Rebutal to a Liberal (Vanity)

freind | Self

[clamper1797]

A Liberal posted the following to a conservative friend of mine. I was going to write a rebuttal but thought perhaps some of my fellow freeps might have some input as well.

So here is what was written ... I don't know the original source

Remember the "axis of evil"? It's getting harder and harder to forget George Will said the other day that the three countries in the president's axis of evil are "more dangerous than they were when that phrase was coined in 2002." Today's news sure seems to back him up.

Iran warned today that it will cause the United States "harm and pain" if the U.S. succeeds in winning sanctions against the country for its nuclear program. Not that the United States could do anything anyway. With troops bogged down elsewhere, saber-rattling from the likes of Dick Cheney lacks anything approaching credibility, and opposition from Russia makes meaningful U.N. Security Council sanctions unlikely.

North Korea offered a different sort of warning today, firing two short-range missiles in what appeared to be a test of its own nuclear program. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the tests confirm that North Korea's missile program is "a concern that poses a threat to the region and the larger international community." The administration's best-it-can-do response: Urge North Korea to return to long-stalled six-country talks aimed at stopping the country's nuclear program.

And then there's Iraq. In 2002, it was a repressive dictatorship, hemmed in by U.N. inspections and no-fly zones and run by a man who only wished he had the kind of weapons the Bush administration said he had. Today, it's a mess of a country -- a "Pandora's box," the U.S. ambassador said the other day -- where homegrown insurgents, warring faiths and al-Qaida operatives compete to see who can cause the most damage.

In a commentary up now at Nieman Watchdog, William Odom, director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, says Iraq may end up looking a lot like Vietnam -- only worse. "Vietnam did not have the devastating effects on U.S. power that Iraq is already having," Odom writes.

With what seem like crises coming from all three of the "axis" countries, you might think that the president and Congress would be focusing hard on solutions. But George W. Bush -- fresh off his taxpayer-financed trip home to vote in the Republican primary -- was on the Gulf Coast today, trying to put a happier face on reconstruction efforts there. And Congress -- when it's not busy scuttling an investigation into warrantless spying -- remains at full boil over the still-hypothetical harms of the Dubai Ports World deal. We feel safer already.

[clamper1797]

It's Rebuttal to a liberal ... I hate this keyboard

[Mount Athos]

Would they have been less dangerous if Kerry was elected?

[Billthedrill]

Just a couple of pretty simple points -

1. Iraq was being "hemmed in" by the same United States and allies who threw it out of Kuwait in '91. International sanctions had done nothing at that point and the cry was that 500,000 Iraqis had died from them.

2. North Korea is being "hemmed in" by a coalition now and measures against it have been short of war.

3. Iran is no more dangerous than it ever was, it is simply louder about it now.

The principal point is that the left is criticizing Bush for applying war where they didn't want it and not applying war where they also didn't want it. You can't possibly satisfy someone under those conditions.

I hear this sort of thing now and then and generally ask the speaker if he or she is actually in favor of war in North Korea and Iran. The answer is always no, but the speaker criticizes Bush for not doing it anyway. You can't even discuss the situation rationally with irrational people.

[L98Fiero]

"You can't even discuss the situation rationally with irrational people."

You drilled it, Bill.

[The Fop]

Bush was criticized for labeling these 3 countries as an "axis of evil".

So now all of the people who didn't like this particular phrase want to know why Bush hasn't completely eliminated the threat that these countries pose?

Gee, that makes sense.

[wizardoz]

I hear this sort of thing now and then and generally ask the speaker if he or she is actually in favor of war in North Korea and Iran. The answer is always no, but the speaker criticizes Bush for not doing it anyway

I've noticed that too! Pointless creatures, existing only to snark.

[dhs12345]

"With troops bogged down elsewhere"

- Just so happens that they are right next door to Iran. Would there be a full scale invasion? Probably not. Even if we weren't "bogged down" in Iraq. But is is very handy to be just over the boarder. Will make air strikes on their nuke facilities easier. If Israel don't do it for us.

"North Korea offered a different sort of warning today, firing two short-range missiles in what appeared to be a test of its own nuclear program."

- So, what else is new? And are you suggesting that we invade North Korea? Liberals use that argument a lot -- there are lots of other nations that were just as bad as Iraq.... Actually, we did what liberals wanted with NK situation and worked with China and others. And it is going pretty well. Should we be concerned? Yes. But, this is nothing new.

[pollyannaish]

First, what do you think?

[clamper1797]

I had already written a response ... and accidently lost it ... stupid side buttons on my new mouse. I plan to re-write it but wanted some other thoughts from my friends on FR ... i want to make sure I am accurate. I know this liberal ... and he's an 'all right" clamper BUT his politic are .. well I called him a barking moonbat yesterday in another response. I tried to find the quote the 'ambassabor' he mentioned made but I couldn't find it. He had said in a previous email that he though GW started the war for profit ... I replied that he needed prove and went on to say that Haliburton was NOT making that much money in Iraq. BUT I want to be accurate ... and since FR has a wealth of very knowledgable people ... I wanted to tap that knowledge base .. if only to blow this guy out of the water.

I hope that answers your question ...

[pollyannaish]

LOL. FWIW, barking moonbat may be a little off-putting.

I guess I have started taking the Dennis Prager approach, which is to value clarity over agreement.

Try to stick to the facts (it looks like you are getting some good responses), state what you know clearly and precisely...and then agree to disagree.

There are quite a few liberals in my life, and I learn from them—but not what they think. I've discovered that winning isn't everything in an argument. If you can simply gain his respect by being articulate, sure and accurate, that is enough. And then, slowly, after they have learned to actually listen to you...they miraculously start to agree here and there. Occasionally, they convert.

Honestly, it's quite amazing really. But the truth is, your arguments will never win him over. You lay out the information, stick to your guns. The rest he has to discover on his own.

[Dilbert56]

I forgot George Will is a god. If he says they're more dangerous then, by golly, they must be. Simple rebuttal: If Saddam hadn't been taken out there would be three threats instead of two.

• Iraq is not a threat to us any longer. The regime and its WMD plans are gone. If the President had relied on the U.N. to solve the Iraq problem Saddam would still be more dangerous than ever. He had eroded and circumvented the sanctions.
• Iran would be even more dangerous. It would not have coalition troops just across the border. In fact there would be no way to threaten them with invasion.
• Libya would still be developing nukes. He capitulated because he saw what happened to Saddam. Take that, George Will.
• The U.N. would still be effete but the U.S. would be seen as even wimpier than the U.N. We would still be the "paper tiger" that enticed Bin Laden into attacking us

A bit of trivia to regurgitate if someon says the President said the Axis of Evil was those three countries: What he actually said was: States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.

Did you catch that Syria?