Quick and Dirty Leftist's Guide to Arguing against the War on Terrorism

Right Wing News ^ | September 28, 2002 | John Hawkins

[terilyn]

I love it! Thanks for the ping :)

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Great points, 'Cut.

I'm trying to understand the far right on this -so far right they hate our POTUS - and maybe that's what drives them. It strikes me as odd that they can't put their hatred for President Bush on the back burner long enough to understand that it's their own protection and well being he is fighting for.

I thank God there are people in charge who recognize the threat (Condi Rice: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud") and are willing to step up and deal with it. The left and the far right are shaking hands on this one. It's reckless and crazy thinking. I never thought I'd see the day when Freepers would hate a Republican president so much they'd be echoing Al Gore all over this forum, but here we are.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

I think so - LOL! He's got the average extreme-right, anti-war, leave-Saddam-alone-he-didn't-attack-us Freeper down cold.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"My favorite dodge has got to be the overworn "It'll be another Viet Nam!" bit."

I tell you Brother I am so sick of hearing this BS line.
Fact is the military won that war.
The politicians just quit that war.
55% (the silent majority) were in favor of that war yet DC just walked away.
Over 58,00 Americans (from Eishenhower to Nixon) died in vain.
Because not one of the 4 different administrations ever did anything to win that war.
That is NOT the case with this administration.

[deport]

Thanks for the ping...... Looks like this guy understands and has it nailed.....

[rdb3]

Thanx for the ping. Time proves us right time and time again, doesn't it? ;-)

[watchin]

I believe it goes something like this ...

1. Iraq probably doesn't have WMD's, so we shouldn't attack, because it would be unecessary.

2. If Iraq DOES have WMD, we shouldn't attack because it would be too dangerous.

3. Therefore, while "we all detest Saddam", we should only attack Iraq if neither of the above is true.

[Long Cut]

My belief is that they are of three camps:

1. Extreme Libertarians/Constitutionalists who want a declaration of war, and oppose on principle any pre-emptive attacks. On the declaration-of-war issue, they have some merit.

2. Pat Buchanan marks. They STILL seethe about his pathetic showings in elections, and blame Republicans. George Bush is their worst enemy, because they feel that he and his wing of the party "stole" it from Pat. They can be recognized by their almost-constant return to the issue of immigration reform and Israel.

3. Dedicated disruptors. Some are from DU, and simply CLAIM to be conservative, and some are without doubt posting from offices in Teheran, Beijing, and Baghdad. These can be recognized by their suggestions that we'd be better off voting for Democrats than "RINOs" like President Bush, and wild calls to boycott or attack Israel.

Just a few of my own observations. The sad part is, the first two provide information and intellectual ammunition to the third (suggestion of which, of course, triggers the "offended" response").

[Long Cut]

Amen to that, Bro. Some of those imbeciles out there STILL claim that the Viet Nam war was "unwinnable", as insulting and disgusting as that claim is. What a joke.

[Long Cut]

BUMP. You'll like this one, Man. Check my post #28 for some more fun. ENJOY!!!

[Long Cut]

Bump. Check it out...good thread.

[Long Cut]

I love the one for "Chickenhawks":

"Well, if you believe that, why don't you go to Iraq and drape yourself over his bunker as a human shield?"

Classic response to one of the silliest arguments I've ever seen on FR - the implication that anyone who is pro-war is a "chickenhawk". I've seen this word tossed at military veterans, for the love of God.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Bump for evening readers...

[Long Cut]

BTTT. Trying to keep this one from dying, it's good.

[m1911]

Keep Moving That Goalpost : If the pro-war crowd starts beating you up too much because you won't support war under any circumstances, say that you are willing to use force.. A) As soon as Al-Queda is destroyed, B) the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is over C) Afghanistan is a strong and stable Democracy D) Against Iran E) Against Pakistan F) Against Iran G) If inspections fail (again) H) Once the whole world agrees with us...etc. It really doesn't matter what you come up with here because the purpose is to delay things endlessly. Even if your condition were met, you would simply change the conditions you'd need to meet your goal.

[Long Cut]

Good idea, Daughter! I see you linked to it on another thread, as well. Thanks!

[Long Cut]

ANOTHER one that fires off the old deja vu, eh, 19? I swear, the whole article reminded me of specific people here.

[m1911]

There may be a few of those here, but I get it mostly from the media. I find that particular one most annoying, with "We'll destabilize the Middle East" balancing it out by making me laugh. Another Freeper (don't have the link) said "destabilizing the Middle East is like watering the Pacific".

[Radix]

I read four lines of your thread and suddenly I am an acolyte.


Thank you.


LoL

[Jen]

This is good. Here's a bump for ya.