Need Help with anti-war cousin

After rereading his arguments, I certainly hope he is not teaching spelling.

Why anyone would hold Woodrow Wilson up as an example of Presidential leadership is beyond my comprehension. Maybe we are so far apart that there is no reaching him. Might be fun to try, though.

If this article:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/863037/posts

doesn't help, I don't know what will. You'll have to go to the Washington Post to read the whole thing, but it's devastating.

Snappy Answers to Leftists
By Tom Adkins
Sierra Times | March 11, 2003

Tired of those stupid liberal soundbytes about the impending war against Iraq? Here are some handy snappy answers!

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

Leftists: We are in a rush to war.
Answer: An 11-year rush?

Leftists: Tough inspections can disarm Saddam Hussein without invading Iraq.
Answer: Years of inspections have done wonders so far.

Leftists: We should let the inspectors finish their job.
Answer: We did. They didn't. We will.

Leftists: Why fight? The Iraqi military is weaker than in 1991.
Answer: But their biological weapons and chemical weapons are much more dangerous.

Leftists: There's no proof of weapons.
Answer: We know they have 'em, we know they hide 'em, and we have tape recordings and photographs. What more is needed? An Iraqi rocket in Martin Sheen's shorts?

Leftists: If we invade, Saddam Hussein might use those weapons of mass destruction against us.
Answer: I thought you said Iraq didn't have them!

Leftists: But terrorists might attack if we invade Iraq.
Answer: Oh...so if we don't attack Iraq, terrorists will never strike again?

Leftists: We shouldn't go to war without a UN resolution.
Answer: 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?

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

Leftists: If North Korea has nuclear weapons, why aren't we invading them first?
Answer: First things first.

North Korea has not invaded two neighboring countries within the past two decades. Iraq did.

North Korea does not pay $20,000 in blood money to the families of terrorist murderers. Iraq does.

North Korea has not used nerve gas and mustard gas against invaded countries as well as its own citizens. It's merely starving them. Iraq HAS used poison gases.

Iraq, not North Korea, welcomes and houses Arab terrorists who despise Israel and its only ally in the world, America. There are more reasons, but these will do.

Leftists: European leaders are against the war.
Answer: The Reichstag wasn't attacked. The Grande Palace 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.

Leftists: The French don't support the war.
Answer: Oh...did they surrender already?

Leftists: Germany objects to this war.
Answer: Germany objected to Reagan's "attitude" towards the Soviet Union. Of course, they objected to our presence in 1943 as well.

Leftists: Belgians are against the war.
Answer: I can live without Waffles and ice cream.

Leftists: Russia doesn't support the war.
Answer: They are still angry over Reagan's brilliant Cold War victory.

Leftists: Polls show Europeans are against this war.
Answer: 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...

Leftists: We should build a coalition with our friends.
Answer: With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Leftists: What happens if we can't build a United Nations coalition?
Answer: Who cares?

Leftists: But the UN is the world's most respected governing body.
Answer: Not as respected as the US military.

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

Leftists: War will cost billions!
Answer: So...how much is YOUR city worth?

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

Leftists: Many Senators don't support Bush
Answer: Are you speaking of the Senators from Bordeaux?

Leftists: Tom Daschle says George Bush has a "credibility gap"
Answer: When was the last time we came to Tom Daschle for the truth???

Leftists: These problems didn't happen under Clinton.
Answer: Actually, they happened. But Clinton ignored them. Now, Bush will clean up his mess.

Leftists: But Clinton didn't start a war.
Answer: Unless his girlfriend was testifying before congress...

Leftists: Bush 1st should have taken out Hussein in '91.
Answer: That 1991 UN resolution forbade a march on Baghdad. Remember?

Leftists: Millions of peace activists are demanding we stop the war.
Answer: Millions of Iraqi's are begging for us to start the war.

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

Leftists: Young Americans will die in battle.
Answer: Would you prefer they die in skyscrapers?

Leftists: Protesters have genuine objections to war
Answer: Just like they did in Somalia? Bosnia?

Leftists: People are coming from all over the world to act as "human shields".
Answer: Quick, hurry, before the bombs start dropping...

Leftists: This is about American Imperialism.
Answer: 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?

Leftists: This is Blood for Oil
Answer: The only blood is the Iraqi people tortured, starved and killed while Hussein builds massive palaces to hide nuclear weapons...all financed with Iraqi oil.

Leftists: This is a racist war.
Answer: 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.
Leftists: A U.S.-led invasion of Iraq is a great recruiting tool for terrorists.
Answer: Have fun recruiting people into oppressive misery as they enjoy their first taste of freedom.

Leftists: An attack on Iraq could seriously undermine and destabilize Arab nations.
Answer: Destabilize the region? Is that possible? Do you think? The sooner we topple these tlineoppressive 14th century terrorist regimes the better.

Leftists: Are we prepared for a multi-billion dollar occupation?
Answer: 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.

Leftists: Polls show Americans are more concerned about the threat from al-Qaeda than from Iraq.
Answer: 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.

Leftists: American opinion is against the war.
Answer: No, it's not. A majority of Americans want to fight now, not later

My advice is to pummel him unmercifully with your fists until he agrees to shut up.

3.) "A majority of people in the world (not to mention several million Americans) still hunger for a compormise (sic) that forces Saddam to comply, or be exposed, and does not weaken America."

If Bush really were a leader--in the spirit of Woodrow Wilson or Franklin D. Roosevelt, he would exert American power through diplomacy and not a war of choice. Of course, that takes work and cooperation.

50,000,000 Frenchmen can't be wrong? Of course they can... as well as the "several milion Americans."

Who was President during WWI? Woodrow Wilson? Thought so. Where was the scintillating diplomacy that prevented that war? The French tried diplomacy to prevent the war...

Who was President during WWII? FDR? Thought so. Where was the scintillating diplomacy that prevented that war? The French tried diplomacy to prevent the war...

Incidentally, who was President during the fire bombing of Dresden?

Wow. Because of your post, I'm just going to have to Bookmark this thread!

BUMP

Oh dear. High school teacher, huh? Maybe it is our daughter's teacher. She came home last week and said her teacher is always making snotty remarks about President Bush and his Iraq Policy. I asked her what class it was. PRE-CALC! Oh, that makes sense, Pre-Calc. Getting ready to draft letter to the principal regarding teachers "sharing" their opinions with the students.

Christopher Hitchens HERE -
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/825420/posts

ping

I should talk about mistakes ... my dribble should have been drivel. It's getting late in Colorado.

I'll be right back.

I'll watch your replys with intrest. I have a lefty cousin too. We are constantly at each other throats, by e-mail thankfully. lol

Bump...for morning reading.

BANG... The head of the nail has been struck. Great post...

Wish I could! Unfortunately, I am 100 pounds to his 200+ and he lives in Wisconsin while I'm in Colorado. I'll just have to pummel him with words.

Eugene Volokh(http://nationalreview.com/comment/comment-volokh092702.asp)
September 27, 2002, 9:00 a.m.
Some Say Deterrence Is Enough…
…but two can play at the deterrence game.

By Saddam Hussein*

Dear Madam President Clinton:
As you may have gathered by now, the nuclear device exploded over the Nevada desert today came from the mighty arsenal of the Republic of Iraq. We sincerely hope that the device did not injure anyone; its purpose was simply to show that Iraq has acquired a nuclear capability.

In fact, we are proud to say that we have manufactured many such weapons. Nearly a dozen of them are now in place in major American cities. We certainly do not want to have to detonate them, and we see no need to go that far, if you accede to several reasonable requests that essentially amount to a permanent disengagement from the internal affairs of the Middle East:

1. Immediately end all sanctions against Iraq.
2. Permanently withdraw all American troops and military advisers from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and all other Muslim countries, and agree not to become involved in any military action by one Middle Eastern country against another.
3. Stop all governmental assistance, military and otherwise, to the Jewish Entity, and all trade by American companies with it.
4. Extradite to Iraq the traitors, spies, and saboteurs that you are currently harboring as supposed "dissidents" and "opposition leaders," as well as the blasphemer Salman Rushdie, who we believe is currently visiting your country.

We recognize, of course, that your nuclear arsenal vastly exceeds ours, and that you have threatened to attack any country that detonates nuclear bombs within your boundaries. Should you attack Iraq with your nuclear bombs, you will doubtless be able to kill millions of innocent Iraqis, as well as probably killing me.

But if you do so — or if you invade Iraq using conventional weapons, or assassinate me — then this will only assure that my trusted agents will detonate, one by one, the bombs that are currently planted in your cities. Because the bombs are located near ground level, their detonation will regrettably cause not just immediate damage, but also a considerable amount of radioactive fallout. You, Madam President, would then be responsible for the deaths of millions of your fellow citizens, for the damage done to your allies (especially your Canadian allies) as some of the fallout settles in their territory, and for the deaths of millions of innocent Iraqis.

Americans recognize that you would not be morally justified in killing innocent Iraqis through a retaliatory attack. After all, your actions during your campaign in Afghanistan show that you do not take civilian casualties lightly, even when they are incidental to attacks on military targets.

And of course such civilian deaths will only lead to a righteous desire in the Islamic world for further acts of vengeance against Americans. As many of your own country's eminent thinkers pointed out when you were debating a preemptive strike against Iraq in 2002, the last thing America needs is to create still more people who want to harm it. Even your praiseworthy refusal to attempt any preemptive action against Iraq shows your wise concern about preserving life.

Now perhaps you doubt that I will make good on my threat. After all, your foreign policy since 2002 has rested on the assumption that if Iraq acquires nuclear weapons, it can be deterred from using them, because its leader is rational. Perhaps you think that I will not detonate the weapons that I now control on your soil, because that would be irrational on my part.

On the contrary; I am being quite rational here. I am in my seventies, and I have relatively little fear of death. In fact, now that I have committed myself to this plan of action, I fear more the dishonor that I would bring on myself if I retreated like a coward.

Trust me, I am deeply, deeply concerned for the possible suffering of my countrymen, but I proclaim that all of them will happily run the risk of martyrdom for the greater glory of Allah and the Arab nation; and in any event, I believe that this risk will not materialize, because I believe that my strategy will preserve them from your retaliation.

And the upside of my gamble is that I will be able to achieve what many in the Arab world have long dreamed about, and will thus glorify Allah and the Arab nation and bask myself in the reflected glory of that deed, for now and for centuries to come. Saladin is still remembered nearly a thousand years after his death; Hussein would be remembered for a thousand years alongside him. This is, I realize, a highly risky strategy on my part, but I think that it's a calculated risk. And even if you think this is an irrational plan, trust me at least that it is a sincere one.

In fact, I am counting on your rationality. Will you kill millions of your own people, and millions of others? Or will you save their lives, and your own consciences, by acceding to our reasonable requests? I am sure that you will find the answer easy, and that the United Nations, your European, Canadian, and Arab allies, and your own citizens will breathe a sigh of relief when you give that answer. Choose peace, Madam President, rather than a devastating war.

Sincerely Yours,
Saddam Hussein

*This speculation was written by Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh teaches First Amendment law at UCLA School of Law.

You should find more than you need to stuff this appeasenik/postponenik bilge down his throat HERE and many great links, also.

Here's the URL, if my HTML skills failed ...

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post

You can listen to this here:

http://media.darrylworley.com/hyf01.ram

Have You Forgotten
Darryl Worley

I hear people saying
We don't need this war
But I say there's some things worth fighting for
What about our freedom and this piece of ground
We didn't get to keep them by backing down
Now they say we don't realize the mess we're getting in
Before you start to preaching let me ask you this my friend

Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
Too see your homeland under fire and her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside going through a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry about Bin Laden
Have you forgotten?

They took all the footage off my TV
They said it's too disturbing for you and me
It'll just breed anger, it's what the experts say
If it was up to me I'd show it everyday
Some say this country's just out looking for a fight
Well after 9-11 man I'd have to say that's right

Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
Too see your homeland under fire and her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside going through a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry about Bin Laden
Have you forgotten?

I've been there with the soldiers who've gone away to war
And you can bet that they remember just what they're fighting for

Have you forgotten all the people killed?
Yeah some went down like heroes in that Pennsylvania field
Have you forgotten about our Pentagon?
Yeah all those loved ones that we lost
And those left to carry on
Don't you tell me not to worry about Bin Laden
Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
Too see your homeland under fire and her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had people still inside going through a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry about Bin Laden
Have you forgotten?
Have you forgotten? Oh
Have you forgotten?

Here's some thoughts. Thanks, it was a good exercise. :)

1.) This is war of choice--not necessity.
We've been at war with Iraq since 1991. Bombing weekly.

Iraq is not an imminent threat to the United States.
What's "imminent?" What about being a threat to our allies?

All during the Cold War, we never once thought about invading the Soviet Union, yet they were a much greater threat than Saddam Hussein.
If true, so what? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Furthermore, with Bush, we would invade a NATION, not a cell of terrorists.
We never invaded a NATION before?

Do you remember the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
Yes, so what? I've seen the video of Iraqis firing on our forces.

Like the former Soviet Union, Hussein can be deterred and contained.
So he supports another twelve years of sanctions harming the Iraqi people and propping up Hussein? Another 12 years of our expending money partially enforcing UN Sanctions that the UN doesn't want enforced completely, impoverishing Iraq and Turkey and making Saudi rich off the OPEC oil allotments they took from Iraq?

however, our so-called Christian president, has catapulted war to the FIRST option so quickly, you really have to wonder his motives.
Twelve years is quickly? 18 months after he first announced his intention is quick? This is an OPEC talking point. I wonder at your susceptibility to propaganda.

In fact, Bush's motives change like the weather--we will go to war with Iraq because Saddam is evil...he has weapons of mass destruction (we think)..we want to liberate the Iraqi people....we want to change the regime.....we want to democratize the Middle East....Hussein is responsible for 9/11.............................. Invading Iraq will not make us more secure from terrorism; in fact, invading a sovereign Middle Eastern nation could actually make us even more vulnerable to terrorism and even less secure.
This argument I've never understood. If there's more than one motive, why is that "changing"? Sounds like Demo politician logic. And the "causing terrorism" bit - that was said during Afghanistan too. Should we keep Saddam "contained" and allegedly kill another million Iraqi babies? Isn't that what Osama complained about???

2.) Bush has also been dishonest and has not leveled with the American people about the potential costs of rebuilding Iraq.
Who says we're going to pay for it all? Or any? Iraq is a rich country, only if France, the UN, OPEC and liberal dupes would let it be.

Furthermore, without U.N. support and approval, the U.S. will bear a majority of the burden in building a country that is the Arab Yugoslavia "with so many pent-up resentments."
Funny, Chirac is promising that he won't be cut out of this rebuilding business. Everyone wants to make money off it. Should we not have gotten rid of Hitler because of the "cost" of rebuilding Germany? It's an odd argument, and like the others, absent is concern about the Iraqi people.

Also, Bush has also "failed to acknowledge how unusual this war of choice is and therefore has not offered the bold policies that have to go with it. Instead, the president has hyped the threat and asserted that this is a war of no choice, then combined it all with his worst pre-9/11 business as usual: budget-busting tax cuts, indifference to golbal (sic) environmental concerns, a gas-guzzling energy policy, neglect of the Arab-Israeli peace process, and bullying diplomacy."
What a mix of Arab propaganda, unrelated domestic resentments, and lefty "connection" logic. We've been bombing Hussein for 12 years. That's why we're already there. We can choose to leave. You'll be complaining about millions of dead Kurds we abandoned.

3.) "A majority of people in the world (not to mention several million Americans) still hunger for a compormise (sic) that forces Saddam to comply, or be exposed, and does not weaken America."
Where's the global poll? I've seen the polls lied about, but so what? They're fools. And why are the "several million Americans" more valuable than millions of others? Oh, becuase they agree with you.

If Bush really were a leader--in the spirit of Woodrow Wilson or Franklin D. Roosevelt, he would exert American power through diplomacy and not a war of choice. Of course, that takes work and cooperation.
We've tried. Didn't work. "Diplomacy" represents interests. Many countries have financial interests in keeping Saddam in power. That's what "diplomacy" has exposed.

4.) Thanks to Bush, the global post-9/11 good will toward America has been badly squandered.
No, thanks to Saddam and his allies. And that good will was only temporary anyway. And what was it worth...for what use would it be? To make you feel good? Bush has exposed others craveness and self-interest. And we have plenty of friends...to true ones have spoken. It was valuable to determine how shallow this "good will" was.