America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 21 years ago by eleltea. 29 replies replies.
Answers to stupid anti-war questions ...
Slimboli Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 07-09-2000
Posts: 16,139
Snappy Answers To Stupid Antiwar Soundbites ... Posted 3/5/2003 By Tom Adkins at another forum.

1) “The United States is taking unilateral action against Iraq.”

So far, it`s a 90-member worldwide "unilateral" coalition.

2) “We are in a rush to war.”

An 11-year rush?

3) “Tough inspections can disarm Saddam Hussein without our having to invade Iraq.”

Eleven years of inspections have done wonders so far.

4) “We should let the inspectors finish their job.”

We did. They didn`t. We will.

5) “Why fight? The Iraqi military is weaker than in 1991.”

But their biological and chemical weapons are much more dangerous.

6) “There`s no proof of those weapons.”

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 pocket?

7) “If we invade, Saddam might use those weapons of mass destruction against us.”

8) I thought you said Iraq didn`t have them?

“But terrorists might attack if we invade Iraq.”

Oh — so if we don`t attack Iraq, terrorists will never strike again?

9) “We shouldn`t go to war without a UN resolution.”

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?

10) “We don`t have a real declaration for war.”

It`s called "Joint Congressional Resolution #114.

11) “We are giving $20 billion to Turkey. We could use that money at home.”

OK, we`ll use that money to strengthen our Iraqi border with Wyoming.

12) “If North Korea has nuclear weapons, why aren`t we invading them first?”

Uh, hello, isn`t that the point?

13) “European leaders are against the war.”

The Reichstag wasn`t attacked. The Grande Place wasn`t attacked. The Kremlin wasn`t attacked. And the Jerry Lewis Lifetime Achievement Museum wasn`t attacked. America was attacked. And besides, even with the tantrums of France, Belgium and Germany, only three European nations aren`t willing to defend freedom. The rest of Europe is with America.

14) “The French don`t support the war.”

Oh — did they surrender already?

15) “Germany objects to this war.”

Germany objected to Reagan`s "attitude" toward the Soviet Union. Of course, they objected to our presence in 1943 as well.

16) “Belgians are against the war.”

I can live without waffles and ice cream.

17) “The Russians don’t support the war.”

They’re still angry over Reagan`s brilliant Cold War victory.

18) “Polls show Europeans are against this war.”

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.

19) “We should build a coalition with our friends.”

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

20) “What happens if we can`t build a United Nations coalition?”

Who cares?

21) “But the UN is the world`s most respected governing body.”

Not as respected as the U.S. military.

22) “America has always waited until enemies attacked.”

Now that oceans can`t hold back enemies, pre-emptive war is forever a necessity.

23) “War will cost billions!”

So — how much is YOUR city worth?

24) “President Bush says he`s willing to violate the 1976 executive order forbidding assassinations of foreign leaders.”

As soon as the ink is dry on rescinding that idiotic order, will someone please pull the trigger? The line forms to the right.”

25) “Many senators don`t support Bush.”

Are you speaking of the senators from Bordeaux?

26) “Tom Daschle says George Bush has a ‘credibility gap’”

When was the last time we came to Tom Daschle for the truth?

27) “These problems didn`t happen under Clinton.”

Actually, they happened. But Clinton ignored them. Now Bush will clean up his mess.

28) “But Clinton didn`t start a war.”

Not unless his girlfriend was testifying before Congress.

29) “The first President Bush should have taken out Hussein in `91.”

That 1991 UN resolution forbade a march on Baghdad. Remember?

30) “Millions of peace activists are demanding we stop the march to war.”

Millions of Iraqis are begging for us to start the war.

31) “Thousands of innocents will be killed or injured.”

That`s a lot less than Hussein has killed and is killing.

32) “Young Americans will die in battle.”

Would you prefer they die in skyscrapers?

33) “Protesters have genuine objections to war.”

Just like they did in Somalia? Bosnia?

34) “People are coming from all over the world to be human shields on behalf of Saddam.”

Quick, hurry before the bombs start dropping.

35) “This is about American imperialism.”

So which country do we own? What nation sends us its tax dollars? If America were imperialist, we`d already own the entire world. Who could stand in our way?

36) “This is blood for oil.”

The only blood here has been that of Iraqis tortured, starved and killed while Hussein builds massive palaces to hide nuclear weapons — all financed with Iraqi oil.

37) “This is a racist war.”

America happily endorses a multicultural attitude toward anyone who dares to take away our freedom. Regardless of race, color or creed, we hunt them down and kill them.

3*) “A U.S.-led invasion of Iraq is a great recruiting tool for terrorists.”

Have fun recruiting people into oppressive misery as they enjoy their first taste of freedom.

39) “An attack on Iraq could seriously undermine and destabilize Arab nations.”

Destabilize the region? The sooner we topple these oppressive 14th century terrorist regimes the better.

40) “Are we prepared for a multi-billion dollar occupation?”

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.

41) “Polls show Americans are more concerned about the threat from Al Qaeda than the threat from Iraq.”

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.

42) “American opinion is against the war.”

No, it`s not. A majority of Americans want to fight now, not later.

43) “According to a recent poll...”

You know what? Flush those polls. We`re in a war against terrorism. If you don`t want to fight the vile murderers, get the hell out of the way. Go visit Paris. Or Antwerp. Or Berlin. Or Moscow. And stay there. Forever. But this time, don`t call us when the Visigoths are at the gates.
Charlie Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2002
Posts: 39,751
Very good, and very true!

Charlie
efm Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 01-23-2001
Posts: 499
Okay but strike the part about America being attacked. Nobody's saying that Iraq was involved in the WTC attack. Why can't people get that??
jamesconnors Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 11-02-2002
Posts: 378
im saying they were...i think they had there hand in it im sure of it...all those radical mulsims stick together
Homebrew Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 02-11-2003
Posts: 11,885
Doesn't matter what we think anyway. Bush will get his war. His financial supporters wouldn't have it any other way.
Gotta stir the ****.
Later
Homebrew
Slimboli Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 07-09-2000
Posts: 16,139
efm --- we`re in a war against terrorism. Period.

... and we have to take it on ... and defeat it, country by country ... if necessary!

... or it's going to get worse and we will never see the end of it. The momentum has already started ... with the WTC, and now that every other terrorist fraction in the world has seen how easy that was ... we have to show them that we are not something that should be taken lightly.
tailgater Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
efm,
Sometimes it does appear as though folks blur the two. But they are not unrelated simply because Iraq didn't pull the trigger.
Before 9/11, America largely ignored the terrorist attacks. We would mourn the losses, put in a half hearted, half assed effort to find somebody, and close the book.
After 9/11 we have adopted a more proactive stance. We are at war with terroism. But we are also justified in being equally as proactive when any corrupt dictatorship poses a threat. Saddam happens to have a recent history with the US. He has thumbed his nose for many moons at any and all UN resolutions. And we feel his desire to obtain nuclear weapons will create further turmoil to the US and the world.
But I agree that many confuse the two seperate but equally dangerous issues at hand.
SteveS Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 01-13-2002
Posts: 8,751
We're already at war ...

The only question is whether we will recognize that now or whether we'll choose to wait and be forced to realize it later ...

This war was not of our choosing, but it will be one that will be decided by our collective will ... the enemy recognizes that ... the Gulf War taught them that they cannot hope to put even a dent or scratch on our conventional forces, so they will hope to win by attacking our national will ... the very nature of the 9/11 attacks was to initiate that assault through our media ... they showed us then, that they've skillfully learned the real lessons of Vietnam, while we sadly have yet to fully do so ...

The very fact that a debate exists is indicative that to at least some extent, the enemy is being successful ...

Well, the point of what I'm saying is ... their attack IS on our collective will ... and, if we're sufficiently lacking in that regard, we'll lose ...

And to those who're objecting to dealing with Iraq by saying "but why Saddam?? he hasn't done anything to us" ... are you REALLY unable to see the connection here???

I'm sorry ... the case for action has never been more clearly defined in my entire life ... and seldom more clearly defined in history ... would you have objected to our entering WWII ???? ... would you have said "but why Germany (or Italy) ??? THEY didn't attack us at Pearl Harbor" ...

Is there ANY price you'd object to paying in order to avoid having to fight??
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
jamesconnors

too vague. if you think it's a deer and it really is a rabbit, thinking won't make it a deer.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
efm

because they believe what they are told. they are called bushets.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
Homebrew

correct or in this case "right"
usahog Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
Rick you Smokin that Peace Pipe Again??

LMFAO!!!!!!

Hog
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
slimboli.

all your quotes are cliche questions.

your answers are, as they should be, are your own opinion based on your interpretation of what you have read, heard, and in your case, i'm sure, researched.

since i start with the premise that the election was stolen by the supreme court, that if bush did not have all that dirty stuff going on for him in florida, we would now be bitching about "gore the bore", that the dim sun hasen't had an original thought in his life, none were necessary, and he probably has a
2 digit iq.

from what i can gleam his sat was 600, which does qualify him for some jr colleges. he is the front man for some of the greediest, self serving, sobs ever to have made their way to the top of the money charts.

anyone who has more money then he can possibly use during a life and want's more, has his priorities confused. i hate the term "family values", but if you can't raise two daughters properly, don't tell me how to raise mine.

narrow mindedness has the advantage of being unable to be influenced by information that is the contrary to preconcieved notions.

in the bush group, you have almost exclusively a bunch of "draft dodgers" who are quiet prepared, and have the power, to send other people's children to war and death, for their own selfish reasons.

we both are privy to the same information, the rest is interpretation, and we see things differently.
usahog Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
Rick.. Being in War Myself and seeing the upcoming events and the Talk of Possibly bringing back a draft.. I have a Son, sharp as a tack, excellent at everything he does.. accept for school "it Bores Him" so he is in his second year of his Senior year.. and just about to drop out of that... I have talked to him and told him.. That if they do start a draft back up.. he could end up Front Line Soldier, Or he could finish his education and if he may be drafted then he could Choose a Branch of Service of his Own.. SO ARE YOU SAYING I AM TELLING MY SON TO BE A DRAFT DODGER??????
At Least he isn't going to Head to Canada and then on over to F#^$KIN RUSSIA to PROTEST THE AMERICANS AND THERE WAR... Hell he may even become the President Someday!!!!! but he'd like to play in the NBA first...

Hog
usahog Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
I'm Still Waiting for your Answer Rick???

Slimboli Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 07-09-2000
Posts: 16,139
Rick --- if you had read the first sentence, you would have noticed that it said:

"Snappy Answers To Stupid Antiwar Soundbites ... Posted 3/5/2003 By Tom Adkins at another forum."

... all I did was 'cut-n-paste' it, because I thought it was interesting reading, and was intersested in seeing what the feedback would be like.

Heck, I posted someone elses silly little poem, and look at the crap it stirred up ... LOL!
usahog Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
LMAO @ Slim

Get your Armor On Bro!!!!!

LMAO!!!!!!

Hog
donutboy2000 Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 11-20-2001
Posts: 25,000
Rick- Another elaborate right wing conspiracy?
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
usahog

some of us sleep at differnt times then others, we didn't go to sleep until 5:00am. are you saying "i'll wait untile hell freezes over?"

your reach that i am telling your son to be a draft dodger is beyond the pale. I AM NOT SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT YOU OR YOUR SON.

what i said, and am saying is the chicken hawks in washington, you can run a search and find out all the reasons that chenny, rush, ashcroft, bush and all these "draft dodgers" never served because they had a sore throat, a headache, or some other BS reason to avoid serving in the service and their kids will also stay home. they want someone else's kids to fight and die. no skin off their noses, they could care less about someone else's kids. they are nasty people.

if you want a website, i'll be glad to post one. it simply lists the names and the reasons they were not in the military. no opinions, no room for editorializing, except in the heading "these are the chicken hawks" watch them lay eggs and cluck.

i hope your son is able to finish school, because as we both know, the graduation from school is the first hurdle to leap over, with more to come.

i am glad to see you would rather he was not a frontline soldier. one of the most understandable things i have read from you. no one wants their child in danger.
usahog Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
Rick:some of us sleep at differnt times then others, we didn't go to sleep until 5:00am. are you saying "i'll wait untile hell freezes over?"
I didn't say Hell Freezes over... I said I'm still waiting..
your reach that i am telling your son to be a draft dodger is beyond the pale. I AM NOT SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT YOU OR YOUR SON.
and Bush did not dodge the draft he joined the Air National Guard... and Yes I told my Son the same thing.. so he can at least have a chance to join somewhere that may help him in the future rather than going front line Infantry for a war serve his 4 yr stent or 2 yr and get out with nothing but memories behind him good or bad... Bush Joined the Guard and did quite well for himself as we all can see...

now about your web site I would like to see it.. you say it is not one sided then it will show the information also on Clinton Dodging the War Totally!!!

Hog
tailgater Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Rick thinks that joining the National Guard is draft dodging?
Puts his "stolen election" comments into perspective.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
tailgater

he refused to take a medical, he was grounded, he went awol.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
usahog.

try this site. it lists both republicans and democrats as you asked.



http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
usahog Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
he even Volinteered (sp) to go over sea's, but was told no he couldn't by his commander...

I have been told the same thing... not once... not twice... but 3 different times... from my Superiors

but you didn't know that did you Rick??? he wanted to go... now What about that Web Site??? or did I miss you posting it... I want to read about Clintons War Record... Thanks

Hog
usahog Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
LMAO just as I was typing to ask.... Thanks Again

Hog
usahog Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
Rick, Clinton isn't even on the list there??? or I over looked his name???

Al Gore was a Dope Smoker LMAO!!!!!


Hog
efm Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 01-23-2001
Posts: 499
Okay, I'm a dummy. I admit I'm not smart enough to know if overthrowing Iraq's government will turn out for the best. Nobody does unless they have a crystal ball. I can understand why it upsets people. It upsets me too.

I think tailgater is right that Saddam's quest for nukes is a big issue. It may be the biggest issue. One of the most eloquent (but crudest) guys I know, my brother, puts it this way:

"N. Korea has nukes and is despirate for money. Arabs have money and want nukes.

Taking out Saddam is just a message to all them other Arabs to not even think about it.

Saddam can not have nukes. I do not see a debate here. You may want to talk politics, money, reputation, oil, etc. But Saddam can not have nukes."
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
efm

i agree completely. no one should have nukes.
usahog Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
Rick,

I've read everything on the far left site you posted..

(try this site. it lists both republicans and democrats as you asked.
http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html )

I am wondering are they running this web site from an Oil Rig off of California somewhere??

The Site did not list Clinton Anywhere accept in Verbage about Al Gore... and you Tell me this is a Site on ALL DEM's and REP's? its so far sided it isn't funny....
I could post enough Facts that Clinton Pulled during his time as a Politician/Presedent.. and Gore Went Right along with the Ol'Boy, that some would want to run him out of Country!!!!

Hog
Hog
eleltea Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 03-03-2002
Posts: 4,562
good post slim.
Users browsing this topic
Guest