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

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

[zapiks44]

John Hawkins has really been on a roll lately. A few weeks ago I posted a column of his featuring wacky quotes made by environmentalists over the past few decades. This guy rocks!

[Diogenesis]

Believe this nonsense -- or your lying eyes, America.

THESE are dead children, previously playing in Halabja [March 1988].
Terrorist Saddam used chemical weapons against his own people
until the "streets were piled with corpses."

[Peacerose]

Bump!

[ladyinred]

LOL! This was like watching an hour of Breaking news on CNN, or reading some of the "Conservative" threads on this forum! This guy is spot on!

[Once-Ler]

Wow...that was a great read. Really puts a lot of stuff in it's proper perspective. Thanx for posting it.

[lawdude]

Another argument is that Bush First should have "gotten" Saddam in 1991 when he had the chance. Never mind that the UN mandate expressly stated that once the iraqi's were out of Kuwait, the conflict must end. The same idiots that now call Bush an idiot for not doing so, would have begun impeachment proceedings had he done so.

Also, you must conveniently forget that klinton had numerous opportunities to "get" saddam. But that is different.

Dems state that the war will last for years and result in thousands of US casualties. They offered this same argument in 1991. We all know what happened then. Well, the iraqi's have a far weaker ground force now and those are far more likely to play frenchman when the missles fly.

The dems are hypocritical scum and I cannot believe the American public can give them support for anything.

[weikel]

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.

Its too late to not attack Saddam now but we should have let him kill the Saudis.

[IronJack]

Tell Those 'Chickenhawks' What For

Yeah. Trot out the same rhetoric that worked so well for the Left 40 years ago in Southeast Asia. Sure, it was a different time and a different war, but what the heck, a good slogan is as timeless as fine art.

[johnny7]

Its too late to not attack Saddam now but we should have let him kill the Saudis.

The House of Saud?! My God man... to destroy this breeding pot of nepotism, martyrism, garish furniture and swooshy princes would offend Allah!

Ahhh... screw'm!

[Long Cut]

BUMP!! This is a refreshing, and quite useful, article!! I'm bookmarking this one, keep it bumped!

[Long Cut]

Check THIS one out. Wish I'D written it (actually, I was working on something similar, but he beat me to it!!!). Excellent!

[Mo1]

I'M BACK!!!

SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY A BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Fantastic, Long Cut. Thank you. (I was just on the other thread you pinged me to, wondering where these nuts are coming from. Ugh.)

My favorite:

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.

[Long Cut]

You'll like this. BIZ-UMP!!!!

Tell some FRiends...

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Pinging you...you'll dig this.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Bump and ping - you guys will appreciate this.

[Long Cut]

Yeah, like I said, it's refreshing, especially after dealing with that other thread, and some of the past ones.

My favorite dodge has got to be the overworn "It'll be another Viet Nam!" bit. No disrespect at all meant to VN vets on this, but it drives me nuts when presumably smart folk compare a counterinsurgency jungle war, run by a corrupt Democrat to an open-country conventional war run by an honest Republican, almost four decades later. Do they not see ANY difference at all? C'mon, people, WORK with me here!

It has been said of the leftists of that era that they "cannot learn and cannot forget". How true. Their lives were wrapped up tightly protesting the war in VN, to the point that it became the reason for their existence. Thus, the Left tends to view ANY use of American power through that prism, no matter how irrational or wrong-headed it may be. A lot of them, I'm convinced, would like those "sex-love-dope" times back.

[Long Cut]

From the article:

"act offended if anyone suggests you're helping dictators or terrorists"

Sound familiar? How hard have we argued that it doesn't matter what one's intentions are, the RESULTS are what count, and the overall RESULT of the naysaying is to help the Bad Guys?

[Texasforever]

Damn this guy has been reading FreeRepublic. LOL

[Long Cut]

BIZ-UMP!!! Thought you might like this. I certainly did, after all the crap we've been subjected to around here lately.