Monday, July 11, 2005

Monday morning right-wing pandering...

Since I'm feeling saucy today, I figure i'd link just some blatant, right-wing, blabbering nonsense about 8 of those anti-war rallying cries that just don't hold up to facts and logic. Now, I expect plenty of huffing, puffing, foot-stamping, and perhaps even some outright whining over this one kids. Get to it.

Last week's roundup to come yet. Worry not.

Link, for those who are readingly-challenged Looky! Words!

5 comments:

Patrick Armstrong said...

Its a really good article. Meaningless, but well researched and well written.

Well, the left has to own this up because the justification for war just keeps changing. When the justification changes, the left changes what is wrong with it in order to address the issues at hand. But don't be too confused, its more political games from Karly Red Rover, played so us on the left and those against the war make ourselves look like boneheads. It turns into a big game of they said/we said that doesn't address the heart of the matter at all.

So let's get to that, shall we?

1. The Republic of Iraq and the United States of America have been in a shooting war since 1991. This predates the "War on Terrorism" by 10 years.

2. The right never actually justified the war in Iraq, which is why arguing against their justifications is so unnerving. They can always look at us and say "We didn't say that!"

They never actually made their case. We just went in and that's that. They hinted at WMD's, but we didn't find (m)any. They hinted at a 9/11 connection, but can't really give us that line of conversation. They said, 'mission accomplished' a good while back. Everything they say is both true and untrue at the same time, and when someone calls them on it, they just change the subject and show us a picture of the Ten Commandments.

3. The problem most folks on the left have with the Iraq war is that Iraq did not attack the United States on September 11th, 2001. 19 men from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, who had trained in Afganistan, Germany, and Florida did attack the United States on September 11th, 2001, and yet somehow we were going to war with Iraq before we had finished the job in Afganistan.

Remember, the Confederacy lost the moment they opened fire on a US position. War is war is war and we all know it ain't a good thing. There better be some damn good reasons to send boys and girls into harms' way, and Dubya didn't make his case.

4. The folks in charge have free reign to do whatever, but our soldiers' hands are tied.

When this war is being studied years down the road in history classes, we will speak with reverence of the troops. Through all America's bickering, the cheapskate chicken-hawks in Washington, the flip floppers, the IED's, mines, ambushes, accidents, horror of war stuff, those boys and girls have held the Nation of Iraq together with bailing wire, duct tape, blood, sweat, tears, faith and willpower.

That's why Bush should get up, be a man and call for 2.5 million Americans to go over and finish the job the way it needs to be finished.

Over here on the left, we're worried he's going to run up the bill and then bail on the tab. That's what doesn't sit well with us, that's why we can't stand ol' Dubya and how this thing has gone down. All those "anti war slogans" are just responses to right wing doublespeak.

As a matter of fact, SAWB, why don't you tell us why, exactly, we are in Iraq. Be the real conservative that I know you are and come at us with some real justifications. Clarify the right's position, and I'll show you why the left doesn't like it.

S.A.W.B. said...

OK smartass. You want justifications, you get justifications.

We are in Iraq, because from all plausible intelligence, it appears that Saddam Hussein at least had a hand in financing the 9/11 attacks.

We are in Iraq because we have found more than one TERRORIST training camp way out in the desert. These camps included the fuselage of a Boeing 707 jetliner, which were used to train for hijackings.

We are in Iraq to remove a vicious dictator from power. Saddam Hussein had every intention of restarting his NBC(nuclear, biological, chemical) weapons programs. Yes, I said programs. As in multiple.

We are now in Iraq to help rebuild a once great country that has been looted and torn to shreds by said vicious dictator and his two hell-bound sons.

That enough?

S.A.W.B. said...

Oh, and in case it hasn't been proven enough, here is yet another article detailing the relationship between Al-Qaeda/Osama Bin Laden and Iraq/Saddam Hussein.

Wham-a-lam-a-proof-dong

patsbrother said...

Okay...y'all need some help.

First, paT, the 19 hijackers also came from Yemen and, I believe, the United Arab Emirates, not just Saudi Arabia and Eygpt.

Now to SAWB:
no, no, no, and no.

As to your first justification for the Iraq war, I must reiterate the 9/11 Commission listed no credible evidence of any involvement in the hijackings on the part of Iraq, physical or financial; to quote your own link, President Bush has said: "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks." As you fully endorsed that link just yesterday, I simply cannot understand why you would turn around and controvert your own position today, and, god forbid, strengthen my brother's posting.

To your second point, SAWB: the fuselage was used to train who? While the 9/11 Commission delved deep into the whereabouts and the various trainings of the 19 9/11 hijackers from the time they each joined al Qaeda to the day they each died killing Americans, and none of it involved Iraq.

While I would like to read a legitimate newssource regarding this story (blogs do not count), I for one do not recall anyone saying "Iraq has this camp; this is our cassus belli, let's go to war." Further, and I feel I must stress this, a camp found after the war began cannot then become a cause for that war.

Your third point is simply frightening because it implies war is justified to regulate the interior thoughts of one human being; I assume you merely worded your point incorrectly.

And as to your fourth point, which sounds all purty and stuff: wars are not fought for the unnecessary altruism of returning a once great nation to its former splendor. Sorry, no.

When paT asked you why we are in Iraq, it was understood he was asking for those mythic, nebulous justifications for going to war that should have been explained in explicit detail prior to March 2003. As it is, we're still in the dark two years later, and of the four points you laid out to describe those justification, not one represents both credible fact and plausibility. I await a real answer.

Patrick Armstrong said...

Smartass? I meant to ask real and intelligent questions. It just seems to me that we went to war, and then anti-warriors started talking about reasons not to go, and hawks have only said "that's not why we went." I just want to be crystal clear as to why we are at war, and why friends of mine are in harms way. My apologies if I came off as a smartass. In any case, tis better to be a smart ass than the alternative.

1. Financing: While financing terrorism is a bad, bad thing, I cannot see it as a justification for war against a nation. Simply put, there is too much money moving around the globe to really place the blame at one doorstep.

>We are in Iraq because we have >found more than one TERRORIST >training camp way out in the >desert.

There are also terrorist camps, with multiple training facilities in nations such as Pakistan, Sudan, Zaire, Nicaragua, Columbia, Peru, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Uzbekistan, Krgystan, Turkmenistan, Chechnya, Serbia, Syria, Lybia, Somalia, Indonesia, and the Phillipines. The list can go on, depending on who we want to call terrorists. Explain to me, if this "training camp" justification is to hold any water, why there is such a varied method of dealing with such nations? Why was Iraq the imminent threat?

The answer leads right into:

>We are in Iraq to remove a >vicious dictator from power.

Shall it be the policy of the United States to remove, by force of arms, every vicious dictator from power? I think that is a noble goal, don't get me wrong, but if that is the goal, we need to be gearing up for a much longer and more brutal war than we are even fighting now. We need to be ready, as a whole society, to make the sacrifices necessary to complete the job. While our armed services and their families are making those sacrifices right now, I do not see the rest of the nation buckling down.

>We are now in Iraq to help >rebuild a once great country that >has been looted and torn to >shreds by said vicious dictator >and his two hell-bound sons.

If this is to be our modus operandi as a nation and society, then so be it. Don't forget, I am totally behind the "for the good of all mankind" argument. But if this is the case, why do the folks in charge continue to nickel and dime their way through the war?

The real reason, as I see it, is that we have been at war with Iraq since 1991. A long, drawn out, politicized war that lets politicians get away with junk while the tab is paid by men and women on the ground. I would give props to ol' Dubya if he went in to finally end it, and if he'd have said that, there'd be no argument. But he can't say that, he won't say that. He doesn't think America has the strength or brains to deal with that kind of justification.

That's why we're having this argument.

PS: To Kevin. Sorry about the nationalities of the 9/11 perpetrators. I knew of only the two "allied" nations whose citizens struck out.

As to the 9/11 commission, I believe we have already gone over that the scope of their inquiry was not related to the Iraq war.

As to blogs not being credible sources of newsmedia, I wonder what your idea of credible media is. (Hint: Don't say the New York Times)