Skip to comments.Help Me Debate my Liberal Son-in-Law (Vanity)
Posted on 03/05/2003 8:51:57 PM PST by WVNan
Below is a reply I received from my son-in-law after I sent him an e-mail that I felt justified the war with Iraq. I have written a reply but haven't mailed it yet. I would like some additional ammunition from Freepers. I'm sending him the article about the liberal woman in the British Parliament who is supporting Blair. She's been to Iraq and knows what is going on.
My points are: I was also afraid of kamakazi pilots in 1941 who would fly their planes into ships and perhaps into my home, but isn't it amazing how civilized they became under democracy. I didn't hear any angst over the bombing of Bagdad by clinton, or the bombing of Yugoslavia for no reason connected to our national interest. Evil exists and pretending it will go away will not make it so. Head in the sand and not rocking the boat for years has left the world in a god-awful mess and somebody has to take out the trash before it buries us all.
All that may be.
All I know is that Germans aren't Arabs. Eurpoeans aren't Muslims. And 2003 isn't 1941. Germans don't/didn't strap bombs to their backs and blow themselves up in the name of God. Hitler was fighting a geo-political war. Arabs are fighting a holy war. Hitler never proclaimed to have God on his side. Arabs are convinced that God is on their side. And I've always said, be afraid of the man who *says* he has God on his side.
I'm concerned but not necessarily afraid of Hussein's anthrax and weapons of mass destruction. I don't even think Hussein is stupid enough to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US. For if he did, we would be completely and totally justified in taking out the entire country of Iraq. And the whole, wide world, even the Arabs, would understand and be supportive. Remember, we had the Arab world behind us when we defended Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.
That was a justified war. And there was no disputing that it was justified. Likewise, WWII was justified for the same reason. Had we invaded Germany first, everything would have been different. We must be careful to remember that hindsight is always 20/20.
Could Hussein attack us if we don't take out his weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Would he attack us? Maybe. But you have to accept that there's at least the possiblity that he wouldn't.
We have every right to defend ourselves. I'm no dummy. But spin it any way you like, taking the offensive is not being defensive. It's a plain contradiction. And in matters of war, it makes all the difference.
I'm concerned about Hussein as every right thinking human being ought to be. But what I'm *afraid* of are psychotic Arabs, enraged at the Great Satan's pre-emptive invasion of sacred Arab territory who might feel it is their holy duty to board an airplane with a plane ticket and a carpet knife.
What I'm afraid of os the deluded Muslim who might jump on a subway car with a gallon of gas and light it on fire.
Am I right in being afraid of this? I don't know. I guess we could ask the Israelis and see what they think ...
I just don't see how invading Iran is going to reduce my fear of these things at all
Call him a Meathead...
Spend about three days watching old episodes of "All in the Family" -- Archie Bunker had the whole thing down to an art form.
2.The South had God on their side.
3. Churchill's famous words " too Late" : as he warned an unpopular view that the League of Nations were not enforcing the inspections regime in Germany. Churchill later wrote of the unneccessary war , WW2, ask how many died because inspections didn't work ? " If one forgets history he surly will relive it.
No President can allow a Person who gives up billions in oil revenues to keep his weapons of mass destruction to use it somewhere, sometime after 9-11
We lost several hundred of our soldiers fighting Saddam's forces and Saddam signed a cease fire agreement in order to remain in power, he has since violated every single one of those agreements he signed and if for no other reason, we owe it to those who gave their lives in the Gulf War to remove this mad man for this reason alone
God Bless America,
Naysayers everywhere were predicting hell to pay before we went into Afghanistan. What happened?
It's to Saddam's longterm advantage (along with the North Koreans, ChiComs, etc.) to weaken America and one way to do it is for Saddam to give biological weapons to terrorists to spread throughout America.
Done right, it could be catastrophic and leave few, if any, fingerprints as to who did it. Whom then would we retaliate against?
Hopefully, Saddam's days are numbered and he hasn't already planted such weapons in this country.
The idea of leaving this guy alive is insane.
Just how many people does Saddam have to kill before your son-in-law thinks Saddam should be liquidated?
What makes your son in law think that this wouldn't happen even if we didn't go to war? Ask him: Were we at war with anyone on February 26, 1993 (bombing of WTC)? Were we at war with anyone on June 25, 1996 (Khobar Towers bombing)? Were we at war with anyone on August 7, 1998 (Kenya &Tanzania Embassy bombings)? Were we at war with anyone on October 12, 2000 (U.S.S. Cole bombing)? Were we at war with anyone on 9/11?
But when Hitler violated the terms of the Versailles Treaty that ended WWI, and rearmed Germany, should England and France and the U.S. have called him on it? When he marched his troops into the demilitarized Rhineland, which was forbidden by the League of Nations and the Versailles Treaty, should we all have called him on that? When Hitler annexed Austria, should we have called him on that? When Hitler invaded and took over Czechoslavakia, should the Prime Minister of England, Neville Chamberlain, have negotiated a peace treaty with him solely on his promise that he wouldn't invade any more countries, and declared, waving the paper, that he had achieved "Peace in our time."?
WWII cost at least 50 million lives, 20 million in Russia alone.
If England and the French and the U.S. had stood up to Hitler when he first violated the Treaty of Versailles, when his war machine was not so powerful, do you think the body count would have been as high?
Do you believe that if we back down from Saddam this time that he will be a good boy? Or do you think he will become more powerful, and more dangerous, and cost many more lives than are going to be lost by fighting this war now?
And do you think that if France and Germany and Russia had seen their way to supporting the "tough love" stance, that there would have been a better chance of Saddam choosing exile, with the whole world arrayed united and determined around him?
Has the peace movement actually blown the only chance -- a slim, but real, chance -- for a peaceful solution, by giving aid and comfort to Saddam?
And why can't we wait longer for inspections? They don't work and with every passing day, summer is coming and the casualty rates for our soldiers mount.
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.