Anti-War voice being heard?

Smilin

Spirit of the Wolf
Jun 18, 2002
5,650
244
57
Appalachia, The Trail of Tears
Visit site
✟15,906.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Today at 04:40 PM Evangelion said this in Post #54 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=659118#post659118)

There has been no proof that Hussein has nuclear weapons. That's the whole point.


Wrong, you didn't pay attention to what the first group of NATO inspectors found. Saddam was on a 2 year campaign to generate fissile material for nuclear weapons. He has a working design for such a weapon, and one was constructed per his orders after the Kuwait invasion. Suddam is still purchasing materials to build Uranium enrichment centrifuges. These centrifuges are quite compact and can be hidden ANYWHERE. Just because we haven't found them again, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Today at 04:40 PM Evangelion said this in Post #54 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=659118#post659118)

Also, would you care to explain why Hussein hasn't raised a finger against the US ever since the Gulf War?.


Where have you been hiding? under a rock? He has fired on aircraft enforcing the no fly zones almost DAILY.

Today at 04:40 PM Evangelion said this in Post #54 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=659118#post659118)
Just why, exactly, is he a threat to America?


How quickly everyone forgets. Do you not remember the foiled assassination attempt on our President George Bush Sr.???
How could someone who would attempt to assassinate our President NOT be a threat to America. Are you willing to gamble he won't sell/share/give a chemical/biological/nuclear weapon to a rogue group who WOULD detonate it in one of our major cities?


Also, you referred to France.... IMO, France couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper sack. They're only capable of surrendering and letting the U.S. soldiers shed their blood to protect them. France is more interested in their buisness affiliations with Iraq. As far as our interests being in oil? That's a lame duck argument. I guess you'd argue the same for our involvement in Afghanistan as well huh? Remember, we declared war on terrorism and ANY nation that harbors terrorists. Iraq is next on the list. That's all.
 
Upvote 0
smilin, guess the nationality of this person against the wall in this photo...
p46563.gif


If you have forgotten, the French resistance fought hard in WWII even after the nation was overrun by blitzkrieg. I suppose that we went it alone in the American revolution too.

And I suppose that France (like the U.S.) takes their own interests into consideration as part of their decision on what circumstances justify war, they are ungrateful cowards. Right. Have you checked to see whether they signed UN 1441?
 
Upvote 0

Gunny

Remnant
Site Supporter
May 18, 2002
6,133
105
United States of America
✟58,262.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
U.S. proof overblown, Blix says

February 16, 2003

BY TOBY HARNDEN


WASHINGTON--In perhaps the most awkward moment of his long and distinguished career, Colin Powell could only sit stone-faced as Hans Blix accused him of exaggerating the evidence against Iraq as a way of justifying war.

What Powell had characterized as proof from satellite photographs that the Iraqis had infiltrated the United Nations inspection team and moved banned munitions before it arrived, Blix said could just as easily have been "a routine activity."

The secretary of state looked distinctly discomforted as the former Swedish foreign minister twisted the knife by adding, in clipped tones: "Our reservation on this point does not detract from our appreciation of the briefing."

Powell's briefing to the UN Security Council last week was the culmination of five months he had spent patiently negotiating Resolution 1441 and then building the case that Saddam Hussein had breached it.

In doing so, he had faced skepticism from some within the Bush administration. Now, with a second UN resolution looking more daunting, a centerpiece of Powell's case had been dismissed by the chief weapons inspector as a fraud.

Suddenly, for the former general it was all very personal. Instead of last week's calm, sober delivery of his 80-minute briefing on Iraq's pattern of deception, he spoke with passion Friday.

And he flatly rejected the central contention of the French and Russians. "More inspectors--sorry, it's not the answer. What we need is immediate cooperation."

"It isn't brain surgery," he said at one point.

Daily Telegraph
 
Upvote 0

Gunny

Remnant
Site Supporter
May 18, 2002
6,133
105
United States of America
✟58,262.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Maureen Dowd Has A Thought
By Paul Walfield
February 14, 2003


Columnist and self-proclaimed know-it-all Maureen Dowd had a thought, and began to write her article "Pass The Duct Tape," for the February 12, 2003 edition of the New York Times.

She seemed to sense that because Osama bin Laden in an audio tape had confirmed what the Bush Administration had been saying all along, that the terrorist group al Qaeda would align itself with the Iraqi regime, maybe the Administration was on to something, but, alas, she couldn't put two and two together.

Rather, she believes President Bush had been "rescued" by the mastermind of the 9-11 attack on America. Forgetting that President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell had made the case for a connection between the two. She simply scoffed at the evidence presented at the UN about the connection; Ms. Dowd would rather trash the Administration and see Osama jumping into action because America gave him the opportunity.

Ms. Dowd in all her wisdom determined that even though Osama declared his solidarity with Iraq, she preferred to look at his connections with Syria and Saudi Arabia without explaining why that matters or is relevant to the
reality and danger of terrorists supporting and being supported by Saddam Hussein.

Forgetting the adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," Ms. Dowd chooses to lament the former hostility of Osama for Saddam, and the "present" alliance of the two. Rather than expanding any thought of placing
responsibility for America's current relations with Iraq or even the al Qaeda terrorists with Saddam or Osama, she chooses to blame the American President instead.

While admitting that bin Laden was squarely with Iraq and against the United States, like most folks who can't allow reality to interfere with their "beliefs," Ms. Dowd continues to argue without sound judgment. Referring to
bin Laden's own words, "He barely mentioned the Iraqi leader and seemed to be holding his nose when he gave permission to his Qaeda brethren to fight "the Crusaders" alongside Saddam's Baath Party."

Ms. Dowd's befuddlement over the alliance between terrorists and Iraq does not change the fact, that it is a fact. So, for the Left it requires a shift in blame.

Treating the alliance made in hell as a self-fulfilling prophecy of the Bush administration, Ms. Dowd need not admit she was wrong or that the Bush administration had been right all along. Rather she can point to her
preconceived notion that there had never been cooperation before between the two, "Saddam has no proven record of sharing weapons with Al Qaeda."

It appears that for the Left, now that bin Laden admits to allying al Qaeda with Iraq it is "true," but when their own government said it, it wasn't.

Taking the word of a terrorist or tyrant is easy for the Left, taking the word of an American President or Secretary of State is not, unless of course, they are Democrats.

Undisturbed by the setback, Ms. Dowd attacks the Administration for exposing the truth, "So the Bushies no longer care if Osama sends a coded message to his thugs as long as he stays on message for the White House." Forgetting that al-Jazeera, the Middle Eastern television Network was going to air the tape in its entirety and that America was put on alert for an already planned terrorist attack raising the threat level to orange.

Ms. Dowd's pathological disdain for the Bush Whitehouse will not allow her to accept that not only was the Bush administration right all along, but that action against the threats posed by terrorists and rogue nations is a
cause worth fighting for.

Rather, Ms Dowd opines that "Osama might be perversely encouraging America in this war." Explaining that if we remove the Saddam regime, occupy Iraq, and install a Democratic form of government bringing freedoms heretofore unknown to the Iraqi people, we are simply playing into the hands of the terrorists and they win, we do not.

Speaking of perverse logic, Ms. Dowd believes that because America and Osama want a regime change in Iraq, America seeking democracy and freedom for the Iraqi people and Osama seeking the reverse, we have fallen into bin Laden's trap. So much for Maureen having thoughts.

Finally, Ms. Dowd, referring to the democratization of Iraq as a "model kitchen of democracy." However, she believes it might get messy and cost a lot. Of course, for Ms. Dowd, having a tyrant with weapons of mass
destruction who gasses and tortures his own people isn't messy enough to do something about.

Ms. Dowd and the Whitehouse do have something in common though, they both see the use of Duct tape as not being adequate to protect the American people in the event of attacks by terrorists or rogue nations. However, the Bush administration plans on taking action, Ms. Dowd just whines.
 
Upvote 0

Gunny

Remnant
Site Supporter
May 18, 2002
6,133
105
United States of America
✟58,262.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Connecting The Dots: Saddam And Terrorism
By William Fielder
February 14, 2003


Several thousand illegal Iraqi immigrants are at large in the US, and are being sought by the FBI to determine if they are a threat to our national security, according to Walter Pincus writing in the February 4th Washington Post. This effort is welcome, but is about 10 years overdue. These immigrants were allowed to come to the US as part of a program to increase diversity, and without necessary “intrusive” and “insensitive” security checks, during the “Global Village” period of the Clinton-Gore Administration. The Bush Administration, based upon the unexplained disappearance of many of these refugees, believes they could be serving Saddam Hussein as sleeper agents who were sent here to do massive harm, when so ordered. Some of these agents may have assisted McVeigh and Nichols, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombers. McVeigh had Iraqi telephone numbers on his person when arrested, according to the New American Magazine; and Jayna Davis, who covered the Murrah Building bombing for the NBC affiliate in Oklahoma City, has interviews with several eyewitnesses who saw “Middle Eastern” men at the explosion site. Clinton-Reno may have closed the bombing case prematurely to avoid dealing with the Saddam connection, so that blame would fall on the ”vast right-wing conspiracy.” At least two court cases are pending that could shed light on the situation, if the US government cooperates.

Secretary of State Powell eloquently explained evidence of the al-Qaeda/Iraqi connection during his February 5th speech at the UN. It may have been news to most Americans, but it was not news to Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee. In an October 2002 letter, CIA Director Tenet wrote to Graham, telling him that Iraq has “provided training to al-Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs,” according to Jeffrey Goldberg in the New Yorker Magazine. In the same letter, Tenet mentioned an Iraqi unit sent to Afghanistan to train al-Qaeda, and predicted an increase in links between Saddam¹s intelligence service and Osama¹s terrorists. Perhaps this explains Senator Graham¹s early support for the Bush Administration¹s hard line on Iraq. In the Washington Times of February 4th, former Defense Department official Frank Gaffney reports another “smoking gun” in the form of a former Saddam confidant, known as the “Gatekeeper,” who has disclosed to his Israeli captors that Saddam has maintained an underground chemical and biological weapons facility, and an assembly area for scud missiles imported from North Korea. All of the weapons in these facilities are prohibited by agreement, and at least some of the chemical and biological weapons could be in the hands of those “missing” Iraqis somewhere in the US--the ones that Clinton-Gore allowed to immigrate without bothersome security checks. Walter Pincus also disclosed in his February 4th Washington Post column that during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Iraqi intelligence unsuccessfully attempted to carry out terrorist strikes against US embassies. Perhaps Saddam reasoned that it would be better to infiltrate operatives into the US for future attacks on our homeland.

Terrorist cells were recently discovered in London and Paris. The London cell, and possibly the Paris bunch, had in its possession the powerful agent Ricin. In 1997 Iraq had produced and weaponized at least 10 liters of Ricin, according to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz in a New York speech. He said this is enough to kill more than a million persons. The FBI now reportedly believes that al-Qaeda has aligned itself with other terrorist groups to attack the US and our interests abroad. Saddam’s and bin Laden’s apologists will say that the attacks are in “retaliation” for efforts to unseat Hussein as Iraq’s dictator. In reality, such attempts were inevitable, and have probably been in the planning by both Iraqi and al-Qaeda operatives since the end of the first Persian Gulf war--taking advantage of lax security in the Clinton era to infiltrate the US--but not to enhance diversity.



William Fielder is a retired US Army officer with service in Korea and Vietnam, and was a civilian intelligence analyst at the Pentagon for almost 19 years (1978-1996).
 
Upvote 0

Caedmon

kawaii
Site Supporter
Dec 18, 2001
17,359
570
R'lyeh
✟49,383.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Others
Today at 03:03 PM Jerry Smith said this in Post #50 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=659034#post659034)

Still trying to puzzle out the point behind the last two posts. Are we back to "everyone who doesn't support this particular war hates America"?

Jerry, it is my experience that the prevailing attitude of some military personnel to nonmilitary citizens, is that nonmilitary are ungrateful, undeserving American citizens, because of their lack of military service to the United States.

Come on guys.. if you support the war, lets hear about your reasons. Please don't sling mud.

I agree wholeheartedly. Let's see some real figures and definitive knowledge of Saddam's possession of, and imminent desire to strike with, weapons of mass destruction. No educated guesses, please...

Let us also not forget the thousands of innocent lives whose blood would be shed, should the US President decide to launch an offensive strike in Iraq. :pray:
 
Upvote 0
Today at 07:27 PM humblejoe said this in Post #66

Jerry, it is my experience that the prevailing attitude of some military personnel to nonmilitary citizens, is that nonmilitary are ungrateful, undeserving American citizens, because of their lack of military service to the United States.

I can understand how they could feel that some civilians are ungrateful. They are right about that. I, for one, am very grateful to our service men and women. It is in part because of my great respect for them that I do not wish to see them flung into a war that we have no business starting. America (in theory) doesn't start wars: it finishes them. I'm proud of that (to the extent that it is true). I'm proud of our disciplined, courageous, and honorable fighting men and women. I don't want to see their reputation soiled by an unjust war concocted by a bunch of civilians in Washington D.C. who want to flex the American muscle.

I'm quite willing to be convinced that the invasion of Iraq is necessary and just. I know that Saddam Hussein is swine, and does not have a right to rule that nation. I want to see him gone, and I want to see peaceful democratic rule germinate in place of his despotic regime. I would love to see more states like Britain, who regard us as trustworthy friends, and fewer like Iraq, who regard us as enemies. I would like to see the threat of terror against innocents completely eliminated.

My problem is that I can not see where any of that is a good enough reason to start a war. What would be good enough reason for me?

1) If Iraq was staging an offensive, directly or through terrorist proxy, against any nation that did not provoke them, especially ourselves or our close allies.

2) If in Iraq, there was a real genocide being perpetrated. Not just large-scale human rights violations: hell, we buy our shoes from China. But honest to goodness genocide a la Nazi Germany, Sierra Leone, Slobodan Milosovic...

In the case of #1, if we are discussing Iraq's willingness to arm Palestinian terrorists, then the war would be conditional on an ultimatum that he disengage support for those terrorists immediately.

Please note that suspicion that these things may be done in the future does not qualify as cause for war. I do not feel it is our place to play God. A pre-emptive strike in self defense is immanently justifiable. A pre-emptive strike against an imagined future threat (no matter how realistic), is unprovoked agression. There would be no end to the wars as we constantly destroyed our enemies before they threatened us and as nations that were uneasily neutral or even friendly to us became our new enemies.

Either of these would justify the war to me. I would still want to see the vigorous debate. I would still want the potential for hypocrisy out on the table, so that the next time the cabinet holds a meeting to discuss whether to covertly topple a new democracy because it leans too far left (as in Chile), replacing it with a dictator, they will remember the cost it brings in good faith and hopefully be constrained from doing it. The next time they plan to stage a Gulf of Tonkin as a pretext for war, I want them to know that America won't willingly go to war on a pretext. I want us (as a people) to be resolved to go for the right reasons, or for no reason at all. The next time the U.S. government thinks it might be good to supply precursors chemicals for chemical agents to a dictator fighting against another nation's popular rebellion, I want the long term cost considered. I want the heads of state to know that we will fire them if they sell our nation short in these ways!

I could be convinced on other arguments too. I don't see the possession of WMD's as good enough reason to invade Iraq. But I'm not perfect and I could be wrong about that. With a strong explanation of why - and why Iraq before North Korea - I might be brought around. I'm not unwilling to be convinced. I was a fence-rider before I became a critic of this war. I can be convinced to see it differently. I've been reminded of a lot of important facts by smilin and by Micheael (numbers in his name, I can't remember) in another thread. I do share the fear of what an armed Hussein might do to the region or contribute to against us. I can be swayed, but not without debate. We owe it to our nation, to our military, and to the world to be skeptical of starting any war. In Jefferson's words, "for nothing can keep it right but their own vigilant and distrustful superintendence.."
 
Upvote 0

Magisterium

Praying and Thinking
Jan 22, 2003
1,136
99
47
Kansas
Visit site
✟1,813.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for all the positive feedback. However, I didn't mean to imply that delivering humanitarian aid directly to the Iraqi people would actually work. I fully expect that Saddam's military would attempt to frustrate the efforts. Psychologically, it places Saddam into a catch-22. We saw first hand Saddam's reaction when he's beat, he destroyed the oil wells in Kuwait and we know for a fact that he's rigged the wells in his own country with explosives in the event that an American offensive is launched. However, If humanitarian aid arrives plastered with US propaganda he then has only two choices. Allow the food, medicine, and aide, with american flags to sway public opinion, or go for broke and and outright attack the aid envoys. If (and when) he chooses the latter, we are completely justified in engaging and neutralizing his offensives against our aid envoys. The aid is merely a ploy of provocation. If he doesn't bite, the aid itself (and the attached propaganda) serve to sway opinion of his people and the rest of the world about the US's motives while the increased sanctions serve to isolate and choke off the regime...
 
Upvote 0

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
smilin -

Wrong, you didn't pay attention to what the first group of NATO inspectors found. Saddam was on a 2 year campaign to generate fissile material for nuclear weapons. He has a working design for such a weapon

*snip*

In other words, he doesn't have any nukes, but he's doing his best to get some.

Which we already knew.

quote:
Today at 04:40 PM Evangelion said this in Post #54 (http://www.christianforums.com/show...9118#post659118)

Also, would you care to explain why Hussein hasn't raised a finger against the US ever since the Gulf War?.


Where have you been hiding? under a rock? He has fired on aircraft enforcing the no fly zones almost DAILY.


ROTFL! Firing at aircraft enforcing the NFZ is not equivalent to attacking America - which is precisely what you seem to fear.

Again - he doesn't have the resources to invade your country and he doesn't have any weapons capable of reaching it. If, after 12 years, a few shots at your aircraft in the NFZ is the most he's done, I hardly think you have any reason to fear him.

And yet - astonishingly enough - fear him you obviously do!

quote:
Today at 04:40 PM Evangelion said this in Post #54 (http://www.christianforums.com/show...9118#post659118)
Just why, exactly, is he a threat to America?


How quickly everyone forgets. Do you not remember the foiled assassination attempt on our President George Bush Sr.???


What failed assassination attempt on GBS?

How could someone who would attempt to assassinate our President NOT be a threat to America.

That depends on how close he came to doing it.

I seem to remember 47 failed assassination attempts on Fidel Castro, courtesy of the USA... :D

Are you willing to gamble he won't sell/share/give a chemical/biological/nuclear weapon to a rogue group who WOULD detonate it in one of our major cities?

Oh, I certainly wouldn't put it past him.

But has he actually done this? In 12 years, has the US ever seen any evidence that he presents a clear and present danger to national security?

Also, you referred to France....

*snip*

As far as our interests being in oil? That's a lame duck argument.

It's far stronger than you think.

Try to understand that not all presidents are paragons of virtue.

I guess you'd argue the same for our involvement in Afghanistan as well huh?

No, that's totally ridiculous.

Why do you persist in attacking straw men?

Remember, we declared war on terrorism and ANY nation that harbors terrorists. Iraq is next on the list. That's all.

No, it's not quite that simple.

But hey - you're not really interested in the facts, are you? :cool:
 
Upvote 0
But hey - you're not really interested in the facts, are you?

I'm pretty sure he is interested in the facts. I disagree with his conclusions too, and I think that maybe a closer look at the facts, and a more skeptical look at our rationale is in order, but I've had a lot of conversations with Smilin and the facts are always important to him. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't be wasting my time talking to him now.

Smilin, I think "it's all about oil" is an unjustified oversimplification too, and I have always been skeptical of those who pronounce it. But there is a fairly strong argument that oil is indeed among the administration's motivations. I haven't gotten into it here, but it breaks down to 1) we are attacking Iraq first, when it is not the greatest national security threat (N. Korea is). 2) Certain oil companies, administration officials, and British representatives have been divvying up Iraq's oil on paper since before we started making overt plans for war there. 3) Colin Powell has already mades statements to the effect that Iraq's oil will be developed "to pay for the rebuilding" of Iraq. I am not so cynical as to buy this argument as proof of any kind that oil is our primary motivation, but there is plenty of room for distrust on the issue. Many people accuse France and Russia of dragging their feet over precisely the same issue, since both have lucrative deals with the current regime in Iraq. I think the odds are similar that France and Russia are acting only out of oil-interest that the U.S. is. I think there is only a small chance in either case.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gunny

Remnant
Site Supporter
May 18, 2002
6,133
105
United States of America
✟58,262.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Anti-war argument based on emotions, not facts

Jonah Goldberg

If I were the sort of high-ranking Iraqi official who gets briefed on what's going on abroad - rather than spoonfed propaganda - I would be telling my wife and kids to pack their bags and check into a French hotel as quickly as possible (Lord knows the French would welcome them).
Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. Security Council Wednesday seems to have forced a tectonic shift toward Iraq. In America, a sizable and growing majority of Americans now feel the case has been made for war. The Europeans, who had been strongly against a war, are now overwhelmingly on our side to the score of 18 nations to 2 (France and Germany). That doesn't necessarily reflect attitudes on the European "street," but it counters the notion that the United States is going it alone.
But that's not why I'd be practicing my French if I were a Saddamite thug in Baghdad. No, all I'd need to see is the op-ed by Mary McGrory in the Feb. 6 Washington Post. McGrory, a columnist and fixture of the Beltway since the Kennedy Administration, wrote an article with the succinct headline, "I'm Persuaded."
She begins her confession by saying, "I don't know how the United Nations felt about Colin Powell's `J'accuse' speech against Saddam Hussein. I can only say that he persuaded me, and I was as tough as France to convince."
Now, I don't mean to say that as McGrory goes, so goes the nation. Even to suggest she has that kind of influence would disqualify me from operating heavy machinery. Rather, if McGrory's convinced that means Powell convinced pretty much everybody capable of being convinced, at least in Washington.
Indeed, just hours after Powell's speech, Sen. Dianne Feinstein announced that Powell's "very impressive chain of evidence" caused her to "shift" her position toward war.
But McGrory's explanation reveals how dishonest and even dishonorable many anti-war liberals have been.
She calls President Bush a "flighty thinker," and says, "I have resisted the push to war against Iraq because I thought George W. Bush was trying to pick a fight for all the wrong reasons - big oil, the far right - against the wrong enemy." She adds, "Among people I know, nobody was for the war" and "We wished Powell would oppose the war, because it seemed like such a huge and misdirected overreaction to a bully who got on the nerves of our touchy Texas president."
This is a woman who writes a regular column for The Washington Post, and not one of her reasons has anything to do with the actual facts at issue. She doesn't like Bush. She doesn't like his advisers. Comments about Bush's intelligence seem to be the lynchpins of her opposition to war. When she says that "among the people" she knows, "nobody was for the war," she sounds like Pauline Kael, the New Yorker writer who famously said in 1972 that Nixon couldn't have won because, "I don't know a single person who voted for him!"
Ultimately, McGrory says she's convinced because Powell's on board with a war and she likes Powell. She deserves credit for publicly changing her mind, but that is what's so damning about the knee-jerk opposition of so many anti-war liberals - it's based in animus, not logic.
Almost every week I have to debate some opponent of the war on CNN or radio, and most of the time, I get the sense that their reasons for opposing Bush are echoed in McGrory's sentiments.
They don't like war for vague, emotional reasons. They think, in the words of that noted geopolitical strategist Sheryl Crow, "war is based in greed" and the best way to avoid it is "not to have enemies." And while they concede Saddam Hussein is evil, they can only get passionate about the perfidy of our own president.
One gets the distinct sense that if Al Gore were in office, they'd have no problems with toppling Saddam. It's nice to have McGrory and her crowd on board. It would be nicer still if they were persuaded by more than Colin Powell's charm.
 
Upvote 0

Oliver

Senior Member
Apr 5, 2002
639
23
51
Visit site
✟15,992.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
The Europeans, who had been strongly against a war, are now overwhelmingly on our side to the score of 18 nations to 2 (France and Germany).

Well, I don't know were they got their number (for example, what about Belgium?), but with yesterday's joint declaration of the EU, this is now obviously wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
48
Visit site
✟12,690.00
Faith
Atheist
*shrug*. The war effort is looking bad. Turkey is now stating that they will not allow troops until they're paid a bigger bribe...I mean, given more "aid". 26 billion isn't enough, apparantly.

Look who supports us in Europe. Ignoring Australia and Britain, virtually every country who supports us is doing so in an attempt to get a fat handout. Like Turkey's 26 billion in "military upgrades" and their hope to snap up a chunk of Kurdish-controlled Iraq.

Now, why do I oppose this war? First off, I'm against "starting wars". I prefer finishing them. If I thought, for a second, that Saddam Hussein had any real intent to attack America or her troops, I'd support a military strike. How big a one depends on his intentions. I do believe in proprotional responses.

However, I can honestly say that at no point has anyone made the case that Saddam is any particular danger to America or American troops.

What little chemical and bio weapons he has (and so well hidden no one seems to be able to find them). he's shown no signs of sharing. Indeed, the CIA assesment is that he will not share them, unless he's convinced he's going down anyways.

This contrasts nicely to North Korea, which is both very desperate for cash, and has a long history of selling weapons to anyone with the money for it.

We shouldn't go to war because there has been no coherent reason to go to war. There have been plenty of incoherent reasons.

1) Saddam has WMD or is trying to build them. Well, so does Iran, North Korea and half a dozen other nations that don't like us. So does Pakistan and India, for that matter, and Pakistan is on the verge of being taken over by fundamentalist Islamics of the Taliban type.

No one has been able to explain to me why Iraq, as opposed to other countries that pose a real threat to America or world stability.

2) Saddam is linked to terrorists. Well, yes, in a sense. He does help fund Palestinian terrorists. So does the rest of the Middle East. However, the White House is trying to imply he's linked to Al Qaeda. That's patently untrue. However, Al Qaeda does get a lot of money and support from Saudi Arabia, Syria and Pakistan.....

No one has been able to explain to me why Iraq, as opposed to other countries that have large and active roles in funding global terrorism.

3) Saddam isn't complying with inspections and violates UN resolutions, and never has. Let me draw your attention to North Korea which, unlike Saddam, has a very public uranium-enrichment program, and has just recently kicked out the last of the UN inspectors.

No one has been able to explain to me why Iraq, which is crawling with inspectors and is (more or less) cooperationg, as opposed to North Korea which has no inspectors and a nice nuclear program ticking along.

4) He's an evil, murderous man who tortures and kills his own people. This one I'd actually buy, since it's far more true and relevant than anything else. Sadly, he's not the only evil, murderous man who tortures and kills his own people in the world. And we support many of them.

No one has been able to explain to me why Iraq, when we cheerfuly prop up and offer aid to people just as evil, if not more so.

I guess I'm in a minority. I don't want to see lives lost, especially those of our military, fighting a war we have no real need to fight. I'd prefer to keep our soldiers alive. I'm not sure why, but some people consider that "un American". When it became "America" to waste lives in pointless combat is unclear.

I'd happily and fully support war, once I was given a coherent rationale. But lies about aluminum tubes, presentations that are contradicted by the weapons inspectors, claims about Osama Bin Laden and Iraq that are so transparently false as to verge on the ridiculous...don't cut it.

If, to make your case for war, you have to lie, twist, and distort the truth, you don't have one. Come up with something honest, and I'm all ears.

But if the best you can do is claim Iraq and Osama are in bed together, and offer as proof a tape where Osama calls Saddam an "infidel", and says that only an actual military invasion by the West would be sufficient to overcome his distate of Saddam enough to allow them to be on the same side, and only because Iraq's people are Muslims, even if led by an infidel and socialist.....

Why bother?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gunny

Remnant
Site Supporter
May 18, 2002
6,133
105
United States of America
✟58,262.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Anti-war Doom and Gloom
January 11, 2003

By James L. Hirsen, J.D., Ph.D.



Martin Sheen goes on the "Today" show and spouts leftist nonsense. Ramsey Clark wants to dress up in a Hans Blix outfit and search the White House and Naval Weapons Yard for WMDs. All this is going on just before a possible military encounter.

Some of the same folks on the left that kept quiet during Clinton's Monica bombings are now piercing everyone's eardrums. We've heard them before.

The major networks are putting forth their best anti-war critics while slighting the war backers. The liberal media are acting like they're in pre-war panic mode. Get ready, America. The reports of doomsday are multiplying as we speak. Check it out.

The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War recently predicted that an invasion of Iraq could lead to casualties as high as 250,000 within the first three months, even without the use of nuclear or chemical weapons.
Bob Schaeffer, a spokesman for the affiliated International Physicians organization, told the Toronto Star, "We're saying that there'll be a very large short-term impact and an even more profound longer-term impact."

The New York Times dutifully confronted the White House with the prediction of the anti-war doctors and reported that it was not in the least bit troubled.

The U.N. is predicting a humanitarian disaster if any military intervention takes place in Iraq.
Barbra Streisand once sang about those "misty watercolor memories of the way we were." It's time that we pull some of those memories out of storage. When we do, we'll find the very same pattern of pessimism preceded the liberation of Afghanistan.

Baghdad Jim McDermott and Kofi Annan voiced their misgivings. In fact, numerous prophets of doom were warning us from media pulpits. They said that because Afghanistan was a tough land of craggy mountains and stark deserts, where battle-hardened guerrillas whupped Great Britain and the Soviet Union, the U.S. would suffer the same fate.

Fred Weir wrote in the Christian Science Monitor: "If the United States is preparing to assault Afghanistan to retaliate against the alleged organizers of the New York and Washington terror attacks, Russian experts have one piece of advice: Don't go in on the ground. 'Afghanistan is a quagmire that is easy to enter and very hard to leave,' says Irina Zvegelskaya, an Islamic expert and vice president of the independent Center for Strategic and Political Studies in Moscow. 'If the US commits itself to changing things there, or propping up a particular government, it will be the beginning of a long, painful and very costly story Â_ just like it was for us.'"

Shades of '60s boomer anxiety were apparent Â_ a Vietnam déjÃ_ vu all over again, right down to the "q" word.

After the fighting started, the leftist media alert system became even shriller.

On Oct. 27, 2001, PBS's Dan Schorr told Americans that "this is a war in trouble."

The following day, Maureen Dowd wrote of our Afghani foes, "Now, like the British and Russians before him, [President Bush] is facing the most brutish, corrupt, wily and patient warriors in the world, nicknamed dukhi, or ghosts, by flayed Russian soldiers who saw them melt away."

The New York Times pulled a kind of Halloween prank on the nation with a headline that read "A Military Quagmire Remembered: Afghanistan as Vietnam" and an R.W. Apple column that told us "signs of progress are sparse."

On Nov. 4, 2001, Jacob Heilbrunn of the Los Angeles Times assessed our prospects in this way: "The war effort is in deep trouble. The United States is not headed into a quagmire; it's already in one. The U.S. is not losing the first round against the Taliban; it has already lost it."

On Nov. 8, 2001, the New Republic criticized the Bush administration for "relying on ... airpower, proxies and Special Operations forces. ... These three instruments have gotten us exactly nowhere."

The next day, USA Today reported that "military experts increasingly are coming to the same conclusion: Airstrikes and commandos won't be enough to rout the Taliban and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network."

In the Nov. 19, 2001 issue of the Nation magazine, columnist Katha Pollitt wrote: "A protracted war with a determined, hardy foe that draws in Central Asia, enrages the Muslim masses and destabilizes Pakistan or Indonesia or another country to be named later? Is World War III worth it if it gets people planting victory gardens and giving blood?"

The war in Afghanistan was over so quickly, we barely had time to hold the forecasters of misfortune accountable. When they resurrect their hackneyed phrases from the annals of liberal antiquity Â_ which they undoubtedly will Â_-we'd be wise to take their words with a few thousand grains of salt.
 
Upvote 0

Gunny

Remnant
Site Supporter
May 18, 2002
6,133
105
United States of America
✟58,262.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The anti-war protesters: what are they for?

December 7, 2002

A recent incident at University of Texas is indicative of the nature of the pacifists opposing a war with Iraq. After the student government of the University of Texas passed a resolution condemning a U.S. attack on Iraq, the Young Conservatives attempted to engage them in a debate with the "Campus Coalition for Peace and Justice." However, as CNN later reported, "Most listeners in the audience seemed to agree with the Campus Coalition, or at least people on that side seemed more vocal about their feelings When an antiwar advocate began heckling a student in the pro-war camp, other supporters of the President's policies stood up, and a fistfight almost broke out." One can easily imagine what "more vocal" means when reverse-translated through the filter of CNN's liberal bias. Apparently, the "peace protesters" are not so peaceful. All over the world, they have been rioting against aggression. What is the true nature of the anti-war sentiment in America then? Much insight about the nature of the "anti-war" protest can be found in their "Statement of Conscience," which has been endorsed by thousands of professors and students across America.

The Statement begins with seemingly noble remarks: "peoples and nations have the right to determine their own destiny questioning, criticism, and dissent must be valued and protected. such rights and values are always contested and must be fought for."

It is unclear to me however, who's "rights" the protesters support . Is it Saddam's "right" to violently suppress dissent by gassing thousands of his own people, and attacking Iran, Kuwait, and Israel? If the protesters are truly concerned about dissenters, why aren't they showing any support for the opposition groups that seek to establish a democratic government in Iraq? Do they believe that the bloody coup in which Saddam Hussein became dictator gives him a "right" to do as he pleases with anyone who crosses his path?

The resolution goes on to claim: "Dissident artists, intellectuals, and professors find their views distorted, attacked, and suppressed." When one considers the behavior of the anti-war protesters in America's universities, this statement seems especially misleading. At my own Texas A&M, stands of the "The Examiner," a local conservative student paper were vandalized and the newspapers stolen by an unknown culprit. It is unclear whether he was offended by the article titled "[Condoleezza] Rice: Iraqis cannot eat their oil reserves" or "Conservative student publications plagued by theft." In universities like Berkeley, "pro-peace" students have vandalized opposing newspaper offices, and claimed "aggression" when they were arrested for trespassing. Clearly, when supporters of America's right to self-defense find their newspapers vandalized and are labeled racists and bigots, it is not they who are suppressing speech.

The most common claims of the antiwar protesters is that Iraq is President Bush's excuse to promote oil interests and cover up the faltering economy. But is there any truth to either of these claims?

"A Crude View of the Crisis in Iraq," a Washington Post story, reports that the outcome of regime change in Iraq is far from clear: American companies may be denied access to Iraq as they were in Kuwait, and a new Iraqi government may develop oil production on it's own, taking a significant time to do so without any major influence on oil prices. On the other hand, it is also likely that Saddam will attempt to destroy as much infrastructure as possible on his way out, so that it will take many years to put out the fires and rebuild Iraq's oil production capability. In any case, the effect of a war on American oil interests is far from certain and has not even been brought up in discussion with Iraqi opposition.

The second claim -- that Bush is pushing for a war to distract Americans from the economy is equally ridiculous. Liberals who are bitter about the GOP win claim that the Republicans blew the terrorist threat out of proportion to avoid focusing on the economy. However, a recent Gallup poll shows that fully 57 percent of Americans believe that the economy is better off in republican hands and 67 percent believe that the war against terrorism would be better handled by republicans. While I would dispute that either party has handled terrorism or the economy very well, it is clear that most Americans support the Republicans in both of these areas.

The resolution attacks immigration procedures for singling out certain nationalities ignoring the fact that a Saudi national is, oh about 100% more likely to be a terrorist than someone from Sweden or Japan. The peaceniks oppose the racist policy of giving 18 to 40 year old Arab men more scrutiny in airports than a grandma going to see her grandkids while supporting race-based admission policies in universities.

The protesters' claim that the war on terrorism has given "police sweeping new powers of search and seizure" and "brought down a pall of repression over society." However, when one considers how vocal the protesters have been in the media, a "pall of repression" is nowhere to be found. On the other hand, when my own "conservative" university banned students from hanging American flags outside their windows, so as "not to offend international students," the true direction of repression became clear. If indeed the government is holding American citizens without trial or due process, there is cause for concern, but it is only an evasion of the real threat to our security to claim that we should ignore legitimate national interests because of the potential for abuse.

But the protesters' real agenda has little to do with Iraq. Suppose that after a thorough and unhampered search, the inspectors discover that all those hidden bunkers and presidential palaces are actually full of unanimous ballots from his last election. (Which, according to Saddam, was an 11,445,638 to 0 "Yes" vote.) Suppose that the chemical weapons and arms sales to Iraq that Yugoslavian officials have recently admitted to were actually fireworks for the celebration of Saddam’s election victory. Would I change my mind and oppose going to war with Iraq? Sure.

But suppose that despite Hans Blix's negotiations with Saddam on the restrictions of our unrestricted access to Iraq, we find evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Will the anti-war protesters change their minds? The answer can be found in their Statement: "What kind of world will this become if the U.S. government has a blank check to drop commandos, assassins, and bombs wherever it wants?" -- and this is their reply. Their objection is not so much to Bush's policy towards Iraq, but in the fact that he may engage in it unilaterally -- without the permission of the rest of the world. Robert Jehnsen, author of inspiring articles such as "U.S. just as guilty [as the terrorists] of committing own violent acts" claims to represent the "No-war Collective," and this is just how he sees the world -- as a collective in which the United States must ask for permission to defend itself against terrorism.

The pacifists cannot honestly object to the fact a war may lead to the death of Iraqi civilians -- they do not protest the civilians Saddam kills every day. Neither can they complain that "dissent is being silenced" -- they have no problem silencing dissent here in America, or to Saddam’s silencing dissent in Iraq. The Statement accuses the government of "putting out a simplistic script of 'good vs. evil'" -- but what the antiwar crowd opposes is any declaration of moral legitimacy in fighting the war on terrorism. They ask "What kind of world will this become if the U.S. government has a blank check to drop commandos, assassins, and bombs wherever it wants?" but they don’t oppose a world where terrorists and dictators have a blank check to the same. Despite their rhetoric, to the peaceniks, there is no difference between a barbaric dictatorship and a free democracy fighting for its very existence (as Israel is) or freedom from terrorism (as the United States is). As their "Statement of Conscience" shows, their primary objection is not that America may go to war with Iraq, but that it may do so unilaterally without the permission of the rest of the world. What the protesters in fact claim, is that any evaluation that a democratic regime is morally superior to a bloody dictatorship is evil, and any difference between the U.S. and Iraq is a probably result of "western imperialism."

A recent CNN photomontage shows young Palestinian kids with automatic weapons and war-paint on their faces screaming furiously at the camera protesting against a war in Iraq. The next slide shows a protest in America, with an unshaven man in a crowd of angry faces with banners proclaiming "no bombing of children for oil." Despite the fact that the Palestinians live in an oppressive, violent, and primitive society and the American protesters grew up in the wealthiest, freest, and most successful nation on earth, the differences almost seem lost in the two photos. Perhaps this is what the pacifists are truly after.

Author Unknown
 
Upvote 0

cenimo

Jesus Had A 12 Man A-Team
Mar 17, 2002
2,000
78
To your right
Visit site
✟10,182.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There was a fellow on O'Reily last night, author of the book Why The Left Hates America....
attended the San Francisco rally to gather information.

Told this story...some people were spotted on a rooftop, the police were concerned about snipers...so an officer climbs up a fire escape and when he's about 30 feet of the ground the crowd starts yelling, "Fall, fall"...

what a fine display of "love thy neighbor" peaceniks, wanting the cop to fall and get injured or die rom the fall

the author also made the comment that waving soviet era banners at a "peace" rally is little different than inviting Charles Manson to talk on how to reduce violent crime

oh yeah, the sponsors of the SF rally were the Worlwide Worker's Party...communists
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gunny

Remnant
Site Supporter
May 18, 2002
6,133
105
United States of America
✟58,262.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Today at 12:51 PM cenimo said this in Post #78 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=660676#post660676)

There was a fellow on O'Reily last night, author of the book Why The Left Hates America....


Why Does the Left Hate America?
Book Review of Why the Left Hates America by Dan Flynn

by George Livadas

During especially dark and troubling times, people tend to show their true colors-good or bad, loyal or disloyal. While many Americans responded to the events of September 11 with acts of patriotism and prayer for the victims, a small group blamed the terrorist acts on years of "oppression" allegedly perpetrated by the United States against the rest of the world.

"While self-hating Americans make up but a fraction of the population," notes Dan Flynn in Why the Left Hates America, "their influence is great." "They are museum curators, journalists, college professors, librarians, and movie stars."

It is important to understand that such hatred for America is not only unpatriotic, but it is misguided and irrational. "There is a rational basis for Americans to be patriotic," notes Flynn, the editor of this publication, essentially stating the thesis of Why the Left Hates America.

The teachings and ramblings of much of the Left (which is comprised not of ordinary liberals or Democrats such as Tom Daschle and Dick Gephart, but of left-wingers such as Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal) contend that America is an inherently racist, sexist, homophobic, and wholly oppressive nation. When considering such harsh accusations against any country, one must compare and contrast that country to the rest of the real world, rather than to some utopian vision.

When one compares America to countries that actually exist, Flynn contends, the idea that America is the world's greatest oppressor is suddenly disproved and turned upside down. Instead, it becomes abundantly clear that American society is as close to a "utopian" society as one can find in the real world.

Among the key reasons why the Left does indeed hate America, Flynn argues, is that they have essentially been raised and taught a number of lies throughout their lives about America and the remainder of the world. Though some of the lies might have a grain of truth in them (albeit a miniscule one), they are, for the most part, intended to make Western society appear highly oppressive. This is accomplished by vastly exaggerating or concocting American and Western ills while ignoring not only the copious accomplishments of the West, but the failures of the non-Western world as well. When compared to non-Western societies, the foundations on which these lies are constructed simply fall to pieces.

The notion that slavery and racism are uniquely Western is one of the Left's favorite and most repeated mantras. Yet when one's judgment is guided by facts, rather than by obscure political ideologies, what is quickly realized is that it was not slavery that was unique to Western Civilization; nor was it the mere abolition of slavery that was unique, but rather the abolition of slavery by eligible slaveholders. As Flynn points out, Western Civilization is indeed the only culture in the history of the world to do such a thing.

American women are oppressed under the American patriarchy, says the Left. Yet, as Flynn points out, "If women in the United States live under a 'patriarchy,' what term could accurately describe the situation faced by women in other parts of the world?" Noting some of the truly patriarchal traditions practiced in many countries throughout the world today, such as genital mutilation, arranged marriages, forced abortions, and "honor killings," Flynn also contends that in many ways, women in the United States are better off than their male counterparts. He points out how they are "healthier, better educated, and less susceptible to various cultural pathologies than are American men."

The Left perceives that America as an imperialistic, power-hungry, and greedy nation. Just the opposite is true. "The major wars involving the United States since it became the world's preeminent military power," Flynn writes, "have been fought to prevent empires-Nazi imperialism, Japanese imperialism, [and] Communist imperialism?After all these wars, America's territory remained essentially the same."

Flynn also notes that for such an "imperialistic" nation America donates large sums of its citizens' money to foreign countries in need. In addition to giving far and away the highest amount of money to foreign countries, the U.S. also gives one of the highest percentages of GDP for foreign aid. Having received very little in the form of foreign aid itself, the U.S. has proven time and again to be the world's most generous donor of foreign aid-not just to its allies but also to some of its most bitter enemies.

Another "big lie" embraced by the Left is the notion that "America is the world's leading threat to the environment." Although especially convenient for those critical of the free-market capitalist system, this idea is far from the truth. For example, America has more trees today than at anytime during the past 100 years. Additionally, Flynn writes, "Americans breathe cleaner air and drink cleaner water than almost anyone [in the world]." That is not to say that the United States should halt its successful environmental efforts and programs, but it is certainly a gross mischaracterization of U.S. environmental conditions to say that America is the world's leading environmental threat.

The premise that America has some sort of a caste system, where mobility between classes is impossible, and the idea that the rich get richer at the expense of the poor, are other demonstrably false but deeply held beliefs by the Left. "A U.S. Treasury Department study tracking class movement from 1979 to 1988," writes Flynn, "discovered that 86% of 1979's poor no longer remained in the lowest income quintile in 1988." Unlike many countries throughout the world, Americans are not destined to remain in one class based on their birth.

The picture painted by these various Leftist lies attempts to show just how oppressive, corrupt, and unsuccessful capitalism is. Unfortunately for the Left, and fortunately for America, this is not the case. The American free-market way has been extremely successful, not just in bettering the lives of Americans, but also in improving lives throughout the world. Americans have much to be proud of.

"The quality of life for nearly all six billion people on the planet," Flynn writes, "would be unimaginably worse if not for the ingenuity of the American mind." From such basic inventions as the light bulb, to such groundbreaking ideas as the Internet, Flynn notes, "when America creates, all humanity benefits."

John Walker Lindh once asked his mother, what "America has ever done for anybody." Flynn mockingly asks, "apart from the telephone; the Internet; the computer; the television; air-conditioning; the laser; serving as a place of refuge for immigrants; [numerous] vaccines?generous allotments of foreign aid; nearly all popular entertainment; basketball; baseball; surfing; football; the lives of its own servicemen defending the freedoms of non-Americans; the example of self-government; economic prosperity; a more enlightened world order; the Panama Canal; the discovery of DNA; and other medical, scientific, and technological advances, what has America ever done for anyone?"

As Flynn points out, America has indeed done more than its fair share for mankind; yet, the Left's demonization of America persists in a vain attempt to discredit American values.

"So why does the Left hate America?" Flynn posits, "the answer is because America stands as a massive refutation of every pet theory the Left has ever held."

"Capitalism is a failed economic system, the Left incessantly pronounces," notes Flynn; yet, America is unquestionably the wealthiest nation in the world. The Left claims that America oppresses women; however, women are treated far better in the United States than in any other nation. While the Left espouses the belief that America is inherently racist, millions of "immigrants of color," as Flynn points out, "flock to our shores and borders by the millions instead of spending their lives being ruled by people of the same hue or ethnicity."

And of course, the Left's favorite symbol of intolerance-Christianity-is the dominant religion in the United States and the basis for many traditional American principles and values. "Every predominantly Christian nation in the West protects the freedom of conscience of practitioners of the other major faiths," Flynn explains, "There is little reciprocation." This unavoidable fact is especially inconvenient for the Leftist agenda.

In essence, "what the Left touts in theory," writes Flynn, "the American experience refutes in practice."

While some on the Left knowingly promote these lies that support their hatred for America, others on the Left simply accept them with no questions asked-understanding nothing more than the necessity to think of America as inherently oppressive.

With many on the Left holding positions of great influence, such as college professors, as Flynn points out, it is more important than ever to stress accuracy in studying historic and current events. Lies must never be tolerated. Good or bad, the truth must be taught. Daniel J. Flynn's Why the Left Hates America makes it especially clear that students and Americans alike must learn about the true events of history so that they can understand how great their nation really is, while at the same time learning from-and not harping on-the mistakes of the past.

When one truthfully looks at both the mistakes and the accomplishments of America, one finally realizes why the Left does indeed hate America-and why they are wrong.
 
Upvote 0