Help Me Debate my Liberal Son-in-Law (Vanity)

I agree. We all seem to be able to see that. Why can't liberals?

You don't have to debate this person. You should call the FBI.
I'm not necessarily afraid of Hussein's anthrax and weapons of mass destruction."
What kind of person is this?

You don't debate these people.

I'm concerned about Hussein as every right thinking human being ought to be. But what I'm *afraid* of are psychotic Arabs, enraged at the Great Satan's pre-emptive invasion of sacred Arab territory who might feel it is their holy duty to board an airplane with a plane ticket and a carpet knife. What I'm afraid of os the deluded Muslim who might jump on a subway car with a gallon of gas and light it on fire.

It sounds like this one should be sent to the CIA or FBI or some other CAP's!! Me thinks he dost speak too quickly!! I don't need people with his concern!!

Good point about the fingerprints. I still think they are all over 9/11. Apparently he wants to wait until he sees Saddam's fingerprints on an atomic bomb before he would want to liquidate him.

At least somone got it ;-)

All I know is that Germans aren't Arabs. Eurpoeans aren't Muslims. And 2003 isn't 1941. Germans don't/didn't strap bombs to their backs and blow themselves up in the name of God.

No, the Japanese did.

Hitler was fighting a geo-political war. Arabs are fighting a holy war. Hitler never proclaimed to have God on his side. Arabs are convinced that God is on their side. And I've always said, be afraid of the man who *says* he has God on his side.

According to the Japanese, the emperor was the direct descendent of God. It didn't turn out so well for them, either.

I'm concerned but not necessarily afraid of Hussein's anthrax and weapons of mass destruction. I don't even think Hussein is stupid enough to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US.

No one is concerned about this. For you to set it up as a straw man so you can knock it down is intellectually dishonest. What people are worried about is the very real links between Sadam Hussein and Terrorist groups and that these weapons of Mass Destruction will find their way into their hands. But, you already knew that, you just chose to distort the argument so that it was easier to counter.

Remember, we had the Arab world behind us when we defended Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. That was a justified war. And there was no disputing that it was justified.

Part of the cease fire agreement of that "justified war" was the Sadam would disarm. He has not. Therefore, as the victors of a "justified war", we have the right to enforce the terms of the surrender.

We have every right to defend ourselves. I'm no dummy. But spin it any way you like, taking the offensive is not being defensive. It's a plain contradiction. And in matters of war, it makes all the difference.

Thats just about the dumbest thing I have heard. To put it bluntly, if you take the offense and take away all the other sides bombs, they can't blow you up. This seems like a pretty good defense to me.

But what I'm *afraid* of are psychotic Arabs, enraged at the Great Satan's pre-emptive invasion of sacred Arab territory who might feel it is their holy duty to board an airplane with a plane ticket and a carpet knife.

I am more afraid of the psychotic Arabs with nuclear weapons, or Anthrax or small pox. I'll take my chances with the carpet knife and the gas

I just don't see how invading Iran is going to reduce my fear of these things at all

It won't. You have chosen to be afraid. But anyway, first things first. We need to take care of Iraq before we get to Iran.

Yeah, I forgot that one. Thanks.

Just tell him to shut his pie hole. Debate suggests the application of logic to an issue. Liberals deny the law of thought, so why bother.

LOL

Send him this piece from NRO by Eugene Volokh

September 27, 2002, 9:00 a.m.
Some Say Deterrence Is Enough…
…but two can play at the deterrence game.

By Saddam Hussein*

ear Madam President Clinton:
As you may have gathered by now, the nuclear device exploded over the Nevada desert today came from the mighty arsenal of the Republic of Iraq. We sincerely hope that the device did not injure anyone; its purpose was simply to show that Iraq has acquired a nuclear capability.

In fact, we are proud to say that we have manufactured many such weapons. Nearly a dozen of them are now in place in major American cities. We certainly do not want to have to detonate them, and we see no need to go that far, if you accede to several reasonable requests that essentially amount to a permanent disengagement from the internal affairs of the Middle East:

1. Immediately end all sanctions against Iraq.
2. Permanently withdraw all American troops and military advisers from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and all other Muslim countries, and agree not to become involved in any military action by one Middle Eastern country against another.
3. Stop all governmental assistance, military and otherwise, to the Jewish Entity, and all trade by American companies with it.
4. Extradite to Iraq the traitors, spies, and saboteurs that you are currently harboring as supposed "dissidents" and "opposition leaders," as well as the blasphemer Salman Rushdie, who we believe is currently visiting your country.

We recognize, of course, that your nuclear arsenal vastly exceeds ours, and that you have threatened to attack any country that detonates nuclear bombs within your boundaries. Should you attack Iraq with your nuclear bombs, you will doubtless be able to kill millions of innocent Iraqis, as well as probably killing me.

But if you do so — or if you invade Iraq using conventional weapons, or assassinate me — then this will only assure that my trusted agents will detonate, one by one, the bombs that are currently planted in your cities. Because the bombs are located near ground level, their detonation will regrettably cause not just immediate damage, but also a considerable amount of radioactive fallout. You, Madam President, would then be responsible for the deaths of millions of your fellow citizens, for the damage done to your allies (especially your Canadian allies) as some of the fallout settles in their territory, and for the deaths of millions of innocent Iraqis.

Americans recognize that you would not be morally justified in killing innocent Iraqis through a retaliatory attack. After all, your actions during your campaign in Afghanistan show that you do not take civilian casualties lightly, even when they are incidental to attacks on military targets.

And of course such civilian deaths will only lead to a righteous desire in the Islamic world for further acts of vengeance against Americans. As many of your own country's eminent thinkers pointed out when you were debating a preemptive strike against Iraq in 2002, the last thing America needs is to create still more people who want to harm it. Even your praiseworthy refusal to attempt any preemptive action against Iraq shows your wise concern about preserving life.

Now perhaps you doubt that I will make good on my threat. After all, your foreign policy since 2002 has rested on the assumption that if Iraq acquires nuclear weapons, it can be deterred from using them, because its leader is rational. Perhaps you think that I will not detonate the weapons that I now control on your soil, because that would be irrational on my part.

On the contrary; I am being quite rational here. I am in my seventies, and I have relatively little fear of death. In fact, now that I have committed myself to this plan of action, I fear more the dishonor that I would bring on myself if I retreated like a coward.

Trust me, I am deeply, deeply concerned for the possible suffering of my countrymen, but I proclaim that all of them will happily run the risk of martyrdom for the greater glory of Allah and the Arab nation; and in any event, I believe that this risk will not materialize, because I believe that my strategy will preserve them from your retaliation.

And the upside of my gamble is that I will be able to achieve what many in the Arab world have long dreamed about, and will thus glorify Allah and the Arab nation and bask myself in the reflected glory of that deed, for now and for centuries to come. Saladin is still remembered nearly a thousand years after his death; Hussein would be remembered for a thousand years alongside him. This is, I realize, a highly risky strategy on my part, but I think that it's a calculated risk. And even if you think this is an irrational plan, trust me at least that it is a sincere one.

In fact, I am counting on your rationality. Will you kill millions of your own people, and millions of others? Or will you save their lives, and your own consciences, by acceding to our reasonable requests? I am sure that you will find the answer easy, and that the United Nations, your European, Canadian, and Arab allies, and your own citizens will breathe a sigh of relief when you give that answer. Choose peace, Madam President, rather than a devastating war.

Sincerely Yours,
Saddam Hussein

*This speculation was written by Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh teaches First Amendment law at UCLA School of Law.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-volokh092702.asp

"We have every right to defend ourselves. I'm no dummy. But spin it any way you like, taking the offensive is not being defensive. It's a plain contradiction. And in matters of war, it makes all the difference. "

HUH?

I basically wrote the same thing about the fear.

~~Hitler~~Stalin was fighting a geo-political war.

That's the comparison. 15,000,000 dead!

The spread of communism is the same as the spread of terrorism.

Be afraid of the man who *says* he has God on his side

BE AFRAID, Saddam, BE VERY AFRAID!!

Good job girl. I like it.

Hitler never proclaimed to have God on his side.

That is an absolutely false statement.

There are scores of quotes of Hitler justifying his actions by proclaiming God was on his side, on the side of the National Socialists, and on the side of Germany.

It is even on film: in Leni Riefenstahl's propaganda masterpiece Triumph of the Will. Addressing the 1934 Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg, Hitler says God himself gave Germany the task before it, and its place amoung nations.

Further, take a look at any German Army belt buckle from WW II. In large letters, it says this:

GOTT MIT UNS

Have your son-in-law translate that into Babblefish.

Big FAT bump!

Well said...thank you!

Could Hussein attack us if we don't take out his weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Would he attack us? Maybe. But you have to accept that there's at least the possiblity that he wouldn't.

It is clear that there is a VERY strong argument that agents of Iraq have already attacked the US. I encourage you (and everybody) to read 'The Story' at www.jaynadavis.com . Iraq clearly also has nuclear weapons (they got the nuclear fuel from North Korea) ... read the book 'Japan's Secret War' by Robert Wilcox, the only real questions are will they work and can we destory them all ..... or do we wait for him to finish his delivery systems?

We have been letting this terrorism problem grow since the Iranian embassy crisis and we either stop it now while we can win or we let them kill us sometime in the near future.

Some additional 'ammo':

Wars are NOT won by being defensive but by OFFENSIVE action (one of the really basic princples of War taught at West Point).

bump

I love it. LOL. I caught that mistake too. I'm tempted to send him your response. But then I would be in all kinds of trouble. Well, I already am. I just happen to be one of those who believes that God is on my side, and I'm a political conservative. Bad mother-in-law. Bad mother too. I can't help but think of Jesus' warning about the last days when parents and children would be divided.

Rename him 'Meathead'.