An International Mother-In-Law

Fred On Everything ^ | February 3, 2003 | Fred Reed

[11B3]

This one needs a ZOT. The author is a complete idiot.

[madrastex]

I give up. It's beyond me.....

Probably the only thoughtful piece of this crap.

[11B3]

Hey - where's the barf alert? Or are you the author of this POS?

[11B3]

Oops - not myself, I meant Garegaupa.

[lucyblue]

"It's beyond me."

Yes, Fred. Clearly, it is.

[Garegaupa]

No, I'm not the author.

And I think it ought to be perfectly acceptable to voice ones opinion, no matter what you and I think of it, without it getting classified as "barf".

[dennisw]

Where's the barf alert for this? You made me lose my breakfast.

[BufordP]

You may disagree with Fred on this subject (as do I) but you clearly do not know Fred. He is definitely not an idiot.

[Beenliedto]

Nine posts into this thing, and all anyone is doing is attacking/defending the author.

I wish someone would comment on the specific points.

Always killing the messenger.

[BufordP]

I support the troops. As for Fred's points on foreign policy, I'm in his camp. I think for every country that thumbs their nose at us (Germany, South Korea, etc.) we should bug out unless it concerns our national security/interests.

[alisasny]

I usually agree with Fred and I totally agree with him on the drug section of this rant....

I didn't know he got so dovish.....it is possible that he wrote this as parody as he has done that before?

[FreepLady]

"Spare me."

Bite me.

[FReepazoid]

"Explain it to me. A ratpack of Saudis blew up New York"

......Good enough reason for me to blow up Iraq.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

Ok, you asked for a response to his "points". I only got so far before I gave up on him. Here's why:

"Now, understand: I'm patriotic, and believe in blowing up as many people as possible, wherever we can find them. But…why Iraq? It's mysterious. Sure, Hussein is a good, serviceable, every-day sort of monster and ought to be shot. So are about half the rulers in the world. Why this one? Bobby Mugabe needs it more, I reckon. Have we thought about Zaire? "

We're in a war on terrorism. Saddam helped and supported al-Qaeda. See the evidence in other threads on FR. You can look it up as well as I.

"Explain it to me. A ratpack of Saudis blew up New York, so we're going to wreck Iraq. We're going to do it because Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction, except that he doesn't, as far as anyone can tell. The more he doesn't have them, the more we want to blow him up because he does, or doesn't, or would if he did. Maybe. "

Saddam had WMD in 1991 when he was charged with eliminating them. He had not as of 1998 when the last inspectors left. The current inspectors have not seen any evidence of him eliminating them. QED, he has WMD.


"I don't understand Weapons of Mass Destruction either. Actually, I do. They're a PR package, nice ribbon, pretty wrapping paper, but with nothing inside, to make it sound like we have a reason for attacking. Americans fortunately don't distinguish between a bumper sticker and a policy. "

WMD are an issue because we're in a war on terrorism. 3,000 people died through 4 hijacked airliners. How many would die through WMD? They're not allowable in a country with close ties to terrorism.

"Now, if Iraq had nuclear weapons, blowing them up might be reasonable. But it doesn't. I don't care whether it has chemical weapons, and if it has smallpox, bombing won't help. So why do it? To grab the oil? Make the world safe for Israel? Historical codpiece for George? What's the scam, really? "

How does Mr. Reed know he does not have nukes? He had a nuke reactor in 1981. He bought nuke material in 1989. How can he ignore all the evidence? Head in the sand?

"It never stops. We're always bombing, invading, meddling, or embargoing. Nobody else does. "

Nobody else can and nobody cares. We care. To wit:

"Grenada,

We stopped a coup that replaced a democracy with a dictatorship.

the Philippines,

Um, what military action have we taken, other than against the terrorist group that kidnapped Americans?


"Panama,

We removed a dictator and established a democracy.

"Vietnam,

We held off a communist advance for 15 years and then surrendered, when we could have won.

"Cambodia,

We bombed them in connection with the Vietnam war, 30 years ago. Was that an issue?

"Afghanistan twice,

1st time, we resisted a communist take over through Muslim proxies--successfully. 2nd time, we attacked a terrorist state that directly supported al Qaeda, who had killed 3000 of our citizens. After the overthrow of the Taliban, the Afghanis cheered. Which do you object to, and why?

"Laos,

Bombing in connection with Vietnam and against communism.

"Lebanon twice,

We had US citizens captured. We had Marines killed. The place had descended to anarchy from its previous position as the financial capital of the Mideast. How should we respond when US citizens are kidnapped?

"Iraq almost twice,

What does this mean?

"Yemen,

War on terrorism--any where, any time, no place to hide. Do you object to killing murderers of US citizens?

"Angola,

I missed this one. When?

"Kosovo,

The most ill-advised of our foreign policy ventures. I did not support our intervention either.

"Cuba,

The Bay of Pigs would have overthrown Castro with air support. Do you like Castro's Marxist dictatorship?

"Libya.

The bombed an airliner out of the skies with support from Libya. Should we support or oppose such bombing?

"We're maybe about to get into a war with North Korea. In fact we have troops there as a tripwire, to be sure we get involved. What could be a better plan?

Have a plan to defeat NK in case of an invasion.

So there is my response. Is this what you wanted?

[fish70]

Good read. This guy if fun to read and insightful.

[Beenliedto]

Ok, you asked for a response to his "points".

Actually, I didn't ask for a response. I was mearly pointing out the fact that too often folks answer this type of post by attacking the author, rather than by debating the material.

I do, however, appreciate your efforts. Nice post.

[Garegaupa]

I was mearly pointing out the fact that too often folks answer this type of post by attacking the author, rather than by debating the material.

Well said, and my sentiments exactly. I posted this to get some debate, which is (as far as I can see, at least) what this forum is all about.

Let's leave The mindless bashing of other people's opinions to the liberals... :-)

[Garegaupa]

...but you clearly do not know Fred. He is definitely not an idiot.

I know him well, I read his column every week, and I totally love it (most of the time, at least)!

I knew this would cause an uproar here on FR, and that's why I posted it. However, I had expected a little more debate and a little less angry bashing. Well, maybe I asked for it...

[Caesar Soze]

Nine posts into this thing, and all anyone is doing is attacking/defending the author.

I wish someone would comment on the specific points.

There's not much reason to. All his points seem to be based on facts or misapprehensions of facts at least a year old, several of them many decades old. They have already been discussed for quite some time, and further discussion would not be productive.

Several of his points do appear to be ... disingenuous, at best. He ignores the legal rationale for attacking Iraq, makes no mention of Just War Theory, ignores the findings of the Blix Report, and cavalierly dismisses WMDs as "nothing," adding, "I don't care [...] bombing won't help." I'm geniunely confused by the "Axes of Evil." Has the White House put out a statement with that misspelling? Does the author know, or care, that three points can indeed define more than one line, id est axes? Is he even aware that three states have been explicitly identified as the Axis of Evil? Does he understand that historical allusions are not meant to be geometrically correct? Who knows. Who cares. To top it all off, the guy quotes himself. Only Gene Ray can pull that off.

Sorry if I'm "killing the messenger." He looked pretty sickly when he got here.