Posted on 02/18/2003 11:00:56 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
Every once in a while my brother-in-law sends me an email rant that sounds like it's taken directly from the DNC talking points, but this time it appears he's outdone himself. As a professor of political science and as a Democrat (redundant, I know), his arrogance in all matters political has prevented him from conceding even one point to me in our (often contentious) discussions. Well, I'm getting tired of it, so I thought you guys and gals might take a shot at refuting his arguments. ....And yes, I'll be emailing him this thread.
Have at it, folks:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose the best spin I could put on Bush's policy is that he is trying to compel Iraq to disarm by threatening force. In the end, perhaps the rest of the UN Security Council will come around to that point of view and the resulting fear will prod Baghdad to capitulate. The worst spin I could put on this is that Bush and his "crack foreign policy team" are incompetent and the world is spiraling out of control toward World War III.
I have no doubt that the U.S. could topple Hussein in about two weeks. The problem comes afterwards. What do we put in place in Iraq after the Ba'ath Party? How long are we going to be in Iraq? Are we going to be responsible for Iraq all by ourselves? What will reconstruction cost American taxpayers? Will we go in, screw everything up, and then walk away in a year or so, like we've practically done in Afghanistan? I doubt that any outsider can impose democracy on a people who have gone 8,000 years without one. More likely, we'll have to replace one dictator (Hussein) with our own dictator (maybe the Shah, Jr., would like the job?). Nobody in the Bush administration is talking about the "day after," and that's because (I think) they don't know what they're going to do.
Meanwhile, North Korea is a bigger threat to our security and will almost certainly take advantage of American distraction in the Middle East to provoke a crisis on the peninsula. Iran is already firing up some of its nuclear reactors capable of making fissionable materials. Leftist guerillas in Colombia are kidnapping and killing Americans. And every Muslim from Algiers to Manila will likely be prodded to action against the Great Satan if we attack without UN support. While we're obsessed with a tin-horn, two-bit dictator that is effectively cornered, the administration is clueless about all the other threats facing our country.
Meanwhile, Bush has managed to drive a wedge among the Western allies. I know exactly what the French and the Germans are up to: they resent (fear?) an arrogant American administration that is doing everything it can to undermine the rule of international law. The Bush administration came into power pissing on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Kyoto Accord, and the International Criminal Court. And Dick Cheney stated publicly last year that going to the UN with our complaints about Iraq was a waste of time.
Bush likes to remind foreign leaders of all the "U.S. Out of the UN" bumper stickers in Texas; that really underscores the sincerity of our efforts in the Security Council, all right. If Bush-Cheney-Powell-Rice-Rumsfeld think that they can ignore international law and simply exercise U.S. military power, then they should expect other countries to respond in kind. Theories of political realism suggest that other states will form a counter-hegemonic alliance against any country (the U.S.) that attempts to dominate the international system.
Might I point out that Russia, France, and Germany have never been allied with each other at the same time in the past 350 years (not counting the Concert of Europe, which was pretty phoney as far as the French were concerned). Such an alliance would stretch from the English Channel to the Sea of Japan and would really put us in a box. I'd hate to think that Bush might provoke that which Hitler died trying to accomplish--and came damn close to achieving!
Meanwhile, public opinion around the world is against us, even if the Czech, the Slovene, and the Bulgarian governments are with us. Public opinion in Britain is 10 to 1 against the war; in Argentina, it's 25 to 1. Public opinion in favor of military action is starting to sag even in the U.S. I remember how isolated the United States was in Vietnam and I sure as hell don't want to see us make that mistake again. Of course, Bush was drunk and stoned during Vietnam, so he probably doesn't remember it very well.
And finally, to top it all off, the administration has been exaggerating (lying?) about the evidence it has against Hussein. They said last year that they had "conclusive evidence" that Iraq has WMD. Have you seen that evidence? Powell said this week that bin Laden's latest message proves thelink between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government; it did nothing of the sort. Even if they can't show their evidence to us, the American people, the ones who will pay for and die in this war and all the crap that is likely to follow, they could at least share it with our allies. The French, the Germans, and the Russians ought to be trusted with whatever proof we have, and yet they seem to be not convinced. I wonder why?
What do we put in place in Iraq after the Ba'ath Party?
US military government.
How long are we going to be in Iraq?
As long as we feel like it.
Are we going to be responsible for Iraq all by ourselves?
Yes.
What will reconstruction cost American taxpayers?
Somewhat less than rebuilding Washington DC following a sneak attack by one of Saddam's nukes or bio-chem bombs.
And this man is a professor? I guess 14 years of UN sanctions and a little thing called 'Unconditional Surrender' during the Gulf War are meaningless. The UN is acting like an irresponsible parent, making demands, but not following through on enforcing the demands. Saddam has obviously chosen to not comply with the UN. To this day, while allegedly 'complying with 1440', he is still attacking jets patrolling the UN Sanction 'No Fly Zone'; which was designed to protect the Iraqi kurds from genocidal attacks by Saddam.
Unbelievable. It's incredible that people this intellectually vacant are teaching college. Of course, this isn't about being anti-war. It's about being anti-Bush. And even anti-American.
Has your brother-in-law considered becoming a member of Saddam's Glorious Human Shield Brigade?
Even Klintoon told Larry King two weeks ago that military action on our part would not violate international law.
1) Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: What is he talking about? The CTBT was voted down by the Senate during Clinton's 2nd term.
2) Kyoto: This was concocted during Clintons term. The senate voted 98-0 in a nonbinding resolution against the treaty and Clinton never sent it to the Senate for ratification.
3) International Criminal Court: Bush did the right thing in rejecting the International Criminal Court. President Bush refuses to allow U.S. citizens to be dragged out of their homes and before some international court without the protection of the United States Constitution. Obviously your BIL supports such actions. Ask him Why.
Of course, Bush was drunk and stoned during Vietnam, so he probably doesn't remember it very well.
The hallmark of leftists. Name calling and insults.
And finally, to top it all off, the administration has been exaggerating (lying?) about the evidence it has against Hussein. They said last year that they had "conclusive evidence" that Iraq has WMD. Have you seen that evidence?
Here is a little quote for your BIL. I am sure he is a big fan of, supporter of, and believer in the person who said it.
"We do know that Iraq has weaponized thousands of gallons of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. We know that Iraq maintains stockpiles of some of the world's deadliest chemical weapons, including VX, sarin and mustard gas. We know that Iraq is developing deadlier ways to deliver these horrible weapons, including unmanned drones and long-range ballistic missiles. And we know that Saddam Hussein is committed to one day possessing nuclear weapons. If that should happen, instead of simply bullying the Gulf region, he could dominate it. Instead of threatening only his neighbors, he would become a grave threat to U.S. security and to global security. The threat posed by Saddam Hussein may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored."
Who said it?
Tom Daschle as Senate Majority Leader in October of 2002:
I suppose the best spin I could put on Bush's policy is that he is trying to compel Iraq to disarm by threatening force.
Duh! Ya THINK?
What do we put in place in Iraq after the Ba'ath Party? How long are we going to be in Iraq? Are we going to be responsible for Iraq all by ourselves?
This guy needs to consult Miss Cleo. Nothing worse than a ninny whining about "What's gonna haaaaaaapen nowwwww?".
Will we go in, screw everything up, and then walk away in a year or so, like we've practically done in Afghanistan?
It doesn't get any more stupid than this. If this guy thinks Afghanistan isn't better for our being there, he'd better come up with some evidence of that. Haven't heard about any women executed for adultery as halftime entertainment in soccer stadiums lately, have we? and I love the use of the modifier "practically."
Meanwhile, North Korea is a bigger threat to our security and will almost certainly take advantage of American distraction in the Middle East to provoke a crisis on the peninsula.
I wonder why the leftists suddenly became so concerned about North Korea only after we began making our war plans for Iraq. That seems to be all we hear: "Iraq? What about North Korea?" I would imagine that U.S. leaders, apprised after all of intel we can only guess at, have this well in hand.
If Bush-Cheney-Powell-Rice-Rumsfeld think that they can ignore international law and simply exercise U.S. military power
Guess what? They can! There is no "international law" that says one nation cannot war against another. Whatta dolt this guy is.
Might I point out that Russia, France, and Germany have never been allied with each other at the same time in the past 350 years
And that proves exactly what? The three aren't exactly the most savory company to be in.
I remember how isolated the United States was in Vietnam and I sure as hell don't want to see us make that mistake again
Always bring up Vietnam to bolster an argument that is weak at best. I thought he said the war with Iraq would probably be won in two weeks' time. There's hardly a corallary here. And we are hardly "isolated" -- we already have a coalition of more than 25 nations with us. Expect that number to grow when the victory is won and everybody wants to join the celebration and say how they were completely in favor of the action from the start. Expect the French at the head of that line.
And finally, to top it all off, the administration has been exaggerating (lying?) about the evidence it has against Hussein.
Um...Prove it. This guy has more intel than U.S. intelligence? And expects that we would just offhandedly reveal it to whoever's listening? What a crock!
The French, the Germans, and the Russians ought to be trusted with whatever proof we have
That may well be the most idiotic thing I've ever read.
Get a new brother-in-law. This one's seriously defective. You can't be serious that he's a professor of political science? Guess he's a sensational example of our present "diploma mill" higher education system. It's sad, really. Very.
We have allowed the UN to assume many of the long term responsibilities in Afghanistan. I thought that was the prefered liberal solution for Iraq, so why should he have a problem with this in Afghanistan?
Hmmm....Hitler DIDN'T come close - Russia never fell (and never would - too much space and people) - and, yeah, they did defeat France, but, who hasn't?
Meanwhile, public opinion around the world is against us, even if the Czech, the Slovene, and the Bulgarian governments are with us. Public opinion in Britain is 10 to 1 against the war polls released TODAY indicate 52% against, plus or minus 4% error - so it's an even statistical split; in Argentina, it's 25 to 1. Public opinion in favor of military action is starting to sag even in the U.S. I remember how isolated the United States was in Vietnam and I sure as hell don't want to see us make that mistake again. Of course, Bush was drunk and stoned during Vietnam, so he probably doesn't remember it very well. Ah, nothing like an ad hominem attack to make up for lack of FACTUAL information, isn't there?
And finally, to top it all off, the administration has been exaggerating (lying?) about the evidence it has against Hussein. They said last year that they had "conclusive evidence" that Iraq has WMD. Have you seen that evidence? Powell said this week that bin Laden's latest message proves thelink between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government; it did nothing of the sort. So, the EXISTENCE of an al qaeda training camp INSIDE IRAQ'S sovereign territory ISN'T a LINK? Even if they can't show their evidence to us, the American people, the ones who will pay for and die in this war and all the crap that is likely to follow, they could at least share it with our allies. The French, the Germans, and the Russians ought to be trusted with whatever proof we have, and yet they seem to be not convinced. I wonder why?
Well, if we were to share that information: The sources could be identified and eliminated; the means by which we find information could be identified and then defeated, and finally, if we really DID tell the inspectors where to go to find the goods, what makes anyone think Saddam would let the inspectors leave the site alive?
Does your BIL understand that N. Korea developed, implemented, and produced nuclear weapons under the noses of the U.N. inspectors? Does he still think the U.N. has a chance in hell of disarming Iraq?
Why should we try the same ill-fated measures of U.N. appeasment in Iraq that abjectly failed in N. Korea. He is right, N. Korea is a bigger threat which requires a bit more delicate solution. We'll get to them in time, but to simply ignore Iraq or turn over the process to an ieffective body such as the U.N. is asking Iraq to become a N. Korea.
One at a time, tell your BIL to be patient.
PROTESTORS AREN'T ANTI-WAR, They are anti-Bush and anti-American
Of all the stupid lame excuses, this one takes the cake for MOST STUPID OF THEM ALL. We might "enrage" the Mohammedans! Oooh, that is so scary! We can't get them mad at us 'cause they might do something drastic like flying airliners into our skyscrapers.
Is it even possible to get the Mohammedans even more "enraged" than they seem to be on a normal daily basis? And who is to say that is necessarily a bad thing? All that anger all the time can't be any good for their blood pressure. If we crank it up they might start to drop dead of strokes and heart attacks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.