Replies

The peaceniks?

Are you so gung-ho for war that you think war with Iraq is a good idea? Where is Iraq threatening us? An actual threat is coming from North Korea, not Iraq.

I just read that North Korea is going to deploy long-range missiles to Guam. If you're on the West Coast (as I am), this is a much more worrisome idea, than what Saddam is or is not doing in Iraq.

It's not just about the war with Iraq. It's about countering the anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-terrorism, communist, Anarchist and other assorted freaks that fill the ranks at the so-called anti-war rallies.

Many of the peaceniks pay lip service to war with N. Korea (in comparison with Iraq), but they're just using it as a debating point. If we said, okay we're going to war with N. Korea now, they'd be out there marching against the war in a minute.

Having said that, I agree that N. Korea poses as big, if not a bigger, threat than Iraq, but doing them both at the same time is stretching our forces too thin. Not to mention their nukes and willingness to use them. I agree with President Bush that we must take different tactics in dealing with N. Korea. Of course, that goes out the window if they start attacking their neighbors...

You've been a registered FReeper for a while now so I will assume, as best I can, good intentions on your part. But I can't find much good to say about your post.

First: I don't know that it makes a lot of sense to bother debating which is a "bigger" threat, Iraq or N. Korea. Define "bigger"? Why must we handle the "bigger" one first? Iraq and N. Korea are both threats. Both must be dealt with. The President has been working laboriously and skillfully for over a year to get us to where we are now with respect to Iraq, that is, ready for action. What logical reason is there to abandon this position now and start from scratch with N. Korea? None whatsoever.

Second: To describe those who differ from you on whether to disarm Iraq now by force as being "gung-ho for war" is a non-argument worthy only of the lefty idiots. It is they who talk of their opponent's motivations rather than addressing their arguments and the relevant facts of the matter. Allowing Saddam to continue to possess WMDs is either a good idea or a bad idea irrespective of anyone's feelings. Stick to the facts.

Third: You ask where is the threat from Saddam coming from. This question has been answered repeatedly in various major addresses in the last five months by Pres. Bush, V.P. Cheney, Sec. Rumsfeld, and Dr. Rice. For you to pretend not to be aware of these arguments is profoundly dishonest.

Fourth: "I just read that North Korea is going to deploy long-range missiles to Guam." N. Korea does not yet have long-range missiles. Further, Guam is owned by the United States. N. Korea with not now or ever deploy one damn thing to Guam. This part of your post qualifies for some sort of special award for lameness.

All in all, pointy, your post bites. I'd give it an F-. Next time please try to do better.