Forums | MacLife

Hussein is not a nice guy, but he's certainly not Hitler. Once again, you're inserting your arm so far up your arse to pull out an argument. . . any argument. . . that these threads are beginning to demonstrate the effects of circuitously administered self lobotomization.

[neutronbomb]Now, now.  Play nice.[/neutronbomb]

The lesson is clear.  If you appease a dictator, it will merely embolden him.  Do you want an emboldened Hussein?

Is that the best that the pro-war crowd can do? 

I guess reason isn't good enough for the tin-foil-hat crowd.

Hillybilly. . . you're the one who appears to be from the tin foil hat brigade here. . . You're the one prating about the UN and it's agenda to nullify the US constitution. . . You're the one who's making arguments that the 'world community' is anti-American. You're the one who sounds like he's afraid that the black helicopters will land at any moment and take us away. . .

Here's a nice tin-foily link to use in support of your tin foily little world view.

http://www.usasurvival.org/

Hillybilly. . . you're the one from the tin foil hat brigade. . . You're the one prating about the UN and it's agenda to nullify the US constitution. . .

I'm not saying they have the ability.  It's the "UN is superior" crowd here that would wish that.

You're the one who's making arguments that the 'world community' is anti-American.

You don't watch much news, do you?

You're the one who sounds like he's afraid that the black helicopters will be seen following the revelations of the anti-US interests in the meditation room at UN headquarters. . .

Dude, you're high.

You guys are the tin-foil-hat crowd for your crack-pot conspiracy theories where Bush, Aschcroft, et. al are out to make the US some sort of dictatorship where dissent is crushed, etc.

Hilly. . . The mother ship is calling. . .  hilly. . .

Seriously.  Isaly is right.  The Department of homeland security is out to silence anybody disagreeing with Shrub.  Can't you see it hillbilly?

You guys are the tin-foil-hat crowd for your crack-pot conspiracy theories where Bush, Aschcroft, et. al are out to make the US some sort of dictatorship where dissent is crushed, etc.

It's not crack-pot conspiracy theories.  It's John Poindexter collecting citizen's private info, it's the Patriot Act, it's the Deaprtment of Homeland Security, it's the liberal usage of "Enemy Combatant."  Don't you watch the news?  Don't you understand that your rights are being comprimised?  Sheesh... talk about blindly following an agenda...

Oh, yeah, we're all going to jail for our speech.   Your tin-foil hat's on a little too tight there bud.

...it's the liberal usage of "Enemy Combatant."...

Do the Geneva Conventions apply to the detainees from al-Qaeda?
Terrorist networks such as al-Qaeda normally would not meet these standards, most experts say. Al-Qaeda's militants wear no uniforms, defy the rules of war by targeting civilians, often operate independently of a direct chain of command, and often conceal their weapons. Most experts say al-Qaeda detainees would be considered "unlawful combatants," not POWs.

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/respons … nees2.html

I never thought I'd see the word "reason" applied to an editorial from the Washington Times.

The Chamberlains of today ? they call themselves the "anti-war movement" ? are as deeply in denial of the stakes and consequences of failing to defeat Iraq's Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda's global terror machine as Neville and the neutralists were in the 1930s when they kowtowed to Hitler.

Nope. I think most of the anti-war people understand the importance of stopping al'Qaeda. At least, I don't see anyone trying to get between the US and the pursuit of bin Laden. But the editorial is probably just trying to perpetuate the false connection between IRaq and al'Qaeda.

Funny thing about "reason" is that it only works when it's based on fact.

That's why equating Saddam to Hitler is so silly here. We supported Saddam for a long time. He made one act of aggression that was against our interests and we put him back in his place. He has been totally contained since then. When he defeats Poland (or France) then I'll be concerned, but as of right now nobody can show that Saddam is even a threat to anybody.

Our nouveau Nevilles ooze with the same self-absorbed "peace cant," a monologue of conspiracy theories utterly detached from reality.

What conspiracy theories? This editorial is punctuated with cookoo clocks.

Many so-called peace rallies are so barmy they exist beyond parody. After the gray-beard prof-type delivers an epithet-laden rant asserting President Bush and America are more dangerous than Saddam and bin Laden, several hundred 50-ish women disrobe and spell "No War" with their naked bodies. Peace in our time?

"Reason" doesn't need to rely on making fun of people.

I think there was exactly one rally where women got naked and spelled No War with their bodies. But, hey, why not let the WT try to portray one extreme, idealistic but silly event as if it represented "many" rallies, and, by extension, represents the silliness of the whole anti-war side of the argument? I'll tell you why not: because somebody said this editorial represented "reason" -- and that's false advertising.

It's dumbfounding

It is!

that many on the "peace left" claim to promote international, multilateral action, particularly in the United Nations, for they oppose the very policies that would strengthen the U.N.'s ability to promote peace.

Uh, care to be more specific?

Oh, wait, let's see if we can figure it out. The anti-war side is opposing a policy, says the editorial. And the editorial's main idea is how the anti-war people oppose war. Ah. Now I get it. The author is trying to say that opposing war stops the UN from promoting peace! But where have I heard that kind of "reasoning" before? Why, right here: on the back of my copy of 1984!

In the 1930s, when Fascist Italy smashed Ethiopia and Japan savaged China, the League of Nations complained and did nothing.

This will be an important point to remember when Iraq invades Ethiopia and China. Ok, ok, now I'm making fun. But seriously: Iraq can't even fly in its own air space. It's totally contained. Our troops have been sitting there for more than a decade and any move against any of its neighbors would be immediately met by force and swift defeat.

These Iraq=Nazi Germany arguments always fail because people like this editorial's author never look at the reality of the situation. The comparison begins and ends here: Saddam is a dictator, Hitler was a dictator. That's it. Iraq isn't in a position to threaten anybody.

Failure to confront the tyrants of today will kill the United Nations.

This is an interesting use of the word "tyrants" because it's in the plural. Does the author actually have the balls to be suggesting that we, the UN and the US, start confronting all of the world's tyrants? There are plenty of places on earth that are ruled by people a lot worse than Saddam in terms of their tyranny.

I doubt he has the balls for that though. I'll bet that this guy is making the classic pro-war-argument fallacy: claiming that "tyranny" equals "threat to the US." He probably just means Iraq and al'Qaida and just wants to get us all pissed by using the word "Tyrant," as if the US is always going out of its way to stop tyrants.

Finishing Saddam is about enforcing multilateral resolutions.

What the hell does he mean by "Finishing Saddam"? Where I come from we get a lot of movies and TV and whenever someone says, "Finish him!" it's usually the crazy evil bad guy telling some lackey to kill the good guy. Is this editorial saying that killing Saddam is what we need to do? The UN is now in the business of killing people? Yikes! It's the United Nations, guys -- not the United Assassinations.

In the wake of Desert Storm, U.N. Security Council resolutions mandated that Saddam give up his weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

That's funny. Wasn't hillbilly saying in another thread that it was the US who mandated that Saddam give up his WMDs?

You guys are the tin-foil-hat crowd for your crack-pot conspiracy theories where Bush, Aschcroft, et. al are out to make the US some sort of dictatorship where dissent is crushed, etc.

It's not crack-pot conspiracy theories.  It's John Poindexter collecting citizen's private info, it's the Patriot Act, it's the Deaprtment of Homeland Security, it's the liberal usage of "Enemy Combatant."  Don't you watch the news?  Don't you understand that your rights are being comprimised?  Sheesh... talk about blindly following an agenda...

Oh, yeah, we're all going to jail for our speech.   Your tin-foil hat's on a little too tight there bud.

Tin foil hats vs straw men. looks like you're on the losing side of that one, hb.