Eloquently defending the War in Iraq.

[ConservativeMan55]

How should I eloquently defend going to war against Iraq to Liberals that I work and go to school with. I am tempted to put on my Tin Foil Hat when debating, and it gets tough. We all know what a murdering, torturous, insane, tyrant Saddam is, but liberals refuse to believe it.

[vbmoneyspender]

ask them if they agree with you that Hussein is a murderous thug? If they say no or they quibble with you, don't bother arguing with them anymore. If they say yes, then ask them what is the moral thing to do -- 1) to turn a blind eye while Hussein's regime rapes and kills at will or 2) to try to do something to stop Hussein from killing and raping even more innocents.

[Steven W.]

There is a compelling strategy behind the scenes planning for Iraq that is not being covered by the major media. There is hope that by liberating Iraq, quickly rebuilding & bringing that country forward, that Iran will actually come along on its own, and possibly even catch the interest of others in the middle east as well. The people in Iran have been demonstrating a LOT of pro-US sentiment against their leaders of late and if Iraq was all of a sudden to become freed as a country there's going to be a lot of people in Iran who start wondering, "gee, mullahs aside, why can't we do that". As it stands today Israel really stands out as the most civilized country in a region filled with scoundrels and scumbags, seemingly perpetually destined for lives of truly meager and often tortured existence. It's hoped that through an effective liberation of the people in Iraq that a flame of freedom might be lit throughout the region, in the grandest hopes, something along the line of the way the eastern block communist countries started to fall one by one (and then handful by handful.

Or at least if not fully likely but worth hoping and trying for. :)

[ConservativeMan55]

I keep hearing Liberals say
"This is all about oil"
or
"We can't just take over any country, then everybody will start doing it"

[vbmoneyspender]

With regard to the statement that it is all about oil, you should tell them that accepting that as being true, isn't it still a good thing to be getting rid of Hussein. With regard to the second argument, you should ask them if their position is that they don't object to removing dictators from power, they just don't want to make a habit out of it. If that is their position, you might suggest that they wait until we move against a second or third dictator before raising objections. You might also inform them that if they want to make it more difficult for the United States to help other countries become free, they might consider making campaign donations to people like Hussein, Kim Jong Il, Assad, etc.

[mfreddy]

One of the common arguments is that this is a war about oil. This week, some prominent libs went so far as to say this was a war about oil for the Bush family. Start by saying, "let's suppose you're right. Why then, when they had it in 1991 didn't they keep it? Why did they follow the letter of the UN resolution and fulfill their legal obligation only?"

[ConservativeMan55]

Personally I am for assassinating Huessein....what is everyone here's thoughts on killing him?

[Dems_R_Losers]

It's not a war on Iraq, it is a world police action to basically arrest or kill Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity. He has violated 16 different UN resolutions. He has waged two aggressive wars against neighboring countries and slaughtered Kurds within Iraq's borders. He is allowing children to starve rather than comply with UN resolutions concerning inspections of weapons. He is a former Marxist and client of the former Soviet Union who has now wrapped himself in the false cloak of Islam in order to pacify Iraqis and rally other Muslims to defend him. There is considerable evidence that Saddam's intelligence agency was involved with the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 as well as training of at least some of the 9/11/01 hijackers and the post-9/11 anthrax attacks. He has missiles with biological and chemical warheads on them that could reach Israel or other neighboring countries. And he has a huge supply of oil with which to continue building his army and ordinance. If the world does not remove such an evil dictator at this late date, we will not have a chance once he has nuclear weapons.

[SlightOfTongue]

Don't worry, some of the intelligent liberal-thinking voters (if there is such an animal - I haven't met any as yet) must have seen the light somewhat in this past mid-term election.

They can't ALL go along with the moronic DemonCrap voter base, especially in these times.

The tide is turning. Stay tuned.

[this_ol_patriot]

Liberals should understand this.

Tell them to look past today or this year or next. We are at war with stateless terrorists. Terrorists who have to procure their weaponry from some source. We intend to dry those sources up. While they now use conventional devices to blow things up and kill people it will not always be so. Soon they will want to get nasty, nasty stuff, bad stuff that can make real problems for the free world, stuff that can make those meccas of liberalism NY and SF uninhabitable and kill thousands if not millions of people.

The biggest and most accessible supply of those nasty goodies is in Iraq, in the hands of a megalomaniac named Saddam. If Iraq would give up those nasty toys and allow someone we trust to verify that the stuff is removed and destroyed I'm sure we would see to it that old Saddam had a nice comfy hidey-hell somewhere else for the rest of his unnatural life.

We ARE doing this for the left, if this was being done for the right Iraq would be gone by now.

[MadIvan]

Confront them with the undeniable truths about Saddam Hussein:

1. Saddam Hussein has made and has used Weapons of Mass Destruction. They may try and quibble with you about gassing the Kurds, what they cannot deny is that Saddam gassed the Iranians during the Iran / Iraq War.
2. Saddam Hussein has been trying to make nuclear weapons for some time - he got his first nuclear reactor in the 1970's from the French, fortunately the Israelis blew it up. However I suggest everyone casts their mind back to the Gulf War, or just before it - remember the press conference Saddam called and he held up a trigger to a nuclear weapon?
3. Saddam Hussein is a sponsor of terrorism. Abu Nidal wasn't just on vacation in Baghdad. Saddam Hussein overtly sponsors Palestinian terrorists to the tune of $25,000 per suicide bomber. If the leftists try and dodge on Israel's supposed "occupation", just ask if there is any justification for blowing up innocent women and children. If they try and quibble out of that, hit them by saying, "Oh so you're saying yes, then. And you are supposedly the people who care about 'the children'."
4. Saddam Hussein's sons are even worse. Look up "Uday Hussein" on Google, you'll find plenty of material how he is an utter psychopath.

Now, having established these undeniable truths, they say Saddam should still stay where he is, you can always say, "Funny. Slobodan Milosevic did far, far less and I don't recall you objecting to his removal, quite the contrary. Or is it just because a war is waged by a Republican President, that you are so partisan that you cannot bring yourself to support it, no matter the rightness of the cause?"

As you can tell, I don't like leftists. Making them squirm is a hobby of mine.

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

I would have said we should nuke the 57 Presidential sites, since Saddam doesn't want us to see them, and have done with it. No one lives in those palaces anyway, apart from the scientists putting together the biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

Regards, Ivan

[this_ol_patriot]

That's just it, what is in those palaces that we don't want escaping out into the wild? Nukes, bugs, chemicals or some other Mengelesque horror. There is a very serious threat to our existance here that needs removed and remove it we will.

[peter the great]

What you must remember for you to be effective is that we are all different and we all respond to things differently. What will work in one situation will not work in another. What you must avoid is allowing yourself to get boxed in. I usually agree with them up to a point, war is a terrible thing and go on to add that conservatism is by no means monolithic in thought etc and then you hit them with the facts. Remember kill them with kindness we have elections coming up.

[JasonC]

Ask first "do you think violence is every justified and solves anything?" If they say yes, go on to the usual reasons others have explained to you. If they say no, then and there without missing a beat punch them right on the nose.

[Magoo]

First, it is very typical of liberal minded people to draw anyone and everyone that will listen to their dribble into a debate, or simply a monolouge of their "moral standards" as they apply to politics and how the world should be.

As a teacher you are probably well aware of this.

Second, if you really feel the driving need to defend your position, then I suggest you come here (Free Republic) often and read all the artilcles and comments offered on this site. In a short time you will find many convincing and eloquent reasons to support your beliefs.

Third, try changing jobs because if your are 55, you won't ever be rid of them in your lifetime.

[ConservativeMan55]

I'm not a teacher, LOL!
I'm a student!

[USMMA_83]

If you are unable to debate a topic, don't. Secondly, reading suggestions on this thread and then spouting them will make you sound like a drone, and further weaken your cause. If you don't know why the US should attack Iraq, I suggest you avoid the topic until you are sure you know where you stand and why.

[berned]

Ask your liberal friends, "why did clinton ALLOW Saddam Hussein to unilaterally reneg on his signed agreement to allow UN weapons inspectors to completely disarm him of WMD?"

Why did clinton PERMIT Saddam to throw out the weapons inspectors before they had finished the task that SADDAM HIMSELF agreed to at the end of Desert Storm?

[berned]

Make absolutely no mistake, and don't let liberals shrug this off.....

We have to go to war now because of BILL CLINTON.

If clinton had been man enough to do his job in 1998, there would be no need to put our boys in the frightening spot they will soon find themselves in Iraq.

Clinton's failure in 1998 has led us to the fix we're in now. NOTHING ELSE.