Skip to comments.
Quick and Dirty Leftist's Guide to Arguing against the War on Terrorism
Right Wing News ^
| September 28, 2002
| John Hawkins
Posted on 09/28/2002 12:52:43 PM PDT by zapiks44
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-69 last
To: COB1
"If we back him in a corner, he is definitely going to attack!"Ugh. You're right. That one is classic. We don't want to provoke a madman, after all. Let's just hide under our beds and maybe he'll go away.
To: COB1
Here's a hint. Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy. It doesn't substantiate your argument. It takes a real man to avoid name-calling.
62
posted on
10/13/2002 9:23:26 PM PDT
by
Demidog
To: Long Cut
just read that thread. I see that a certain demidog is posting there. Be advised, he is one of the most irrational, far left libertines on FR. Note the arrogance with which he dismisses our efforts against Saddam Hussein. The sad thing is, he doesn't seem to understand how far LEFT-WING he really is. I notice that you don't have the balls to flag me. I opposed Clinton's foreign policy as well. If I was a leftist I would defend Clinton. I don't. At any rate, this isn't about left and right. If Iraq had committed an act of War against the US, I would be in support of action against the nation. They haven't. And so I don't.
If you start going down the "pre-emptive" road, at what point is it justified for a nation to attack us "pre-emptively?"
63
posted on
10/13/2002 9:29:52 PM PDT
by
Demidog
To: Demidog
"at what point is it justified for a nation to attack us "pre-emptively?"' I know it wasn't publicized very much, but we've already been attacked!
We were attacked by the nation of Islam.
I'm sorry you missed that event.
There may be some obscure news articles which can give you the details.
64
posted on
10/14/2002 6:55:47 AM PDT
by
COB1
To: COB1
I know it wasn't publicized very much, but we've already been attacked! Not by Iraq and not by Afghanistan. And the operative word was "justified." I'm sorry that you have such a problem reading. Perhaps you should seek help.
We were attacked by the nation of Islam.
Have we arrested Luis Farrakan yet?
65
posted on
10/14/2002 6:59:41 AM PDT
by
Demidog
To: Demidog
Nothing I've read indicates that Farrakan was involved in these attacks.
Conversely, everything I've read indicates that the people who did this to us live in Afghanistan, Iraq, Indonesia and other places scattered across the globe.
We're not after the countries. We're after the people they harbor who would bring death and destruction to the U.S.
Wake up, Demidog!
You know that if we don't hit them, they will hit us again and again!
I don't want to see another WTC!
66
posted on
10/14/2002 7:11:59 AM PDT
by
COB1
To: COB1
Nothing I've read indicates that Farrakan was involved in these attacks. You said that the attacks were carried out by the "nation of Islam." That is Farrakan's orginization. Make up your mind.
everything I've read indicates that the people who did this to us live in Afghanistan, Iraq, Indonesia and other places scattered across the globe.
Then you've been reading the wrong sources. All except one or two of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. None were from Afghanistan. A couple were from Pakistan.
Notice how we don't attack Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?
We're not after the countries.
Then why are we replacing regimes in Afghanistan and claiming that it is necessary to do so in Iraq as well? Seems like you either have extremely limited understanding or are so willing to support this administration that you'll ignore blatant contradictions.
We're after the people they harbor who would bring death and destruction to the U.S.
Which is why we've totally ignored Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Right.
67
posted on
10/14/2002 7:20:58 AM PDT
by
Demidog
To: Demidog
Bush Doctrine states that we will go after terrorists and those that help/aid/harbor them. Saddam has helped/aided/harbored terrorists. We want to prevent him from giving WMD to terrorist groups that have trained in Iraq and that Saddam has financially supported.
So its only preemptive in terms of who shot first. Iraq is in violation of the Bush Doctrine and will be dealt with accordingly.
68
posted on
02/20/2003 11:26:29 AM PST
by
CaptainJustice
(Get RIGHT or get left.)
To: CaptainJustice
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-69 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson