« i'm a bad samaritan | Main | war, what is it good for? »

101 reasons you are seriously misguided

101 reasons not to go to war with Iraq by Alton Miller

I'll just pick and choose a few here.

16. In a war on Iraq we'll lose friends all around the world.

18: War plans are alienating the French public..

And your point there is...?

22. War will selectively, profoundly disrupt the lives of more than a million family members across the United States

Not going to war will profoundly disrupt the lives of every single person in the United States. Do these people honestly think that if we don't use force Saddam is just going to gently into the good night?

24. Arms inspectors are saying that Iraqi officials have granted completely open access to every site, are permitting the questioning of Iraqi scientists, and are otherwise in compliance with U.N. Resolution 1441.

Time to update number 24. Too bad the author probably thinks Blix is a liar.

25. A war with Iraq would be very costly

Imagine how costly it would be if we let the inspectors have the months more of time they want. Just enough time to complete plans for a nice little terrorist attack on the USA using those Weapons of Mass Destruction that nobody thinks exist.

38. War is also providing cover for political abuse here at home. When licenses to administration cronies for drilling in Alaska can be wrapped up in a "patriotic" agenda, we know we're near the bottom of the barrel.

This, from the same people who don't want us to take poor Iraq's oil. Oil doesn't go on trees, idiot. But if they suddenly stopped opposing drilling in Alaska, then they couldn't have their "it's about the ooooooilll" mantra.

42. War will evoke massive antiwar rallies, further straining citizens' relationships with local authorities, and further draining city budgets.

Maybe if your little rallies didn't include smashing windows and turning over mailboxes, and perhaps if you didn't view the "local authorities" as fascist pigs, your anti-war marches wouldn't be so draining on the cities.

46. Despite claims that they are stalling or lying, in fact Saddam's officials appear to be complying with every request from U.N. inspectors.

Welcome to Bizzaro World.

52. War plans are based on a dishonest history of arms inspections. Scott Ritter, the former chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq says...

It doesn't matter what Scott Ritter says. He is a liar, a traitor and a deranged nitwit.

Getting bored now. Skipping down towards the end.

92. Another insult to our intelligence: "You're with us or you're against us."

That's generally the way it works. Pick a side, stay with it and then regret your choice later on, pal.

The last one is my favorite:

101. Intellectuals and artists are against war on Iraq. Okay, this is my personal indulgence, and it's why there are 101 reasons – you can take it or leave it. My personal favorite opposition comes from the novelist John Le Carré.

The prosecution rests.


Gees that convinces me... we better give it up now.


Nothing but regurgitated Leftie/celeb/media cud wads.

hehehe, michele got her mojo back 8^)

Nice Fisking...

What a f*cktard. I guess he hasn't read Bill Whittle's lates treatise over at ejectejecteject.com...

Oops - that's "latest treatise" ...

Just another window into the collective mind of the great antiAmerican masses. Gets scarier every look.

Consider the source of this 101 list. The guy's other commentaries reek of feel-good, conservatives-are-always-wrong sentiment which never engages the forebrain. The name of the organization says it all - Protestants for the Common Good, aka Self-Righteous Christians Who Know Better Than You Do. They, the National Council of Churches, and the US Catholic Bishops Conference have no business opining on political matters and should stick to the spritiual.

-Tony, who is Catholic himself

Like Feste said...Buwhahahahahaha!

I think they should make The Dirty Dozen a reality, and send him along as a special correspondent.

Thanks for the laugh! I was trying to explain to friends this weekend about how obtuse people confuse the depth of their conviction with their ability to think and - voila - here is a perfect example. Your feeble attempts at pithy responses made my day. Thanks!

When you wrote - voila - did you wave your arms around theatrically like Doug Henning used to do when he made a bunch of doves appear out of his tights?

Ever notice how people who make really stupid comments don't leave their e-mail address....just noticed that.

Sounds like Simon Samano, resident lefty dingbat at the Daily Aztec, has been drinking Alton Miller's bong water.
The headline for Samano's most recent column (1/27) is "Growing Anti-war ideals a sign of positive change in U.S."
Yeaahhh, right. Whatever you say, Junior.
Go to http://dailyaztec.com/current.html and click on the above-mentioned headline for the full er "opinion."

"Saddams misfortune is to sit on the second biggest oilfield in the world"

sigh there's TWO WORDS that truly should never be in a sentence. "Saddam" and "Misfortune". Boo fucking hoo...

Michele, dah-link.
You invoked references to the accursed French twice in this post... is this a ploy to make me change my ambivalent stance on this war, and scream "BOMBS AWAY"?

Clever little fox you are... :0)

Like I've stated in other comments, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I respect all view points. So please don't take this the wrong way. But in response to the comment that "Every single life in the United States would be disrupted...etc." Why do you think that Saddam is going to launch an attack on the mainland U.S.? What would motivate him to do so? There is NO gain in starting a war with the U.S. He is at a disadvantage militarily and technologically. And as far as terrorist attacks go, I'm sure the Government will be able to detect any sort of biological or nuclear weapons entering the States. Because Bush "Supposedly" has all sorts of proof that these weapons exist. Of course he won't give that proof to the U.N. to bolster global support of military action. And has anyone thought that going into Iraq and bombing their country, killing their people and attacking their governing body, might just spark a little bit of a retaliation? Seeing as Saddam cannot possibly win a head on war with the U.S. maybe that retaliation will come in the form of...uh...a TERRORIST ATTACK! Silly warmongering fascists, don't go stirring up a hornets nest. Sure you're bigger than the hornets, and you can probably kill them all, but chances are they'll sting you pretty bad before you finish them off.

Chip, Saddam almost certainly has already attacked the US. Dig a little into the 1993 attack on the WTC, and find out where the "experts" who turned a pipe bomb campaign into a massive carbomb intended to kill thousands came from. And where one of them is still living today.

Of course, given your tone, I doubt you're at all interested in evidence.

Once you read #1 on the guy's list you have to realize that the other hundred reasons are just window dressing....

"It's not moral. War can never be a moral act, not even as a "last resort." In the best case, war is a necessary evil. What is the moral difference between a crusade and a jihad?"


Here's a scenario for ya.

A non-contained Saddam develops nukes--he will, the evidence of his pursuit has been confirmed. He'll annex whatever neighboring nations he can--he's tried this before--and with a US with its' head up its' ass he'll have free rein. Once he's thrown his weight around a bit and made himself caliph (which is the prize both he and Osama crave) he'll get rid of that pesky jewish state.

Of course, Israel will launch. Which will result in a Pakistani launch. Which will cause India to launch. Which will set off China, with the Norks gleefully adding theirs.

A Chinese launch could prompt a Russian launch. And, even if we keep our heads and don't launch at this point some retard will decide that now's the time to eliminate 'the Great Satan' or the 'Yankee capitalist pig'. And THEN we'll launch.

And what'll be left then? Will anyone care that it was all about the oooiill? Nope. In fact a good portion of them have just taken the first steps towards becoming the next intelligent species supply of that precious petrochemical.

So you see, it's better to kill this guy and maybe suffer some casualties than it would be to do nothing ('cos that's what 'continuing inspections' means)

Of course, that's a 'worst case' scenario. He could only kill a million or two. Now, I know that leftists, in their Stalinistic Maoism, don't have a whole lot of qualms about mass 'liquidations' of people who refuse to stop thinking for themselves, but we right-wing wackos get pissed at murders in numbers far less than those you're all used to.

So Saddam gets his nukes, and decides to put into motion events that will ultimately destroy the entire world. All so he can get rid of what? Isreael? America? Kuwait? Sure thing. Now here's another scenario for you. The U.S. walks into Iraq, bombs a few palaces, blows up hospitals, saying they believed they were hiding nukes because of the radiation from an X-Ray machine, torch a couple cities, kill a few million soldiers, and blow up a couple air bases. Saddam goes underground like in 1991 and this time he's hiding out with big bad Osama, whom the U.S. has yet to find. So now that the evil dictator is out of Iraq the U.S. is free to install democracy in a country that has never had democracy, leaving an opening for another tyrant to take control, or the U.S. just installs a puppet regime that will give them a better price on oil. Which is still sold to the consumer at highly inflated prices because it's too lucrative to lower the prices now that everyone is paying the big bucks anyway. Ok, now we've got Iraq controlled by either a dictator or a U.S. sponsored regime. Saddam and Bin Laden in hiding with tons of money that Saddam has embezzeled, and everyone's still paying top dollar for a tank of gas. Now I guess seeing as Saddam has lost his country he'll go away peacefully without lauching numerous attacks on the U.S. mainland. And Osama will sit by and ask Allah's forgivness for his sins against mankind. Is that about right? Or maybe the U.S. takes out Saddam, because as we know he's the ONLY power hungry despot in the history of the world. No one will rise to take his place in a struggling nation with a massive power vacancy. Basic physics people, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The U.S. attacks Iraq, bad things will happen. They won't sit by and let the American Army trounce them again. They will retaliate. The fear of this retaliation will allow Bush to declare a national emergency, leading to marshall law, closed borders, censorship, and all sorts of breaches of basic freedoms. These freedoms which are or were the foundation of the American country. Maybe no one notices the current erosion of those basic principles, for example the U.S. has been ranked 15th in the world for freedom of the press. 15th, that's pretty bad. Canada, the superior neighbor to the north is in 5th place. And all of these scenarios would be executed by a President who wasn't even elected by a majority vote. Or does no one remember the whole Florida bad ballots thing? What a joke. The economy suffers and Bush decides to go to war to take attention away from his diplomatic impotence. He uses the practically state run CNN news agency to dupe the American public into believing everything his propoganda machine spews out, and he manages to do this despite the availability of international news sources provided by the internet. We've seen this kind of thing before, in Nazi Germany, those guys thought Hitler was a Godsend. Now it hasn't gotten that far yet, but if people aren't careful it will. The lack of global support for this action is justified, otherwise every free nation would be jumping on board. It's not as if we've just finished a devastating war that has left us all gun shy like the WWII hesitations. The reason there is a lack of support for these actions is because they are morally and ethically wrong. Ousting Saddam from control in Iraq will not stop him from using money and science to develope nuclear weapons, and it sure won't stop him from going to other countries like North Korea and maybe whispering in their ears. Wake up folks, this isn't the time for America to pull the whole John Wayne cowboy act. This is a time for diplomacy.

Wow, Chip, you've managed to distill international relations down to... basic physics. And evoke the Hitler/Bush comparison. Congrats.

52. Scott Ritter likes to have 14 year old girls watch him jerk off in public toilets. I think that disqualifies him from being taken seriously as a voice of integrity.

Wow Chip, you've sure made a long post. No real point, but a long post anyway.

Something bad will happen if we disarm Iraq because...'for every action there is an equal and opposite re-action' That makes sense......sure it does.

And then you posit that not only does Saddam know where Osama is, he goes into an instant alliance with him. Sure. Brilliant.

And here's some more brilliance--The US is 15th on freedom of the press? 15th? And a country that DOESN'T HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH--OR THE PRESS ranks higher? Who put that survey together?

And, for the record, no presodent has EVER been elected by 'popular' or 'majority' vote. Not one. Every single one of them has won in the Electoral College--as Bush did. Sorry, inconveinient fact, I know, but a whole lot better than your mindless drivel.

And---get ready to laugh---"the almost state-run CNN' Ha!. Do you know who owns CNN, Chip? Hanoi Jane's ex. Mr Socialism himself...Ted Turner.

I think I understand now. Someone accidently kicked your rock at that last protest.

get a clue, ok?

You know, our own Intelligence Agency has looked at Bush's so-called "evidence" and put it into severe question, I'm siding with the people who whose job is all about acquiring information.

Bush Sr. clearly had a much better reason to go to war in the Gulf, which is the reason why Dubya can't get any proof that Saddam has WMD's. For 12 years we've had this fucker, Saddam by the balls. No one in his regime can fart in the wrong direction without us knowing, let alone produce WMDs. Think of it, to produce a nuclear weapon there would be clearly detectable emissions, same with chemical weapons. As for Biological weapons, that would require Saddam to send out for the parts, which is impossible because we, the US, are watching.

If Saddam was doing all this, we wouldn't need weapon inspectors, we'd have just gone to the UN with satellite photos, radiation level reports, intercepted crates and receipts!

You want a war? You want a threat? How about North Korea? They have nuclear weapons, they have missles that can reach the US, they've been reported to have sold a few. Kim Jong Ill is an evil tyrant who murders his people. Come on! The party is over in N. Korea! Why are we letting this mongrel walk around and going after the neutered one?

We don't care about about the Iraqi people, its not the business of our government to care about people in other countries. We are an empire, and the job of an empire is to acquire the resources necessary for the citizens within that empire to utilize.... and make money off of. That means oil people.

And if you want further evidence about Bush's commitment to YOUR security, here ya go: In 2001, obviously before 9/11, he sent 1 billion dollars in gift money to the Taliban, in an effort to support their ban on the production of opiom. This the very same regime who our government believed to be giving shelter to the same terrorists who bombed the USS Cole and various US embassies in Africa, and of course later on, 9/11.

My main gripe is this: Dubya's accusations just don't make any sense given the information that we know of Saddam after the Gulf War. We've handled this guy, his whole government is an insect in a jar under a microscope, we've got bigger fish to fry, like finding Osama, keeping N. Korea in check, our economy, etc...