Protestors myths exposed.

[Kilmer17]

Great Editorial. And from Taxachusetts of all places.

http://barnstablepatriot.com/02-28-03-news/tefft.html

Myths of the Protesters

By Steve Tefft

Time to get some thoughts off my chest about four myths that underlie opposition to the upcoming war with Iraq, which (if it happens) should be wrapped up before the kids get out of school for the summer:

Myth #1: we are "rushing to war." If that were true, it would be the slowest rush since the last time the Patriots tried a handoff inside the 20-yard line. President Bush all but declared war on Iraq on Jan. 29, 2002 when he established Saddam Hussein's regime as the centerpiece of the "axis of evil." That was 13 months ago, and anyone who didn't realize at the time that the administration was building the groundwork for Hussein's removal was not paying attention, perhaps willfully.

Myth #2: the war will be "all about oil." That's what they said about Gulf War I, 13 years ago. It wasn't true then or now. If the point of all this were to obtain cheaper Iraqi oil, all we'd have to do is drop the sanctions against Iraq and buy the oil. It would be much easier and cheaper than a multi-billion-dollar war, and would eliminate endless haranguing by erstwhile allies like France. The anti-war protestors should invest some of their apparently boundless energy in devising new anti-war slogans instead of recycling the same old, tired cant. Give them credit, though; they've probably saved printing costs by reusing their circa-1990 "No Blood For Oil" protest signs.

Myth #3: the Bush Administration for "going it alone." The last time I checked, the word "alone" meant solitary, or by one's (or one's country's) self. This impending effort is anything but solitary. Most of Europe has signed on. Many Arab countries have enlisted, either publicly or privately. Australia has already sent troops. Unless one considers countries like Spain, Italy and England blank spaces on the map, America is far from going it alone. We will certainly do most of the actual fighting, but we always have done that. We're the only ones who can.

Myth #4: "war never solved anything." Really? Tell that to the descendants of slaves. Tell that to America's framers. Tell that to the French, for heaven's sake. If it weren't for war, les Francais would be speaking German today (not that many would care enough to force a change). Yes, war is ugly, debilitating and horrible, and should be avoided if possible but if not possible, it can serve as a force for necessary change.

The motives of the antiwar crowd's leaders become more clear each time they march, gather, issue press releases or go on TV talk shows. They are more anti-Bush than anti-war. If not, where were they when Bill Clinton was bombing the daylights out of Iraq in 1998, or Serbia the following year? We heard nary a whimper of protest. It seems nothing fires up the embers of the old 1960s-era protest pimps more than a Republican who takes military action.

This is not to say that many people who join anti-war protests like the 400 who turned out at an antiwar event in Hyannis in January are not sincere in their wish for peace. Doubtless they are; but they are caught up in a movement whose leadership is infested with ugly, anti-American thugs (such as the neo-Marxist International ANSWER group that organizes many events) who would rejoice at an American defeat.

Sometimes the antiwar actions are comedic. Take Boston City Councilman Felix Arroyo, who's putting his money where his mouth is by launching an antiwar hunger strike. Arroyo says he will swear off all solid food from sunrise to sunset but only on the second and fourth Fridays of each month. And after sunset of those days, he will eat dinner as usual. This could become the first fast in which the faster actually gains weight. It also recalls a Jesse Jackson "fast" of the past, in which he gave up eating.for two hours, then "passed on" the fast to someone else. Come to think of it, Jesse didn't lose any weight either.

As for the French, consider the company they keep. As part of February's Franco-African summit, French President Jacques Chirac hosted Robert Mugabe, the fanatical butcher/dictator of Zimbabwe, who last year directed a bloody campaign to drive white farmers from their lands in Zimbabwe. Mugabe thanked the French for their "tremendous hospitality," saying he felt "right at home (in Paris)." If the French are going to cozy up to such despots, who needs them?

And as Jay Leno put it, why would the French help get Hussein out of Iraq if they wouldn't help get the Germans out of France?

This war, if it happens, will not be about establishing American hegemony in the Middle East, or about seizing control of Iraqi oilfields, or about providing a convenient distraction from our economic problems. It will be about one thing: protecting America. Iraq is a huge cog in the wheel of worldwide, anti-American terrorism. Saddam Hussein, as leader of Iraq, seeks to inflict great harm upon us, directly or as a conduit for other like-minded terrorists. He must be stopped. Those who don't believe that may as well have their heads stuck in the Iraqi sand.

Respond at stevetefft@yahoo.com

[Funkyalligator]

The biggest reason not to go to war is the cost and the way that will effect our economy. Frankly I couldn't give a damn if we went in and killed all the Iraqis but it will cost too much money. Also our attacking Iraq might spark a nuclear/chemical conflict in the middle east. If we attack Iraq they will shoot chemical tipped weapons at Israel and Israel will nuke Bagdad...which will cause a huge sh*t storm!

[Mad Mike]

Right Funkyalligator, Let's only protect American interests if it's cheap. And lord knows that we should never fight anyone that will fight back. somone might get hurt. :doh: