Posted on 02/18/2003 8:48:58 AM PST by 1Old Pro
Can we face the truth?
These peacenick protestors who can't explain why they are against a war saying:
They don't have any serious arguments for opposition.
The fact is, they are ANTI-BUSH FIRST, ANTI-AMERICAN SECOND, and protesting the war just gives them a reason to publicaly oppose Bush.
I recently called in a local talk radio show where the host was debating to protestors. They had no arguments, just platitudes. I asked them if they weren't so much anti-war as they were anti-Bush. I asked them if they voted for Bush, of course they did not. They "bristeled" at the question because they were flushed out.
Bottom line, the "protestors" are mainly Gore voters and Nadar voters who want to protest Bush. The war gives them that vehivle to protest. If protestors were polled, 99% would have to admit they they did not vote for Bush. If the anti-war movement had any good reasons to oppose war they would be more like 50%-50% voting for Bush.
CONCLUSION: what we have here is anti-Bush, anti-American protestors. Ask them if they voted for Bush and find out for yourself.
They are an immediate threat. Bush is waiting to get the troops into place and pacifying the anti-Americans by attempting to make the U.N. useful.
Yes, that would be naive. If and when you ever see someone who actually claimed that defeating Hussein would "stop terrorism", do let us know! I've never seen anyone say this, myself.
The very next day after we declare victory, some fundamentalist knuclehead can drive through the Lincoln tunnel with a McVeigh style bomb and blow the whole thing to hell.
Uh, what? If an FK (fundamentalist knucklehead) can do this "after we declare victory", why aren't they doing it now - in fact, why didn't they do it yesterday?
Some people have this bizarre idea that there are a bunch of FK's out there right now who lead normal lives and work at Microsoft or something, completely happy, but if we dare to dethrone Hussein then BOOM suddenly they will become terrorists.
That's the equation in many peoples' minds: these FK guys will leave us alone if we leave Hussein in power, but if we oust him, only then will they become terrorists.
This is just... a bizarre thing to believe.
1. First of all, I'm sure it's exactly what Hussein would want you to believe: "Don't ever attack me, you'll wake up the sleepers, yeah, that's it!"
2. You also must think that fundamentalist Muslims really, really love the secularist, Muslim-killing Saddam Hussein. After all, apparently they're all willing to die to keep him in power (but again, if we leave him alone, they'll continue leading normal lives and won't attack us at all).
3. Essentially your attitude expressed here boils down to pre-emptive self-deterrence. "Let's not attack murderers, because if we do, then other murderers might kill us."
Well hell, if that's how you feel why don't we just surrender the entire U.S. to Saddam pre-emptively, in the first place, and be done with it? I mean it's just too dangerous to attack Saddam Hussein! He's that powerful and loved!
All hail Saddam Hussein!
9/11 was perpetrated not with WMD, but with civilian aircraft.
Yeah, good point. Just think if they'd had WMDs.
If anyone thinks that we as a nation can sleep soundly after Iraq is defeated, you better give it some more thought.
I agree. Iraq is just one step. Who is saying otherwise?
BTW, Saddam should be taken out. But, that should have been done the last time we went to war with these idiots. Mr. "I Just Had An Aircraft Carrier Named After Me" blew that one in the very same manner that allowed Nazi Germany to rise to power after WWI.
I agree. And Nazi Germany had to be dealt with, eventually, right?
Well, the sooner, the better. Waiting only makes Hussein stronger.
Exactly
Hmmm, I guess we could have averted WWII by "simply" assininationg Hitler. And forget about these dictators armies according to your logic, they are just peace loving armies.
Terrorists don't operate or train in a vacuum. Those who harbor terrorists are as bad as terrorists. If you don't believe this, try driving a car for a bank robber who kills people while robbing the bank before he gets back in your getaway car.
Sheesh, a WMD can kill millions. I suppose that's not a problem for you.
Good, I guess we can count on your support when we CONTINUE this LONG war on terrorists and let other terrorist nations know they're next.
To destroy Saddam's arsenal of WMD and prevent him from sharing those weapons with his contacts in al queda, hamas, hezbollah, et. al. To prevent him from continuing his work on developing a nuclear device, and thus become another North Korea. And as a side benefit, we get to feel warm and fuzzy about taking out a brutal, maniacal dictator that has people's tongues cut out for dissent and tortures children in front of their parents for sport.
Just what lasting impact will it serve?
Elimination of the threats to our people and the rest of the world as described above. The establishment of a democratic (eventually) regime in Iraq that will become the staging point for other democratic revolutions in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the rest of that den of tin-pot dictators.
Just because you do not have WMD, doesn't mean that you can't still kill a lot of people in some other sort of terrorist attack.
Uh-huh. True. What's your point? That's a total non-sequitor.
The point is to remove the huge supplies of chemical and biological poisons (and the means to deliver them) from Hussein specifically and Iraq in general. The lasting impact would be a significant reduction of those materials in unstable hands. It cost a lot of money and took a relatively high standard of technology to produce them. They can't be replaced easily or quickly.
Even if we defeat them and put some sort of government in power. How is this going to ensure the safety of the United States?
I hope we don't put a government in power there. Pres. Bush has specifically said he wants the Iraqi people to choose their own government. No one has said it will "insure" our safety but it obviously increases it. We have other fish to fry when this one is fully cooked.
Just because you do not have WMD, doesn't mean that you can't still kill a lot of people in some other sort of terrorist attack.
Right. True. You would prefer that we save our energy and just let the WMD option remain in Saddam's hands where terrorists (other than himself) might obtain them? In other words; "if he can get his hands on a stick of dynamite why worry that he has a nuke"? Explain that logic to me please.
If it were all about oil then why did Bush sr. leave the oil alone when we ran them out of Kuwait and nobody was left to protect the country. sheesh, idiots they feed off the liberal media lies.
As are almost all of the so called "reasons" from the anti-Bush, anti-American protestors.
All in due time. ; )
Ray Kelly is Hitlery's police commissioner in NYC as he was under Dinkins.
In the interim he was traitorrapist42's Customs Commissioner and was named to Interpol along with Waco stooge Ron Noble.
As with KGB Active Measures and the Nuclear Freeze, these anacephalics are Saddam's and Butch's "useful idiots".
Hitlery interned under Communist Robert Treuhaft, and learned to lie about her radicalism from Saul Alinsky, subject of her sealed Wellesley thesis.
The current "anti-war" operation bears all the marks of "active measures", a confederacy of dunces serving the hammer and sickle.
Agree. What is happening on the left is a symptom of the fact that Western Civilization as we have known it since circa 1500 is in decay.
Many of the organizers are communists, as was the case in the San Francisco anti-Bush rally. Most of the participants are the very active Gore/Nadar voters who hate Bush and despise America.
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.