Myths of the Protesters

Time to get some thoughts off my chest about four myths that underlie opposition to the upcoming war with Iraq, which (if it happens) should be wrapped up before the kids get out of school for the summer:

Myth #1: we are "rushing to war." If that were true, it would be the slowest rush since the last time the Patriots tried a handoff inside the 20-yard line. President Bush all but declared war on Iraq on Jan. 29, 2002 when he established Saddam Hussein's regime as the centerpiece of the "axis of evil." That was 13 months ago, and anyone who didn't realize at the time that the administration was building the groundwork for Hussein's removal was not paying attention, perhaps willfully.

Myth #2: the war will be "all about oil." That's what they said about Gulf War I, 13 years ago. It wasn't true then or now. If the point of all this were to obtain cheaper Iraqi oil, all we'd have to do is drop the sanctions against Iraq and buy the oil. It would be much easier and cheaper than a multi-billion-dollar war, and would eliminate endless haranguing by erstwhile allies like France. The anti-war protestors should invest some of their apparently boundless energy in devising new anti-war slogans instead of recycling the same old, tired cant. Give them credit, though; they've probably saved printing costs by reusing their circa-1990 "No Blood For Oil" protest signs.

Myth #3: the Bush Administration for "going it alone." The last time I checked, the word "alone" meant solitary, or by one's (or one's country's) self. This impending effort is anything but solitary. Most of Europe has signed on. Many Arab countries have enlisted, either publicly or privately. Australia has already sent troops. Unless one considers countries like Spain, Italy and England blank spaces on the map, America is far from going it alone. We will certainly do most of the actual fighting, but we always have done that. We're the only ones who can.

Myth #4: "war never solved anything." Really? Tell that to the descendants of slaves. Tell that to America's framers. Tell that to the French, for heaven's sake. If it weren't for war, les Francais would be speaking German today (not that many would care enough to force a change). Yes, war is ugly, debilitating and horrible, and should be avoided if possible but if not possible, it can serve as a force for necessary change.

The motives of the antiwar crowd's leaders become more clear each time they march, gather, issue press releases or go on TV talk shows. They are more anti-Bush than anti-war. If not, where were they when Bill Clinton was bombing the daylights out of Iraq in 1998, or Serbia the following year? We heard nary a whimper of protest. It seems nothing fires up the embers of the old 1960s-era protest pimps more than a Republican who takes military action.

This is not to say that many people who join anti-war protests like the 400 who turned out at an antiwar event in Hyannis in January are not sincere in their wish for peace. Doubtless they are; but they are caught up in a movement whose leadership is infested with ugly, anti-American thugs (such as the neo-Marxist International ANSWER group that organizes many events) who would rejoice at an American defeat.

Sometimes the antiwar actions are comedic. Take Boston City Councilman Felix Arroyo, who's putting his money where his mouth is by launching an antiwar hunger strike. Arroyo says he will swear off all solid food from sunrise to sunset but only on the second and fourth Fridays of each month. And after sunset of those days, he will eat dinner as usual. This could become the first fast in which the faster actually gains weight. It also recalls a Jesse Jackson "fast" of the past, in which he gave up eating.for two hours, then "passed on" the fast to someone else. Come to think of it, Jesse didn't lose any weight either.

As for the French, consider the company they keep. As part of February's Franco-African summit, French President Jacques Chirac hosted Robert Mugabe, the fanatical butcher/dictator of Zimbabwe, who last year directed a bloody campaign to drive white farmers from their lands in Zimbabwe. Mugabe thanked the French for their "tremendous hospitality," saying he felt "right at home (in Paris)." If the French are going to cozy up to such despots, who needs them?

And as Jay Leno put it, why would the French help get Hussein out of Iraq if they wouldn't help get the Germans out of France?

This war, if it happens, will not be about establishing American hegemony in the Middle East, or about seizing control of Iraqi oilfields, or about providing a convenient distraction from our economic problems. It will be about one thing: protecting America. Iraq is a huge cog in the wheel of worldwide, anti-American terrorism. Saddam Hussein, as leader of Iraq, seeks to inflict great harm upon us, directly or as a conduit for other like-minded terrorists. He must be stopped. Those who don't believe that may as well have their heads stuck in the Iraqi sand.

Link to source:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/854969/posts

"SNAPPY ANSWERS TO STUPID LIBERAL SOUNDBYTES" Defeating the Anti-War idiots... Tom Adkins 3/1/03

Tired of those Stupid Liberal Soundbytes about the impending war against Iraq? Here are some handy snappy answers! Use them often!

"The United States is taking unilateral action against Iraq!" -->So far, it's a 90-member worldwide "unilateral" coalition.

"We are in a rush to war." -->An 11-year rush?

"Tough inspections can disarm Saddam Hussein without invading Iraq." -->11 years of inspections have done wonders so far.

"We should let the inspectors finish their job." --> We did. They didn't. We will.

"Why fight? The Iraqi military is weaker than in 1991." --> But their biological weapons and chemical weapons are much more dangerous.

"There's no proof of weapons." --> We have tape recordings and photographs. What more is needed? An Iraqi rocket in Martin Sheen's shorts?

"If we invade, Saddam Hussein might use those weapons of mass destruction against us." --> I thought you said Iraq didn't have them?

"But terrorists might attack if we invade Iraq." ->Oh, so if we don't attack Iraq, terrorists will never strike again?

"We shouldn't go to war without a UN resolution." --> ANOTHER resolution? What about the last 16 resolutions? Shall we use them as wallpaper? Or shall we use the same resolutions Bill Clinton used in Bosnia?

"We don't have a real declaration for war." -->It's called "Joint Congressional Resolution #114."

"We are giving 20 billion to Turkey. We could use that money at home." -->OK, we'll use that money to strengthen our Iraqi border with Wyoming.

"If North Korea has nuclear weapons, why aren't we invading them first?" --> Uh, hello...isn't that the point?

"European leaders are against the war." --> The Reichstag wasn't attacked. The Grande Place wasn't attacked. The Kremlin wasn't attacked. And the Jerry Lewis Lifetime Achievement Museum wasn't attacked. America was attacked. And besides, except for the tantrums of France, Belgium and Germany, only three European nations aren't willing to defend freedom. The entire rest of Europe is with America.

"The French don't support the war." --> Oh, did they surrender already?

"Germany objects to this war." --> Germany objected to Reagan's "attitude" towards the Soviet Union. Of course, they objected to our presence in 1944 as well.

"Belgians are against the war." --> I can live without Waffles and ice cream.

"USSR doesn't support the war." --> They are still angry over Reagan's brilliant Cold War victory.

"Polls show Europeans are against this war." --> Polls show Europeans believe their freedom was achieved by endlessly debating in marvelous dining halls, conveniently forgetting their right to be pompous blowhards was granted with American blood, not fabulous wine and brie¡K

"We should build a coalition with our friends." --> With friends like these, who needs enemies?

"What happens if we can't build a United Nations coalition?" --> Who cares?

"But the UN is the world's most respected governing body." --> Not as respected as the US military.

"America has always waited until enemies attacked." --> Now that oceans can't hold back enemies, pre-emptive war is forever a necessity.

"War will cost billions!" --> So...how much is YOUR city worth?

"President Bush says he's willing to violating the 1976 executive order forbidding assassinations of foreign leaders." --> As soon as the ink is dry on rescinding that idiotic order, will someone please pull the trigger? The line forms to the right...

"Many Senators don't support Bush." --> Are you speaking of the Senators from Bordeaux?

"Tom Daschle says George Bush has a 'credibility gap'." --> When was the last time we came to Tom Daschle for the truth???

"These problems didn't happen under Clinton." --> Actually, they happened. But Clinton ignored them. Now, Bush will clean up his mess.

"But Clinton didn't start a war." --> Unless his girlfriend was testifying before congress...

"Bush 1st should have taken out Hussein in '91." --> That 1991 UN resolution forbade a march on Baghdad. Remember?

"Millions of peace activists are demanding we stop the war." -->Millions of Iraqi's are begging for us to start the war.

"Thousands of innocents will be killed or injured." --> That's a lot less than Hussein is killing right now. (Of course, there's only one man that needs to be killed...)

"Young Americans will die in battle." --> Would you prefer they die in skyscrapers?

"Protesters have genuine objections to war" --> Just like they did in Somalia? Bosnia?

"People are coming from all over the world to act as 'human shields'." --> Quick, hurry, before the bombs start dropping! (gotta cull the herd, ya know...)

"This is about American Imperialism." --> So which country do we own? What nation sends us their tax dollars? If America was imperialist, we'd already own the entire world. Who could stand in our way?

"This is Blood for Oil." --> The only blood is the Iraqi people tortured, starved and killed while Hussein builds massive palaces to hide nuclear weapons¡Kall financed with Iraqi oil.

"This is a racist war." --> America happily endorses a multi-cultural attitude towards anyone who dares to take away our freedom. Regardless of race, color or creed, we hunt them down and kill them.

"A U.S.-led invasion of Iraq is a great recruiting tool for terrorists." --> Have fun recruiting people into oppressive misery as they enjoy their first taste of freedom.

"An attack on Iraq could seriously undermine and destabilize Arab nations." --> Destabilize the region? The sooner we topple these oppressive 14th century terrorist regimes the better.

"Are we prepared for a multi-billion dollar occupation?" --> Were we prepared to liberate Europe and Japan in 1945? South Korea in 1953? Grenada? El Salvador? Kuwait? The Eastern Bloc? Afghanistan? Nations always love Americans when we rescue them from tyranny. The price of freedom is never free.

"Polls show Americans are more concerned about the threat from al Qaeda than from Iraq." --> It's not a war against Al Qaeda. It's not a war against Iraq. It's a war against terrorism. Anywhere we find it. One nation at a time.

"American opinion is against the war." --> No, it's not. A majority of Americans want to fight now, not later.

"According to a recent poll..." --> You know what? Screw those polls. We're in a war against terrorism. If you don't want to fight the bastards, get the hell out of the way. Go visit Paris. Or Antwerp. Or Berlin. Or Moscow. And stay there. Forever. But this time, don't call us when the heathens are at the gates.

My favorite?
""War will cost billions!" --> So...how much is YOUR city worth? "

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.