexico
4. Venezuela
5. Nigeria
6. IRAQ !!!!????
7. United Kingdom
8. Norway
9. Angola
10. Algeria

2 mid east countries in the top ten imports?? that doesn't sound like it's an "war for oil" to me. if that was the case why would we waste our time with a country that has military might like Iraq??

we could just go over to Nigeria, Angola, and Algeria who have little military might (if any) compared to ours and just take over the damn country and their oil reserves!!

that would be so much easier than fighting a war with a mid-east country.

so i don't really buy into the war for oil theory in Iraq all that much when there could be easier ways to obtain it from lesser countries.

[LanceALott]

It's about oil.

And if America does not steal Iraq's oil to save our economy, we will not come out of this depression.

So this is not just about greed. It's abpout survival.

We have got to steal Iraq's oil, or we go under like K-Mart and United Air lines.

[arod]

arod: Actually, I do..

1. Increase R&D for new energy sources and better utilization of existing technology substancially. Nuclear fusion, solar, geothermal, et al. This effort should be on par with the space race or cold war.

2. In the short term, utilize nuclear fission for electrical energy. Also increase R&D for handling nuclear waste. This is a stop-gap solution that hopefully will be moot in 50-100 years. Ideally, nuclear fusion will solve the problem with a virtually inexhaustable fuel supply.

3. Better conservation measures. For example, I have a 95% efficient furnace in my home. Last year, my gas bills were reasonable. My neighbors..NOT! We are already seeing hybrid cars (gas/electric) on the streets, continue this trend. Research fuel cell technologies.

4. For the very short term, explore for more oil, gas, and coal in this country.

5. Increase usage of mass-transit systems. Why in the hell we allowed our rail network to decay is beyond me, but that needs to be revived. Utilize rail more instead of trucking.

Thats a start. 8)


Most of this amounts to rolling back constraints imposed by radical environmentalists.

As for R&D, absent any unforseen breakthroughs, there is no way in the world that we'll see a payoff from research dollars invested in fusion, solar, etc. Fusion looked like a panacea 30 years ago, but practical application of theoretical possibilities has been problemmatic. As for solar and wind and such, they require, with present technology, large areas of land to produce noteworthy amounts of power, plus a large capital outlay - and all this for what amounts to an intermittent source, which means they can't be expected to supply more than a small percentage our national energy demand.

As for mass transit systems, as far as I know, they have always been economic losers.

[nickg]

It's about oil.

And if America does not steal Iraq's oil to save our economy, we will not come out of this depression.

So this is not just about greed. It's abpout survival.

We have got to steal Iraq's oil, or we go under like K-Mart and United Air lines.


who taught you how to read....stevie wonder??

if you would look at what i posted you would see that we do NOT get that much oil from mid-eastern countries compared to others. 2 out of the top 10 that we import from!!!

like i stated....if it was JUST for oil we could easily bully Nigeria, Angola, and Algeria with a LOT less headaches that we would from Iraq.

why would you bully the big high school jock for his lunch money when you could easily get it from the 98 pound weakling class nerd??

NOW do you get it??

[LanceALott]

nickg: who taught you how to read....stevie wonder??

LaL: Who taught you to think? Dubya? Or someone with an IQ even below his 88?

Nick Dimrod: if you would look at what i posted you would see that we do NOT get that much oil from mid-eastern countries compared to others. 2 out of the top 10 that we import from!!!

LaL: Precisely! That's why we want to steal it all! Besides, we do not just want to burn that oil, we want to sell it! We want, and need, the profits from that oil. Without that loot, our economy is going under!

Nick: Like i stated....if it was JUST for oil we could easily bully Nigeria, Angola, and Algeria with a LOT less headaches that we would from Iraq.

LaL: Perhaps, we could get more, easier; but I doubt it. Saddam is a pushover, he's easy. He cannot defend his country against the USA. But that's not the end of this strategy. Once we get Iraq, and it's oil, we are going to use part of that oil income to finance a large standing army based in Iraq. From that base, we will eventually conquer all of the middle east one-by-one. None of them alone can stand against the USA, and they are too stupid to form a united front.

Nick: : NOW do you get it??

LaL: Do you get it yet, or do I need to slap you up along side the head with A-rod? or are you the class nerd who is next after we kick the butt of the class jock?

[IM]

Arod,

Crossfire has a liberal and conservartive on as hosts. They bring in guests who argue from both sides. Furhtermore I was watching a program this morning and GWB approval ratings have dropped from over 90 percent to 58 percent in one year. That's a prety large drop folks. If thing continue as they are GWB will be out a job.

Secondly, who was Senate Majority Leader before Trent Lott? Wasn't it Dole? Was Dole a Democrat?

Clinton is gone. He stood up and Presided over large deficits given to him by Reagan and Bush 1. Yet those deficits changed to surpluses during his time. You also must remember that GWB1 called Reaganomics voodoo economics, and then he told you to read his lip, and raised taxes also.

He reduced the military as well. But you guys seem to forget that.

You also forget how GWB bashed the economic progress the Clinton administration had, therefore he causes uncertainlty in the markets as the queston of the presidential election was being "answered." The market acts strange when it's uncertain, and the legnth of the ballot count did nothing to help.

GWB fired his first economic team. This should tell you that the policy this team was trying to implement DID NOT WORK. Clinton had nothing to do with this.

Despite GHWB1's tax hike, the economy was still fucked up. He had four years and a war to stimulate growth and could not. Clinton did.

Half a brain should tell you that Clinton's policies economically were successful. And half a brain tells me that part of this is on Clinton, but part of it is on Bush, and Bush does not want to take responsibility for his half.

The other half tells me that a lot of the reason this economy is falling is that we are spending gobs of money fighting this war on terror. War is another activity that creates uncertainty in the ,market. And 9-11 did not help, there I agree with you.

So stop blindly blaming Clinton for everything, cause he ain't there no more.

[arod]

Arod,

Crossfire has a liberal and conservartive on as hosts. They bring in guests who argue from both sides.

I'm aware of that.

Secondly, who was Senate Majority Leader before Trent Lott? Wasn't it Dole? Was Dole a Democrat?

Your point is...?

Clinton is gone. He stood up and Presided over large deficits given to him by Reagan and Bush 1. Yet those deficits changed to surpluses during his time.

Which means we were overtaxed, of course. And Clinton did nothing to improve the economy - it happened in spite of him.

You also must remember that GWB1 called Reaganomics voodoo economics, and then he told you to read his lip, and raised taxes also.

Big mistake on his part, caving to democrat pressure. ;)

He reduced the military as well. But you guys seem to forget that.

I haven't. It was nothing compared to what Clinton did, without even considering the way he abused military power.

You also forget how GWB bashed the economic progress the Clinton administration had,

Kinda like Clinton/Gore said the economy under Bush41 was "the worst in the last 50 years"?

therefore he causes uncertainlty in the markets as the queston of the presidential election was being "answered." The market acts strange when it's uncertain, and the legnth of the ballot count did nothing to help.

You can lay that one at the feet of the DNC for trying to steal that election.

GWB fired his first economic team. This should tell you that the policy this team was trying to implement DID NOT WORK. Clinton had nothing to do with this. Despite GHWB1's tax hike, the economy was still fucked up. He had four years and a war to stimulate growth and could not. Clinton did.

And just exactly what did he do to stimulate growth besides raise taxes?

Half a brain should tell you that Clinton's policies economically were successful.

No, half a brain would lead me to assume that because Clinton was President, anything good that happened during his tenure should be credited to him, when any fool knows that a President's policies practically never bear fruit during his tenure. How hard is that to grasp?

The other half tells me that a lot of the reason this economy is falling is that we are spending gobs of money fighting this war on terror. War is another activity that creates uncertainty in the ,market.

But you just got through telling me that Bush41 had the "advantage" of a war to boost the economy. Make up your mind, already.[/quote]

[IM]

arod,

Half a brain tells me that you really don't have a clue.

Clinton is gone. Bush is president. Therefore Bush must suck it up and create a economic policy that works. For some reason the economy was good during Clintons time, and it's not now. That is the truth of this matter, regardless of how you refuse to see that GWB is an idiot who is leading this nation down a path of destruction.

GHWB saw large deficits and that's why he rasied htaxes, not because of democratic pressure. He was te one who stood in right after Reganomics, and what Reaganomics really was was the great sellout of America to the Dutch and English financial holding companies.

How could the democrats steal an election where their candidate got the majority of the peoples votes?

Not true, as any fool knows. The Senate only turned in the last election, That was the statement.

Secondly, who was Senate Majority Leader before Trent Lott? Wasn't it Dole? Was Dole a Democrat?

I asked you a question about that statment trying to get accuracy.

Your point is...? Your reply.

My point was that you were totally wrong about the Senate just becoming Republican. Bob Dole was Majority leader, then Trent Lott was majority leader beginning when Dole ran for President. Daschle was majority leader for a short time. Repblicans controlled the house and senate from at least 1994 until Jeffords turned independent.

I think it's hig h time for the administration that says it is the administration of responsibility to take some. STOP blaming Clinton for shit, he ain't president no more. Your boy is, GWB, and he is showing his "greatness," just like the "libbies" said.

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

[arod]

arod,

Half a brain tells me that you really don't have a clue.

Clinton is gone. Bush is president. Therefore Bush must suck it up and create a economic policy that works. For some reason the economy was good during Clintons time, and it's not now.

The economy was good during Coolidge's time too. You are content to blame Hoover for the crash of '29?

Not true, as any fool knows. The Senate only turned in the last election, That was the statement.

Secondly, who was Senate Majority Leader before Trent Lott? Wasn't it Dole? Was Dole a Democrat?

I asked you a question about that statment trying to get accuracy.

Your point is...? Your reply.

My point was that you were totally wrong about the Senate just becoming Republican. Bob Dole was Majority leader, then Trent Lott was majority leader beginning when Dole ran for President. Daschle was majority leader for a short time. Repblicans controlled the house and senate from at least 1994 until Jeffords turned independent.

Right you are, of course. I stand corrected on that point.[/quote]

[IM]

arod,

I'll end this silly argument by saying this:

Economists all over the nation wll tell you that a president really does not have control of the economy. Bush is just having tough luick in this regard because he comes in while the economy is on a downward spiral.

But what Bush is doing is not going to stimulate the economy it will eventually break us. And I'm not talking about the richie rich tax cuts. I am talking about paying the costs of fighting this never ending war on terror.

This war will cost billions of dollars, and no one knows where the money is going to come from. Bush has cut taxes, and now the government has less money to operate on. Inevitably a tax increase will come.

Nearly every state in the nation is facing deficits. In my state we had a governor that cut taxes for 7 consecutive years. Then in his 8th year, he was crying about how the state did not have enough money to provide all the services needed. He was lamenting about cutting education spending and other social services.

There is a problem with a group of people who will gladly give up all their money to help kill, but will argue to the death about giving money to help people living in their own nation who are suffering from poverty, hunger, sickness, etc.

There is something wrong with a group of people who will gladly support giving up their money to assist the poor in places they cannot find on the map, but who will viciously deny that same type of help to people they see every day on the streets of places they live in.

Somewhere someone once said that you cannot truly love a stranger and hate your own brother.

The upcoming war will bankrupt this nation. And as we are broke, just who can we turn to that will provide us with economic assistance? Who can we turn to that really is our friend? Who can we turn to that does not want to se this arrogant nation fall?

Ask yourselves these questions as you keep on supporting the next Vietnam.