The Fog of Peace

The Weekly Standard ^ | 09/30/2002 | David Brooks

[rdb3]

Have you seen that there's even one nut running around the board claiming that we shouldn't attempt to take away Saddam's weapons because - get THIS - "he's got a right to keep and bear arms, the same as anybody".

I've taken notice.

[Texasforever]

"he's got a right to keep and bear arms, the same as anybody".

I wonder if it was the same idiot that said "I forgot to mention that Saddam is the only world leader standing up to the new world order"?

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

As for your nuclear bomb aniexty, I suggest you move out to the country.

There's the solution! [Hits self in head.]

Seriously - do you have any idea how ludicrous that is? In other words, don't go after the perp - just alter YOUR lifestyle. Just give up the American dream of living where you choose. Live like a victim. Whatever you do, don't disturb a ruthless dictator who has pledged our destruction. Great idea.

That is so absurd on so many levels, it's breathtaking.

Look. The ONLY solution is to remove the threat. And don't worry - better men than you and better women than I will do the dirty work. You won't have to do a thing but shoot your mouth off in opposition to what their doing on the 'net. Life is good, huh?

Good grief.

[Long Cut]

I wish I was. I wonder if he knows how this makes conservatives in general, and Second Ammendment supporters(of which I am one, strongly) in particular, look to anyone who checks in or lurks. Besides, of course, the obvious attack on the war effort.

[Long Cut]

See post #44. Is it the same poster?

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Iraq and its unelected dictator are not covered by the Second Ammendment.

I cannot believe you actually had to say this to somebody.

[woofie]

How about a big dome over the US? ...that would keep us safe...This article spells out why you and others like you no matter what the reasons are failing to think clearly

[Texasforever]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/753249/posts?page=28#28

[Long Cut]

PERFECT!!!!

I've avoided accusing those who naysay of being plants because I like to debate the merits, but unfortunately you both are probably correct.

ALL of the naysayers use the exact same arguments, without any concern or response to rebuttals, over and over, sometimes with the same wording.

The fact remains, it matters not WHAT side they may or may not be on, politically. The EFFECTS, and the RESULTS, are all the same: they benefit the Left and our enemies.

No "intentions" matter, either.

[Long Cut]

That one's just as bad. And so is the one he's posting to in that link. You know, the Libertarian Party once intrigued me as an option, because my leanings normally are in that direction, but their performance of late has killed it for me. There is a VERY good reason that they only pull about 1.5% of the vote in every Presidential election.

Even so, I don't think I'd mind it if the two major parties were the Republicans and the Libertarians (with the Dims as the extremist, gadfly party).

[joeyman]

This article spells out why you and others like you no matter what the reasons are failing to think clearly

Not think clearly, think like you. When those Iraqi troops come over the hill towards my house, then I'll be convinced. There's always some boogie man out there, and the technique works so well. Shame actually.

[woofie]

There's always some boogie man out there, and the technique works so well. Shame actually.

Had you been citting in or near the world trade center on 9/11/01 you would have met the boogie man

[woofie]

citting = sitting or standing or breathing(ie not brain dead}

[Long Cut]

Neither can I. Notice, however, that he NEVER adresses the points made by myself or anyone else...he just keeps repeating the talking point.

He even used his vanity thread there as "proof" on another thread attacking the war effort, despite the fact that his premise was solidly nuked!

There were, for a while a few months ago, quite a number of Islamist supporters who had registered under dozens of screen names jumping on every Israel- or- terrorist related thread they could, spewing hate and anti-Semitism you'd have to see to believe. Thanks to some vigilant FReepers, most are gone now, but as war approaches, expect the Ministries of Propaganda from a FEW countries to use our FReedoms against us. As I have said, the Bad Guys ARE listening and reading, RIGHT NOW.

We MUST conduct ourselves accordingly.

Some of those I've pinged above have some VERY good info about the "mass disruptor" effort.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Oh, man...

[knighthawk]

It's not we are going to war because we like it. Saddam has to be removed. He is a timebomb. To his own people, to Israel and to the US. Saddam will not play nice all the time. Just imagine he will get nukes.

We can simply do what the Europeans did with Hitler, or act now.

[okie01]

"See MY POST # 6 this thread."

So, you offer as the Populist solution to the possession of WMD, and its probable use against the U.S., by Saddam Hussein, an aggressive three-fold program consisting of:

1. A new immigration policy.
2. Protective tariffs.
3. An oil embargo.

That's it, huh? That's gonna win the War on Terror, exact vengeance for 9-11 and save Baltimore from being vaporized...???

And you expect to be taken seriously?

[wretchard]

"And yes I do think we'd be much safer if we don't go to war because of the escalation potential to WWIII.

Nothing will be clear, except in hindsight, but we must decide in uncertainty. Our Congressional leaders will have to declare themselves, as you have done and as longcut has. To act or not to act. And to do nothing is also to act.

Are avoiding the mistakes of Munich? Or are we caught up in the mad rush to war of 1914? I cannot pretend to know the answer, but I will make certain observations. The first is that the war you seek to avoid has already begun, certainly the first clash of arms was felt on September 11, 2001.

"Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace! But there is no peace. The war is actually begun!"

My second problem is that any anti-war position would require me to regard most Muslims as liars, and to continue to regard them as fools or children who never mean what they say. Almost any Islamic site you care to visit will banner the words "Jihad". I can either treat this as a monstrous joke or take them at their word.

I would much rather not go to war with them, but they say and repeatedly say that they are at war with us. Are they liars or fools? Or are they men who can fly airplanes and do chemistry and nuclear physics? The evidence, it seems to me, is that they can fly airplanes and (as proved by Pakistan) do nuclear physics. Why should I doubt them when they plainly say, "I want to kill you, kuffar"?

For these reasons, I feel uneasy about concluding, as you have done, that we will be safer if we do nothing. I cannot claim to know the future. But I will never forgive myself for eliding the seemingly obvious.

[Amelia]

And I did not tell you to "shut up". I said that there are three options: help out, stay out of the way, or help the Bad Guys. Sorry, but no middle ground exists. The fact is that the naysaying, the pacifism, the continual demands for evidence (already provided, more than enough) have the effect, intended or not of helping the enemy. Do you think they do not?

Long Cut, he's already repeated Saddam's position of "Bush just wants to attack Iraq because he wants the oil."

I think we can tell where joeyman is coming from - and it's not OUR side.

[Long Cut]

Sigh. You're right, of course. It was a failed attempt on my part to make one last effort at education and persuasion. I sometimes overestimate myself.

His post #2 on this thread tells us all we need to know. It could have been written in Ba'ath Party HQ, Terry McAuliffe's office, or a coffee shop in Seattle. Those are the words of no conservative I ever knew.