Quick and Dirty Leftist's Guide to Arguing against the War on Terrorism

Right Wing News ^ | September 28, 2002 | John Hawkins

[zapiks44]

The Quick And Dirty Leftist's Guide To Arguing Against The War On Terrorism

By John Hawkins

Some disreputable people have suggested that Right Wing News is for the 'war on terrorism' or that we're 'biased against liberals.' What scandalous accusations! The truth is that we here at Right Wing News view ourselves as a 'fair and balanced' publication -- just like 'Arab News' or 'The Guardian'! But talk is cheap! That's why we decided to write 'The Quick And Dirty Leftists Guide To Arguing Against The War On Terrorism' to prove RWN's good intentions. Here are the key arguments lefties across the planet can use against those warmongering, oil guzzling, baby-killers on the right who are gungho about the 'war on terrorism'!

Bush Should Have Stopped It -- But Not That Way!: Instead of focusing on what we should do now, claim that Bush could have stopped 9/11 before it happened by aggressively going after the terrorists pre-911. Then reflexively oppose every suggestion the Bush administration comes up with to prevent another attack because it will create a "police state." This one drives right-wingers crazy!!

How Can We Invade Saddam When He Used To Be Our Friend? : We must force these right-wing zealots to realize that relationships between nations are NEVER are allowed to change. Since we were friends with Saddam in the eighties, it was hypocritical of us to kick him out of Kuwait and keep him from annexing Saudi Arabia. Even if he hates us now, is acquiring nukes, and has ties to terrorists we still can't attack him -- for some reason or another. I think there is a UN rule against attacking former friends for any reason or something.

If We Preemptively Attack Iraq -- Everyone Will Do It!: The United States could be setting a dangerous precedent here since no other nation has ever attacked another nation "preemptively." Wait a second, if that was true, shouldn't we always be at peace since no nation has ever attacked another nation except in self-defense? So that's Bush's evil plan, to spoil world peace!

Insist That We Give Inspections A Chance : No one believes Saddam is going to actually allow unfettered inspections but we know from a decade of experience that he can literally run the inspectors around in circles for years. The more time Saddam wastes, the closer he gets to a nuclear bomb he can use to stop Bush's filthy war!

It's About The Ordinary People : The most important reason you are against the war is because you care about the innocent people in Iraq. That's why you're so strongly against replacing the dictator who has starved, gassed, tortured, and oppressed so many of his own people -- you may not want to phrase it exactly like that, but you get the idea.

Keep Moving That Goalpost : If the pro-war crowd starts beating you up too much because you won't support war under any circumstances, say that you are willing to use force.. A) As soon as Al-Queda is destroyed, B) the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is over C) Afghanistan is a strong and stable Democracy D) Against Iran E) Against Pakistan F) Against Iran G) If inspections fail (again) H) Once the whole world agrees with us...etc. It really doesn't matter what you come up with here because the purpose is to delay things endlessly. Even if your condition were met, you would simply change the conditions you'd need to meet your goal.

Never Admit That You Are Helping Terrorists And Dictators : Act offended if anyone claims you are helping dictators and terrorists by opposing killing, capturing, or hindering them in any significant way. Sure that may be the actual RESULT of doing what you're suggesting, but INTENTIONS, not results, are what have to be considered.

Pretend To Be Offended When You're Accused Of Anti-Semitism : Just because you call Palestinian terrorists "freedom fighters", condemn every Israeli attempt to defend itself from terrorist attacks, believe Jews control the US media and government, and think a land dispute is an adequate reason for blowing up women and children at a bus stop (as long as they're Jews), does not make you anti-semitic. No matter how obvious your anti-semitism is, it doesn't count unless you ADMIT that you're anti-semitic.

Remember Who The Real Enemies Are : Obviously, George Bush and America are to blame for the 'war on terrorism.' You should certainly never blame nations like Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or the 'Disputed Territories', etc, for actually sponsoring terrorist groups that have no real purpose other than to murder innocent people.

Show Me Osama's Corpse : Even though we haven't heard from Osama Bin Laden since the United States bombed the area he was in into blood, sand, and rubble, you must insist that the 'war on terrorism' is a failure since we don't have him in hand. Sure we haven't heard a thing from him in nine and half months but he's probably just laying low! The best thing about this one is that since Osama was probably blown into a fine red mist at Tora Bora, the Bush administration will never be able to 'prove' that he's dead. This means you can't ever be proven 'wrong' when you claim that he's still alive.

Solutions? Uh.... : When pressed for solutions it's a good idea to mumble incoherently, or just say, "I don't know what we should do, but I know war isn't the answer!!!" If you're really pressed you can suggest that America should give more aid to the poor, that one never gets old.

Tell Those 'Chickenhawks' What For : Demand that anyone who is pro-war sign up for the military because only people who are willing to risk their lives in combat have a right to advocate going to war. If they counter with "well if you believe that, then you should go to Iraq and throw yourself on one of Saddam's bunkers so you can be a 'human shield'" either quickly change the subject or say that you detest Saddam (despite the fact that you are firmly against any attempt at removing him from power).

There's No Reason To Bomb Saddam! : Just because Hussein is a psychopathic dictator who gassed the Iranians and his own people, fought against the United States, tried to assassinate a US President, has massive stockpiles of WMD, is seeking nukes, and has ties to terrorists doesn't mean he's dangerous. In fact, we have no evidence that the global terrorist network is still a threat at all...except for 9/11 and all the other attacks across the world since then.

War For Oil! : This war isn't really about terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, it's about oil like every big war America fought in during the last century! Well...except for WW1, WW2, Vietnam, and Korea... but the Gulf War was all about oil! Of course, Iraq only supplies 2.1% of America's oil and Afghanistan doesn't supply any...but "everyone" says it's about oil so it must be somehow or another!

We'll Destabilize the Middle-East : It's common knowledge that the 'Arab Street' will immediately overthrow their leaders if Muslims are harmed anywhere across the world, no matter what the reason may be. Of course, we've gotten off lucky so far since the 'Arab Street' didn't erupt when Israel bombed an Iraqi nuke site, when Israel invaded Lebanon, when Israel 'invaded' the "disputed territories" about 500 times, when Reagan bombed Libya, when the US invaded Iraq, when the Serbs were slaughtering Bosnian Muslims, when the US invaded Afghanistan, when the US bombed through Ramadan, etc, etc. But this time the 'Arab Street' is REALLY SERIOUS!!!

______________

Congratulations! You've now learned everything you'll need to know to smash those favoring AmeriKKKan imperialism and hegemony!

[terilyn]

I love it! Thanks for the ping :)

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Great points, 'Cut.

I'm trying to understand the far right on this -so far right they hate our POTUS - and maybe that's what drives them. It strikes me as odd that they can't put their hatred for President Bush on the back burner long enough to understand that it's their own protection and well being he is fighting for.

I thank God there are people in charge who recognize the threat (Condi Rice: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud") and are willing to step up and deal with it. The left and the far right are shaking hands on this one. It's reckless and crazy thinking. I never thought I'd see the day when Freepers would hate a Republican president so much they'd be echoing Al Gore all over this forum, but here we are.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

I think so - LOL! He's got the average extreme-right, anti-war, leave-Saddam-alone-he-didn't-attack-us Freeper down cold.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"My favorite dodge has got to be the overworn "It'll be another Viet Nam!" bit."

I tell you Brother I am so sick of hearing this BS line.
Fact is the military won that war.
The politicians just quit that war.
55% (the silent majority) were in favor of that war yet DC just walked away.
Over 58,00 Americans (from Eishenhower to Nixon) died in vain.
Because not one of the 4 different administrations ever did anything to win that war.
That is NOT the case with this administration.

[deport]

Thanks for the ping...... Looks like this guy understands and has it nailed.....

[rdb3]

Thanx for the ping. Time proves us right time and time again, doesn't it? ;-)

[watchin]

I believe it goes something like this ...

1. Iraq probably doesn't have WMD's, so we shouldn't attack, because it would be unecessary.

2. If Iraq DOES have WMD, we shouldn't attack because it would be too dangerous.

3. Therefore, while "we all detest Saddam", we should only attack Iraq if neither of the above is true.

[Long Cut]

My belief is that they are of three camps:

1. Extreme Libertarians/Constitutionalists who want a declaration of war, and oppose on principle any pre-emptive attacks. On the declaration-of-war issue, they have some merit.

2. Pat Buchanan marks. They STILL seethe about his pathetic showings in elections, and blame Republicans. George Bush is their worst enemy, because they feel that he and his wing of the party "stole" it from Pat. They can be recognized by their almost-constant return to the issue of immigration reform and Israel.

3. Dedicated disruptors. Some are from DU, and simply CLAIM to be conservative, and some are without doubt posting from offices in Teheran, Beijing, and Baghdad. These can be recognized by their suggestions that we'd be better off voting for Democrats than "RINOs" like President Bush, and wild calls to boycott or attack Israel.

Just a few of my own observations. The sad part is, the first two provide information and intellectual ammunition to the third (suggestion of which, of course, triggers the "offended" response").

[Long Cut]

Amen to that, Bro. Some of those imbeciles out there STILL claim that the Viet Nam war was "unwinnable", as insulting and disgusting as that claim is. What a joke.

[Long Cut]

BUMP. You'll like this one, Man. Check my post #28 for some more fun. ENJOY!!!

[Long Cut]

Bump. Check it out...good thread.

[Long Cut]

I love the one for "Chickenhawks":

"Well, if you believe that, why don't you go to Iraq and drape yourself over his bunker as a human shield?"

Classic response to one of the silliest arguments I've ever seen on FR - the implication that anyone who is pro-war is a "chickenhawk". I've seen this word tossed at military veterans, for the love of God.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Bump for evening readers...

[Long Cut]

BTTT. Trying to keep this one from dying, it's good.

[m1911]

Keep Moving That Goalpost : If the pro-war crowd starts beating you up too much because you won't support war under any circumstances, say that you are willing to use force.. A) As soon as Al-Queda is destroyed, B) the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is over C) Afghanistan is a strong and stable Democracy D) Against Iran E) Against Pakistan F) Against Iran G) If inspections fail (again) H) Once the whole world agrees with us...etc. It really doesn't matter what you come up with here because the purpose is to delay things endlessly. Even if your condition were met, you would simply change the conditions you'd need to meet your goal.

[Long Cut]

Good idea, Daughter! I see you linked to it on another thread, as well. Thanks!

[Long Cut]

ANOTHER one that fires off the old deja vu, eh, 19? I swear, the whole article reminded me of specific people here.

[m1911]

There may be a few of those here, but I get it mostly from the media. I find that particular one most annoying, with "We'll destabilize the Middle East" balancing it out by making me laugh. Another Freeper (don't have the link) said "destabilizing the Middle East is like watering the Pacific".

[Radix]

I read four lines of your thread and suddenly I am an acolyte.


Thank you.


LoL

[Jen]

This is good. Here's a bump for ya.