OT: What the Fringe Is Saying Now

[CamEdwards]

Now that we're all seeing the images of Baghdad residents celebrating... let's pause and take a look at what the anti-war fringe is saying today, shall we?

From democratic underground

-How do you celebrate and cheer on the imperalistic thugs that just dropped 20,000+ bombs and missiles on your country, flattened your cities, and murdered hundreds-- if not thousands--of your friends and neighbors.
I just don't understand this world anymore.


and the response..

-who are celebrating that what was a secular nation will now be ripe for takeover ala Afghanistan

another post.

Sure I'll be happy for the Iraqi's but for these media whores to be gloating and "you are seeing history right now"...just sits as a pit in my stomach... To me this sends a worldwide message that we are the ultimate arrogant bullies and you better watch out...

and another

everybody in the world gets to see the dead and mangled of the war, EXCEPT US. WHY? are we too sensitive to view the unpleasentness while we are enjoying a huge meal? why do i have to surf the net to find armless boys and boys with brains blown out? why do i have to go to al-jazeerah to see the real horror of bombing? why are the dead being hidden? like in the 6th sense....'i want to see dead people'. where are they?
all i see is iraqis handing machine gun toting americans flowers.
all is see is the lynch girl's parents smiling. i want to see the dead u.s. soldiers, i want to see the spilt blood, and the people turned into meat. WHY IS IT BEING HIDDEN FROM ME? my tax dollars pay for this carnage, SHOW IT TO US!!! why is the truth of war being censored? this is ONE SIDED PROPAGANDA.

and yet another

Relief that one is no longer likely to bombed is reason for jubilation. Let's see how happy the occupation is in 9 months.
As far as the looting goes, consider how much there is when law and order breaks down in areas of the U.S.A. Good old class war revenge is what it's about.

and finally...

We don't have gas chambers, but in every other way that matters, we're already there. The Nazi's weren't feared and hated because they were running gas chambers- they were feared and hated because they were invading and taking over one country after another.
Afghanistan, Iraq, now Syria or Iran...? The Patriot Act. The comparison between the U.S. and Nazi Germany is completely reasonable.

Counter that with a sign held up by two Iraqis in downtown Baghdad today: Human Shields Go Home, You U.S. Wankers

[NoMyths]

Yeah, I'm with you Cam, because anti-war people are evil and stupid!

[CamEdwards]

never said they were evil and stupid, but thanks for the intelligent response.

[NoMyths]

Hey, no problem. Down with stupid evil anti-war people!

[Havok]

Not so much stupied as they are naive. We could turn Iraq into one of the richest most well developed country's in the world and they'd still find something bad to say.

Dont sweat it Cam.... Its more fun to sit back and laugh at them.

[CamEdwards]

I don't sweat it. In fact, I'm just trying to contain my joy right now. It would really suck to be a member of the fringe today.

[Havok]

I don't sweat it. In fact, I'm just trying to contain my joy right now. It would really suck to be a member of the fringe today.

Or anyday for that matter

[Fritz]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
everybody in the world gets to see the dead and mangled of the war, EXCEPT US. WHY? are we too sensitive to view the unpleasentness while we are enjoying a huge meal? why do i have to surf the net to find armless boys and boys with brains blown out? why do i have to go to al-jazeerah to see the real horror of bombing? why are the dead being hidden? like in the 6th sense....'i want to see dead people'. where are they?
all i see is iraqis handing machine gun toting americans flowers.
all is see is the lynch girl's parents smiling. i want to see the dead u.s. soldiers, i want to see the spilt blood, and the people turned into meat. WHY IS IT BEING HIDDEN FROM ME? my tax dollars pay for this carnage, SHOW IT TO US!!! why is the truth of war being censored? this is ONE SIDED PROPAGANDA.

You know, I can think of one sure fire way to show what the war is REALLY like. Requires haircut and pushups, marksmanship optional but preferred.

[Radii]

I <3 NoMyths.

There are lunatics on both sides. There is a fringe element on both sides. Going out of your way to find the worst of the worst on the side you disagree with and generalizing it as "everyone who disagrees with you" is annoying. I know that's not so overtly stated(well Havok kinda came out and said it but not Cam), but to think that it's not implied in all these pro war/anti war posts is naive. Everyone tries to find the dumbest of the dumb on the side that they disagree with and say LOOK THATS WHY I'M RIGHT.

(much bigger rant on the subject deleted, I'll leave it at that). There are intelligent arguments on both sides of the issue and posting shit like this does nothing but offend all the people who disagree with you at all (note, not necessarily AGREE with these guys) and make us think you're incapable of complex thought and reasoning and are trying to dumb down every political issue into black and white.

I should have just said something witty like NoMyths, huh?

[Draft Dodger]

"Counter that with a sign held up by two Iraqis in downtown Baghdad today: Human Shields Go Home, You U.S. Wankers"

LOL

[Bee]

well said Radii.

I wasn't even going to post in this thread because I didn't want to come off as being "anti-war" when that's not necessarily my stance but I wanted to give you props for your excellent post.

[User #2735]

The type of people quoted on that site are the reason I don't "understand much of the world".

I've noticed from the start that many of those who are againt the war think of themselves as "intellectuals"...but now that the many of their reasons for being anti-war (the likelyhood of a prolonged war, mass civilian casualties, assertions that the only Iraqis who are against the regiime were the Kurds and the southern Shiites) have been proven to be wrong, they cannot possibly change their stance. Even though it's apparent that the war is coming to an end, they're just coming up with new reasons to be anti-war instead of admitting that they were misguided about the situation. Over the last three weeks I've seen a lot of posts on multiple message boards that made fun of the typical pro-war person by portraying them as mindless, under educated rednecks who were just being brainwashed by the government...but after looking at how hard the spin is coming from the anti-war crowd today, it makes me wonder if there was some mass brainwashing going on in that crowd.

[CamEdwards]

the point of this thread wasn't to show what many of those against this war are thinking today. It was to point out what the fringe is saying. That's why the title of the thread is "What the Fringe is Saying Now".

It's not my fault if the extremists on the side of the left are idiots.

[Bee]

Originally posted by User #2735
...but now that the many of their reasons for being anti-war (the likelyhood of a prolonged war, mass civilian casualties, assertions that the only Iraqis who are against the regiime were the Kurds and the southern Shiites)

Those were the reasons everyone was against the war?

[Tarkus]

I do find it interesting that many of the anti-war posters here have not been heard from lately. Maybe they just got tired of getting shouted down because there are more pro-war folks. Or maybe there are other more obvious reasons. Any way you look at this war it's a good thing. Iraq will be free, people won't be dragged out of their homes and murdered for no reason, people won't be subjected to chemical weapons, people won't live in poverty while the rulers live in luxury (sound familiar?), etc. etc. etc. I don't think there's a chance the Iraqi people as a whole won't be jubilant that the coalition forces have ousted Saddam. And to top it off there have been realively few coalition casualties and relatively few civilian deaths, especially in Baghdad where you could have expected a lot more. If we find WMD, terrorist training camps, and more dead mutilated bodies from over the years this argument will become even stronger.

As far as this thread goes, Cam stated in the title it's from the fringe. He's not claiming that this is the central argument of the anti-war folks. So to criticize for quoting the fringe when the title says it's from the fringe is ridiculous. You don't want to hear about the fringe, don't read the post.

Tarkus

[Bee]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
the point of this thread wasn't to show what many of those against this war are thinking today. It was to point out what the fringe is saying. That's why the title of the thread is "What the Fringe is Saying Now".

It's not my fault if the extremists on the side of the left are idiots.

I also don't blame you for the extremists on the right being idiots either Cam.

[sachmo71]

Not worth it.

[CamEdwards]

to be honest, Bee, I haven't seen a lot of right wing extremism when it comes to Iraq. If you could point some out to me, I'd be glad to read it and laugh right along with you.

[Bee]

Just go to a yahoo message board, there's plenty of both sides to laugh at.

[User #2735]

Originally posted by Bee
Those were the reasons everyone was against the war?

I apologize for the generalization...there have been a fair amount of people and messages that I've seen with deeper, more rational reasons for their anti-war stance. I admit, many of those arguements are compelling. But at the same time, I have seen a large group of people who have primarily stated the reasons I listed (and others that have been proven false) as their basis for being against the war...and now they are forgetting those reasons and moving onto the "we'll see after U.S. occupation" stance.

[Bee]

Originally posted by User #2735
I apologize for the generalization...there have been a fair amount of people and messages that I've seen with deeper, more rational reasons for their anti-war stance. I admit, many of those arguements are compelling. But at the same time, I have seen a large group of people who have primarily stated the reasons I listed (and others that have been proven false) as their basis for being against the war...and now they are forgetting those reasons and moving onto the "we'll see after U.S. occupation" stance.

yep I agree. Many people are like lemmings and take a stance and never really think things through. When one stance is shown false, they'll follow those they support to the next stance.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Bee
yep I agree. Many people are like lemmings and take a stance and never really think things through. When one stance is shown false, they'll follow those they support to the next stance.

Sounds a lot like protestors to me. In all seriousness it seems like some people just protest to protest. If the goals of one are found to be inappropriate they just look for something else. Might not be true in general but sure seems that way to me.

Tarkus

[CamEdwards]

LOL, there's a post over there now talking about how wrong it is for Americans to take down pictures of Saddam because it's "art"...

I tell ya, I can't make this stuff up.

[dawgfan]

I won't presume to speak for all those opposed to this war, but there are multiple reasons I've held my tongue recently, primarily because this is the best of times for those in favor of the war with the routing of the Iraqi military, the capture of Baghdad, the pictures of Iraqi citizens celebrating in the streets and toppling the icons of Saddam. In the short-term view this looks good for the pro-war crowd, while the reasons I've opposed this war are likely to take months and years to fully manifest themselves.

This war was sold to the American people by the Bush administration on three key points:

1) Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and is in violation of U.N. resolutions, and presents a threat to the security of this country.

2) Saddam has ties to terrorist groups including Al Qaeda and is a threat to the security of this country.

3) Saddam is a brutal dictator and the Iraqi people deserve to be liberated from his regime.

I'll address these points in reverse:

3) I don't think anyone but a fringe minority considers it a good thing that Saddam was in power, and almost all of us can agree that he was a vicious and brutal dictator that oppressed his people.

With that said, will the future be any better for this country? Do we (the U.S. and U.K.) have a workable plan for how to reconstruct Iraq and put in place a stable democracy?

Let's keep in mind that there is a lot of divisiveness in Iraq between the Kurds, the Shiite Muslims and the Sunni Muslims. There is also the split between the large number of educated and relatively secular citizens and the smaller group of fundamentalists supported in part by Iran. This is a country like most in the middle east drawn up more for colonial purposes than following traditional cultural boundaries.

How commited are we to seeing the building of a stable, working democracy in this country? Looking at the current state of Afghanistan it is easy to be skeptical that we will follow through on this in a meaningful way.

Add to this the fact that while there are many dancing in the streets of Baghdad today and thanking U.S. troops, many of them will quickly tire of our presence there, and there will be some who distrust the U.S. almost as much as they did Saddam. There are multiple articles today illustrating this point here and here.

As pointed out by an editorial cartoon posted by GrantDawg, many arabs will never be satisfied with the U.S. until the Palestinian situation is settle in a satisfactory manner, and some extremists will never be satisfied with the U.S.

Bottom line is, while liberation of Iraq is a noble goal, is it really our place to police the rulers of the world and depose those we deem to be unfit? This is a dangerous path we are treading here - do we have a right or an obligation to follow suit in Syria? What about Saudi Arabia? What about any number of corrupt and brutal regimes in Africa?

2) The claims of connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda have been tenuous at best and outright fabrications at worst. Those "terrorist camps" discovered and destroyed in northern Iraq were in fact in areas bordering Iran and not under the control of Saddam's government. In other words, they were the province of radical Islamic groups from neighboring Iran and had no connection to or love for Saddam. Let's remember that Osama Bin Laden has never failed to denounce Saddam for being an infidel.

The fact that there have been some terrorist groups fighting the U.S. along with Iraqi soldiers only proves that they hate the U.S. more than the Iraqis, and they feel a primal kinship with their Arab brethren agains the U.S./U.K. heathen invaders. If we'd left they'd go back to fighting each other.

This idea that Saddam would funnel chemical/biological/nuclear weapons or materials to Al Qaeda or the like is at this point nothing more than a wildly speculative piece of B.S. from the minds of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.

1) I would not be surprised if chemical or biological agents and/or weapons are eventually discovered in Iraq. It's no secret that not all of Iraq's weapons are accounted for post Gulf War I. We know that Iraq had chemical weapons - after all it was the U.S. that originally supplied them to Saddam - but there's little evidence they've made any progress on a nuclear weapons program.

Are their chemical weapons a threat to the U.S.? Not directly of course given the limited range of their missles. Could they surreptitiosly strike at U.S. interests through other methods? Yeah, certainly possible, but not terribly likely given what the inevitable response would be. Saddam was a viscious thug, but there's little reason to believe he was so nuts that he'd willingly invite his annhilitation via nuclear response if he struck at our interests with chemical weapons - he was too addicted to power to commit knowing suicide.

If Saddam had working chemical weapons he showed remarkable restraint in not using them over the last few days as it became clear his rule was slipping away. Let's also remember that the reputed chemical weapon find in the last few days has yet to be verified as anything other than common pesticides.

Iraq was in violation of U.N. resolutions, yet the U.N. had yet to accept the notion that now was the time to launch a military solution to the problem. For them, the hammer of inspections was enough to keep the Iraq problem manageable and in check until either Saddam was overthrown from within (most likely by military coup) or died in some other way.

-------------------------

I fear a number of unpleasant outcomes from this war:

1) Fear and hatred of the U.S. in the arab world will increase and contribute to a greater threat against our country in the form of terrorism.

2) The determination of the hard-liners in our government to defy the majority of world opinion sets a disturbing trend in how we are perceived on the world stage and will lead to a growing isolation against the U.S. as the rest of the world reacts to the perception of the U.S. as less a benign and helpful empire and more a rogue and adversarial one.

3) Reconstruction efforst in Iraq will be haphazard, underfunded and frought with setbacks and difficulty, much of which will (fairly or not) be placed at the feet of the U.S.

4) The perception that this war was as much about oil control as it was liberation and security will linger so long as questionable deals like the Haliburton contract happen under the watch of this administration. It was a good thing from a PR perspective that the initial Haliburton contract was rescinded, but watch carefully over the next several years to see how those Iraqi wells are being managed and who really ends up benefiting - the Iraqi people or U.S. oil companies.

I know I won't be able to change most people's minds on this issue which is fair enough - it would take a tremendous amount of information and proof to sway my opinions on this matter. But I do think it offers some value for those that are pro-war to see a thought-out rebuttal to their beliefs that isn't an extremist viewpoint.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
to be honest, Bee, I haven't seen a lot of right wing extremism when it comes to Iraq. If you could point some out to me, I'd be glad to read it and laugh right along with you.

mrskippy, JohnInMiddleGA, daleearnhardtjr.....

[ice4277]

Dawgfan, to me you illustrated some excellent examples of what I would consider the 'worst-case scenario' for our actions in the Middle East. I don't think it will be as bad as you make it sound, but some of these things definitely could happen. Frankly I doubt our removing Saddam Hussein from power will have little effect on future terrorist attacks against the US. I also fear that we will fall into the pattern with Iraq that we have with countries throughout the eighties, where we 'use em and lose em' when our immediate concerns there are over with. We shall see if this changes with this conflict. That being said, I am glad that Saddam was no longer in power, and hopefully this will be the beginning of a prosperous time for the Iraqi people, and maybe bring a bit more stability to the Middle East as well.

[albionmoonlight]

dawgfan makes a good point when he says that the anti-war "justifications" will take a longer time to play out.

My main justification against the war (and I had several for the war, too) is a matter of precedent.

The main reason for supporting the war, IMO, was to stop an evil man from committing genocide on innocent people. (As to the other main justifications--I don't think that Iraq was shown to be linked to terrorism in such a way as to justify an invasion, nor do I think that it was our place to go chasing WMD--based on a UN resolution--when the UN did not want to go in.) This is a laudable goal and, as a favorite poet of mine puts it, a battle worthy of our weapons. What good is our strength if we do not use it to help those less fortunate than us? Also--why should the fact that we mistakenly helped Saddam in the past, and will mistakenly help despots in the future keep us from doing the right thing now? We had a chance to make the world a better place and we did it.

Where I get scared is looking at the precedent that we set. Basically, we have said that, as far as the United States of America is concerned, it is OK for a country to invade another country to stop them from doing "horrible things." As I said above, I believe that this particular use of force is a good thing.

It does, however, come part and parcel with a bad thing--namely the loss of international sovereignty for those countries who do "horrible things." Right now, because we have the guns, we can decide what things are "horrible things" and need to be stopped. And Iraq is an easy case. If genocide is not a "horrible thing," then does the term have much meaning? But, easy cases can set bad precedents.

Let's say that tomorrow Canada develops a super weapon that makes them the most powerful country in the world--bar none (much like we are now.) Then lets say that Canada decides to invade the United States because we practice abortion and use the death penalty (and fill in the blank with other bad things we have done like the Tuskegee medical experiments, etc.). Our government might say, "that's none of your business Canada." We might also say, "a lot of us Americans are against abortion and/or the death penalty; don't punish us for the actions of our leaders." Canada would then say, "but abortion and the death penalty are 'horrible things,' and you yourself said that it is OK to invade a country who does those things to make them stop." And we would say, "that's absurd--genocide is much worse than abortion and the death penalty." And Canada would say, "no it's not," and attack.

First, please don't get stuck on whether abortion and the death penalty and medical experiments on minorities are worse than Saddam's regime. I don't think that is a profitable debate at all. Only madness and anger lies there. I simply used the example to demonstrate a point--which is that, by acting in the way we did, we set a precedent that the biggest baddest country on the block can decide what is right and wrong. That precedent may not always work to our advantage.

IMO, the war was a good thing. I wish, however, that we had taken more time to wait for the UN to agree to the war. I think that demonstrating our belief that no one country should act without solid world approval and support would have helped us in the long run. At some point, we should have gone in without UN approval--but not as early as we did. It was too soon and with too much open disdain for world opinion. (Yes, I know that we had support from a lot of countries and that many believe that the UN would have never agreed. I think we did not have enough world support and that we did not give diplomacy enough time--you may disagree).

If there is a spectrum with "do what you feel is right on any given issue and damn the long term consequences" on one end and "do nothing without international agreement, no matter how bad the situation" on the other, I feel that we moved way too far to the first end of the spectrum with this war. I believe that with more time and more diplomacy, we could have accomplished the same results without establishing such a "might makes right" position.

[NoMyths]

Nice post, dawgfan. Should be required reading.

[NoMyths]

dola...

Ditto, albionmoonlight...well said.

[CamEdwards]

I think both of those posts (dawgfan and albion) were some of the most well thought out posts regarding the war that I've seen here. I don't agree with everything said, but I applaud both of you.

[albionmoonlight]

In part, it's your willingness to openly debate the issues that makes me feel that it is worth posting here, Cam. You make your opinions well known, but you are willing to respect the other side. Are you sure that you are in talk radio?

[Drake]

Originally posted by dawgfan
3) I don't think anyone but a fringe minority considers it a good thing that Saddam was in power, and almost all of us can agree that he was a vicious and brutal dictator that oppressed his people.

With that said, will the future be any better for this country? Do we (the U.S. and U.K.) have a workable plan for how to reconstruct Iraq and put in place a stable democracy?

Let's keep in mind that there is a lot of divisiveness in Iraq between the Kurds, the Shiite Muslims and the Sunni Muslims. There is also the split between the large number of educated and relatively secular citizens and the smaller group of fundamentalists supported in part by Iran. This is a country like most in the middle east drawn up more for colonial purposes than following traditional cultural boundaries.

How commited are we to seeing the building of a stable, working democracy in this country? Looking at the current state of Afghanistan it is easy to be skeptical that we will follow through on this in a meaningful way.

Great post, dawgfan. I would respond to this point with one little niggle: replace Shiite and Sunni with "whites" and "blacks", and replace the idea of Islamic fundamentalism with Right Wing fundamentalism, and you'll find that the problems that terrify us about Iraq are the same problems we've been grappling with in this country for decades. Just as I have faith that we'll one day find the solutions to these issues ourselves here in America, I would like to believe that the Iraqi people can find their own solutions given the freedom and opportunity to do so.

But again, that was a fine, reasoned post. Thank you.

[tucker342]

dawgfan and albionmoonlight, those were fantastic posts. Very well said.

[ice4277]

Let's say that tomorrow Canada develops a super weapon that makes them the most powerful country in the world--bar none (much like we are now.)

No way....they can't even get the Stanley Cup back!

[GrantDawg]

Let me mention one thing on the terrorist front. The scary, chemical weapon terrorist bad guys in Northern Iraq that had direct ties to AQ where outside of Saddam's area of control. I agree with that. BUT, there was at least two terrorist camps, both training terrorist from multiple countries, that were found within a rifle-shot of Baghdad that operated with Saddam's blessing and funding. These were terrorist that were mostly used in bombing in Israel, but don't think that Saddam wouldn't have eventually used them to attack the US.

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by GrantDawg
Let me mention one thing on the terrorist front. The scary, chemical weapon terrorist bad guys in Northern Iraq that had direct ties to AQ where outside of Saddam's area of control. I agree with that. BUT, there was at least two terrorist camps, both training terrorist from multiple countries, that were found within a rifle-shot of Baghdad that operated with Saddam's blessing and funding. These were terrorist that were mostly used in bombing in Israel, but don't think that Saddam wouldn't have eventually used them to attack the US.

I don't disagree with that Grant. But this administration has attempted to paint a clear connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda for quite some time now despite almost all evidence to the contrary.

As I said in another post, I wouldn't be surprised to find Saddam training terrorist with the aim of hitting U.S. interests. I just don't think there was or was going to be any connection with Saddam's terrorists and the known extremist Islamic groups.

As to whether any terrorist attempts by Saddam could've been successful or warranted this unilateral action - I'm not yet convinced.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by dawgfan
I don't disagree with that Grant. But this administration has attempted to paint a clear connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda for quite some time now despite almost all evidence to the contrary.

As I said in another post, I wouldn't be surprised to find Saddam training terrorist with the aim of hitting U.S. interests. I just don't think there was or was going to be any connection with Saddam's terrorists and the known extremist Islamic groups.

As to whether any terrorist attempts by Saddam could've been successful or warranted this unilateral action - I'm not yet convinced.

These groups that he trained where connected with Palestinian extremist terrorist groups. Terrorist trained there have hit Western (not just American) interest.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
In part, it's your willingness to openly debate the issues that makes me feel that it is worth posting here, Cam. You make your opinions well known, but you are willing to respect the other side. Are you sure that you are in talk radio?

LOL! I'd like to think that my willingness to listen to both sides of an argument is one reason why people listen to my show. I've always said I don't want my program to be a three hour pep rally, where people call in and say "love your show, love you, love your ideas" over and over again. Quite frankly, that's boring radio.

I'd much rather have someone from A.N.S.W.E.R. on to debate the war. I'd much rather have ordinary callers who disagree with me, but that's difficult at times because of the reputation talk radio has with those on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

That's not to say I don't like or appreciate callers who like what I have to say... but debate is much more interesting than agreement.