Refuting The Top Ten Most Annoying Anti-War Cliches
By John Hawkins (02/26/03)
10) Why Is The U.S. Going To War With Iraq And Not North Korea? Let me answer that question with some questions. Why did we go to war with Hitler during WW2 and not Stalin immediately after? Why is Milosevic at The Hague today while Castro is still living in a palace in Cuba? Why is it that Mexico and Canada are in NAFTA, but Britain is not? For that matter, why are we going to invade Iraq and not France? Simple, they're different countries, different situations, and they require different tactics to deal with them.
If you don't know what the differences are, it's not because there are no differences, it's because you're not sufficiently informed. If you do want to find out more about the differences, here's an editorial I wrote about the subject. If you don't want to learn more about it, but you want to keep claiming that we should be threatening to invade N. Korea and not Iraq, then go ahead. That's like putting an "ignorant and proud of it" stamp on your forehead and it should warn sensible people that they don't need to waste time paying attention to you.
9) Attacking Iraq Will Just Create More Terrorists: Setting aside the fact that many people in the Middle-East hate Saddam and would be pleased to see Iraq become a Democracy, the idea that going after terrorists and terrorist sponsoring nations will create more terrorists leads to circular logic that works like so...
1) Terrorists kill Americans!
2) We've got to do something about the terrorists who want to kill us! Let's kill them and go after the people that sponsor them!
3) No! We can't do that because it'll only create more terrorists! Let's pretend the problem doesn't exist and work on socializing our medicine, raising taxes, and creating a liberal talk radio network!
4) Terrorists kill Americans! (Repeat ad infinitum).
Furthermore, history has provided us with plenty of evidence that you can win wars finally and completely without creating more adversaries. Ask Japan, Germany & what the heck, even Carthage about that -- if you can find any Carthaginians.
8) It's A Rush To War: Let's see if we can break down this headlong "rush to war". The Gulf War was in 1991 and Saddam has ignored how many UN Resolutions ordering him to disarm since then? 14? 15? 16 -- even I can't keep up with all of them and we're working on ANOTHER one as we speak. Bush himself has been talking about disarming Saddam incessantly for a full year. He has even gotten a new congressional resolution and went to the UN, neither of which was really necessary in this case. None of this has made any impression on the "rush to war" folks who would probably be screaming "it's a rush to war" even if Bush piddled around until his hair turned fully grey (I'd give him about three years the way he's going).
7) We Must Let The Inspectors Work: The problem with that is that obviously inspectors DON'T work. If inspections did work, then Saddam would be disarmed by now because the inspectors spent seven years puttering around Iraq and the only thing they could confirm when they left in 1998 was that they hadn't found all of Saddam's weapons. Even if they hadn't previously failed, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a few hundred inspectors, some of whom look to have been compromised by the Iraqis, are not going to be able to completely disarm a police state the size of France that's doing everything in it's power to thwart them.
6) Bush Is A Nazi/Fascist: The very fact that we have these anti-Bush protests proves Bush isn't a Nazi or Fascist. If Bush were what these people claim he is, they'd all be dead, starving to death in some gulag, or chained to a wall while a group of guards took turns bouncing nightsticks off their rock hard heads. Here's a little recommendation for these people crying "Bush is a Nazi" -- spend less time watching "Hogan's Heroes" reruns and more time cracking open history books that'll teach you what the Nazis were really like.
5) We're Going It Alone/Being Unilateral In Pushing For War On Iraq: Currently our "unilateral" attack is supported by Australia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and the United Kingdom. By the time it's all over, there will likely be at least another half dozen nations that will publicly agree to an attack and there are probably a good 6-10 Middle-Eastern nations that are helping us out privately while they condemn us publicly (to keep their people happy). Since simply having one country with us would mean that we were no longer being "unilateral" or "going it alone," I'd say having 22 nations with us means that we can we safely say that this will be a "multilateral" invasion.
4) It's All About The Oil: I have personally written two editorials (here & here) debunking this...I hesitate to call it a theory because even the people shouting "war for oil" can't really explain what they mean by it. Usually the fuzzy thinking goes something like this,
"Iraq has oil -- we use oil -- so, it must be a war for oil! Oh gawd, the bugs are crawling under my skin! Protesting the war and LSD don't mix! Get them out! Yarghghghghghgh."
Yes, they have oil -- which they already sell to us. If we wanted more, we could simply have the sanctions lifted. Remember folks, bumper sticker slogans, even ones that are repeated over and over, do not an argument make.
3) There's No Proof That Iraq Has Weapons Of Mass Destruction: To believe Hussein doesn't have WMD, you have to believe that after the inspectors left in 98, Saddam Hussein destroyed all of his WMD and then decided that he'd lose billions of dollars in oil revenue because of the sanctions rather than tell anyone about it. Of course, that makes absolutely no sense and I've never heard anyone even try to come up with a credible reason why Saddam would do that, but hey, who says anti-war arguments have to make any sense?
I could mention the fact that Saddam has refused to let his scientists and their families leave the country or even give private interviews, the defectors who've talked about Hussein's WMD, all the rockets with empty chemical warheads on them, etc, but why shouldn't I just point out that the inspectors have actually found artillery shells tipped with mustard gas? That's no big secret, it was widely reported -- then promptly ignored.
Despite all of this common sense and evidence, there are legions of gullible & ill informed people claiming that there's no proof Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. Come on, if you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. But don't worry about giving me all of your money because the Easter Bunny will pay you back -- I promise!
2) Dissent Is Patriotic: The anti-war protestors tend to get very defensive about their patriotism which is understandable given that they're going to rallies run by communists that sometimes feature flag burning, people waving Iraqi flags, people with cute little signs like, "bomb Texas, not Iraq", etc. So they love to claim that the very fact they're dissenting makes them patriotic. Of course, that's the biggest load of kaka I've ever heard -- which by their standards, makes me patriotic simply because I disagree with them.
Disagreeing with someone else does not make you patriotic. If it did, I could say, "America is the greatest country in the world" and you could reply, "No, it's a festering rat hole that I hope sinks into the ocean" and that would make you patriotic. To the contrary, dissent does not equal patriotism and in a free country like the US, it doesn't even take any courage to dissent. You want to impress me? Take your dissent to N. Korea or Iraq & protest against the governments in those countries and see how long you last. No, that still won't make you patriotic, but it would make you brave or stupid depending on how you look at it.
1) You're A Chickenhawk: This line of reasoning horse puck goes like so,
"If you haven't been in the military then you have no right to advocate war since you won't be risking your life. Furthermore, if you do advocate war, you should immediately sign up for the military."
Well, if you're anti-war and you really believe that only people who're willing to risk their lives should have a say, then shouldn't you be throwing yourself across one of Saddam's bunkers in Baghdad about now? Saddam can always use some more human shields.
Furthermore, if we take this whole "chickenhawk thing" to it's logical conclusion, aren't these peaceniks advocating a "Starship Troopers" style America run & voted on by the military? After all, it's essential that the President be able to declare war. So wouldn't that mean that every President would have to be a military man unlike that "chickenhawk" FDR who took us to war in WW2 despite never having been in the military?
This is a flighty idea for silly peaceniks who'd rather argue about people's right to have an opinion than the actual issue itself. Considering the extremely weak anti-war position they'd have to defend in a real debate, I'm not sure that I can blame them for trying to skirt the issue.
(Printer friendly version) Email: John Hawkins
