“If our troops pull out my son will have died in vain”
posted at 8:37 pm on January 19, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
One of the things that I have found hard to deal with is the people who have called me to pass their condolences then gone on to tell me that the war in Iraq is wrong and that we should pull the troops out.
Of course war is wrong, but they are also wrong: we should not pull the troops out. If we had pulled the troops out last week, my son would still be alive but that is not the right thing to do.
If you want to take them out, fine, no British soldiers will be killed, but who will go in? It’s as if the British public are saying ‘We know there are going to be deaths in that country to restore democracy but we don’t want our boys dying – send somebody else’s.’
But what do you do? Sit and watch our high definition televisions and not give a shit? If you say that, then what was my son’s life for. Then you are saying he died in vain…
I have written to the lads of Chindit Company who were serving with Al in the Old State Building in downtown Basra, as well as the medical staff who tried to save his life.
I can’t imagine the effect this has had on them. And they still have to go back out on to the streets of Iraq and face the same fate. I am proud of them, I know Al would have been, and the British public should be.
The Defense Ministry’s obituary of Kingsman Green is here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Amen.
lefaucheur on January 19, 2007 at 8:40 PM
I promise I mean this with all due respect, but how is a post like this any different than Ann Coulter’s (and many conservatives’) gripe against liberals who hide behind the shield of victimhood when discussing the Iraq War?
I do not mean to disrespect the fallen, both in Iraq and those who died on 9/11, I really don’t. But how is an argument that “If our troops pull out my son will have died in vain” any less shielded than an argument that states that my child died in 9/11 and I am against the war? I don’t get it.
And, again, I do not mean any of the above with disrespect to the fallen. But it is a question that I keep having when I see the argument made to stay in Iraq so that someone’s death, which cannot be taken back, will not have been in vain.
TheThink on January 19, 2007 at 8:51 PM
‘Bless ‘Em All’
Bless ‘em all, bless ‘em all
The long and the short and the tall
Bless all the sergeants and W.O. Ones
Bless all the corp’rals and their blinking sons
For we’re saying good-bye to them all
As back to the barracks we crawl
You’ll get no promotion this side of the ocean
So cheer up my lads Bless ‘em all,
Limerick on January 19, 2007 at 8:52 PM
May his Soul and all the Souls of the Faithfully departed Rest in Peace.
Zorro on January 19, 2007 at 8:56 PM
And here is the unit’s website. Here is their regimental history. His regiment was part of the force called upon to march on Lexington and Concord and went up Breed’s Hill as well as other battles. It is a long and glorious history.
armyvet on January 19, 2007 at 8:57 PM
They aren’t any different Think. Both should carry considerably more weight than the New York Times editorial writers. Trouble is a couple million will hear one story and a couple hundred million the other. Guess which one will get the coverage and consideration?
Griz on January 19, 2007 at 9:09 PM
The Think, I don’t understand the comparison you’re trying to make. I’ve never heard anyone be critical of a 9/11 family who opposes the war, for whatever reason. I see you mention Coulter in your post. The only comment I’ve read or heard from her was a comment she made about the Jersey Girls. She, and I think rightly, questioned their motives politically. She didn’t belittle them for their loss, she questioned the political paths these women had taken since the loss of their husbands.
As for the military families and feeling a sense of dying in vain, I can certainly empathize. You don’t understand the feeling of why, what was the point of my son’s death if we don’t finish the job? Maybe some people still believe that you don’t start something unless you intend to finish it. And think of it this way, we leave only to have the country fall into absolute, total chaos and becomes Afghanistan pre 9/11. You may be inclined to ask why indeed if this outcome occurs. Giving your life for others is the most noble thing you can do. If in the process this sacrifice gives millions a chance at a better life then so much the better. Giving your life for your mission and having that mission abandoned by your leaders certainly has to be a hard pill to swallow for your loved ones. I for one understand the sentiment…….
The family may just ask why we’re pulling out and get the answer that it’s just not worth the price. Can you not understand why the family would respond in this fashion by asking if their son’s death was not worth it? Was in vain?
ritethinker on January 19, 2007 at 9:11 PM
I see your point, and I hate that the emotional loss that families suffer never really gets counted like say, dollars and cents, but I still have a tough time with the “this would have been in vain” train of thought.
I’m not saying the war is completely wrong or completely right. To be frank, those of us who have not stepped foot inside of Iraq have no clue what’s going on there, and even first hand accounts of Iraq from soldiers, journalists, bloggers (like the Hot Air crew), and politicians have to be taken with a grain of salt.
I hate that so many people have died and I wish that their families didn’t have to deal with this kind of loss, and I cannot ever get how much it hurts to lose someone like this. But I still have a hard time accepting the “in vain” argument in all of this.
But I thank you for your comments and see where you are coming from.
TheThink on January 19, 2007 at 9:23 PM
The Think’s non-thinking equation of claiming victimhood and not running away from a fight is wholly misconceived. Whenever military force is resorted to, what we don’t want is for lives to have been lost in vain. The language is from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, when Lincoln was rededicating the nation to a new birth of freedom so that the lives lost on the battle field were not lost in vain. After the Battle of Gettysburg in July 1863, there was another year and nine months of awful war until April 1865 when General Lee surrendered to General Grant.
Those who have loved ones who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq are not claiming victimhood. Quite differently, they are saying don’t give up the battle. We have sacrificed lives to eliminate a murderous tyrant in Saddam and have propelled the Iraqi people to a democratic society — the Iraqi have voted three times in the process of adopting a written Constitution and electing their leaders. The Iraqis have a growing economy, and infrastructure is being built. The problem is that Iran has fueled secretarian violence in supporting the Shiite militias and supplying a massive amount of IEDs, al Qaeda never went away and the “light footprint” strategy did not work. But we should not give up the battle. General Grant was not brought to the Eastern theater of operations to face General Lee until 1864. It was only then that Lincoln found his Grant. The new commanding general, David Petraeus, is an outstanding individual. There is no reason to give up the battle.
Phil Byler on January 19, 2007 at 9:26 PM
Once you commit, you leave your doubts behind and focus on winning. We do not need to surrender. We can win if we have patience and continue to adapt when things are not working. War is always a battle of wills. Once we commit, we decide we will never surrender. Our will shall not falter. At least mine won’t. Will yours?
Why can’t today’s Democrats get this. We can’t return to the past before the war. We have only one choice: win.
We all need a new WIN button like we had in the ’70s. Whip Insurgents Now!
Still-a-Neocon
stillaneocon on January 19, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Nobody who dies fighting to make the world more free, or just, or peaceful in the long run, has died in vain. The battle is never over, it’s just the location and players that are always changing.
Scotsman on January 19, 2007 at 9:38 PM
The immortal words of 2LT Mark Daily
Make sure you digg this story from michellemalkin.com as well. Similar concept as this story. Great soldier who was killed in Iraq. Story is getting buried at digg.com.
armyvet on January 19, 2007 at 9:42 PM
SEE YOU AT THE BRIDGE Anthony W. Pahl
I never met you mate, but your name was not unknown
I never shook your hand mate, but together we had grown.
We lived in different countries but we fought in the same war
And we served at different times mate, upon that foreign shore
We were brothers, one and all mate; no matter what our creed
We fought and held each other mate, whenever there was need
We were in that foreign country and never forgot the things we saw
And the brotherhood there formed mate, would never be foresworn.
You’ve travelled to the bridge where all honoured warriors tread
You’re now on sentry duty mate; you’ve forged the way ahead …
Read on.+
Rest in peace, brave Soldier
bdfaith on January 19, 2007 at 9:54 PM
God Bless him, his family, his fellow soldiers, and every single lost soul and aching heart for all those lost from the beginning of this war,….. back in Jimmy Carter’s day….
He is not the first, and unfortunately, will not be the last, but defeat in this global conflict would be unimaginable.
I think he said it best:
Listening to the Democratic party in this country, one could easily insert “the American public”.
This war is not going away. Regardless how many interviews Nancy Pelosi gives, she is not the Commander in Chief.
The sooner we WIN it, the sooner we will get all of our boys home. Cutting and running, phased withdrawl, exit strategies only fill the ranks of our enemies.
If we finally said, “the gloves are off” and truly deal the horrific consequences of our superior firepower, without fear of the liberal media’s propoganda for the enemy, maybe, just maybe, these people would think twice before taking up arms.
Then……. then, we can morn our dead, and work together to pick up the pieces of this world. No thanks to the Dems……
PinkyBigglesworth on January 19, 2007 at 9:58 PM
The sad thing is people want to question not if their death was in vain but if their life was.
This shouldnt even be a questioned asked. And its repugnant that it is.
William Amos on January 19, 2007 at 10:00 PM
It’s quite simple. Ann Coulter’s argument was not about the same thing, and shouldn’t be lumped in with the death of a soldier in war.
Soldiers are sent out to achieve goals and objectives – the primary one as Patton said is not to secure territory first but to destroy the enemy’s ability to fight, first by destroying the enemy’s military. The goal is to win Iraq for democracy, not totalitarian dictatorship or fascist Islamofascism. If men fought to secure that and were on the bring of victory, and lost lives in the process, then are forcibly removed as was done in Vietnam, then the enemy who has not been completely destroyed regroups, rearms, remobilizes. With no restraints on it, it takes over. Under that circumstance, two years of war will seem like nothing, for the result is the same as if no one had fought there at all and had allowed the enemy take over from day one. We have a plain historical lesson in Vietnam. Our military won every battle but the Democrats paralyzed our government and forced a retreat which allowed the enemy to seize control. Millions died as a result. To have fought there, been injured, lost comrades only to see, for a lack of will or worse, perhaps a sympathy for the enemy rather than one’s own country, a withdrawal that gave up hard gains, would seem like the battle against evil was in vain. To hand a budding democracy over to oppressive totalitarian rule is a travesty. It was done in Vietnam, the Left Democrats seem to desire to do it again – they seem fixated on it – reeenacting their “glory days” of Watergate hearings, tying the military’s hands, maligning the soldiers, then withdrawing the troops to leave a vacuum that would be filled by ultra violent jihadists.
This was extraodinarily muddled thinking. And to suggest that first hand reporting from the field should be taken as a grain of salt seems unduly dismissive. Reliable reports are available, it takes a little extra work and research, but solid info is out there.
naliaka on January 19, 2007 at 11:03 PM
Well said.
My fear is that it is too late; the Dem/troops-home-now faction has overwhelmed any rational disscussion, and this brave man has died in vain.
billy on January 19, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Refuting the arguments of opponents is more fun than refuting those of friends, but the latter seems usually to be more valuable than the former, when it’s done in a politic way. I was glad to see TheThink raise a question of argumentative form in a case in which he apparently has some sort of broader agreement with the people against whose argumentation he’s arguing.
Kralizec on January 19, 2007 at 11:24 PM
So profound. I was moved to tears for the loss of Kingsman Green, and for us. So revealing. So true. Who will listen and who will get it?
Entelechy on January 19, 2007 at 11:53 PM
TheThink,
Our troops put themselves in harms way for an ideal that they believe is worth dying for and it is left to their families to make sure that people like the dems (who don’t think any ideal is worth dying for) do not turn this country into a secular progressive hell hole. It is obvious that if the dems got their way, it wouldn’t be too long before they’d be begging the military to defend them against the very ideal’s they do not want to oppose with force of arms today.
csdeven on January 20, 2007 at 12:00 AM
May God bless him and may those who knew him remember him well all of their days.
Jaibones on January 20, 2007 at 12:02 AM
At times like this I often think about what the troops at Valley Forge must have thought about thier Commander-in-Chief’s decosion process. Freezing, hungry, poorly clothed and lacking shelter they must have been immensly dedicated to the cause that brought them to that point and willing to sacrifice life and comfort for that cause.
I think about what the young serving today in Iraq, Afganistan and places we never hear about, were thinking when they voluntarily enlisted with full knowledge as to where they would eventually end up. As a former Marine I don’t tend to be a sentimentalist, but I must say that I am so awed by those young people today, who in face of the unrelenting criticism and polarization of the war by the majority of Americans, still step forward to serve.
Some war correspondent was supposed to have said once “Where do we get such young people as these?” I simply don’t know, as it seems they have always been there when needed, in past conflicts and in current ones. I am almost as certain that the most vocal opponents of this current conflict are those who are little fit to lace the boots of these troops.
Semper Fi!
Chief1942 on January 20, 2007 at 12:17 AM
The difference between the two is that the drive-by media has decided those expressing opposition to the war should be the only ones listened to, as they have absolute moral authority.
To say a soldier has died in vain essentially means the soldier died while trying to fight for an objective. Pulling the rest of his squad out before the objective is met would suggest the soldier died in vain.
91Veteran on January 20, 2007 at 12:28 AM
The THink, can’t think. Taking the words of Soldiers & Marines with a
Are you for real? I hope that you’re not and that you’re just trying to get a rise out of people like me because you have nothing else to do today.
We lost a friend in Iraq in October. His family lives in the Bay Area and his mother said that they’ve had “well meaning people” say basically the same thing that Kingsmen Green’s mother speaks of as well. If you don’t feel that there are things worth dying for, well that is your perogative. Chief1942 talks about where do we find these fine young men & women. They’re in every walk of life, from every State in the Union & know that they will be going into harms way so you can Think all you want and wring your hands as to why this makes no sense to you. They’ve been here since our beginning as a nation and have always stepped up to answer the call. You may think their opinions aren’t worth anything more then a grain of salt, but they are worth far more then yours will ever be. They live it, they breath it, they watch their friends die, they go back to visit the ones left behind and often give them the experience of their loved ones last few minutes on this earth. I hope you don’t really mean to demean these fine people-all those who have served & all those who do serve. The Sheehag and her pals who are military families are a small minority in the military family as a whole. The majority of us go about our day, put up with condscension from folks like you and anti war people showing up at our doors to give us their “feelings” on the war.
The most vocal anti-war people are not fit to lace their boots, Chief, IMHO.
Catie96706 on January 20, 2007 at 12:30 AM
ritethinker, Phil Byler, naliaka, and Catie96706, those are some of the best posts I’ve read in a long while on Iraq and the attendant sacrifices
TheThink, try thinking clearer. Muddled thinking is generally worthlss, except as a target
Janos Hunyadi on January 20, 2007 at 2:19 AM
That’s strange–someone says the war is wrong but we shouldn’t pull out (and they don’t have political aspirations).
The war was not ever wrong, but I appreciate this parent’s support and I mourn his/her loss.
Black Adam on January 20, 2007 at 2:54 AM
Hey Catie, well said…
Now that our son is back from Rimadi and attending college again it is truly amazing what several of his liberal professors have to say in class. Of course once they find out that he was in Iraq they always say how much they respect his service. This is after they haved bashed the marines and soldiers so he knows they are full of it.
Those who oppose the war and the military in a way that undermines the mission never want to take reponsibilty for the lives lost (military) due to their actions. They did it during Nam and they are doing it again.
robo on January 20, 2007 at 3:23 AM
I was asking a genuine question guys and gals. I wasn’t trying to raise people’s blood pressure. A genuine question, that’s all. I hope I’m allowed that here…
TheThink on January 20, 2007 at 4:06 AM
/The goal is to win Iraq for democracy, not totalitarian dictatorship or fascist Islamofascism/
This is where we are making a big mistake. We can not bring democracy to these people/this culture. They are too primitive and their underlying religious beliefs are the opposite of what democracy is all about. What we did was rightous and best for our country and all peace loving countries, but to try to instill a form of society that can not be appreciated by a group of people is not the way to go. We need to make sure there is a functioning police force, some rudimentary form of goverment (hell, anything is better than what they had) and tell them we’ll be back again if they develop into any type of society that we feel threatens us or any other free country again. In essence, we threaten to bomb them back to the stone ages. Let’s let them kill each other if they want. That is not our problem. Our National security is our problem. Destroying their military infrastructure and removing Saddam from power was needed and we accomplished that. Reigning in their radicals and terrorists now needs to become their problem. We’ve showed our commitment to helping them get a good start, now they need to show their commitment on implementing some form of organized government. I’m certainly not advocating cut and run, we need to stay until the job is finished. But if we define that as a democratic government, we are in for a rude awakening. Can’t be done.
rayvet on January 20, 2007 at 6:53 AM
I have a question;
Why is it that the Left feel its okay to start something and not finish it? they seem to do it, quite often, almost as a matter of policy.
Viper1 on January 20, 2007 at 7:10 AM
With three elections under their belt and the other progresses made (see http://www.usaid.gov/iraq ) I’d say they already are a democracy.
Please remember that our democracy supported slavery and many other human rights abuses at it’s inception. We declared independence in 1776 and won the war 5 years later in 1781. It wasn’t until 1787 that we adopted our constitution. Our constitution took about 6 years and we weren’t fighting sectarian violence or a murderous insurgency.
The Iraqi’s have had a democracy for about a year, don’t you think that they deserve the time to get better at it?
csdeven on January 20, 2007 at 7:18 AM
In the case of the Iraq war, it would seem that they incorrectly interpret the saying If the going gets tough, the tough get going, as in “go home.”
geckomon on January 20, 2007 at 8:28 AM
csdeven, I think you missed my point. It’s not that we haven’t given it enough time. It’s that the people in these regions don’t understand the concept and even if they did, their religious beliefs will not allow them to practice the act of democracy. Islam and democracy are mutually exclusive and one can not exist with the other in the same society. If folks don’t agree with me, please show me where I’m wrong.
rayvet on January 20, 2007 at 8:36 AM
rayvet,
I think we have seen this already happen to a degree in other muslim countries such as Turkey, Egypt, Baharain, Jordan, etc. They may not be true democracies, but for a muslim nation they are very progressive.
Sven on January 20, 2007 at 8:53 AM
Good examples Sven, I didn’t give those much thought, but I still wouldn’t trust any one of them any farther than I could throw them. That include the Saudi’s. I just have this terrible sense that these apparent progressive middle eastern countries are just for show and at their core, they are still the repressive, cultures they’ve always been.
rayvet on January 20, 2007 at 9:43 AM
Exactly!
I’m sorry, but if you still don’t get it by now, then you’re probably never going to get it.
Lawrence on January 20, 2007 at 9:44 AM
His son will not “have died in vain”, but the politicians orchestrating this War Against Islamic Imperilaism will have acted in a vain and short-sighted manner… in retreating from a mild front in the war, and endangering more sons and daughters later. By not impressing on a vicious, committed and immoral enemy thta the West will destroy all lunatic movements- “religious” or not- that resort to terror.
His son may have died without current comprehension, but that will come as the front presses into the U.K. and EU and the U.S. thanks to the cowardice of the politicians, the active ignorance of the Media (”Koran?… nope never read it, personally.”), and the lack of historical grounding of the populations in the West.
As if we, as nations, are able to say to this enemy: “Okay, we’re going home now…” without being seen as laughably decadent and lacking in the instinct to survive. And without being tracked to your hiding places and slowly eliminated. By demographics, legalistic intimidation, and by hesitating to strike… as the iron cools.
Having lured terrorists out into a zone of conflict in Iraq… however cunningly or inadvertently… the point to is crush them. Not be frightened of intetnionally retreatist / defeatist headlines and losing their will over hysterical reports of which remains a well-fought war, so far, with fewer casualities in 3 years (and untallied enemy dead) than have perished on one day or in one battle in most past wars.
Soldiers die for their countries’ noblest aims, whatever the slimy politicos do with their sacrifice afterward.
Until the scope of this war against resurgent Imperiaistic Islam is acknowledged, and clearly named, people in the West will hide from it until the battlefront hits home.
And hits hard enough for them to remember it after a few years -and not something minor (a mere 3,000 in New York and D.C. and Pennsylvania, or a slight 50-plus dead in London) that they can wish it all away. And pretend is something easier to manage (race relations, religious bigotry, etc.) than a global, theo-ideological conflict between Civilization and a Terrorist Tyranny.
Knowledge will honor all who die in this War. If not today, then, assuming we survive, in Time.
profitsbeard on January 20, 2007 at 10:45 AM
Think, again you claim to be asking a “genuine question” but yet in the same breath you say that returning military personnel’s first hand accounts should be taken with a “grain of salt”. I ask you this, why should we take your opinions at all. These wonderful people (yes, I guess I’m prejudiced as a military spouse whose seen her hubby off 3 times and whose tour is to end late next month or early March) go to the wars the politicians tell them to go to. They do their duty and their opinions are certainly worth more than a “grain of salt”. If that’s the case from your view, then my view is your opinion is worth less then a grain of salt. Get it?
Catie96706 on January 20, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Robo,
I don’t know how your son puts up with it! I guess he’s a better human being then I am. But at the same time he knows what he has seen and knows that many of these profs were probably marching around in Viet Nam and are reliving their “glory days”. I was in college in the early 80’s and in the ROTC. Boy, some of them would give me the dirties look when I would wear my uniform to class as we had to once a week. However, I congratulate your son on his cool head. Yet these profs “support” our troops, I wonder how they explain that to him. I bet the look on their face is priceless when he tells them that this time last year (or whatever time) he was there.
Tell him “God Bless & keep up the good work” from me!
Catie96706 on January 20, 2007 at 11:43 AM
He actually said “WAR IS WRONG, but they are wrong too…”
Not THE war.. Meaning all war is wrong in basis, but with terror and tyrants, dictators, mass murderers running countries, war is inevitable.
So to stay free, to stay ALIVE, we enter war to stop evil where it is. Evil must be stopped. Imagine if we never did anything against these evil warmongers so full of hate.
shooter on January 20, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Robo….
My son (cavalry) has NO RESPECT what-so-ever for anyone who says ‘I support you and think you are soooooo wonderful-etcetc….but I don’t support the war’. He asks them what they do for a living, then tells them ‘You are smart to be working at such a stupid job’. I’m sure a nose or two will get broken before it’s all over…
God bless em all….
Limerick on January 20, 2007 at 12:41 PM
That is not true. Turkey has been a functioning democractic muslim country for many years.
csdeven on January 20, 2007 at 12:56 PM
War is indeed wrong. It is also inevitable. This writer recognizes that – whereas the political Left, by and large, do not.
mikeomatic on January 20, 2007 at 1:23 PM
The Think, you’re OK. I believe I can speak for us all by saying you’re allowed to ask questions. Actually allowed was a poor choice of words, you are free to ask questions. We don’t have any aspirations of becoming the DU, Kos, or HuffPo, trust me. The only way to understand is to listen and think. The only way one can listen is for something to be said. So say it, whatever it is, and we’ll think about it and hopefully all of us will answer in a thoughtful, respectful way. Being challenged is the best way to construct an argument for why you believe what you do. This is the huge advantage we have over DU in particular, where they will ban anyone who thinks differently. The guys and gals at DU will never form a cogent argument for their beliefs because they never have to. We here at Hot Air are challenged on a daily basis….by friends…
ritethinker on January 20, 2007 at 1:46 PM
I think that people who do not support a war are naturally opposed to seeing others die in it, and would therefore feel uncomfortable seeing a person make a sacrifice they would not be willing to make themselves. Likewise, people who may agree in principle with a certain millitary action or offer only tepid support will, upon the realization they would not sacrifice their own lives for “those people,” will be made enough uncomfortable in the sacrifices of others to end up opposing it. That is why a Commander-in-Chief should not, in my opinion, “listen” to what the people have to say about a war, but should instead confer with his own advisers and military in planning for ultimate victory.
A soldier risks his life, and dies, following orders that are designed to ensure his unit’s ultimate victory. There has to be a lot of faith that things will end right to make the ultimate sacrifice years before who wins and who loses gets sorted out. It is the responsibility of the military and civillian leadership to have a plan for eventual victory and stick with it to the end so that soldier, and all soldiers, have not “died in vain.” If that is shielding, then it is well earned.
shuzilla on January 20, 2007 at 2:23 PM
I agree with you, Sven’s point was well taken. I think we as a nation can live with an Iraq that begins this process of converting to a true democracy with the idea that they will take the examples of the current Muslim democracies a step further towards a very progressive moderate democracy. An Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself, AND be a partner in the war on terror. That goal leaves a lot of room for the individuality that you are concerned about that a Muslim democracy will require.
csdeven on January 20, 2007 at 4:49 PM
As a nation we must be resolute and support our warfighters, even though we may not all agree as to whether the cause is right or not. We do what we must, but the real test will come when the Iraqi’s have to work primarily on their own.
Then we shall see whether they truly desire freedom or whether they desire something else.
Either way, that will ultimately be their decision. We may only give them a good example to follow – we cannot know that it will take.
Emmett J. on January 21, 2007 at 12:26 AM
Comment pages: