Left-Wing Hate Fest: What The Media Didn`t Tell You About The New York Anti-War Rally

I think the difference between the buffoons on the right and the buffoons on the left is that the buffoons on the right are already in power. The buffoons on the left feel the need to speak out at rallies because they have no other real voice. Besides, who we deem buffoons is a matter of perception. Everyone has their own buffoons.

Your belief is called moral relativism.

I've seen a lot more defense of Rush Limbaugh in this circle than I have of David Letterman in liberal circles. I'd say he's more comparable to Bill Maher or Michael Moore.

Listen to Rush Limbaugh with an open mind and you will understand. Rush is extremely popular because he acts civil and is nearly always right; and, unlike the foul-mouthed Moore, will admit it when he is wrong. Maher was a pretty successful talk show host, but was vile and distasteful much too often for the "money men" (those who pay the bills). Letterman does not belong in this equation.

I don't know the answer to this one way or the other, but has Saddam Hussein made direct threats to Turkey? I know he hates Israel, what Arab leader doesn't? Also, where else could the terrorists have found ricin? I have to honestly say I don't know what the sources of this product are.

I don't recall an attack or threat on Turkey by Iraq. But some good articles on Iraq can be found on Frontline. This one discusses the Sadaam's weapons of mass destruction and the history of the inspection process. In the interview section it implicates Iraq in terrorist training. Statements by some of the inspectors can be found here. This link is a history of Sadaam. There are also some articles that are unfavorable to the United States' role in Iraq and the Middle East, if that is what you are looking for.

I still think it's hypocritical of us to go in and take out dictators because of their abuses of human rights. Notice I didn't say it's wrong. It's just hypocritical after we've supported so many terrible dictators in the past. Granted it served our interests at the time and *may* have saved the world from communism. No one can predict the future, so it's difficult to say what's wrong and what's less wrong in this situation.

I think it hypocritical to turn a blind eye to human rights abuses, particularly by a nation as rich and powerful as we are. All dictators should be destroyed and a republican form of government implemented (note that "democracy" is too dangerous to implement since tyrants can gain power too easily in a democracy -- consider the recent example of Venezuela, and the tyranny in our own nation). However, I believe the true justification for the disarmament of Iraq is that he is just too damn dangerous to keep around, particularly since the spread of terrorism. "Disarmament" is most likely a code word for getting rid of Sadaam's regime.

Maybe if we go in there and take out Saddam it'll polarize countless Muslims to take up a jihad against the United States. Or maybe it could help stabilize the region. The terrorists haven't stopped since we've taken out the Taliban, and they were a more vehement supporter of Al-Qaeda and the like.

There is already a Jihad against the United States, and if Saddam decides to distribute chemicals or biologicals to terrorists, their threat is multiplied (this is not to imply that Saddam has not already gave WMD to terrorists). If anything, getting rid of Saddam will stabilize the region.

As has happened in the past with other "superpowers" (Greeks, Romans, etc), American hubris will probably be the end of us.

The instability of Democracy will be the end of us if we do not stop it in time. Returning to our lawful form of government (a republican form with strict adherence to the Constitution and the difficult Amendment process) is the only way to regain stability.

I just wish Bush would stop beating the war drums for just a second and at least pretend to listen to what our allies have to say instead of acting like a dictator hell-bent on getting his own way. Then maybe more liberals will actually listen.

All but three Nato nations support his stance on Iraq (with Belgium, France, and Germany opposing him). So it appears Bush does listen to our allies. But in the end it is his responsibility to protect our nation, and his alone -- not the weasely French, nor the tiny nation of Belgium, nor the administration in Germany that was anti-Bush long before the policy on Iraq became an issue. Regarding liberals . . . well, Bush is wise to ignore liberals. Liberals will never listen to him until they grow up. I know what I am talking about because I used to be a liberal (I voted for Clinton the first time he ran).

The purpose of the impending war on Iraq is, among the other reasons stated on this forum, to address geopolitical realities that have steadfastly been ignored for 10 years now, to address the problems that both the Middle East and the Islamic world present, and to project power in ways that are amicable to US interests and regional and world stability.

Although historically in the postwar world both Russia (for many years in the incarnation of the Soviet Union) and the US have vied for influence in the region, such competition met with varying degrees of success and failure.

However, the collapse of the Soviet empire has had a deletrious effect on Russian abilities to project, and this, compounded by Clinton's 8 years of willful ignorance, has created a vacuum in the region that was not really in anybody's best interest.

The fact remains that every government in the region is either an Islamic theocratic dictatorship, or a simple run-of-the-mill dictatorship (but a dictatorship nonetheless), invariably headed by men who are not merely anti-American and anti-Isreal, but seek the destruction of both through whatever means possible.

Adding complexity to this mindset is the fact that the region possesses a very large share of the world's oil reserves, thereby guaranteeing that region's strategic necessity.

This is tempered by the reality that the vast oil reserves there are their economic lifeline, and no matter how much one is committed to doing for one's god, a body still has to eat. Most of these guys are intelligent enough to know what butters their bread.

A look at the map of the region shows clearly Iraq's strategic geopolitical position.

Removing Iraq (as it is presently construed) does a number of things for us:

(1)We will be four-square in that region. Syria to the west. Iran to the east. Saudi Arabia to the north. Bad boys all. Each of these states is active in protecting, financing, building, using and projecting through any number of terrorist organizations who can bring to reality the desire of each sponsoring state's dream of annilihating the twin Infidels of America and Isreal, without being blamed (diplomatically or otherwise) for their proxies' actions.

We become the 800-pound gorilla in that living room, and state sponsors of anti-Western terrorism would now think twice about their terroristic adventures that occur on a too-frequent basis.

(2)For once, instability becomes a reality for those regimes that heretofore had sought to bring that to others. Assad is probably safe, but if he so much as burps wrong, he risks having people take a closer look at him. Always an uncomfortable event.

Iran is getting ripe with ferment. The young people there are growing tired of that nation's theocracy, and grow more restive each day. Although they (the Iranians) have moved a detachment of troops into northern Iraq, ostensibly to have a presence there for having a say in post-war Iraq, their position is tenuous enough so that they might be more concerned about their own tomorrows, rather than grabbing a piece of real estate from an erstwhile enemy.

Saudi Arabia's position is very iffy, and any instability in that corrupt nation may spell it's doom. Because of our close proximity in Iraq, intervention there in the face of any difficulties would be almost a given.

(3)Things should then become a bit easier for Isreal, with the concomitant benefit of keeping them on a shorter leash. Projecting internationally and projecting regionally are 2 different things, and theoretically the Isrealis should act accordingly.

(4)Terror is not something that deigns to win the hearts and souls of a people, but is designed to play with people's minds. Exerting influence from a strategically situated Iraq allows us to return the favor in kind, so to speak, making some heretofore very questionable people begin to question themselves, and the fact as to whether or not they might not be around too much longer.

Logistically, prosecuting the War on Terror becomes a considerably easier and more reliable event, for us, anyway. And state sponsorship of terrorist organizations in that region will become more difficult. The phenomenon will not disappear, no, but such sponsorship will by necessity become less overt, more circumspect by the states involved, and will entail costs, for them, not previously encountered.

(5)We begin, finally, to have a major say in the oil thing. Let's not kid ourselves, or anyone else, for that matter. This IS about oil. By defintion it has to be.

Put another way, if these people didn't have vast supplies of crude, would we really be involved in the region, save for the sake of Isreal, to any extent? Hell, we'd be content to just let them kill each other off. That's what they've always done historically.

Basically, this trip for our armed forces is yet another payment we must make for the deriliction of duty exhibited by 42. We are going to be paying this guy's excesses down for quite some time to come.

Get use to it.

CA...

My question is, how can there ever be stability in the Middle East while Isreal exists?

A favorite strawman of the left. If Isreal didn't exist, the Arab world would have had to invent it itself!

For whatever reason, whether it's so hot over there, or the embrace of that Peace of Religion that finds as it's basis one of the most violent tomes written, or whether it's upbringing or cultural pressures or something else, the people over there hate each other. Notice I didn't say dislike. I said hate, and that is the driving emotion in a very violant area of the world.

I don't know why they're like this. All I know is that historically that region has been marked by hatred since people began breathing there.

If Isreal didn't exist, they'd find something else to vent on, most likely us. The young are taught hatred from the get-go at school. Media reinforces the cultural stereotype, and the arts glorify it in song and legend. It is culturally enshrined, and if any kind of progress is to be made out there, either this must change at it's most fundamental level, or a quick, easy and cheap alternative to oil must be found.

Since neither is likely to occur in our lifetimes, we must move on from that point.

Likewise, Isreal's existence is also a geopolitical reality. If we can redraw the map to eliminate Isreal, then we can redraw the map to configure it any way we want! And why is that? Because we, and we alone, have the necessary tools and the requisite military might, to enforce this kind of thing. That might sound like hubris, but it's the truth.

But there can be no redrawing of maps in the region as this can correctly be called outright empire-building, and thus I don't think it will happen. Doing such would entail some terrible, terrible costs. At this point in history, at least, I think we are smart enough to avoid that.

Bottom line on that is, it just won't happen.

Western governments would have to go in and set up puppet regimes in every one of those Arab countries.

In this region, perhaps more than any other, such a political solution just won't work. A waste of time.

However, encouraging people to come to the fore who are more inclined to work with the civilized world, while still being a product of, and responsive to, local and regional conditions could work. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that no nation in that area, save Israel, has anything remotely resembling a democratic background. Again, the educational systems and cultural backgrounds demonstrate the difficulty in establishing republican forms of government there. That, and the fact that 1/2 their populations have no say in anything governmental or societal (i.e., women). As long as those societies are structured like that, they will never be able to realize anything close to their potential.

To say that getting rid of Saddam will stabilize the region and help us fight terrorism is folly.

No, that's where your argument is weakest. He's one of them. The Islamic purists may regard him as an infidel and an apostate, but they'll more than willingly take whatever assistance he has to offer, and he has lots.

This leads me to another point that I think is extremely important, but seems to have received scant, if any, attention.

I agree that militarily, a war against the nation-state of Iraq is a non-starter. I mean, militarily they don't come close to stacking up against us. And even with WMD, it doesn't make sense, because (1) I believe he's squirreled most, if not all, of these weapons elsewhere (out of country); and (2)the only true Weapon of Mass Destruction is a nuclear bomb. The others are really Area Denial Weapons that our forces should be able to overcome.

I think, at worst, we're looking at a reprise of the "6-Day War". Given the bluff and bluster of a Saddam with an army that is 1/3 what it was a dozen years ago, one is forced to conclude these guys don't know what their getting into. While MEK-directed street resistance in Baghdad would be something of a problem, I guarantee you these guys have never faced the likes of the 82nd Airborne.

But anyway...

Consider the timing of this whole episode. While I agree that after 12 years of him flipping the bird to the international community offers no haven for the absurd claim of a "rush to war", the buildup has been rather quick, sudden and intense.

And then consider Colin Powell's address to the UN. Apart from the eavesdropped conversations, little new was offered, and in fact it appeared he used 12-year old data from an academic source. Leaving aside the pleasantries that can be exchanged over this apparent faux pas, you will note that, once this was revealed, no effort at all was expended in trying to defend it or explain it. No, there was a paper trail left there on purpose, and they wanted it found.

The question is, why?

This whole thing is rather confusing, and it leads me to conclude that somewhere lurking just below the surface, just out of reach for us mere plebes to grasp, there is another dynamic at work here.

This exercise has been deemed important, it has to be done now, and will be done even at the cost of crippling or even destroying the UN (that is something that may be on the agenda anyway), crippling or destroying, or merely just leaving an impotent NATO, or even rearranging old political alliances and creating new ones.

If it were something as simple as oil, it would have been done a long time ago, with much less trouble and at much less cost.

No, these guys know something we don't, and I don't think they are going to let on to what it is until the task at hand is completed, if then.

I cannot yet grasp what this dynamic is. (If at this point you sink into the morass of empty-headed arguments like, "Stupid! Can't you see it's a dark design by a totally unrepentant President Bush to create a world-wide killing machine!" or "Idiot! Don't you realize this is merely another vain attempt by the illegitimate president to solidify his hold on the country acquired by stealth, cunning and a corrupt judgeship that selected him as Emperor!",[these are exaggerated, but you get the point. I'm not saying you bring things like this to the table!] then you disqualify yourself from further serious discussion on this topic. I seek answers - not accusations.)

I invite FReepers everywhere to join me in trying to figure this out. This should be something where ideas are exchanged and questions earnestly asked, and where no idea is laughed at, and where the only stupid questions would be the ones that weren't asked.

I can't morally support it.

Don't. I'm serious. Don't engage in something you find morally uncomfortable, reprehensible, or even outrageous. Don't invite inner conflict. That serves no good purpose.

Be true to yourself. Just be sure you acknowledge that there are other people out there who have every bit of the moral conviction about their stand that you do, and that doesn't make them stupid, heartless, dishonest or minions of the Dark Lord himself.

It is often hard to follow in a war. It's very dirty business, but sometimes necessary. Apparently things are coming to a head in that region, and thus we find ourselves at an important crossroad in history. The question is, do we do this now, and at a cost that's relatively certain, or do we wait and more than likely have a situation thrust on us at a cost that will be uncertain, but almost surely infinitely higher?

I vote for the former.

CA...

"The argument can easily be made that an attack on Muslims is an attack on Islam, turning even non-extremists into bomb-happy suicide attackers. However, using Afghanistan again as an example, that didn't happen. So we may be relatively safe on that front. In any case, I still think we're pushing too hard for a war that may cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars. I can't morally support it."

Well, it's just been what, a full YEAR since Bush first talked about disarming Iraq. We've only had 17 UN resolutions ignored or deliberately flaunted by Iraq, and the cease-fire surrender treaty that Iraq signed over a decade ago has only been violated for what, 11 years?!

Man, that Bush, he sure is RUSHING to war! < /SARCASM >

It's a catchy sound-bite, that "rushing to war" bit, but it doesn't represent reality very well in my opinion.

How did we get there? Well, for one thing, those who attacked us on 9/11 WANTED a big war with the U.S.

You don't go prodding the sleeping giant unless you want to provoke it, after all.

And hand in glove with that desire for a big war goes giving catchy slogans to the useful idiots (Lenin's term, not mine) in your enemy's camp (e.g. we're "rushing to war", and other such nonsense).

But have we really "rushed" to war instead of going to the UN for months? No.

Such claims continue to be self-mocking, just as are anti-war "protests" when there is no war.

Sure, we've assembled a credible force in the Middle-East in case we absolutely have to take care of various destablizing forces with our military, but that isn't the ONLY solution that we have pursued.

We've offered to give Hussein immunity in exchange for exile, for instance.

We've offered to give Iraq a chance to prove that its previously declared (banned) weapons have been destroyed, too. Clearly that alone is an easy path to peace, should IRAQ choose to take it.

But what you aren't seeing are "protesters" calling for Iraq to comply with UN weapons inspectors.

What you aren't seeing are demands from so-called "anti-war" protesters that Iraq disarm.

Instead, you are just hearing anti-U.S. diatribes, as if the U.S. had FULL responsibility for peace, and as if a major Middle-Eastern military power (e.g. Iraq), had absolutely no such responsibility itself.

So what Bush has been doing has been accomplishing multiple important things such as:

1. Our enemies and true friends are being exposed,
2. Our enemies are boiling under the pressure of a real war with the U.S.,
3. Our enemies' lies are being exposed (e.g. "rush to war", "war for oil", "war-monger", et al).

And the longer President Bush holds the imminent threat of full-scale war over the heads of various enemies, the more such foes will crackle and break under the pressure (both domestic and foreign foes, too).

It is brilliant, for a true "rush to war" would have already ended the Iraq issue without exposing some of our "supposed" friends for being a bit duplicious and without exposing the lies of some of our domestic foes for what they are: pure balderdash.

Plus, there is some level of unadulterated humor in watching the athiestic Communist "Workers' World Party" (and its violent Black Bloc and International ANSWER fronts), which itself supported the violent Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956, preach against "war" and lead so-called "anti-war" protests against a war that hasn't even started, and may never come (depending upon certain global variables).

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.