Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DaveLoneRanger takes on a peace activist (Transcript of on-air call and e-mail debate)
February 21, 2006 | DaveLoneRanger

Posted on 02/21/2006 6:53:31 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger

Introduction and Summary
Recently, I heard a peace activist on a local talk radio show in the morning. The female host is locally known for her left-leaning opinions and politics, but I still call in to disagree (and on rare cases, agree) and make a case for my opinion. In this case, it was a young peace activist condemning the war. The host expressed some amazement that his rallies were not having a high turnout. I called up and debated him on the air. The host did not want us going back to the past and talking about the war’s beginning and justification. Therefore, the activist told me to look his name up in the phone book and call him so we could talk. I chuckled and told him I would take him up on that.

If you don’t feel like reading the whole thing, let me sum it up for you. I offered him an abundance of evidence to show him why he was dead-wrong, that Iraq was a threat, that his party originally supported it, and so forth. He refused to answer most of those points, and instead wrapped himself in the blue flag of the UN. His true color (yellow) still bled through. In the end, he brushed aside almost all of my points and insisted I answer just one of his. I said, in essence, “I asked you first.” He refused, and ended discussions.

I feel that the debate is instructive. What you will find is a conclusive path of evidence that:

- Iraq DID have weapons of mass destruction, and concealed them and related weapons programs

- Democrats supported President Bush completely in the authorization of armed forces; John Kerry even said we had the right to do so unilaterally.

- The idea of military offensives in Iraq was put to a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and passed with a solid majority.

You may incorporate any of the following arguments or information into any discussion you may be having with left-wing ideologues, without the need to cite me. But do me a favor, and let me know it helped, okay?

What follows is a transcript of the on-air conversation, followed by the text of e-mails that we exchanged to debate the war. I had his full and complete permission to post this discussion. Originally, our agreement was that we could share the debate with others as long as we did not use names. He broke that agreement, thus releasing me from my obligation to keep my end, which is why you find his real name in the document.

The Radio Conversation
The host’s name is Sue. The activist’s name is Geoff. The topics were Cindy Sheehan and war protests, and the show’s questions for the day were, why are the anti-war rallies not having a big turnout, and is Cindy Sheehan hurting or helping the Left.

(Beginning of call)

Sue: Okay, this is David, David good morning!

David: Good morning, Sue! Good morning Geoff!

Geoff: Good morning.

David: I’ll try to answer both your questions, and then I have a couple of questions for Geoff and I hope I’ll have enough time to be allowed to ask those.

Sue: Go ahead.

David: First of all, you ask why nobody is showing up for these peace protests. I submit to you, it is because nobody cares, okay, I mean, the polls may say that people do not support going in, but what do the polls say about staying the course? The majority, the overwhelming majority, say we should stay the course.

Sue: They say, they say we can’t leave, yes.

David: And I would just like to submit a personal, sarcastic “thank you” to you for giving this man the platform to tell all about his war protest because that will definitely help his numbers. Uh, answering as far as Cindy Sheehan goes, Cindy Sheehan suffered no more than anybody else, in fact many more have suffered more, lost more relatives, some have given several of their children to the cause of the war, so Cindy Sheehan has been seeking the spotlight about this, and if she had to elevate herself by standing on her son’s coffin, she did it. And now she’s just being propped up by the left, and you’re right, she’s damaging their cause.

Sue: Okay, Geoff, what do you say?

Geoff: It takes all kinds of people to stop a war. Uh, we are happy to see Cindy Sheehan publicize the fact that the war exists, a lot of Americans have forgotten that there even is a war in Iraq.

Sue: Oh, come on! Oh, GEOFF.
David (at the same time): Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no!

Geoff: Think about it, talk…(becomes indiscernible because David and Sue are also talking)
David: …all the negative news, the body count, no way.

Sue: No… So, well you had some questions for Geoff, a couple of questions for Geoff, go ahead David.

David: Yes I did, a couple of questions. I’d like to know, he’s for the….what is the organization you’re with, Geoff?

Geoff: The Peace Action Task Group.

David: Okay, now, what if I don’t want peace? What if… (talked over by Geoff)
Geoff: That’s fine, that’s your right as a free American citizen, you don’t have to want peace.

David: Okay! But what if I don’t want peace, what if I want to cause trouble, what are you going to do about that?

Geoff: The…as long as you obey the law, I have no problem.

David: And if I don’t want to obey the law, what are you going to do?

Geoff: I’m not going to do anything.

David: Sooner or later, there comes a moment when you have to crack down, when you actually have to take action to stop me, and that’s what this president is doing. Second question…

Geoff: No, now wait a minute, wait a minute.

David: Alright, alright, go ahead.

Geoff: There’s an assumption there, there’s an assumption that what our president has done has anything to do with terrorists, and it does not.

Sue: Okay…

David: No…

Geoff: The war in Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda.

Sue: Alright, well, now, let’s stay…let’s not go back and go over the reasons again, let’s just talk about Cindy Sheehan and why the movement does not get going.

David: Okay, well one more question if I may. Geoff, historically, has any war ever been justified?

Geoff: Oh yes.

David: Which wars?

Geoff: Wars that are fought in self-defense.

David: In self-defense.

Geoff: And the war in Iraq was not that.

David: So you do not agree with the assertion that the…okay. So if I were to submit to you the quotes of weapons inspectors such as Hans Blix, or the Duelfer Report, or David Kay, or David Kelly…

Sue: (Talking at same time) Well, okay…okay, well, now David, David you’re going back again to the reasons we invaded.

David: Yep, I know, I know, well, that’s what he did!

Sue: The point is, we are there, and you’re right, the majority of polls show the Americans think it wasn’t worth it, but we’re there, and, uh, you know, they’d like to start withdrawing troops, but regardless, we still have to stay the course, as the President said, we can’t pull out right away.

David: Does…does Geoff feel we should pull out?

Geoff: Oh yes. And I’d be happy to talk with you, I’m in the phone book, feel free to call me up, I’ll talk to you in a calm way…

David: Okay, okay, let me write down your name, I may just take you up on that!

Geoff: Okay.

David: Heh heh heh…

Sue: Geoffrey Young.

Geoff: Yes, G-E-O-F-F.

Sue: Okay, let’s take a break here.

(End of call)

Contact

That evening, I looked up Geoff’s number in the phone book. I waited until I knew he would be gone to his anti-war rally on that cold, dark, rainy evening and called the number. I left a message with only my e-mail address. I wasn’t about to let one peace activist, no matter who they were, get hold of my number. (Yes, I know about caller ID.)

The E-mails
From here on, I quote the e-mails that he and I exchanged. In the e-mails I sent, I quoted his remarks in << brackets >> or ||lines||, but for clarity on Free Republic, I will post my quotations of him in italic block quotes. I will also post Geoff’s e-mails to me in italics. When Geoff quotes me, he writes “you said” and then responds, so I will not need to put my writings that he quotes into block quotes.

On February 2nd, I received this e-mail from Geoff:


Hello, Dave -
Got your phone message. I guess you wanted to talk about weapons inspectors?

Regards,
Geoff




I wrote back:



Geoff -

Glad to see you got my message.

I guess you wanted to talk about weapons inspectors?

Far more than just weapons inspectors, if you have the time. I want to discuss/debate your whole anti-war position. I've been discussing and debating the war, its causes, motivations, etc. since its beginning.

A few ground rules, if I may?

First, we must agree to be respectful. If the very fact that I suggest this insults you, it may not be your fault, just the fault of so many other myopic war protestors I've debated with who only know what they feel, not why the feel it. I've been called every name in the book for my views.

Second, we have to agree to approach the table of debate with an open mind. Obviously, we both feel we're well-founded in our positions, but let's just reexamine the whole thing and see. I'll hear your side, and you can hear mine.

Third, we have to think our way through the discussion, not feel our way through. I've been through many debates with people where they refuse to answer the FACTS and just respond with their feelings. Debates are about positions and how well those positions can be backed up.

Fourth and finally, I would like your permission to broadcast this debate for other readers who might share my opinions. As long as you leave names out, I do not mind you sharing the debate with any of your friends. Do you give your consent?

With those rules agreed to, let's fall to and I'll let you get the first word if you like.

Regards,
-Dave




On February 3rd, Geoff wrote back:


Dave,

All your ground rules are fine with me. It seems you're proposing an email debate rather than a phone or face-to-face conversation. That's OK, even though it's a little more effort.

I get to make the first statement about my anti-war position? OK, here it be then:

In 1990 Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq, invaded the small neighboring country of Kuwait, killed several hundred Kuwaitis, many of them innocent civilians, and started integrating Kuwait's oil extraction infrastructure into Iraq's oil system. He offered several justifications for his invasion, including an unresolved dispute with Kuwait about oil drilling on the border. He called Kuwait an artificial creation of European colonialism and claimed it had always rightfully been a part of Iraq.

All of Saddam’s justifications were instantly dismissed by the outraged nations of the world. Kuwait had not attacked Iraq, nor were huge Kuwaiti forces en route to attack Iraq, nor had the UN Security Council resolved that Iraq could use military force against Kuwait. His act was instantly branded as international aggression. He himself was considered an aggressor and war criminal. As the aggressor, he was considered morally responsible for all the people, on both sides, killed or wounded by the invasion. He was considered to be a mass murderer. His invasion was condemned by almost all countries as a crime against peace. In the words of the Nuremburg judgment that followed World War Two, aggression is the “supreme” international crime.

Fast forward to March 2003. George W Bush advises UN weapons inspector that they’d better get out of Iraq, then bombs and invades Iraq after making numerous justifications and threats. Iraq had not attacked the USA, nor were huge Iraqi forces en route to attack the USA, nor had the UN Security Council resolved that the US or any other country could use military force against Iraq.

My question to you (and Sue Wylie) is, How is Bush’s action in 2003 any different, legally and morally, from Saddam Hussein’s action in 1990? I assume you and your colleagues do not consider Bush an aggressor, a war criminal or a mass murderer. Why not? Is there one standard that you apply to actions the US takes and another standard that applies to everyone else?

My other main argument against the war is that it has been a huge strategic blunder that has energized and expanded anti-American terrorist networks and helped Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden more than any other act could have done. Some analysts have wondered half-seriously whether George W Bush, by invading Iraq, occupying the country, and authorizing the torture of prisoners, actually *works* for Al-Qaeda.

Finally, I am seriously concerned about the accumulation of power in the presidency and executive branch that has accompanied the War in Iraq and the so-called “War on Terror.” I am concerned that America’s freedom is gradually being eroded from within, and that the US is being changed, bit by bit and law by law, from a republic to a dictatorship and empire. If you are a patriotic, freedom-loving conservative (I am making an assumption here), why aren’t you also concerned about that?

I trust I have given you enough material to think about and respond to.



(Geoff copied his e-mail to Sue, the radio host, so I copied my response to her as well, to show her that I had responded to him. I wrote a brief aside to her in the e-mail to explain that I didn’t expect her to keep up)

On February 4th, I wrote back:

Geoff -

My response style is to quote you in arrows like << this >> and then give my response. If I need to quote what I’ve written and then what you’ve written, I will quote myself in < single brackets > and you in << double >>.

**NOTE TO SUE**
I am copying this response you this once, but I’m known to be capable of exceedingly long e-mails, posts and debates, and if Geoff is willing, this has the potential to become an extended debate. Therefore, it’s entirely probable that you won’t have the time to keep up. All the better if you do, but I do not expect or hold you to.
**End of note**

I have to tell you Geoff, you’ve already earned more respect than most peace activists I’ve debated with before, mostly through your use of punctuation, grammar and respect. Such a combination on the internet isn’t all that common. ;-)

Let me begin by asking you to consider whether or not anything I can say to you will persuade you or sway your mind in the slightest towards any lessoning of your opposition to the war. If all these words are only going to cause you to break of discussions or ignore the things I say, then I’ll only be banging my head against a wall. I’ve been there before, so again, forgive me for operating on my past experiences with other peace activists.

Let me also say that I believe war is what we would refer to as a necessary evil. War is ugly, brutal, and destructive. I am therefore not “pro-war” but rather “pro-defense.” As I was trying to explain via radio, when people are causing trouble, Justice has to get its boots on and kick butt. Do you believe that?

All your ground rules are fine with me. It seems you're proposing an email debate rather than a phone or face-to-face conversation. That's OK, even though it's a little more effort.

If it is convenient, I much prefer e-mail. That gives both of us time to conduct the discussion at our leisure, rather than working around the time to call. Also saves on minutes.

In 1990 Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq, invaded the small neighboring country of Kuwait, killed several hundred Kuwaitis, many of them innocent civilians, and started integrating Kuwait's oil extraction infrastructure into Iraq's oil system. He offered several justifications for his invasion, including an unresolved dispute with Kuwait about oil drilling on the border. He called Kuwait an artificial creation of European colonialism and claimed it had always rightfully been a part of Iraq.

Hussein’s primary reasons, as you say, were territorial and retaliation for alleged economic warfare. The United Nations immediately passed a resolution to condemn the invasion (Resolution 660) and placed economic sanctions on Iraq (Resolution 661). The United States led a coalition of 34 countries to counter the invasion and end the oppression.

All of Saddam’s justifications were instantly dismissed by the outraged nations of the world. Kuwait had not attacked Iraq, nor were huge Kuwaiti forces en route to attack Iraq, nor had the UN Security Council resolved that Iraq could use military force against Kuwait. His act was instantly branded as international aggression. He himself was considered an aggressor and war criminal. As the aggressor, he was considered morally responsible for all the people, on both sides, killed or wounded by the invasion. He was considered to be a mass murderer. His invasion was condemned by almost all countries as a crime against peace.

So we have established that Saddam Hussein is an international trouble maker, a war criminal, and a man who can plan and execute military actions in secret and carry them out with little warning.

Fast forward to March 2003. George W Bush advises UN weapons inspector that they’d better get out of Iraq, then bombs and invades Iraq after making numerous justifications and threats. Iraq had not attacked the USA, nor were huge Iraqi forces en route to attack the USA, nor had the UN Security Council resolved that the US or any other country could use military force against Iraq.

Your analogy breaks down in several places – phrasing both military actions in similar terms does not make them comparable. Ignoring, for a moment, the fallacious attempt to equate the two, let’s hit the rewind to just prior to the invasion. Let’s get into discussing the justifications for military action in Iraq. (The part Sue wouldn’t let us get in to!)

Of course, the Left sought to make the weapons of mass destruction as prominent as possible, when in fact, there were various reasons for the invasion. These included suspicions of terror, financial corruption, atrocious cruelties executed on his people, and a threat of dissemination of weapons and finances to terror groups.

But far and away, the weapons of mass destruction argument became prime. So let’s go there.

I don’t know what political party you support, but it’s not hard to guess.

Therefore, when people like Bill Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry and Al Gore came out swinging against Bush, insisting that he lied to take us to war for personal gain, etc. it was a little difficult to swallow, considering the words that they had already spoken and which were on record.

I submit for your consideration, the words of prominent liberal politicians who slammed the president for “lying”:

• “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”

• John Kerry, (D, MA), Jan. 23, 2003

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”

• Senator Bob Graham (D, FL), December 8th, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He also has given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

• Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”

• Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10th, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”

• Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct. 10th, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”

• Sen. John Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9th, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warefare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”

• Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3rd, 2002

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

• Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27th, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”

• Al Gore, Sept. 23rd, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”

• Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”

• Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI) Sept. 19, 2002

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”

• Letter to President Bush, signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec. 5th, 2001

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”

• Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10th, 1999

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to the countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

• Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) Dec. 16th, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”

• Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9th, 1998

“He will use these weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”

• Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor, Feb. 18th, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”

• Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18th, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”

• President Clinton, Feb. 17th, 1998

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”

• President Clinton, Feb. 4th, 1998

Therefore, we see that it was not just Republicans making the case that Saddam Hussein posed a very real threat. We cannot blame President Bush for operating on the intelligence and beliefs that politicians from both sides of the aisle agreed with for a decade. Nor can we lay the blame (or credit) for the war at Bush’s feet only. It was put to a fair vote. It passed with a solid majority. (H.J.Res. 114, 77 yeas, 23 nays)

We also look at the reports and words of weapons inspectors after the war and find a clear trail.

Consider, for example, the following quotes from Weapons Inspector David Kay:

“We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.”

Kay wrote that the inspectors found:

“A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW [Chemical and Biological Weapons] research.”

“A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW [Biological Weapons] agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.”

“Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist’s home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.”

“New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.”

“Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists’ homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).”

“A line of UAVs [Unmanned Aerial Vehicles] not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.”

“Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.”

“Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.”

“Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.”

“With regard to Iraq’s nuclear program, the testimony we have obtained from Iraqi scientists and senior government officials should clear up any doubts about whether Saddam still wanted to obtain nuclear weapons. They have told ISG [Iraq Survey Group] that Saddam Husayn remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons.”

“In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work.”

(Above quotes excerpted from David Kay’s Statement On The Interim Progress Report On The Activities Of The Iraq Survey Group, October 2nd, 2003)

Now, I quote from the Duelfer Report:

“[Saddam Hussein] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.”

“Iraq took steps to conceal key elements of its program and to preserve what it could of the professional capabilities of its nuclear scientific community.”

“Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW [chemical weapon] effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable.”

Iraq’s historical ability to implement simple solutions to weaponization challenges allowed Iraq to retain the capability to weaponize CW agent when the need arose.”

“Iraq could maintain CW [chemical weapon] competence with relative ease”

“Beginning in May 2004, ISG recovered a series of chemical weapons from Coalition military units and other sources. A total of 53 munitions have been recovered.”

“{W}e cannot express a firm view on the possibility that WMD elements were relocated out of Iraq prior to the war …”

In a BBC interview, Weapons Inspector David Kelly (who later committed suicide) was asked if there was an immediate threat from Saddam Hussein. He answered, "Yes there is.” He further stated that Hussein's biological weapons program posed a "real threat" to neighboring countries.

Weapons Inspector Hans Blix said that he felt a weapons report (which the Left later accused the British government of “sexing up”) was actually understating the severity of the threat from Iraq.

An Iraqi general has recently come out and confessed to have flown secret missions into neighboring countries (including Syria) with toxic payloads.

People ask where the WMD went, if they did exist. It’s really not that hard of a question, at least generally speaking. Saddam Hussein had plenty of warning while the US went through the legal procedures with the UN and its own war resolution. He had ample opportunity, and he had plenty of allies to help move the weapons out. (For instance, Russia aided Hussein’s transference of weapons-grade uranium out of the Al-Qaaqaa weapons facility)

The Washington Times reported that Saddam Hussein repeatedly removed Iraqi guards patrolling the Syrian border and replaced them with his own intelligence agents, so the agents could supervise the transfer of banned materials between Iraq and Syria. The Iraqi Survey Group reported the same.

The Reform Party of Syria, an political group in opposition to Syrian President Bashar Assad reported that a close contact to President Assad was concealing the weapons in three different locations.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the United Nations “watchdog” agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was quoted in a CNN article as saying that radioactive equipment from Iraq has been showing up in other countries.

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong (the number 2 man at Centcom, he reported to General Tommy Franks) reported that he knew “for a fact that some of those weapons went into Syria, Lebanon, and Iran.” He also said “It's no surprise that the weapons buried in Iraq have yet to be uncovered. Seven eighths of the country is arid desert and the size of California. You could probably bury 100 Empire State buildings and not find them.”

In fact, Lt. Gen. DeLong’s claims were confirmed when weapons inspectors (post-war) found dozens of fighter planes buried in the sand.

Often times, people have a misunderstanding of what the weapons really are. When you hear that Hussein is suspected of having huge stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, what this means is, a boxful of vials.

A little dropper bottle can hold enough poison to kill thousands. Or, as Weapons Inspector David Kay put it, “Even the bulkiest materials we are searching for, in the quantities we would expect to find, can be concealed in spaces not much larger than a two car garage.”

Let’s put that in perspective. The ratio of the area of Iraq to the area of a two car garage is about 5 billion to one. The ratio of the volume of a haystack to the volume of a small sewing needle is about 5 million to one. Therefore, finding WMD in Iraq is 1000 times more difficult than finding a needle in a haystack. And that’s just the surface.

I read a columnist article which described the military offensive in Iraq like this:

This situation could be compared to evidence of a man illegally building a bomb in his own home.

Let us suppose that the police are informed of this development by the man’s neighbors, family and friends. Some have even seen bomb-making equipment and heard this man’s threat to use the bomb.

When the police ask the man to voluntarily agree to a search, the man refuses. When the police get a legal search warrant and the man refuses to accede to the court order, the police are justified in breaking down his door. If he violently resists, they can shoot him.

If, hypothetically, the police were to do just that and ended up killing the man to conduct the search – and then found no bomb or evidence of the bomb in the house – are they at fault?

Most reasonable people, and certainly the man’s neighbors, would agree that the police a) did the right thing in searching for the bomb-making equipment; b) unfortunately, the man paid a price for not agreeing to the court order; and c) the man probably had likely hid the bomb-making material after so many people had testified to its existence.

So, I realize I’m listing a lot of documents. Let me sum up. And please feel free to correct me if you think the following summary is not supported by the data. Also feel free to consult the Kay Report, or the Duelfer Report or the other reports if you feel I have taken any quotes out of context.

David Kay, Charles Duelfer, Hans Blix and David Kelly all surmised that Iraq was a threat, and/or presented the evidence to support that premise both before and after the war. The Duelfer Report listed that a total of 53 munitions have been recovered. That’s what you call “leftovers.” Just like in your fridge, “leftovers” imply that there was a whole big thing to have disappeared and left some behind. These are the “crumbs” that were dropped or missed when the rest of the weapons were transported out of the country. The Duelfer Report also wrote that they could not account for whether or not weapons left the country. Therefore, we can surmise that the weapons intelligence was correct and that the weapons did indeed exist. They were transported out of the country prior to the invasion. (Frankly, if the intelligence was all wrong, we’d have some problems with trusting our allies in Saudi Arabia, Russia, Great Britain and the UN, all of whom confirmed our intelligence.)

Now (again, based on past experiences) I can expect one of two responses from you. First, you might ask me why has Bush admitted the intelligence was wrong. In response, I don’t know. It is quite frustrating that the President admits what is not yet confirmed to his critics. Second, you might produce other quotes from the same weapons reports which seemingly contradict what I’ve already quoted. I would ask you then why there are conflicting accounts and words in the reports.

Have I gone far enough to convince you that the WMD premise was not a lie? Frankly, it’s not a lie either way. President Bush was operating on the intelligence (both new and old) that a vast majority of lawmakers on both sides in DC agreed with, and the evidence demonstrates it to be true. However, assuming for the moment that the WMD never did exist, and that the intelligence wasn’t true, it still was not a lie. The dictionary defines a lie as a willful misconstruction of the facts; intentionally distorting the truth. The President was not intentionally distorting the truth. You may disagree with me there, but you cannot prove an intention.

My question to you (and Sue) is, How is Bush’s action in 2003 any different, legally and morally, from Saddam Hussein’s action in 1990?

In several ways.

First, Saddam Hussein was one country acting without provocation or any justifiable cause. President Bush led a coalition after going through due process.

Second, Saddam Hussein targeted civilians and used WMD.

Third, Saddam Hussein wished to integrate the country and/or related infrastructure for personal gain.

Fourth, the military campaign against Hussein was pre-emptive self-defense. I asked you on the [radio] show if you believed any war was justified, historically. You said yes, that wars in self-defense were justified. I did not have the time to press the issue, but I would like you to name which war you feel is justified. Of course, this gives you the unfair advantage of historical hindsight, for everyone knows you can look back on history and make a decision ex post facto, coming down on the right side, but it’s not so easy at the time. Still, I would like to know which war is justified according to you.

I assume you and your colleagues do not consider Bush an aggressor, a war criminal or a mass murderer. Why not? Is there one standard that you apply to actions the US takes and another standard that applies to everyone else?

Not at all. President Bush did not begin this war as an impromptu battle. It is a war against terrorism. Afghanistan’s terror network groups were targeted, and then Iraq came next. Iran is now on the agenda.

My other main argument against the war is that it has been a huge strategic blunder that has energized and expanded anti-American terrorist networks and helped Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden more than any other act could have done.

So you contend that complete and total inaction would have decreased Al-Qaeda’s capability to carry out attacks? Let me point out for you that the apathy demonstrated in previous administrations (even during attacks on foreign shores as well as domestically) was what permitted the attacks of 9/11. Not to mention the slaughter in Rwanda.

Since 9/11, America has not suffered any further major attacks whatsoever. As President Bush has pointed out, this is not by accident. I fail to see how Osama bin-Laden (a marked, wanted man whose days are numbered) is at all energized.

Once again giving you the advantage of 20/20 hindsight, I’d be interested to hear you lay out a plan for what you feel should have been done instead.

Some analysts have wondered half-seriously whether George W Bush, by invading Iraq, occupying the country, and authorizing the torture of prisoners, actually *works* for Al-Qaeda.

No serious analyst believes this, but you may feel free to name them.

Finally, I am seriously concerned about the accumulation of power in the presidency and executive branch that has accompanied the War in Iraq and the so-called “War on Terror.” I am concerned that America’s freedom is gradually being eroded from within, and that the US is being changed, bit by bit and law by law, from a republic to a dictatorship and empire.

I did not hear these claims when an administration more favorable towards certain political interests that peace activists shared. And isn’t it convenient that the accumulation of power accusations do not fly until the ideology of the political leadership changes.

Let’s be clear; very little has changed in terms of the political structure. There are still checks and balances that were put in place from the very beginning of our nation’s founding. If the leaders of the Left had the fortitude (and/or public support) they could end funding of war efforts in Iraq here and now. They could draft legislation that resolves to bring the troops home now, and pass and override a presidential veto. They can’t, and won’t. They recently voted their support to stay in Iraq. Therefore, your opinion which you broadcast on the radio is opposite to the leadership of the left, and the overwhelming majority of the public.

If you are concerned about unchecked power, take a look at the court system. Legislating from the bench, reading things into the Constitution, out-and-out violations of the Constitution, are all very scary prospects. (IE, the Imminent Domain case.)

I trust I have given you enough material to think about and respond to.

Let’s just say it was a good start. :-) I look forward to continued discourse with you.

Regards,
-David



On February 6th, Geoff wrote back:


Dave,

Deciding whether to reply to your message was difficult. Several things you wrote indicate you are not able to think rationally about this issue. If that is true, then debating with you is a waste of time. I finally decided to give you one more chance to start making sense, but I am not sure my decision was correct.

You wrote, “Let me begin by asking you to consider whether or not anything I can say to you will persuade you or sway your mind in the slightest towards any lessoning of your opposition to the war.” My answer is yes, but to get me to change my mind you will need to present convincing arguments, not irrelevant, unsupported or illogical conclusions.

You said you consider war ‘a necessary evil. War is ugly, brutal, and destructive. I am therefore not “pro-war” but rather “pro-defense.”’ I agree with these statements. I am working toward the day when war will be only an unnecessary evil. You also mentioned justice. I believe that it is sometimes justifiable and necessary to threaten or use force to ensure that justice is done. This applies to domestic society, where the police have the right to use force against criminals, and to relations among countries, where military force is sometimes justified. I am not an absolute pacifist.

You claimed that my analogy between the invasions of Kuwait in 1990 and Iraq in 2003 “breaks down in several places.” You said there were “various reasons for the [2003] invasion [in addition to weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)]. These included suspicions of terror, financial corruption, atrocious cruelties executed on his people, and a threat of dissemination of weapons and finances to terror groups.” I would not call them reasons but rationales that were given at various times by the Bush administration and its apologists. The word “reasons” connotes a degree of validity or legitimacy that these rationales have not earned. Each can be debunked easily and quickly.

You then included three pages of quotes from various well-known Democrats talking about Saddam’s supposed WMD programs or intentions. To the extent that any of these politicians stated or implied that Saddam had significant quantities of WMDs in 2002 or 2003 or the intention to attack the USA with them, they were wrong. They might have been fooled by the distorted intelligence summaries coming out of Vice President Cheney’s shop, they might have been trying to avoid appearing “soft on Saddam,” or they might have made those statements for other reasons, but they were wrong.

You wrote, “We cannot blame President Bush for operating on the intelligence and beliefs that politicians from both sides of the aisle agreed with for a decade. Nor can we lay the blame (or credit) for the war at Bush’s feet only.” I would agree with you that we can’t assign 100% of the blame for the Iraq disaster to Bush and the Republican Party. To the extent that high-ranking Democrats spoke from within Bush’s distorted frame of reference and supported his planned war by their votes and public statements, they share some of the blame. The driving force for the invasion, however, was always Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their neoconservative advisers. The Democrats can be assigned 20% of the blame at most. If Al Gore had become president in 2000 instead of Bush, there is no reason to believe he would have invaded Iraq by now. He is simply not that ignorant and/or mentally unbalanced.

You wrote, “It was put to a fair vote. It passed with a solid majority. (H.J.Res. 114, 77 yeas, 23 nays).” What is this “it” you are talking about? The invasion of Iraq per se was never proposed to the US Congress for a vote. No declaration of war by Congress was ever proposed or approved, as would technically be required if we were to follow the Constitution. A specific resolution with specific provisions was put to a vote and was approved. There were conditions attached to the approval of Congress for the president to attack Iraq. Bush was allowed to attack only if:

“(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

The fact that Iraq’s army was weak and there were no WMDs left in Iraq means that Iraq cannot possibly have been a real or imminent threat to the security of the US; thus Condition 1(A) was violated. The fact that the UN weapons inspectors had eliminated Iraq’s WMDs and were still operating in Iraq until Bush made them withdraw means that he clearly violated Condition 1(B). Saddam was obeying all of the relevant UN resolutions in early 2003 (although the US was not; US military forces were routinely violating Iraq’s territorial integrity, respect for which is required by the resolutions). Diplomatic efforts, which included the UN weapons inspections, had been working effectively and were continuing to work effectively. There was never any connection between Iraq and 9-11, it was widely predicted that invading Iraq would help and not harm Al-Qaeda, and these predictions proved true; so Condition 2 was violated. The inescapable conclusion is that by invading Iraq in March 2003, Bush violated all of the conditions set forth in the war resolution and thus acted without the approval of Congress. Taking the country to war without the approval of Congress and the UN Security Council is a heinous domestic crime and an impeachable offense.

Your analogy about the man suspected of building a bomb in his home breaks down completely at the point where it says he refused to allow a search. Saddam Hussein, for all his faults, allowed the UN weapons inspectors to operate freely in Iraq once he perceived the threat of a US invasion to be real.

You wrote, “The Duelfer Report also wrote that they could not account for whether or not weapons left the country. Therefore, we can surmise that the weapons intelligence was correct and that the weapons did indeed exist. They were transported out of the country prior to the invasion.” These sentences lack all logic. We can surmise nothing of the kind. For you to selectively cite passages from these reports and leave out their conclusions – that the existence of WMDs and their shipment out of Iraq were unlikely – is dishonest. Your conclusion that “they were transported out of the country prior to the invasion” resembles the way Cheney and his henchmen twisted the intelligence before the war. That part of your message constituted a desperate attempt to make something true by wishing very hard and talking very fast, in the absence of evidence that any transport of WMDs actually occurred.

Most of your letter was devoted to WMDs. Your discussion of WMDs reveals a lot about you, but is not relevant to whether Bush’s invasion violated international law.

You finally got around to my central question, i.e., “How is Bush’s action in 2003 any different, legally and morally, from Saddam Hussein’s action in 1990?”

Your first proposed difference was that “Saddam Hussein was one country acting without provocation or any justifiable cause,” while “President Bush [I assume you mean George W Bush in 2003] led a coalition after going through due process.” Saddam claimed that there were several serious provocations by Kuwait that forced Iraq to invade the country. Why do you dismiss his claims out of hand and not Bush’s? The number of countries involved in an alliance has no bearing on whether that alliance is committing aggression. Bush went through a number of processes, but he failed to get UN Security Council approval for military action against Iraq in 2003. That is a necessary condition to conform to the UN Charter, which is a valid treaty that is binding on the US. To say that he went through due process is false.

A domestic analogy: A man buys a handgun, fully and accurately completes all the required paperwork, drives to a gas station while observing all the traffic regulations, parks properly within the lines of a parking place that is not reserved for handicapped people, goes up to the cashier, demands all the money in the till, takes the money, kills the cashier and a nearby customer, and drives away, once again observing all the traffic regulations. He went through certain elements of due process, but his acts of first-degree murder and armed robbery went beyond any imaginable definition of due process.

Your second proposed difference was that “Saddam Hussein targeted civilians and used WMD.” Neither of these allegations – and you presented no evidence to support the claim that Saddam did either one in Kuwait – has any bearing on whether his invasion constituted the supreme crime of international aggression. It is logically possible to commit aggression while targeting only the invaded country’s military forces and using only conventional weapons. On the other hand, the US has targeted civilians and violated certain of the Geneva Conventions in Iraq on numerous occasions. One example is the battle of Falluja. The US has used depleted uranium shells, which based on their health effects could be considered to be “dirty bombs,” i.e., radiological weapons. The US has also used white phosphorus (WP) against Iraqi insurgents and civilians. If I were to describe the effects of WP on the lungs and skin of human beings, you would probably agree that it is a chemical weapon.

Your third proposed difference was that “Saddam Hussein wished to integrate the country and/or related infrastructure for personal gain.” You are suggesting that Saddam’s ultimate motive was different from Bush’s. The question of what an aggressor’s ultimate motive is, however, is irrelevant to whether he has committed aggression. You don’t know what Saddam’s ultimate motive was. Perhaps it was a distorted form of Iraqi patriotism or a desire to bring the “benefits” of his “enlightened” Baathist dictatorship to the oppressed Kuwaitis suffering under their feudalistic monarchy. Similarly, no one really knows what Bush’s ultimate motive was in invading Iraq. He has announced so many different rationales, each more vacuous than the last, that it is impossible to know.

Your fourth proposed difference was that “the military campaign against Hussein was pre-emptive self-defense.” That concept has a well-defined meaning in international law. It means that an attack by powerful enemy forces is imminent, and that there is no way to stop them without using force first. Iraq’s forces were not powerful and were not on their way to attack the US. In fact, in the weeks before the invasion, there were so many US forces poised on Iraq’s borders – not to mention our frequent incursions into Iraqi territory, i.e., acts of war by the US against Iraq – that Saddam Hussein would have been legally justified in using the doctrine of pre-emptive self-defense to attack US forces in the Middle East. For the US to make the claim of preemptive self-defense against Iraq empties the concept of all meaning and, if applied universally, would allow any aggressor to justify any act of aggression at any time. A universal application of Bush’s doctrine, for example, would justify the shock-and-awe bombing of Washington DC by any country or alliance of countries in the world, on the grounds that the US possesses WMDs, has used them in the past, and might use them again at some time in the future.

You claimed Bush is not an aggressor, war criminal or mass murderer because we are supposedly engaged in “a war against terrorism.” The concept is absurd. Terrorism is a tactic. It is as meaningful to talk about a war against terrorism as it is to talk about a war against the tactic of left flanking maneuvers, i.e., both are meaningless. What would we say about a president who announced that we are engaged in a decades-long war against left flanking maneuvers, and that we will not rest until the very last left flanking maneuverer in the world is dead or in prison? We would probably hypothesize that he had taken leave of his senses. Your paragraph’s concluding sentence – “Iran is now on the agenda” – is quite alarming. It would be literally insane for the US and/or Israel to attack Iran. It could make the war of civilizations between the US and the Muslim world a reality, just as Osama bin Laden hopes.

Every difference you tried to cite between Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 collapses upon brief examination. So far, you have failed to refute the proposition that both Saddam Hussein and George W Bush are aggressors, war criminals and mass murderers. Similarly, you have not provided a cogent answer to my question, “Is there one standard that you apply to actions the US takes and another standard that applies to everyone else?”

I wrote, “My other main argument against the war is that it has been a huge strategic blunder that has energized and expanded anti-American terrorist networks and helped Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden more than any other act could have done.” You replied: “So you contend that complete and total inaction would have decreased Al-Qaeda’s capability to carry out attacks?” This is a straw-man argument so crude and transparent as to be laughable. But I will spell it out for you. I never advocated complete and total inaction. None of the people I know in the antiwar movement ever advocated complete and total inaction. If any policymakers had asked me, I would have proposed a comprehensive set of actions and policies that would have targeted Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and similar anti-Western terrorist groups far more effectively than the Bush administration did. I would not have pushed for the invasion of Iraq. By this date, Al-Qaeda would have been decisively defeated and US troops would not be dying every day in the Iraqi quagmire. Unfortunately, they did not ask me or any other members of the worldwide movement opposing the invasion. They were obsessed with invading Iraq, and nothing was going to get in their way.

I wrote, “Some analysts have wondered half-seriously whether George W Bush, by invading Iraq, occupying the country, and authorizing the torture of prisoners, actually *works* for Al-Qaeda.” You replied, “No serious analyst believes this, but you may feel free to name them.”

The idea that Bush is working for Al-Qaeda is an example of irony. George W Bush once said, “I don’t do nuance.” It is apparent from your reply that you don’t do irony, so I will spell it out in literal terms. The Bush administration has taken a large number of actions that have damaged the national security of the US and helped the groups who are violently fighting the US in the Middle East and throughout the world. The invasion of Iraq was the most monumental of these counterproductive actions; others include torturing prisoners and ordering the US military to engage in counterinsurgency operations that harm Iraqi civilians.

I would appreciate your response if you are able to address these issues in a rational manner. If not, please don’t bother to reply.


On February 12th, I wrote back:



Geoff -

Deciding whether to reply to your message was difficult. Several things you wrote indicate you are not able to think rationally about this issue. If that is true, then debating with you is a waste of time. I finally decided to give you one more chance to start making sense, but I am not sure my decision was correct.

I am sorely disappointed in you. We established guidelines to this debate, and the first was to be respectful. Telling me I am unable to think rationally is not being respectful. If this continues, I shall be forced to end communication with you. Consider yourself warned.

I’m also disappointed in the rest of the e-mail. There were no facts cited or reports quoted; you are not arguing from a position of facts, but from a position of *feelings*. We had an agreement about that too. You *FEEL* that Bush is an aggressor and a liar, and that he and his war mongers are hawking a bloody conflict, and there is no dissuading you. It was once said “Never attempt to reason a man out of something he was never reasoned into.” You have not been reasoned into opposing the war, thus there is no point in trying to reason you out of it.

I expected this outcome to be one of three. Either you would merely come back snapping and snarling in a somewhat irrational manor (and this was the one I originally thought would take place, given your somewhat absurd assertions on the radio, particular the assertion that the American public has forgotten the war), or you would try to argue but your arguments would be incredibly weak, or you would perhaps reexamine your opinion. The rare fourth alternative would be to provide facts which incontrovertibly refute the ones I sent, but since facts are such sticky, stubborn things, it is hard to do that.

It’s a shame, really; you were off to a pretty good start.

You wrote, “Let me begin by asking you to consider whether or not anything I can say to you will persuade you or sway your mind in the slightest towards any lessoning of your opposition to the war.” My answer is yes, but to get me to change my mind you will need to present convincing arguments, not irrelevant, unsupported or illogical conclusions.

Nay sir, do not lie to me. The entire e-mail proceeds to disprove what you just stated.

You said you consider war ‘a necessary evil. War is ugly, brutal, and destructive. I am therefore not “pro-war” but rather “pro-defense.”’ I agree with these statements. I am working toward the day when war will be only an unnecessary evil.

That will only happen when evil has truly been eradicated from the earth. THAT is going to take some serious butt-kicking, which I doubt most anti-war activists such as yourself will support.

You also mentioned justice. I believe that it is sometimes justifiable and necessary to threaten or use force to ensure that justice is done. This applies to domestic society, where the police have the right to use force against criminals, and to relations among countries, where military force is sometimes justified. I am not an absolute pacifist.

Excellent. But I asked you several specific questions about which wars you consider justifiable. Did you forget that part, or intentionally ignore it?

I would not call them reasons but rationales that were given at various times by the Bush administration and its apologists.

Once again demonstrating your blinding opposition to President Bush that you can only see the conflict in terms of your hatred of him. You cannot see the conflict on its own merit. Anything Bush does is wrong, therefore any reasons/justifications are excuses and rationales.

To quarrel with the word “reason” and instead insist it is a “rationale” is merely petty semantics altered to fit according to your political persuasion.

The word “reasons” connotes a degree of validity or legitimacy that these rationales have not earned.

(See above)

You then included three pages of quotes from various well-known Democrats talking about Saddam’s supposed WMD programs or intentions. To the extent that any of these politicians stated or implied that Saddam had significant quantities of WMDs in 2002 or 2003 or the intention to attack the USA with them, they were wrong.

Again, you demonstrate an excessive anti-Bush agenda and bias. It hurts you to hear that the Left supported this military effort as much as they did, yet you excuse them because they’re on your side.

It is also amazing to hear you saying they were wrong when I presented very clear evidence that the threat was there, and that the weapons were removed to Syria.

They might have been fooled by the distorted intelligence summaries coming out of Vice President Cheney’s shop, they might have been trying to avoid appearing “soft on Saddam,” or they might have made those statements for other reasons, but they were wrong.

It is clear the issue is not worth discussing much further with you; your anti-Bush bias is clouding your judgment. You insist that if Democrats supported the war, it is only because they were fooled by that doggoned idiot of a Vice-President. Tell me, how was Dick Cheney influencing the judgment of Madeleine Albright in 1999, or Nancy Pelosi in 1998, or Daschle/Kerry/Levin in 1998, or Berger and Clinton in 1998? These were the years of the Democrats in power. They did not need to fear public image, they were not being hypnotized by the evil President Bush, and they were not being led around by the nose by Dick Cheney.

Congress reviewed the same intelligence the White House did. The White House did not doctor any intelligence to snooker the Democrats into supporting the war, despite what you *feel* or want to believe. Furthermore, if you *feel* the leadership of the Left is so gullible that it can be so easily fooled by President Bush, and actually hoodwinked into authorizing military invasion in Iraq without double-checking, then you have some of the worst, most incompetent, sloppy imbeciles in party leadership and you should demand their immediate replacement.

I would agree with you that we can’t assign 100% of the blame for the Iraq disaster to Bush and the Republican Party. To the extent that high-ranking Democrats spoke from within Bush’s distorted frame of reference and supported his planned war by their votes and public statements, they share some of the blame.

You need to remove President Bush from your mind for a minute. It may require counseling.

Your token blame-placing on the Democrats must remain independent of the President. They were not forced to repeat what he said to support the war. They supported it of their own volition. You seem to have a very high opinion of Bush, however, to think that he can bully the Democratic Leadership into supporting his mischievous schemes!

The driving force for the invasion, however, was always Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their neoconservative advisers. The Democrats can be assigned 20% of the blame at most.

I prefer to call it “credit.” Most military actions which liberate thirty million citizens from oppression are judged a good thing. If you had your way, Saddam would still be filling his torture chambers, rape dens, murder rooms and mass graves.

If Al Gore had become president in 2000 instead of Bush, there is no reason to believe he would have invaded Iraq by now. He is simply not that ignorant and/or mentally unbalanced.

Is this the best you can do? Broadcasting your own *feeling* that a Democrat would have done better? You do not even offer evidence; just your *feelings*. That is foolish talk.

Clearly you are still stuck on an election from six years ago. Gore lost, and bringing up is irrelevant and only revealing your corrupted mental process. I already gave you the quotes from ex-VP Gore: he supported the premise that Iraq was a threat, and that Saddam Hussein continued to dabble in WMD. The point is moot; he did not win.

You wrote, “It was put to a fair vote. It passed with a solid majority. (H.J.Res. 114, 77 yeas, 23 nays).” What is this “it” you are talking about? The invasion of Iraq per se was never proposed to the US Congress for a vote. No declaration of war by Congress was ever proposed or approved, as would technically be required if we were to follow the Constitution.

The Resolution was for authorization of the use of America’s armed forces in Iraq. It was proposed before Congress; it passed with a solid majority. It went by the book.

Also note the various reasons (IE, “whereas”) given in support of the authorization. (Not just WMDs.)

The fact that Iraq’s army was weak and there were no WMDs left in Iraq means that Iraq cannot possibly have been a real or imminent threat to the security of the US; thus Condition 1(A) was violated.

I already demonstrated that the WMD were there and were removed before the invasion. This is a pivotal point you seem incapable of recognizing. Thus, Condition 1(A) was NOT violated.

The fact that the UN weapons inspectors had eliminated Iraq’s WMDs and were still operating in Iraq until Bush made them withdraw means that he clearly violated Condition 1(B). Saddam was obeying all of the relevant UN resolutions in early 2003 (although the US was not; US military forces were routinely violating Iraq’s territorial integrity, respect for which is required by the resolutions).

Hussein was engaging in his routine game of kicking inspectors out and then bringing them back in just before he really got in trouble for it.

Hussein was in violation of Resolution 1441 as well as fourteen other resolutions saying he needed to disarm AND PROVE THAT HE HAD or face consequences.

He defied Security Council resolution 687 (1991), Security Council resolution 699 (1991), Security Council resolution 707 (1991), Security Council resolution 715 (1991), Security Council resolution 949 (1994), Security Council resolution 1051(1996), Security Council resolution 1060 (1996), Security Council resolution 1115 (1997), Security Council resolution 1134 (1997), Security Council resolution 1137 (1997), Security Council resolution 1194 (1998), Security Council resolution 1205 (1998 ) among others.

Each time, the United Nations demanded that Iraq comply with these resolutions and submit full and complete documentation of all weapons-related programs and storage facilities, and allow inspections of suspected weapons sites.

Iraq would pretend to comply and submit reports, but the UN found them to be dishonest, incomplete and lacking. When trying to inspect sites, inspectors would be delayed, stalled and in some cases, threatened and shot at. There was a proven record, a continual pattern throughout the 90’s of stalling, evasion, deception and aggression.

The United Nations did not take any serious action except for some sanctions. Interestingly, Saddam lost billions of money due to sanctions because of non-compliance. Something must have been worth losing all that money NOT to come clean about his weapons programs which you say were nothing to hide.

(Sourced from the UN Website, which lists the various and sundry violations of said resolutions: UN Website Chronology )

As it turned out, the United Nations was (is) so chest-deep in the Oil-for-Food scandal (receiving payoffs from Saddam Hussein) that its corruption proved it incompetent and inconsequential in the first place.

You speak of territorial integrity? Saddam Hussein was violating no-fly zone agreements every day for more than a decade.

Diplomatic efforts, which included the UN weapons inspections, had been working effectively and were continuing to work effectively.

Once again, you only give your *feeling* on the subject; you *feel* that they were working effectively. In fact, they were NOT working effectively. Hussein kicked them out, brought them in, kicked them out again. Hussein made efforts to bribe the weapons inspectors. He was not coming clean. The United Nations resolved that he was in violation of the other resolutions I listed above, and then resolved that he was defiant of the resolutions which declared him to be in defiance of the resolutions! Quite a game they had going on. It is especially comical that Iraq sat as a member on the IAEA.

There was never any connection between Iraq and 9-11, it was widely predicted that invading Iraq would help and not harm Al-Qaeda, and these predictions proved true; so Condition 2 was violated.

Once again, you only offer your personal opinion that invading Iraq helped Al-Qaeda. No facts, no proof, no backup of any sort. It may hold up for your peace activist friends who already believe this, but this is a serious discussion. Try to act like it.

The President never said Hussein was connected to 9/11. He was connected to terror, and had Al-Qaeda connections.

The inescapable conclusion is that by invading Iraq in March 2003, Bush violated all of the conditions set forth in the war resolution and thus acted without the approval of Congress.

Your conclusion is predicated upon premises that are founded only on your personal opinion and say-so. Rigorous inspection causes the house of cards to collapse.

Taking the country to war without the approval of Congress and the UN Security Council is a heinous domestic crime and an impeachable offense.

I simply refuse to believe you are as ignorant as you pretend. Congress approved the military action, and continues to do so through military funding. The Security Council (scandals aside) passed 1441, and then refused to act when it was flouted. This was not surprising, given its history of inaction towards Iraq. The United States, however, in conjunction with twenty other allies, acted on it.

Answer me this: if military action in Iraq was an international crime, why haven’t Britain or America (or the other allies) been prosecuted?

Also, why do you support Dick Cheney for President? You may not realize it, but supposing the impossible happens and Bush is impeached, it will only put Cheney in the Presidency.

Your analogy about the man suspected of building a bomb in his home breaks down completely at the point where it says he refused to allow a search. Saddam Hussein, for all his faults, allowed the UN weapons inspectors to operate freely in Iraq once he perceived the threat of a US invasion to be real.

The man allows inspectors in and allows them to search only certain areas, and then kicked them out before they could complete a full inspection. The inspectors (pre- and post-invasion) investigated only a tiny fraction of possible sites. There was conclusive evidence that banned weapons were concealed from the weapons inspectors.

Did it occur to you that the United Nations would not be eager to support the case for war in Iraq when the then-current oppressive regime was paying handsome dividends to the pockets of Security Council countries like France, China, and Russia? Maybe THAT is why Hans Blix missed the aircraft buried in the desert. Hussein already had a history of concealing laboratories and other weapons-related work from the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and UNMOVIC. AMAZINGLY, you *feel* that he cleaned up his act entirely since then, and would alter a decade of non-compliance!

You wrote, “The Duelfer Report also wrote that they could not account for whether or not weapons left the country. Therefore, we can surmise that the weapons intelligence was correct and that the weapons did indeed exist. They were transported out of the country prior to the invasion.” These sentences lack all logic. We can surmise nothing of the kind.

If we were operating solely on the quote which you cite above, you are correct, we could not arrive at that conclusion.

However, if we refrain from the partisan quote-chopping and work with the dozens of other proofs and evidence I presented, we can easily arrive at that conclusion. I present evidence to suggest the WMD slipped over the border into Syria, including testimony and news reports. I provide evidence from weapons reports and weapons inspectors to show the programs did exist, and that they were mysteriously scrubbed, etc. I show that the Iraq Survey Group proved and documented that Saddam retained the intent and capability to produce more weapons. I documented a clear trait of concealment and dishonesty from the Hussein regime. I then show that the Duelfer Report itself says it cannot disprove that allegation of WMD relocation. (It also searched a very meager portion of Iraq, and we already discussed the ratio of how hard it would be to find the WMD in Iraq.)

For you to selectively cite passages from these reports and leave out their conclusions – that the existence of WMDs and their shipment out of Iraq were unlikely – is dishonest.

Which conclusions are you citing? Can you present them please, instead of assuming I’ll take you at your word for it? Remember, I predicted your response and preemptively asked you WHY the conclusion would be broadcast as such when the evidence and documentation present a compelling case to the opposite?

Your conclusion that “they were transported out of the country prior to the invasion” resembles the way Cheney and his henchmen twisted the intelligence before the war.

You are REALLY going to have to come off this psychological obsession with Dick Cheney. If you seriously are going to make such absurd claims, then you’d better start either backing them up, or backpedaling. Start acting like this is a serious discussion.

That part of your message constituted a desperate attempt to make something true by wishing very hard and talking very fast, in the absence of evidence that any transport of WMDs actually occurred.

If you did not consider any of the evidence I presented in the previous e-mail, then no amount of evidence will convince you, unless it be the burning of nerve agents in your system. But it would be a little too late by then, now wouldn’t it.

Most of your letter was devoted to WMDs. Your discussion of WMDs reveals a lot about you, but is not relevant to whether Bush’s invasion violated international law.

I explained in the beginning exactly why I focused so much on the WMD. Perhaps you should go back and read the e-mail again. Let’s try this one more time.

When anti-war activists such as yourself and your compatriots say “Bush lied” or “Bush violated international law,” as you say now, your diatribe is predicated on the idea that the war was unjustified, which is predicated on the idea that there was no clear and present threat, which is predicated on the idea that there were no WMD. It all connects, you see. Therefore, proving that there were WMD and that they were smuggled out of the country means the weapons were there and were concealed, which means there was a clear and present threat, which means the war was justified, and Bush DIDN’T lie. All cleared up for you now?

You finally got around to my central question, i.e., “How is Bush’s action in 2003 any different, legally and morally, from Saddam Hussein’s action in 1990?”

Just because I gave you the first word didn’t mean you got to guide and moderate the discussion. This is an equal discussion. I told you I wanted to make the case, and I made the case.

Your first proposed difference was that “Saddam Hussein was one country acting without provocation or any justifiable cause,” while “President Bush [I assume you mean George W Bush in 2003] led a coalition after going through due process.” Saddam claimed that there were several serious provocations by Kuwait that forced Iraq to invade the country.

If your mindset is of such a twisted nature that you cannot see the difference between an unprovoked invasion by Saddam Hussein (swiftly countered by the free nations of the world) and the military invasion of Iraq to halt the spread of terror and weapons, then there really is no point in furthering this discussion. You would rather take the word of a rogue, terrorist dictator than the president of your own country! When political ideology blinds one, there is little else to be done.

Why do you dismiss his claims out of hand and not Bush’s? The number of countries involved in an alliance has no bearing on whether that alliance is committing aggression.

I do not dismiss them; I examined Hussein’s rationale (as did the world) and found it lacking. The justification for military actions in Iraq was not. But no one can make you believe this; common sense cannot be forcibly-learned.

Bush went through a number of processes, but he failed to get UN Security Council approval for military action against Iraq in 2003. That is a necessary condition to conform to the UN Charter, which is a valid treaty that is binding on the US. To say that he went through due process is false.

The case was presented before the United Nations, and resulted in one more resolution, 1441, which promised serious consequences if Hussein did not comply fully and without condition. He did not. Hence, the serious consequences. I ask again, if this was a violation of international law, why has it not been prosecuted?

A domestic analogy: A man buys a handgun, fully and accurately completes all the required paperwork, drives to a gas station while observing all the traffic regulations, parks properly within the lines of a parking place that is not reserved for handicapped people, goes up to the cashier, demands all the money in the till, takes the money, kills the cashier and a nearby customer, and drives away, once again observing all the traffic regulations. He went through certain elements of due process, but his acts of first-degree murder and armed robbery went beyond any imaginable definition of due process.

Hilarious; thanks for the laugh. You cannot get past the concept that taking out a threat to world peace and America’s security is not illegal, so further arguing this point is also clearly futile.

the US has targeted civilians and violated certain of the Geneva Conventions in Iraq on numerous occasions. One example is the battle of Falluja. The US has used depleted uranium shells, which based on their health effects could be considered to be “dirty bombs,” i.e., radiological weapons. The US has also used white phosphorus (WP) against Iraqi insurgents and civilians. If I were to describe the effects of WP on the lungs and skin of human beings, you would probably agree that it is a chemical weapon.

Please cite your source for this claim, show evidence of intent and fallout/health problems, related news reports.. Once again, saying we targeted civilians is (besides being repugnant in nature) trying to prove a motive. September 11th showed us that there is no such thing as a civilian anymore. You WANT to *feel* that we targeted civilians, because you wish to hate the mission itself, therefore you view all military actions through the prism of your bias. It is impossible to fight against such closed-mindedness.

no one really knows what Bush’s ultimate motive was in invading Iraq. He has announced so many different rationales, each more vacuous than the last, that it is impossible to know.

So then, why do you claim to know what his motive was?

Your fourth proposed difference was that “the military campaign against Hussein was pre-emptive self-defense.” That concept has a well-defined meaning in international law. It means that an attack by powerful enemy forces is imminent, and that there is no way to stop them without using force first.

Where do you obtain that specific definition of pre-emptive? It seems you are ignorant of past military conflict, especially since you have not named any specific conflict that you (again, using the unfair advantage of 20/20 hindsight) support. For example, recall that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and that Germany never declared war on America when we went to World War II.

Iraq’s forces were not powerful and were not on their way to attack the US.

You are stuck in the past, in visions of camouflaged soldiers carrying rifles and running against battle lines, rumbling tanks and airplanes. On September 11th, our definition of war changed. A handful of men in a few airplanes gave us more casualties than America had experienced in years. You would have us trust the word of a man who had been proven countless times guilty of concealing weapons and weapons-related programs, a man who showed himself capable of direct military action without warning, as well as direct and indirect financing of terrorism. (If you have a hi-speed connection, and even if you don’t, visit http://www.husseinandterror.com/ for further details)

In fact, in the weeks before the invasion, there were so many US forces poised on Iraq’s borders – not to mention our frequent incursions into Iraqi territory, i.e., acts of war by the US against Iraq – that Saddam Hussein would have been legally justified in using the doctrine of pre-emptive self-defense to attack US forces in the Middle East.

Sounds like quite a plan. Play tricks with the world, now-you-see-WMD, now-you-don’t and when the world shows up to demand a reckoning, unleash your forces and say you’re defending yourself. I love how you defend our enemies in such manner as you do. Constitutionally speaking, it’s treason.

For the US to make the claim of preemptive self-defense against Iraq empties the concept of all meaning and, if applied universally, would allow any aggressor to justify any act of aggression at any time. A universal application of Bush’s doctrine, for example, would justify the shock-and-awe bombing of Washington DC by any country or alliance of countries in the world, on the grounds that the US possesses WMDs, has used them in the past, and might use them again at some time in the future.

Once again, you equate the actions of meting out justice (in a coalition of twenty allies) with any act of violence anywhere at any time. Such ‘logic’ cannot be argued, because it is rooted in a deep-seated faith that America/Bush is bad.

You claimed Bush is not an aggressor, war criminal or mass murderer because we are supposedly engaged in “a war against terrorism.” The concept is absurd. Terrorism is a tactic.

A tactic of WHOM? It would be more correct to say a war on terrorists instead of terror, but again, a few hijackers demonstrated that there is no specific country to declare war on when these parasitic extremists squirrel away in every country and exploit religious hatred to further their zealous ends.

It is as meaningful to talk about a war against terrorism as it is to talk about a war against the tactic of left flanking maneuvers, i.e., both are meaningless.

Yet in both cases, the tactics have a tactician who employs them. Against whom do you *feel* we should fight?

Your paragraph’s concluding sentence – “Iran is now on the agenda” – is quite alarming. It would be literally insane for the US and/or Israel to attack Iran. It could make the war of civilizations between the US and the Muslim world a reality, just as Osama bin Laden hopes.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. Having taken action against Afghanistan and Iraq (and subsequently removing problems in Libya, thanks to their removal of WMD) we have demonstrated that targeted military action works. I would be curious to hear your proposed solution to the problem in Iran.

Also, regardless of what you think, it looks like military buildup might already be happening: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/12/wiran12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/12/ixnewstop.html

Al Gore just recently stated that Iran is a threat to the world…but he said that about Iraq too, and you excuse him from that. It must be Dick Cheney sending his mind signals again.

Every difference you tried to cite between Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 collapses upon brief examination.

Only in your mind, which isn’t surprising since it was already predisposed to believe that in the first place.

So far, you have failed to refute the proposition that both Saddam Hussein and George W Bush are aggressors, war criminals and mass murderers.

Aggression implies no justification, no historical threat, no past problems of any sort. Kuwait did not threaten Iraq. Iraq was a threat to the US.

War criminal implies a disobedience of regulations. Resolution 1441 stands in way of your argument on that, to say nothing of the Oil-for-Food corruption and scandal which casts a dark shadow on the idea that the UN was independent and ready to act to keep the world safe.

Question: Was Bill Clinton a war criminal for his several military actions in Iraq?

I wrote, “My other main argument against the war is that it has been a huge strategic blunder that has energized and expanded anti-American terrorist networks and helped Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden more than any other act could have done.” You replied: “So you contend that complete and total inaction would have decreased Al-Qaeda’s capability to carry out attacks?” This is a straw-man argument so crude and transparent as to be laughable. But I will spell it out for you. I never advocated complete and total inaction. None of the people I know in the antiwar movement ever advocated complete and total inaction. If any policymakers had asked me, I would have proposed a comprehensive set of actions and policies that would have targeted Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and similar anti-Western terrorist groups far more effectively than the Bush administration did. I would not have pushed for the invasion of Iraq. By this date, Al-Qaeda would have been decisively defeated and US troops would not be dying every day in the Iraqi quagmire. Unfortunately, they did not ask me or any other members of the worldwide movement opposing the invasion. They were obsessed with invading Iraq, and nothing was going to get in their way.

I have to shake my head at the ignorance that you, a civilian with no access to resources that our military leaders did, insist that you could have done better. Your worthless platitudes ring hollow in the greater picture, a picture of decisive victories against Al-Qaeda and terrorist leaders. You are not arguing facts here; you are arguing opinion. Unless you back up your opinion, then it is only theorizing what WOULD have happened. In a serious debate, the only recourse is to cry “would not!”

What SPECIFIC actions would you have taken to target Osama and Al-Qaeda? What would have been your answer to Iraq’s repeated terrorist assistance?

The Bush administration has taken a large number of actions that have damaged the national security of the US and helped the groups who are violently fighting the US in the Middle East and throughout the world. The invasion of Iraq was the most monumental of these counterproductive actions; others include torturing prisoners and ordering the US military to engage in counterinsurgency operations that harm Iraqi civilians.

Besides the military engagement in Iraq, what other actions have damaged the national security? Be specific.

When cowardly terrorists use civilians (and remember, 9/11 showed us there are no civilians anymore) we will not back down from taking action. At the same time, we do not fire a bullet through a child to hit a terrorist. Unlike the terrorists, who USE children and women to carry out their attacks.

I would appreciate your response if you are able to address these issues in a rational manner. If not, please don’t bother to reply.

But who defines “rational”? If you are the referee who decides what a “rational manner” is, then you are predisposed to say I am irrational, because I do not believe as you do. The refereeing is rigged, in other words.

For the sake of conservatives everywhere, please continue to go on radio shows and display this kind of pathetic pandering. You don’t even need me to provide balance – your feeble foibles can only help us.

If you cannot be polite and respectful, or argue from facts and not *feelings* then do not bother responding.

Regards,
~Dave



On February 17th, Geoff wrote back:


Dave,

You made two points in your last message that merit a response. You wrote, “The Security Council (scandals aside) passed 1441, and then refused to act when it was flouted.” Along the same lines, you later wrote, “The case was presented before the United Nations, and resulted in one more resolution, 1441, which promised serious consequences if Hussein did not comply fully and without condition. He did not. Hence, the serious consequences.”

Now that I look at them juxtaposed, these two comments of yours seem mutually contradictory. The first comment above implies that it was up to the UN to take military action if UNSC Resolution 1441 was flouted – not any Member state or states acting upon their own initiative – but the UNSC did not decide to do so. Your second comment implies that by taking military action, the US was properly and legally delivering the serious consequences that had been authorized by the provisions of UNSC 1441 itself. It might be helpful to know which argument you are trying to make, and whether you think there is a way for your two comments to be consistent with each other.

In considering whether a given instance of the use of force is allowed by international law, the most important document to consult is the Charter of the United Nations. After the UN was established, some influential international jurists argued that the Charter superseded all previous customary international law. See, e.g., Hans Kelsen, *The Law of the United Nations*, London: Institute of World Affairs, 1950, p.914; Ian Brownlie, *International Law and the Use of Force by States*, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1948, p.264; Philip Caryl Jessup, *A Modern Law of Nations – An Introduction*, New York: Macmillan, 1948, p.165; referenced in Brecher et al., eds., *In the Name of Democracy*, New York, Metropolitan Books, 2005, footnote p.24. Both the US and Iraq are Member states and have made commitments to uphold and observe the Charter.

Article 2, Sections 3 and 4, read as follows: “3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

“4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

This means that peace is the legal norm and military force is to be avoided unless certain specified conditions exist. The only two exceptions are self-defense “if an armed attack occurs,” see Article 51; and a decision by the UNSC to authorize the use of force, see Articles 42 through 47.

In response to my statement: “Your fourth proposed difference was that “the military campaign against Hussein was pre-emptive self-defense.” That concept has a well-defined meaning in international law. It means that an attack by powerful enemy forces is imminent, and that there is no way to stop them without using force first.” you replied, “Where do you obtain that specific definition of pre-emptive?” The specific definition is long-established. According to US Secretary of State Daniel Webster in 1842, the legitimate exercise of the right of pre-emptive self-defense requires “a necessity of self-defense, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” This definition was established in the *Caroline* case; the quote is from Webster’s letter to Lord Ashburton, August 6, 1842, quoted in John Bassett Moore, *A Digest of International Law*, vol. 2, 1906, p.412. “This has been interpreted to establish a red line between ‘anticipatory’ self-defense in response to an attack that *might* occur at an unknown point in the future, and ‘interceptive’ self-defense in response to an *imminent and unavoidable* attack. It is generally accepted that ‘in the case of anticipatory self-defense, it is more judicious to consider such action as *legally prohibited*.’” Source: “Tearing Up the Rules: The Illegality of Invading Iraq,” Center for Economic and Social Rights, in Brecher et al., eds., ibid., p.26, quoting A. Cassese, *International Law*, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, p.311. The Center for Economic and Social Rights went on to apply this standard to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, noting that “war against Iraq violated any reasonable interpretation of either the UN Charter’s limited provision for self-defense exception or the customary law principle of preemptive self-defense. The potential threat Iraq posed to the US and UK was not imminent, unavoidable, or even particularly credible. Launching a massive invasion to overthrow its government and occupy its territory in response to a dubious hypothetical future threat was neither a necessary nor proportionate response. In essence, the US and UK argument for preemptive strike closely resembles the long-discredited doctrine of preventive war, definitively abolished after World War II.” Ibid., p.27.

Article 24 of the UN Charter begins as follows: “1. In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.”

This means that the UNSC has the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, not individual Member states or alliances of Member states acting on their own initiative.

CHAPTER VI is called, “PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES” and begins as follows: “Article 33:

“1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

“2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.”

This means that peaceful means of settling disputes are to be used first, and military force is to be used only as a last resort.

CHAPTER VII is called, “ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION,” and is particularly relevant to the issue we are discussing. It begins with Article 39: “The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

This means that it is the UNSC that determines whether a breach of the peace has occurred, not individual Member states or alliances of Member states acting on their own initiative.

Articles 40, 41 and 42 are so relevant to our discussion that I will reproduce them here in full:

[[Quotes Articles 40 through 42 of UN Charter]]

Articles 40 and 41 again emphasize nonviolent options, and Article 42 envisions a range of options that includes military force. It is again clear that it is the UNSC that decides whether nonmilitary measures are inadequate and specifies what actions are to be taken, not individual Member states or alliances of Member states acting on their own initiative.

On 29 November 1990, after Iraq had invaded Kuwait, the UNSC adopted Resolution 678, which read as follows:

“The Security Council,

Recalling, and reaffirming its resolutions 660 (1990) of 2 August … (list of resolutions),

“Noting that, despite all efforts by the United Nations, Iraq refuses to comply with its obligation to implement resolution 660 (1990) and the above-mentioned subsequent relevant resolutions, in flagrant contempt of the Security Council,

“Mindful of its duties and responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance and preservation of international peace and security,

“Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

“Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,

“1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwill, to do so;

“2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

“3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;

“4. Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present resolution;

“5. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”

This was the resolution that authorized the US, Kuwait, and their coalition partners to force the Iraqi military out of Kuwait and restore Kuwait’s previous borders and government.

I will not reproduce UNSC 1441 (November 8, 2002) here in full because the text is readily available. If you read through it, however, you will see several stark differences between UNSC 1441 and UNSC 678. While 678 establishes “a pause of goodwill” during which time Iraq must withdraw its forces or face a coalition authorized to use “all necessary means,” 1441 states that the UNSC “decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council.” 1441 does not authorize any state or coalition to use “all necessary means” for any purpose.

I was following the UN debate closely in the fall of 2002. The US and Britain were pushing strongly to include phrasing that would authorize the use of force, but they failed to get the UNSC to include such provisions in 1441.

UNSC 1441 sets out the precise procedure which is to be followed if UNMOVIC and the IAEA decide that Iraq violated its obligations under the enhanced inspection regime. UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to report it immediately to the UNSC, which was then “to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security.” No Member state or coalition of Member states was authorized to decide that military force would be used; that decision was reserved specifically to the UNSC, acting after receiving a report from UNMOVIC and the IAEA. Despite a massive campaign of arm-twisting against the skeptical members of the UNSC in late 2002 and early 2003, the US failed to get another resolution that would authorize force.

Although the Downing Street memos make it clear that the British government was concerned about the illegality of invading without another UNSC resolution specifically authorizing it, that was no problem for Bush, who declared, “We really don’t need anyone’s permission.” New York Times, March 11, 2003, “US Says UN Could Repeat Errors of 90’s.”

Shortly before the invasion, international lawyers came to near-consensus that the threatened invasion would violate the laws regulating the use of force. Sources: World Editorial and International Law, “International Law Scholars Appeal to UN Secretary-General,” press release, March 11, 2003; International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms, “International Appeal by Lawyers and Jurists Against the ‘Preventive’ Use of Force,” February 14, 2003; letter of European law professors, “War Would Be Illegal,” The Guardian, March 7, 2003; Committee on International and Security Affairs of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, The Legality and Constitutionality of the President’s Authority to Initiate an Invasion of Iraq, vol.57, no. 4, at 382, 390, Fall 2002.

Even UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, normally very cautious, diplomatic, and solicitous of US wishes, considered the invasion of Iraq “illegal” and “not in conformity with the UN Charter.” BBC interview with Kofi Annan, September 16, 2004.

You asked, “If this was a violation of international law, why has it not been prosecuted?” The answer is simple. The world’s only remaining military superpower, the US, is too powerful for the UN to prosecute or challenge in a serious way. The same reasoning answers the question of why the UN didn’t prosecute or seriously challenge the US for its criminal war in Southeast Asia in the 1960s and 1970s, or for its large-scale campaign of terrorism in Central America during the 1980s (part of Ronald Reagan’s original “War on Terrorism”). If the UN were to try to do so, the US would dissolve the UN, and a new international organization would have to be founded that did not include the US. That might be a good idea in the long run, but it is not yet on anyone’s agenda.

If the foregoing argument is sound, then there is no legal distinction between Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003, and both Saddam Hussein and George W Bush are aggressors, war criminals and mass murderers.

Sincerely,

Geoffrey Young

PS: In response to my statement that “I am working toward the day when war will be only an unnecessary evil,” you replied, “That will only happen when evil has truly been eradicated from the earth. THAT is going to take some serious butt-kicking…” Your reply shows you have an immature view of reality and human nature. Each person contains the potential to do both good and evil, depending on social circumstances and their own choices. The dividing line between good and evil runs through every person’s heart. Violence (“butt-kicking”) cannot be used to eradicate part of your psyche, nor can it succeed in eradicating evil from the earth. It is not a necessary condition to eradicate evil from the earth in order for war to become only an unnecessary evil. All that is necessary is for the peoples of the world to advance morally along a path that has already been charted – by Jesus, among others; to develop a sufficient degree of respect for the law (including the law that prohibits aggression); and to compel their governments to operate within the confines of the law. A tall order to be sure, but nothing as unrealistic or meaningless as “eradicating evil from the earth.”



On February 19th, I wrote back:



Geoff -

You made two points in your last message that merit a response.

Only two? I’ll take that as “there were only two points it looked like I had any chance of winning the debate on.” This disappoints me; there were several key questions I directed at you in the past e-mail, such as:

I’ve asked you several times about the history of military engagement in the United States, a question you have repeatedly ignored. No answer.

I asked you how Dick Cheney (whom you allege is the powerful evidence-twister responsible for Democrats’ support of the war) was influencing high-ranking Democrats during the 90’s. No response. (Maybe he threatened them with bird shot?)

I also asked you to cite the quotations from weapons reports and received no response. Since you seem to have dropped the WMD argument altogether, it’s clear you do not feel you can win on that point.

I asked whom you feel we should be fighting, since you allege that the concept of a War on Terror is absurd. No answer.

I ask you if Bill Clinton was a war criminal for his military engagements in Iraq (and elsewhere) based on the same (or older) evidence. Deafening silence on that one.

I asked what specific actions you would have taken in your dream scenario to target bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda, or handle the Iraq situation, with no response.

Instead, you hone in on the United Nations, but as you will see, there is no hope there either.

You wrote, “The Security Council (scandals aside) passed 1441, and then refused to act when it was flouted.” Along the same lines, you later wrote, “The case was presented before the United Nations, and resulted in one more resolution, 1441, which promised serious consequences if Hussein did not comply fully and without condition. He did not. Hence, the serious consequences.” Now that I look at them juxtaposed, these two comments of yours seem mutually contradictory. The first comment above implies that it was up to the UN to take military action if UNSC Resolution 1441 was flouted – not any Member state or states acting upon their own initiative – but the UNSC did not decide to do so. Your second comment implies that by taking military action, the US was properly and legally delivering the serious consequences that had been authorized by the provisions of UNSC 1441 itself. It might be helpful to know which argument you are trying to make, and whether you think there is a way for your two comments to be consistent with each other.

One would indeed think that the United Nations would take the appropriate action. But considering the handsome dividends that Saddam Hussein was paying the United Nations, it is not surprising that the United Nations did not and would not act. The national security of nations involved in the scandal (Russia, France, etc.) was not at stake, because they were enjoying a quiet little affair with Iraq, and in return were happy to turn their heads at the brutalities in Iraq. America alone (along with Israel) was threatened.

It behooves a nation whose national security is at stake to take action, with or without UN approval. The action was justified by 1441’s language stating that serious consequences would result from not cooperating. Your argument is that the war is “illegal.” It was NOT illegal, because of the threats in 1441 (among its preceding resolutions), even if the United States was the only one with the spine to back the threats up.

It is interesting that you wish to condemn only President Bush for these actions. May I remind you (again) that, illegal or not, most of the high-ranking Democrats in the Senate voted to authorize armed force in Iraq. In fact, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry wrote the following in The New York Times on September 6, 2002:

“If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act.”

Bipartisan support aside, recall also that we had the support of approximately twenty other nations in the war. Our actions were not unilateral by any means. Try as you may, you cannot blame this on President Bush alone. Although as I mentioned before, most military missions which deliver thirty million citizens from oppression are viewed as right and justified, and thus it is “credit,” not “blame” that we ascribe the President.

I further submit that when American security is threatened, it does not MATTER about the illegalities; we elect leaders who will put the lives and safety of America’s citizens above international bureaucracy, particularly professional bureaucracies buried in scandal and accepting money from the enemy. If an intruder invades my home and threatens to kill loved ones, and killing or injuring him is the only way to stop him, you had better believe I will do so, even if it means what I do is later determined to be “illegal.” Fortunately, self-defense is still legal in this country.

In considering whether a given instance of the use of force is allowed by international law, the most important document to consult is the Charter of the United Nations.

Your strict insistence that international law is all that matters leads me to this analogy. Suppose there is a no-fire zone, an open area where there is no discharging of weapons permitted whatsoever. Now suppose that one man takes his gun into the zone and pulls it without warning and shoots someone. He is quickly removed from the situation, but he everyone knows he still has the weapon, still conceals it, still makes threats to other people in the area.

Now suppose that a father discharges his gun in the no-fire zone because a burglar was threatening his two children.

Both supposedly violated the no-fire zone. Yet the reasons, motivation, justification, etc. are drastically different in each case. Sadly, it takes common sense to discern the two.

Recall, if you will, that there have been several evils in the past which were written-in-stone law. Slavery, for instance, was fully lawful. Yet history glorifies those who looked past the man-made laws and saw the value of human life being ‘legally’ exploited, and refused to let that persist. If you’re operating on a strict man-made law basis alone, then the conductors of the Underground Railroad were criminals; guilty of aiding and abetting slaves, as bad as helping a convicted prisoner escape.

My I remind you what happened to the League of Nations, the United Nations’ predecessor. On a larger scale, they failed to recognize and confront Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich, and consequently dissolved in the aftermath of World War II.

I thank you for the history and briefing of the United Nations, its charters, precedents and laws, but again, when the organization becomes so fraught with scandal, when it is paid to ignore mass brutality, and when it ignores situations like Iraq (as well as Rwanda, Sudan, etc.) it really becomes irrelevant.

It seems you still do not understand that Saddam Hussein was BRIBING the United Nations. What do you do when you face an impending terrorist threat, and a law authored by corrupt officials, who are benefiting from the terrorist, forbids you from defending yourself? Do you obey the officials who are NOT facing the same threat because they are in bed with the enemy?

These further resolutions (based on further resolutions, which were based on further resolutions) you think we needed, declaring another once and for all “here we come” would have been blocked because France wasn’t going to lose its sugar daddy. And I find it hard to believe that peace lobbyists would have supported the war even if the UN had authorized it. They were up in arms about the military campaigns in Afghanistan. What did YOU feel about the action in Afghanistan?

How grateful I am that you post the UN charter information, but there are several flaws in presenting it.

First, in terms of “self-defense” versus “pre-emptive,” you are obviously ignorant of the military history of the United States, especially since you refuse to respond or even acknowledge my query regarding past military engagements and their pre-emptive nature. In fact, you ignore so much more in the e-mail and concentrate here on the only point you seem to think you can win on. (Especially with the information coming out now about the Iraq’s concealment of weapons from inspectors, and foreknowledge of terrorist attacks on US soil.)

Second, you place all your trust in an organization that is laden with scandal. Billions, TRILLIONS of dollars worth of corruption, failure to act on previous resolutions against Iraq (but not seeing the need to, considering their payoff deal) and incompetence on the part of weapons inspectors, and yet you put all your faith in it.

You are stuck in an era that ended after September 11.

Here it is in summary. Iraq violated resolutions periodically and frequently throughout the nineties, a proven record. By not enforcing or failing to act upon threats, one might even go so far as to say that the UN violated its own resolutions. Iraq, however, was paying the UN millions in the Oil-for-Food program, and simultaneously paying off nations like France, so that they would promise a veto.

The weapons inspectors and various sources of intelligence all indicate Hussein was financing terror and building destructive weapons. (For example, in the litany of weapons inspectors I listed in previous e-mails, would you believe that I neglected to mention Hans Blix’s predecessor Rolf Ekeus, who uncovered not just tons of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq but a massive secret nuclear weapons program as well. Just like the one Hussein’s son declares to be hiding from the UN in the recently-released tapes.

The fact that Saddam was concealing them can signal nothing but murderous intent. America gets hit on September 11th, and resolves to aggressively pursue and eliminate the threat from terrorists and their allies. The United Nations agrees that Iraq is a threat (duh, we already knew that) and passes Resolution 1441. Iraq continually refuses to comply. However, because they are slipping France millions in blood money, France vows to veto any further resolution that makes another promise of invasion. America, not needing the “permission slip” from an ineffective and defunct international organization in bed with terrorists, acts in the interest if national security.

And all you can do is attempt to legitimize the apathetic bureaucracy and defend the endless political litigation. Your persistence in arguing procedure would bind America in red tape and prevent any action taken to protect national security.

You asked, “If this was a violation of international law, why has it not been prosecuted?” The answer is simple. The world’s only remaining military superpower, the US, is too powerful for the UN to prosecute or challenge in a serious way. The same reasoning answers the question of why the UN didn’t prosecute or seriously challenge the US for its criminal war in Southeast Asia in the 1960s and 1970s, or for its large-scale campaign of terrorism in Central America during the 1980s (part of Ronald Reagan’s original “War on Terrorism”). If the UN were to try to do so, the US would dissolve the UN, and a new international organization would have to be founded that did not include the US. That might be a good idea in the long run, but it is not yet on anyone’s agenda.

Your argument is from a position that the United Nations and its laws are the be-all and end-all of governance. You are wrapping yourself in the flag stained red with blood, green with money and black with oil, a system with no checks or balances, a system whose weapons inspections were laughable, whose bestowments of honorable positions to rogue states are a joke, whose financial dealings are the epitome of corruption and whose apathy towards true world crises is frightening and distressing. You must pardon me for not sharing in your devotion to such an organization. Devotion to world peace is one thing; devotion to corrupt organizations is quite another.

PS: In response to my statement that “I am working toward the day when war will be only an unnecessary evil,” you replied, “That will only happen when evil has truly been eradicated from the earth. THAT is going to take some serious butt-kicking…” Your reply shows you have an immature view of reality and human nature.

We really need to come off this superiority posturing by telling me I’m “immature” and so forth; we agreed to approach this table as equals, and while you haven’t really complied with any of the OTHER foregone agreements we had, your incursions run the risk of cutting the discussion short.

Each person contains the potential to do both good and evil, depending on social circumstances and their own choices. The dividing line between good and evil runs through every person’s heart. Violence (“butt-kicking”) cannot be used to eradicate part of your psyche, nor can it succeed in eradicating evil from the earth.

That is where you are wrong. There is no peace without victory. There is no victory without conflict. There is no conflict without violence. There is no violence without loss.

It is not a necessary condition to eradicate evil from the earth in order for war to become only an unnecessary evil. All that is necessary is for the peoples of the world to advance morally along a path that has already been charted – by Jesus, among others; to develop a sufficient degree of respect for the law (including the law that prohibits aggression); and to compel their governments to operate within the confines of the law. A tall order to be sure, but nothing as unrealistic or meaningless as “eradicating evil from the earth.”

So you *feel* that we can abide in peace as long as we can compromise and negotiate with evil; that we do not need to eradicate it, we must simply make it respect the law.

There are serious flaws with this argument. You advocate living in peace with Evil. As I attempted to demonstrate for you on the radio (by asking what happens if I am evil and do not respect the law), Evil does not wish to abide quietly alongside Good. As long as there is evil to fight, war will be a necessary ill. Again, you cannot have a law unless you enforce it, and you cannot truly enforce a law unless you punish those who violate it.

You also seem to hold that human beings are good people by nature, and merely choose evil some of the time. This is the very root, the very basis, the very fundamental principle surpassing all else of our discussions on which we must come to terms. Mankind is NOT good and forced into making bad choices. Mankind is intrinsically evil.

If you feel you can prove me wrong, please answer this one question. Do you consider yourself a good person?

-Dave



On February 20, Geoff wrote back:


Dave LoneRanger,

You have brought up a large number of interesting topics in your emails and discussed them with intelligence and skill, but before I would be willing to invest any time into responding to them, we need to clear up one issue.

You wrote, "It behooves a nation whose national security is at stake to take action, with or without UN approval. The action was justified by 1441’s language stating that serious consequences would result from not cooperating. Your argument is that the war is “illegal.” It was NOT illegal, because of the threats in 1441 (among its preceding resolutions), even if the United States was the only one with the spine to back the threats up."

You talk all around the issue of legality; you shout (denoted by the use of capital letters); you say the US was justified in invading Iraq even if international law prohibited it; and you again point to the phrase, "serious consequences" in UNSC 1441. I already addressed the latter issue in my last email by noting that the UNSC does not use vague phrases such as "serious consequences" when it intends to authorize military force. It uses language such as the sentence in UNSC 678 (November 29, 1990), i.e., "The Security Council... authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use *all necessary means* to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." (emphasis added) Reminding Iraq about the possibility of "serious consequences" is not the same as authorizing "all necessary means." Serious consequences included the idea that the Security Council might convene an emergency session, at which time it might decide to authorize a number of different actions, up to and including the use of force by the UN against Iraq.

If you are willing to admit that by invading Iraq in March 2003, President Bush technically violated the specific wording of the provisions in the UN Charter that cover the allowable use of military force, I would be willing to answer all your other questions and continue this discussion. If not, you will prove that you are not willing to reconsider any of your positions in the light of documented evidence and reasoned discussion, and I would have to ask you to refrain from communicating with me in the future.

Sincerely,
Geoffrey Young



On February 20, I write back:




Geoff -

This sounds like an entirely different person writing. The format, heading and style are different. Not sharing the load, I hope?

before I would be willing to invest any time into responding to them, we need to clear up one issue.
...
If you are willing to admit that by invading Iraq in March 2003, President Bush technically violated the specific wording of the provisions in the UN Charter that cover the allowable use of military force, I would be willing to answer all your other questions and continue this discussion.

I'm sorry; I don't know how many rational and meaningful debates you've engaged in, but let me help you out a little with how this works. You do not systematically ignore key questions, disregard objections and dismiss serious challenges that I have given, and arbitrarily decide there is one crucial question you have, and demand that I answer it before we continue.

If this means you take your toy and go home, so be it; but it will be your choice if you walk away.

I must remind you as I have before, we are equals in this debate. You are not the officiator; I'll thank you to remember that.

I have already addressed the United Nations in past e-mails; I can discuss it further, but you would have to:

A) Show me why I am to care about an impotent world organization that which:
- Places Libya on the Human Rights Commission
- Places Iraq on the nuclear watchdog agency
- Was bribed into not responding to Iraq as was necessitated by continual violation of cease-fire and inspection agreements stemming from the Gulf War
- Is the epitome of inefficiency, corruption and scandal, and
- Continually ignored its own resolutions against Iraq.

B) Give reasonable and logical response to the other objections I already refute, or concede my points.

you shout (denoted by the use of capital letters);

Please note: All-caps language is not designed to be interpreted as "shouting" but as emphasis, such as the use of italics. I would use italics, but to the best of my knowledge they do not translate between different ISPs.

-Dave





On February 21st, Geoff writes back:



Dave,

You have violated your own guideline about being willing to reconsider our own positions in the light of evidence. Please do not communicate with me in the future.

Geoff



On February 21st, I wrote back:




Geoff -

You violated the agreement from the very beginning. You clearly do not have the capacity to engage in meaningful debate, when you blatantly ignore numerous challenges, but hold a double-standard by insisting that I answer just one of yours or else you quit.

It was your decision to walk away. I expected no less, but I regret your choice.

However, because you did not honor our agreement to withhold names (that includes e-mail address), I am no longer bound to the agreement to withhold your name. I anticipate the debate we had to be shared by hundreds of my fellow conservatives when I post it, and it will be with your real first name and e-mail address. It was foolish enough to broadcast your number over the air on Sue's show; still more foolish were you to break our bargain thereby releasing me from my end.

Your phone number will remain confidential for your sake, because I do not doubt some more hostile conservatives/libertarians angered by your anti-patriotism and leftist politics might endeavor to contact you.

Coldly,
-Dave







Why?
Some of you may ask why I would even bothered to debate this guy. I have been asked the same about various different debates I’ve engaged in, even among my own family. The answer is, debating is a passion of mine. I love debating. I’ve been debating the Iraq invasion since it began, among countless other issues. (Those past debates have produced both the Gallery of Insults and the Gallery of Encouragement on my profile.)

I love searching news and finding facts and confirming my beliefs (and simultaneously encouraging and confirming the beliefs of others, to whom anti-conservative media spin might be setting in) and challenging others on theirs. Debate strengthens or corrects a point of view, so you can’t go wrong either way. If you are right, you should not be afraid of debate and challenge. If you are wrong yet honest, you will want to find the truth.

Debating doesn’t always change someone’s mind. In fact, it rarely does. But there have been people who have looked at what I’ve had to say, and been forced by logic to alter the way they think about things. Example, years ago I privately debated a fellow on a Lord of the Rings discussion forum and his response is now in my Gallery of Encouragement – he wrote that it was the best defense of the war he’d ever seen, and he’d have to re-think some of these things.

I had hoped Geoff might be one to reexamine his opinions, although I wasn’t optimistic. He wasn’t willing. That’s where the second purpose for debate comes in. When two political titans debate on television (on Hannity & Colmes, for example) no one expects to change the other’s opinion. They hope to show the weaknesses or illogical basis for why someone believes they way they do. I’m no political titan, but that’s why this debate (while not changing Geoff’s mind) is helpful, because it shows YOU who the war protestors are. Closed-minded and feelings-oriented. In a word, irrational.

In neither theory nor practice can you reason with the likes of illogical neophytes who refuse to engage in polite discussion on the issue. Rather, they will duck your questions while insisting you answer theirs. Anti-war activists such as Geoff are demonstrably unreasonable, laughable, absurd, moronic, illogical and pathetic.

Perhaps you think those terms apply to me too. Maybe you’re shouting to your computer screen that we already KNEW these guys were brainless. Perhaps you think I’ve wasted all this time on a moron.

I don’t think so. I think it is good to be able to that someone somewhere at least once tried to reason with a peace activist, and found a steel trap like a mind.

I know I learned a few more things. I know I have one more notch in my belt. I know that whenever this fool pops his head up again trying to make a name for himself on local radio, I will be able to call up and shoot holes in all his defenses on the air, demonstrating what an abysmal advocate for his cause he truly is.

I hope that you enjoyed finding out just exactly how poorly-defended the anti-war cause is. I know I enjoyed showing you. If you find weak points in my arguments, please make suggestions.

For Free Republic, this is DaveLoneRanger. Signing off.


TOPICS: US: Kentucky; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: daveloneranger; debate; libertarians; moron; peaceactivist; peacenik
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

1 posted on 02/21/2006 6:53:45 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Bump


2 posted on 02/21/2006 6:59:14 PM PST by Enterprise (The MSM - Propaganda wing and news censorship division of the Democrat Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

I haven't read the whole debate. I pretty much know how it goes. I would like to write though, that when someone takes the time to reason with me, in a rational and factual way and thereby correct any error I may be holding on to, I thank him for his time and effort.


3 posted on 02/21/2006 7:05:01 PM PST by Search4Truth (Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God - Thomas Jefferson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Good for you. If even one person out there is changed, that's what matters. At some point the public debate on boards (and I've had my frustrated share) become more about "that one" in the invisible audience that the myopic person you're debating.

I was once that one, my eyes were opened to the truth, and I changed.

4 posted on 02/21/2006 7:09:31 PM PST by Sisku Hanne (Happy 2006...The Year of the Black Conservative!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Interesting indeed!


5 posted on 02/21/2006 7:10:48 PM PST by MEG33 (GOD BLESS OUR ARMED FORCES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Thanks Dave! Your post was well worth the time to read it! You have singlehandedly summed up the reasons why we support this Administration. You have also shed a brighter light on the factual immaturity of the left!

Well done Sir!


6 posted on 02/21/2006 7:24:08 PM PST by alice_in_bubbaland (New Jersey gets the corrupt government it deserves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

WOW -- that reads like a courtroom arguement! You definitely showed that guy up and made him look like a fool with his own words. He practically choked on his own vomitous rhetoric! You hit it out of the park with that guy and I salute you for your wit and your ability to disarm the man so effectively. I want to copy this and put it on a document for my own point of reference -- I hope you don't mind. Great job!


7 posted on 02/21/2006 7:30:01 PM PST by whtabtbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

You won't convince a liberal if you use logic!


8 posted on 02/21/2006 7:30:28 PM PST by Andy from Beaverton (I only vote Republican to stop the Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Excellent!!!! This one is going in my favorites...under good stuff


9 posted on 02/21/2006 7:32:40 PM PST by Kimmers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
bump


10 posted on 02/21/2006 7:37:49 PM PST by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Bump for later reading


11 posted on 02/21/2006 7:48:47 PM PST by Nowhere Man ("Imhotep! Imhotep! IMMMM-HOOOO-TEPP!!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Simply outstanding!

I too have attempted debates with the left, but rarely do they ever last this long before they devolve into vile name calling. It's a shame because the only way to sharpen your skills is through combat.

Any chance of a rematch?


12 posted on 02/21/2006 7:49:43 PM PST by rockrr (Never argue with a man who buys ammo in bulk...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trooprally

bump for further reading


13 posted on 02/21/2006 7:53:00 PM PST by trooprally (Never Give Up - Never Give In - Remember Our Troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: albertp; Allosaurs_r_us; Abram; AlexandriaDuke; Americanwolf; Annie03; Baby Bear; bassmaner; ...
this is a very good read no matter what side you fall on pro or con about getting into iraq Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
14 posted on 02/21/2006 8:03:59 PM PST by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

bttt


15 posted on 02/21/2006 8:04:56 PM PST by proud_yank (Liberalism - The 'Culture of Ignorance'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

great job


16 posted on 02/21/2006 8:05:10 PM PST by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

I use the following handout for my own public debates with anti-war activists:

Top ten myths promoted by the anti-war movement:

1. Opposition to the war is good for the people of Iraq.

Saddam Hussein is responsible for the deaths of more than 1.5 million people while serving as dictator of that country. This means an average of 1500 people a day died under his rule where he came to power amidst the Baathist through a system of strategic murders. Hussein's brutal practices were directed at maintaining the 20 percent minority Sunnis in power while oppressing through all means the remaining ethnic groups of Iraq.

2. Opposition to the war is good for America.

This jingoistic appeal supposes that American lives are inherently worth more than the lives of people in other countries. Nonetheless, this war has the lowest mortality rate for American soldiers in history. The rate is less than half the rate of death from the first Gulf War. The failure to fight terrorists in Iraq will signify a major win to the terrorists around the world and will encourage bolder attacks against Americans both inside the United States and throughout the world.

3. The war in Iraq has no relationship to the war on terror or September 11.

FACT: The government of Iraq was directly involved in the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Federal convictions of those involved in the attack absolutely prove the connection. Terrorist agents sponsored by the Iraqi government did assist in the preparation of attacks on September 11. The individuals involved were Shakir and Yasin.

FACT: In 1998, Saddam Hussein publicly offered to provide refuge to Osama Bin Laden after the United States attacked Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Bin Laden did not accept the offer of assistance, but the offer proves two important points: 1) there has long been an operational connection between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and 2) Bin Laden has never limited himself or his terrorists followers to a single national location-- he will work anywhere he feels safe to operate. Al Qaeda has operated and travelled extensively in Iraq prior to September 11.

FACT: Musab al Zarqawi is a terrorists presently allied with Al Qaeda. Zarqawi had been in Iraq prior to September 11. The withdrawal of US troops will be seen as a victor by this surrogate of Al Qaeda.

4. The war in Iraq has killed more than 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians.

The source of this myth is a study conducted by the Lancet. This very preliminary study based on a small number of doctors reporting from Iraq suggests that 100,000 civilians have been killed in the Iraq war. The study is widely acknowledged to be deeply flawed. Initially, the study has a 95 percent "confidence interval" This means that the study supposes that somewhere between 8,000 and 200,000 have been killed. But any number within that continuum is equally likely. The study has such a small sample that it is impossible to know. A more recent and comprehensive study by the British press has suggested that roughly 35,000 civilians have died since 2003. The study is not able to determine how many of these individuals were killed by coalition forces or by terrorists fighting coalition forces. The Lancet study also utilized data from doctors still under threat from Baathist and terrorist forces in Iraq who were told to exaggerate casualty reports in order to influence international opinion against coalition forces.

5. Cindy Sheehan is an articulate advocate for objecting to the Iraq war.

In reality, Cindy Sheehan embodies the exact reason the war in Iraq is just and good. Cindy Sheehan is a mother who lost her son in combat. Her loss is an understandable yet incomprehensible example of human pain. Believing that her pain justifies a military withdrawal is the height of selfish emotional jingoism. Sheehan's pain must be multiplied by 500,000 to understand why she is mistaken. 500,000 is the number of mothers in Iraq who lost their sons to Saddam Hussein's war against Iran. In that war, the sons did not voluntarily enlist, Fedayeen murderers came to family homes and took sons by force. Iraqi soldiers did not have an opportunity to re-enlist after completing a tour like Casey Sheehan. Dozens of wars are fought every year around the world. All of these wars involve far more brutal casualty rates, means of death, and conscription procedures than anything any American mother has experienced. To exploit Cindy Sheehan's pain in this perverted way is ultimately a racist project since it seeks to ignore the pain of mothers in other cultures.

6. The Iraq war is predicated on a lie.

The absence of large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (understand that according to the Duelfer report 35 such weapons were found) does not constitute the totality of argument for attacking Iraq. The weapons of mass destruction claims involved the continuation of the program and the hiding of relevant materials and information-- all of which have proven to be true violations of the UN orders against Saddam Hussein. Moreover, human rights violations were a substantial part of the justifications for the war-- comprising more than 30% of the Congressional resolution authorizing the war. The potential for the Baathist regime to serve as a safe haven and a cooperative agent with terrorists was also an important rationale for the war. The truth of "no weapons" was a truth that emerged only when a war was fought to remove the agent of deception. All major intelligence services had conceded Iraq had weapons of mass destruction prior to the war.

7. This is a "blood for oil" war.

The anti-war movement is powerfully fueled by oil interests. Saddam Hussein has been recently documented by the Volcker report as engaging in more than $100 billion in fraudulent oil transactions. By exploiting the degradation, death, and poverty of the Iraqi people, Saddam was able to maintain lucrative oil contracts to buy off members of the United Nations Security Council. France and Russia were directly bribed by Saddam Hussein to block military action in Iraq. Contrary to the nonsensical claims of the anti-war movement, Saddam Hussein would have been happy to sell oil to American oil companies so long as the US government would ignore the weapons program and brutal human practices occurring under his government. Saddam Hussein operated a "blood for oil" regime.

8. Peace is better than war.

This unfortunate binary is designed to force audiences into a choice between an obvious choice between war and peace. War is a military conflict between sovereign states. This means that when sovereign states are not fighting-- there is peace. This political sleight of hand renders domestic civilians victimized by their host governments as helpless victims of "peace." What was happening in Iraq prior to the war was not peace. To describe it as such is profoundly deceptive.

9. The anti-war movement helps American soldiers and improves their safety.

Because America holds such a huge advantage militarily over all global rivals, combatants opposed to US forces cannot win contests in the military sense. Anti-American militants must win in the court of public opinion. This has been true since Vietnam. The current Vietnamese government readily admits that the anti-war movement in America was an important and fundamental part of North Vietnamese success. This continues to be the case in Iraq. The anti-war movement is the foundation of any potential win for anti-American militants.

10. Anti-war is not anti-troops.

Vietnam thinking undoubtedly influences anti-war thinking today when anti war advocates imagine that they are not hurting the American troops. It is critical to remember that American troops are composed of volunteers-- not individuals drafted against their will as was the case in Vietnam. Anti-war activists are immediately attacking the choices made by young men and women to join the US military-- even if they suppose that circumstances forced them to do this. The anti-war movement does not respect individual decisions to fight for this country in a war. This directly impugns their character and is anti-soldier.



17 posted on 02/21/2006 8:05:24 PM PST by lonestar67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

bookmark


18 posted on 02/21/2006 8:05:42 PM PST by lakey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
I just finished reading the whole darn thing to see you write

Anti-war activists such as Geoff are demonstrably unreasonable, laughable, absurd, moronic, illogical and pathetic.

That is the conclusion I drew from the exchange. What a friggin let down that I couldn't be the first one to say that.

Humor aside, nice, organized, logical retorts and presentations on your side. You really need to blog this or write a book.

FReepgards,

K4

19 posted on 02/21/2006 8:06:20 PM PST by IllumiNaughtyByNature (My pug is on her war footing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agrace; bboop; cgk; Conservativehomeschoolmama; cyborg; cyclotic; dawn53; Diva Betsy Ross; ...

Ping!


20 posted on 02/21/2006 8:12:02 PM PST by Tired of Taxes (That's taxes, not Texas. I have no beef with TX. NJ has the highest property taxes in the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert56; BenLurkin; MNJohnnie; MojoWire; Unam Sanctam; Excuse_My_Bellicosity; Berlin_Freeper; ...

Ping relating to anti-war activist I debated. (OWNED!)


21 posted on 02/21/2006 8:31:59 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger (*Burp* I just got done chewing up a liberal. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583155/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

It's interesting to me that the root cause for Geoff's hatred of Bush was the election in 2000.

Here's some info Geoff may not know - one year after the election, the Miami Herald and a bunch of other media organizations exercised their rights, and conducted another re-count of the Florida ballots.

THE ONLY WAY GORE WON WAS IF THEY CHEATED WITH THE BALLOTS.

I believe they re-counted the ballots 3 more times. BUSH WON ALL 3 RE-COUNTS.

Of course, the Miami Herald and the others hid the outcome of their investigation on their back pages. It was nice of them to keep the rage going by not telling the public the truth.

The info gathered from that investigation should be available somewhere. It's another TRUTH the left will have difficulty with .. but I believe these truths are beginning to seep into the anti-Bush anti-war closets.

Your debate was very interesting - you have a wealth of knowledge. Very impressive!


22 posted on 02/21/2006 8:32:52 PM PST by CyberAnt (Democrats/Old Media: "controversy, crap and confusion" -- Amen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Holy crap, Dave!
Very good!
Nothing else needs said.


23 posted on 02/21/2006 8:45:29 PM PST by MountainDad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Thanks for the ping and will read later.


24 posted on 02/21/2006 8:57:00 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
BRAVO!

*stands up, clapping*

25 posted on 02/21/2006 9:11:12 PM PST by IYellAtMyTV (Workday Forecast--Increasing pressure towards afternoon. Rum likely by evening.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Bookmarked for later read. Thanks!

Cheers!

26 posted on 02/21/2006 9:16:45 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

"Initially, the study has a 95 percent "confidence interval" This means that the study supposes that somewhere between 8,000 and 200,000 have been killed. "

That's not correct.


27 posted on 02/21/2006 9:23:25 PM PST by Kirkwood ("When the s*** hits the fan, there is enough for everyone.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

"It is critical to remember that American troops are composed of volunteers-- not individuals drafted against their will as was the case in Vietnam."

I think you should take another look at that.


28 posted on 02/21/2006 9:51:45 PM PST by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Great job!


29 posted on 02/21/2006 9:56:39 PM PST by TNdandelion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Man, that was a read!

Good Job.


30 posted on 02/21/2006 10:52:28 PM PST by AZ_Cowboy ("There they go again...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Bump.


31 posted on 02/21/2006 10:55:53 PM PST by JavaTheHutt ( Gun Control - The difference between Lexington Green and Tiennimen Square.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
A very nice effort, Dave. You deserve kudos for trying to resonably debate with this activist. Frankly, I would have lost my patience very early in the debate.

Bravo Zulu!

32 posted on 02/22/2006 3:34:47 AM PST by Jonah Hex ("How'd you get that scar, mister?" "Nicked myself shaving.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Self-ping for later read.


33 posted on 02/22/2006 4:55:59 AM PST by Ladysmith ((NRA, SAS))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

I'll review this later, but I did read the beginning and end of your post.

I think you would have been much better served by using a pseudonym for Geoff and taken the position that in spite of him breaking the agreement, you would not break your side of it. You would have come out with much more moral authority, IMO. 'Pod.


34 posted on 02/22/2006 5:18:01 AM PST by sauropod ("All you get is controversy, crap and confusion." Alan Simpson defining the WH Pimp Corps.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Excellent stuff. I've only read half so far but I'll finish the rest today.

I've got a question for you Dave: Do you think you would have been able to debate this guy without honing your skills on Free Republic?


35 posted on 02/22/2006 6:14:40 AM PST by BJClinton (Let slip the Viking Kittens!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #36 Removed by Moderator

To: DaveLoneRanger

Dave, I feel bad for you: you wasted an awful lot of time, effort and bandwith with this nonsense. I say nonsense not because I disagree with you; far from it, but because all you had to do in order to figure out who and whast you were dealing with was to read George Orwell.

Orwell summed up the leftist/pacifist a very long time ago (circa 1939/40) very nicely when he said (paraphrasing);

Pacifism is always doomed to fail. That is because on the one hand, it disavows the use of force which is necessary for a state to enact a policy or to ensure that the policy is followed through on. On the other hand, it is, at root, a philosophy based upon laziness and non-commitment (i.e. let someone else do the dirty work of war).

The 'gap' between lack of action and pie-in-the-sky idealism is covered only by a series of mental leaps and psychological tricks, designed to cover both the guilt (for jot having the courage to fight either for his beliefs or his country)and the stupidity of the peacenik. It becomes, rather than alegitimate political or social movement, the expression of an individual's lack of will and flabby emotionalism.

In the end,pacifism dies because it is not willing to even make the most basic effort to ensure it survives. Doing so would, in effect, reveal pacifism as nothing of the sort.

The second issue brought up by Orwell is that of the political left and it's motivations. Like the pacifist, it too, believes that it is fighting for peace. Only the motivation is different: the pacifist 'fights' because he doesn't want to fight, while the leftist indulges in his fantasie because, at the end of the day, he never truly wants, not expects to be, in a position of power. You can afford to be irresponsible when you won't be called to account for it.

For the most part, both camps fall into a category which Orwell called (for lack of a better term) the "intelligencia", and both have one, common distinction; they are people, for whom, society in general has no use. Their activities and rhetoric make it perfectly clear what their motivations are: they are attempting to remake the world according to their ideals, and in such a way as that they themselves actually have a say in it, or are relevant to it.

One only needs to look at the roster of 'leadership' on the left and in the pacifist movment to see what I'm (and Gerorge) are talking about; these are people who would otherwise be insignificant or are people who exist by means which add very little to civilization as a whole.

For example, Cindy Sheehan would just be one more aggrieved mother, on her own, no one important or relevant in the way that, say, Jonas Salk or Albert Einstein would be. George Clooney/Janeane Garofalo/Alwec Baldwin are actors (sort of); they make their living PRETENDING to be other people. They add nothing concrete to society by their 'labors'. The democratic (small 'd' intentional) party is led by preening, meely-mouthed survivors of the Summer of Love, scheming communists in sheep's clothing, and a host of "Civil Rights Activists" who largely exist on the memories, rhetoric and rhetorical style of the past. In each case, it's someone leaching a living off the body politic without achieving anything tangible.

Such people can certainly be annoying, and I can understand why you took such pains to straighten this dolt out. I will, however, give you a piece of advice which may help you to avoid such ultimately futile efforts in the future; you cannot argue with mental illness or mental sloth. Learn to recognize both and steer clear of them.

* for more information on Orwell's thoughts concerning pacifism and leftist polictics, please Read "The Lion and The Unicorn" (contained in the "Complete Essays of George Orwell", Penguin Library) It's my opinion that he was the greatest political commentator of the 20th century,and I feel a duty to spread his 'gospel', as it explains much of what we see in the modern world.


37 posted on 02/22/2006 7:23:58 AM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Nice work Dave.
Just a couple questions for the DUmmie:
1. Where in the Constitution does it say that "International Law" supersedes the Constitution itself and America's national interest?
2. Who are the "international jurists and lawyers" he refers to and who elected them? (I don't like them whoever they are and do not feel inclined to abide by their opinions.)
WMM


38 posted on 02/22/2006 8:35:00 AM PST by westmichman (Please pray with me for global warming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: westmichman

Ah, and there's an example of what I'm talking about; the appeals to "international law" that pacifists and leftists use to justify their positions is merely an attempt to; a) avoid taking direct resposibility for what they advocate and b) shifting the onus for responsibility to a nameless, faceless entity (i.e THE government, THE international organizations, etc), which cannot, by it's nature, be held accountable.

At all times the plan of 'attack' is to advocate that which you cannot personally enact or enforce, and to distance yourself from any measure of personal responsibility. Once again, laziness and avoidance of responsibility!


39 posted on 02/22/2006 8:46:01 AM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
A splendid, magnificent, well-reasoned, succinct, and articulate waste of time!

I salute you, you were fantastic...:-)...JFK

40 posted on 02/22/2006 9:11:58 AM PST by BADROTOFINGER (Life sucks. Get a helmet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BADROTOFINGER

Deserves a bump...JFK


41 posted on 02/22/2006 9:19:35 AM PST by BADROTOFINGER (Life sucks. Get a helmet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Bump


42 posted on 02/22/2006 12:16:27 PM PST by GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos (LIBS = Lewd Insane Babbling Scum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos

And another...JFK


43 posted on 02/22/2006 12:31:19 PM PST by BADROTOFINGER (Life sucks. Get a helmet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
I think it is good to be able to that someone somewhere at least once tried to reason with a peace activist, and found a steel trap like a mind

I find their minds to me more like concrete: throughly mixed and permanently set....

44 posted on 02/23/2006 2:51:29 AM PST by dirtbiker (I've tried to see the liberal point of view, but I couldn't get my head that far up my a$$....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

PWNED maybe... but this is series... i may have to rethink my standings on the war... geoff may be right... there may not be any difference in saddam and gwb... i have to research all the mass graves somewhere in massatwoshitts...

i can't believe he stuck around for that long dave, and you skirted the parameters yourself about going into it with an open mind... and back door name calling...

but a good post and enjoyable reading.

teeman


45 posted on 02/23/2006 5:10:15 AM PST by teeman8r
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Dave,

I have to thank you for engaging this ding-dong, his response to your copious email (#2 I believe) just about had me asphyxiate with laughter!!

Deciding whether to reply to your message was difficult. Several things you wrote indicate you are not able to think rationally about this issue. If that is true, then debating with you is a waste of time. I finally decided to give you one more chance to start making sense, but I am not sure my decision was correct.

...for the peacenik to say that after all you offered just boggles the mind!!

God Bless DaveLoneRanger!
46 posted on 02/23/2006 5:35:17 AM PST by Barney59 ("Time wounds all heels.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

That transcript was truly hilarious. Thanks for making my day. This species of liberidiot has a desperate psychological need to be told he is right about something – ANYTHING! So how if you say, “Of course President Bush violated the scrap of paper that is the U.N. charter, for clear and present reasons. If he hadn’t, he would of had to violate his oath of office to protect the American people. Any President who would rather obey the U.N. charter than defend America should be hanged for TREASON. Now answer my other arguments or belt up, bud.” So he sits down and gives you page after page of liberidiot drivel, which you then smash to pieces without breaking a sweat. You make a tactical retreat to set up the field for a blitzkrieg. Strategy, Dave, strategy!


47 posted on 02/23/2006 7:15:57 AM PST by Partisano
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Dave,

Thanks for the ping! Great, great read... You can almost put a voice to Geoff as you read his responses in a "but, but, but..." manner. Great way to start the day, Dave!

Thanks again,

One small suggestion for next time: wav.file

hehehe!! just kidding! Enjoy the day!


48 posted on 02/23/2006 7:27:25 AM PST by Hand em their arse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Excellent job!

You made logical arguments with back-up, links and verified quotes. While he had no quotes, links or any other back-up whatsoever, except his irrelevant UN crap. It seemed like (way)GeOFF(base) only comprehended or even read 5% of your replies. But, like you pointed out, maybe he realized he didn't have a leg to stand on in debating those points. The points he brought up were absurd and his insistence on the UN being the end-all-be-all of oversight of international relations, was very telling. It showed he [a] didn't get your message of UN corruption and uselessness, [b] chose to ignore it, [c] read over it in a foggy stoned out state and completely missed it OR [d] is a mind-dead robot shill pushing for every anti-American cause that comes his way.

Please stay humble when I say: "You kicked his A$$!!!"


49 posted on 02/24/2006 11:33:23 PM PST by GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos (LIBS = Lewd Insane Babbling Scum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson