The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Dupes or Frauds: My Conversations with Anti-War Protestors

Posted by iusbvision on March 21, 2007

This week I had several conversations with those who call themselves “peace activists” including those who set up a table in Wiekamp Hall. I have been shocked at the vacuity of the statements and arguments made by those claiming the mantle of “peace”. The conversations mostly consisted of the following:

Activist: Pull the troops out now!

Norton: If we pull the troops out now the millions of people like the Grand Ayatollah Sistani who threw their hat in with us will get their throats cut. To pull out now would be grossly irresponsible.

Activist: So why don’t you sign up for the military and go fight yourself?

Norton: [Noticing that the activist just dodged the argument and is now making it about me] I am a veteran and now medically I cannot go or I would but that is not the point. We have civilian control of our military and no American needs to serve in Iraq to have a voice in military policy. The only reason you said that is because you know that your argument has no merit and you are seeking to disqualify me from the debate, but since you are so into taking action, did you go to Iraq to be a human shield to try and stop the war?

Activist: What’s a human shield?

Activist: Why should we be over there fighting their civil war?

Norton: Because there is no civil war. There is some sectarian violence in Iraq that has been going on since the end of the Ottoman Empire but that is not a civil war. For the first time in Iraq there is an elected government that contains Shi’ite, Sunni, and Kurdish parties that are working in a coalition government.

Activist: So what do you call the American Civil War; do you think that we can have a civil war and they cannot?

Norton: Our Civil War was real and not about sectarian violence, it was one government that became two and slugged it out. Such is not the case in Iraq. By the way, many say that the Clinton-ordered operation in Kosovo was and is a civil war. Yet I see no signs or protests about that and we are still there, but don’t tell me… since Clinton is a Democrat, he gets a pass right?

Activist: [dodging that question too] Look at the number of Americans who have died in Iraq.

Norton: By all means let’s [at this point I am getting aggravated because I can NEVER seem get one of these people to answer an inconvenient question or fact with any kind of real substance]. We have lost 3,000 Americans in Iraq over four years, in a country much larger than Germany. In comparison we lost 10,945 men on June 6th 1944 taking a beach, we lost 6,825 in the Battle of Iwo Jima; we lost over 620,000 in our Civil War. Speaking strictly in military terms considering the scale of the operation, this has been one of the least costly in the history of warfare. So why don’t you put those numbers on your display?

Activist: Even one person dying in a war is too many.

Norton: Any war?

Activist: Any war.

Norton: So by that rationale we should not have opposed Japan and Germany in WWII because if it costs just one life it is not worth it.

Activist: Well, that’s different.

Norton: Do you think that we should go into Darfur and stop the genocide there?

Activist: Yes [no activist I have asked has ever answered no to this question when I have asked it].

Norton: Well, if we went there way more than one person is certain to die.

Activist: Well, that’s different because innocent people are dying there.

Norton: Saddam was responsible for killing way more people than have died in Darfur, what makes Iraqis any less deserving of some kind of rescue [apparently Kurds and Marsh Arabs being wiped out is ok and it is only Africans that we should fight for]?

Activist: [dodging yet another tough one] We should not have gone into Iraq in the first place.

Norton: Why?

Activist: Because Bush lied.

Norton: Are you saying that the President rigged the intelligence to get us into war?

Activist: That is exactly what he did.

Norton: Than how can you explain that almost every leader in the Democratic Party including
Hillary said that same thing about Saddam that Bush did well before he even ran for president? How do you explain that the UN, Egypt, Russia, France and so many other countries in the world said the same thing?

Activist: Bush lied.

Norton: Are you supporting Hillary for President?

Activist: Anyone but Bush [aha! I think we are finally getting somewhere].

Norton: What do you think Iran will do if we pull out too soon?

Activist: Why, Iran has nothing to do with Iraq [amazing that two out of the three I talked to said this].

Norton: Let me fill you in on what happens when we don’t finish the job. We didn’t finish the job in Korea and we let people like you get your way to stop the war before the job was done and now we have a North Korea that is a one-man nuclear psycho state where people go hungry.

Look at Vietnam where we gave peace a chance, didn’t finish the job, and divided the country in half. So what did the communists do? They reinvaded and killed 1 MILLION Vietnamese and 2 MILLION Cambodians.

Activist: We shouldn’t have been in those places either [hmmm, don’t tell the South Koreans that]!

Norton: So let me get this straight, stopping Germany and Japan when they try to take over by force is ok, but stopping Soviet-backed communists from doing the same thing that is wrong. Well at least it’s good to know where your true sympathies are.

Norton: So what do you think will happen if we pull out of Iraq now?

Activist: If we leave now everyone will happy and it will be fine [an odd position to take for someone who just tried to convince me that Iraq was in the middle of a horrible civil war].

Joshua Sparling, a disabled Iraq War veteran, attended a recent “peace protest” in Washington to try and tell them the good that is happening in Iraq. Says Sparling, “I think I saw more fingers that day than any in my life. At first they told me that it was all about the veterans and when I told them that I am a veteran then they told me to go back to Iraq and that I should have stayed there. For the most part there were people lining the fence screaming at us and trying to get at us. A group was waiting for us with clubs and tried to get at me and the police had to stop them from bull-rushing us on the sidewalk.”

The Vision reported that some IUSB Students joined a recent anti-war protest in Washington. One of the primary sponsors for the event was a group called United for Peace and Justice. A list of the groups that have joined together to make United for Peace and Justice is on their website, and here are some of the highlights.

Young Koreans United USA is an organization that supports Kim Jong-Il, the brutal North Korean dictator who starves his own people and has made a nuclear weapon in violation of treaty.

National Network on Cuba is another communist organization that supports Fidel Castro and his brutal regime. I wonder if his brother Raul, who is acting dictator, will let those librarians out of jail who dared to keep banned books.

Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Remember these guys? Members of this group had plans to assassinate Senators who supported the Vietnam War. They also featured “vets” who said that they had committed horrible war crimes in the name of the United States only to find out later that many of them had actually never served in the military.

US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. This group is actively opposing a bill that would prohibit the United States from funding groups unless they break all ties with terrorists. No large anti-war protest is complete without a few anti-Semitic hate groups. The big protests often feature the most grotesque anti-Semitic displays I have ever seen. I have video from several of these protests that demonstrate this beyond reasonable doubt. They will tell you that they aren’t anti-Semitic even though they profess much of the same propaganda as those who want Jews dead.

Here are more of the groups listed: Communist Party USA, Young Democratic Socialists of America, Young Communist League, Socialist Party USA, League of Revolutionaries for a New America, International Socialist Organization, Freedom Socialist Party and the Black Radical Congress.

Most of these groups have acted as apologists for the former Soviet Union and other communist regimes. These are the types of groups that make up United for Peace.
I ask you; was the USSR a regime that supported peace? Was Castro supporting peace when he slaughtered all of those who opposed him and was he anti-war when he invited nukes into Cuba? Were Pol Pot, who killed two million people, and Chairman Mao anti-war? Is Hugo Chavez a peaceful, anti-war guy? North Korea regularly threatens to wipe out South Korea and exports weapons of mass death to rogue regimes.

Are they anti-war or are they anti-American, anti-capitalism, and anti-freedom groups masquerading as peaceniks? They are doing what radical leftists often do. They exploit gender, race, economics, the environment, what ever it takes. This time they are using the war just like they did in Vietnam, as a political tool to defeat liberty because the United States is the bastion of liberty that threatens their centralized model of control and if you think that this is just my opinion then you had better think again.

Two women who have escaped Islamic terror and wrote books about their experiences have had much to say on this very subject.

Brigitte Gabriel – Author of “Because They Hate” stated, “They (the Democrats) are giving aid and comfort to our enemy and this should be considered treason. You should see how they are talking on the jihadist websites today. They are saying that they (Democrats) are defeatists; they will withdraw just like they did in Vietnam, just like they did in Lebanon and just like they did in Somalia; and this is the last message that we want to send to our enemy, that we are not united and that we are working against our government and against our President. Here we take one step forward and the Democrats take us ten steps backward….They (jihadists) were saying all along that the Democrats are our ally in the war against America and the Democrats just proved them right.”

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of the best seller “Infidel”, said it succinctly. “It is easy to hate Bush because he is not going to come and cut your head off.”

Chuck Norton

71 Responses to “Dupes or Frauds: My Conversations with Anti-War Protestors”

  1. Chuck,

    Perhaps you need to brush up on your vocabulary, Websters dictionary defines a civil war as the following: “a conflict between two groups of people who are citizens of the same state”

    (Scource; websters dictionary, abridged edition, 2002)

  2. Jennifer Hlawacz said

    Chuck,

    May I ask who you spoke with to produce your latest article? Why did you name this person (or people) “Activist” instead of just allowing an official interview to take place? I’m positive that whoever you talked to would not have minded if you printed their actual name as long as the statements you placed with it were authentic.

    Jennifer

  3. Jarett said

    I’m curious why you think American liberals despise Bush so much. Liberals are often criticized for “Bush bashing,” but no reason is given why this is unreasonable, as if it was self-evident.

    Feel free to email me back.

  4. Shawn said

    “We have lost 3,000 Americans in Iraq over four years, in a country much larger than Germany.”

    Germany is 63rd in the world as far as land area goes, Iraq is 58th, not that much of a difference, just thought I’d point that out for ya.

  5. Shawn said

    Oh and I forgot to add, the Germany we were fighting from 1941-1945 was much larger than the Germany we know of today, you’d also have to take into account about 3/5 of modern day France,(the south eastern part of the country lived on as the German puppet state of Vichy France) Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Poland, ect.

    “There is some sectarian violence in Iraq that has been going on since the end of the Ottoman Empire but that is not a civil war”

    Sunni and Shite Muslims have been fighting each other for a long time before the split up of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I. Their conflict dates back to the 7th Century. Sunni’s accepted Abu Bakr as the sucessor to Muhammad after his death, while Shite’s accepted Muhammads blood ties to be the rightful sucessors to the newly forged Arab Empire.

  6. Chuck Norton said

    Tammy Reynolds,

    Congratulations, a fight between two rival gangs meets your criteria for a civil war.

    Civil war has a contextual meaning and you know it, but in your strive to be contrarian you have made yourself look silly.

    Arguments like the one you just gave is why people like you lose arguments with people like me.

  7. Chuck Norton said

    Jennifer,

    The arguments above are TYPICAL of the kind of responses that I get from the extreme left. Including some of the responses that I got when I enquired with that group at Wiekamp Hall. It is representative of many discussions I have had with such people.

    Stay tuned, soon I will be posting an article about how the American Friends Service Committee was supporting armed terror groups and communist revoltionaries (Castro, Pol Pot, Viet Cong)while at the same time they were calling for America to unilaterally disarm.

  8. Chuck Norton said

    Jarett,

    Thank you for your thoughtful question.

    I am not refering to liberals. There is nothing liberal about most of these protestors and groups like ANSWER, United for Peace and even many of the people who staged that boot protest.

    Thanks for reading The Vision.

  9. Chuck Norton said

    Shawn,

    Germany is 134,835 square miles. Iraq is 168,743 square miles, that means Iraq is 34,000 miles larger than Germany. While I am certain that you will tell me that the basement in your vacation home is much larger than 34,000 square miles, to most normal people that is big chunk of land.

    Also, while I am most aware that groups of Sunni and Shi’ite have been fighting each other in some capacity since the split over the Caliph, since Iraq’s borders were redrawn at about the time I mentioned if memory serves, that seemed like a good time to call it at since we are talking about a specific piece of geography here.

  10. Chuck Norton said

    This is an exerpt from a poll from Public Opinion Sratagies. The people who run this polling firm have won the Pollster of the Year Award from the American Association of Political Consultants and have even called the Colorado elections within the margin of error.

    http://www.pos.org/inthenews/20070220.cfm

    AMERICANS WANT TO WIN IN IRAQ
    NATIONAL SURVEY SAYS PUSH TO RENOUNCE WAR IN WASHINGTON ON DIFFERENT PAGE THAN MAJORITY OF AMERICAN PEOPLE ON IRAQ WAR

    FEBRUARY 20, 2007

    (Alexandria, VA) February 20 — In the wake of the U.S. House of Representatives passing a resolution that amounts to a vote of no confidence in the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq, a new national survey by Alexandria, VA-based Public Opinion Strategies (POS) shows the American people may have some different ideas from their elected leaders on this issue.

    The survey was conducted nationwide February 5-7 among a bi-partisan, cross-section of 800 registered voters. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. The survey was commissioned by The Moriah Group, a Chattanooga-based strategic communications and public affairs firm.

    “The survey shows Americans want to win in Iraq, and that they understand Iraq is the central point in the war against terrorism and they can support a U.S. strategy aimed at achieving victory,” said Neil Newhouse, a partner in POS. “The idea of pulling back from Iraq is not where the majority of Americans are.”

    By a 53 percent – 46 percent margin, respondents surveyed said that “Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw troops from Iraq.”

    By identical 57 percent – 41 percent margins, voters agreed with these statements: “I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security” and “the Iraqi war is a key part of the global war on terrorism.”

    Also, by a 56 percent – 43 percent margin, voters agreed that “even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war.”
    While the survey shows voters believe (60 percent- 34 percent) that Iraq will never become a stable democracy, they still disagree that victory in Iraq (“creating a young, but stable democracy and reducing the threat of terrorism at home”) is no longer possible. Fifty-three percent say it’s still possible, while 43 percent disagree.

    By a wide 74 percent – 25 percent margin, voters disagree with the notion that “I don’t really care what happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves, I just want the troops brought home.”
    “How Americans view the war does not line up with the partisan messages or actions coming out of Washington,” said Davis Lundy, president of The Moriah Group. “There are still a majority of Americans out there who want to support the President and a focused effort to define and achieve victory.”

    27 percent said “the Iraq war is the front line in the battle against terrorism and our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country.”

    23 percent said “while I don’t agree that the U.S. should be in the war, our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country.”

    32 percent said “whether Iraq is stable or not, the U.S. should set and hold to a strict timetable for withdrawing troops.”

    17 percent said “the U.S. should immediately withdraw its troops from Iraq.”

    The survey also found that voters thought it would hurt American prestige more to pull out of Iraq immediately (59 percent) than it would to stay there for the long term (35 percent).

  11. Herbie Hancock said

    Hey.

  12. Caitlin G. Worm said

    Chuck,

    I’m curious. What is your definition of a liberal?

    Thanks,
    Caitlin

  13. Chuck Norton said

    Hi Caitlin,

    John Locke is a famed liberal thinker, so is John Stuart Mill. They talked about the right to trade, create, produce, and consume in a state of freedom with little interference from the state.

    Outfits like the American Friends Service Committee, the people who fund those big anti-usa protests and such have no interest in those things. Those people, and many who attend such events, are socialists (in the marxist/leninist sense) and communists, or otherwise have an agenda for some form of central control of the economy, diminishing America as a power etc.

    Also someone who is a “liberal” would not physically attack someone for disagreeing with them, where as a contrast people who have gone to many of these anti-usa protests to try and tell them about the good that is happening in Iraq are physically attacked, given the finger, shouted down, spat upon, and have their signs taken from them by force by those who claim to be more tolerant.

    I also have many pictures of veteran’s memorials that have been defaced and vandalized by those attending those protests.

    There are many video’s posted by people who went to these protests who have this same behavior recorded over and over and over and over again. The vids at protest warrior are a typical example of the behavior of these people. For the most part, they have an agenda that has nothing to do with peace, or the welfare of veterans.

    Of course …. and than there is the revolting anti-semetic displays that are typical of the big protests.

    Speaking of no agenda for peace, how many times have people associated with that “common sense” group, and those like them, spoke as if they were defense attorney’s for Saddam or the 9/11 hijackers?How many have spoken words akin to that the President and others should be “hung for war crimes” and other such hateful nonsense.

    Having seen several of these larger protests up close, it isn’t too difficult to demonstrate that almost no one resorts to violence or censorship faster than so called “peace activists”.

  14. Clay Moore said

    Mr. Norton,

    Again, you have it wrong. My brother is a Iraq war veteran, and he is opposed to this war. I am not saying that people dont have the right to criticize vets, but he is far from a peace protestor as you say. He voted for Reagan and Bush 41, and he voted for Bob Dole in 1996. He listens to Rush Limbaugh everyday, and is a member of the NRA. When will you neocons realize that the American people are against this war.

  15. Rachel Custer said

    Chuck and Clay,

    I think an important distinction to draw is that there are actually people who protest this war in appropriate ways and for reasons they feel are very good, as it sounds like Clay’s brother does. However, it is necessary for us to recognize that there are people who are protesting the war in exactly the ways Chuck is discussing and for exactly the same reasons, which have little to do with actual peace or the war in Iraq. We need to be careful to draw distinctions between these people, and not be so quick to lump everyone together into categories such as “moonbat,” or “neocon”.

  16. Chuck Norton said

    Clay,

    How many polls from credible polling companies would you like me to post thats how that the troops want to complete this mission?

    The troops are re-enlisting and signing up for extra tours in Iraq in record numbers…. and you know it. You can show me an exception to the rule from time to time, but the majority of those who I am critiquing are like I have described them.

    The poll above is from a very respected polling firm, it is too bad that reality has afforded you a truth not to your liking.

  17. Chuck Norton said

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24853_Leftists_Supporting_the_Troops&only

    WARNING – Pictures of this protest in the link above may be offensive.

  18. Chuck Norton said

    Dennis Kucinich – The president is targeting innocents for assassination

    Ted Kennedy – President is a liar

    John Kerry – Our troops are terrorizing women and children in the dark of night.

    Dick Durbin – Compared our troops to Nazi’s and Pol Pot

    John Murtha – Troops are killing people in cold blood.

    ….and you wonder why the Jihadists say that the leadership of the Democratic Party and these marxist protest groups are their ally in the war against America…..

  19. Clay Moore said

    There you go again, citing everyone who doesnt agree with you as a marxist. I have some news for you. According to a poll conducted by Gallop, 20% of those in Iraq said the war was not worth fighting, in addition, 54% of households with a member in the military said the war was “the wrong thing to do”. Need even more ammo. The suicide rate amongst returning vets is up 40%. Wrong again my friend. Have you ever really had anyone who can refute your facts, or do you just preach to the choir.

  20. Chuck Norton said

    Clay,

    I never said that everyone who disagrees with me is a marxist. So how about you get real and stop lying?

    NEWSFLASH – people who think/hate or whatever like you are not “everyone”. The AFSC is not everyone either, but they have a history of supporting violent communist movements that is easy to demonstrate.

    Are you not capable of having a discussion about the merits of an issue without getting that stupid with your arguments?

    I have stated on this page in no uncertain terms excatly who it is that has a marxist, neo-marxist, or agenda that has nothing to do with peace.

    Clay, I sourced the poll with a link that even included the questions asked. So how about you link me this gallup poll so I can examine the internals.

    You did ask a very good question though, “Have you ever really had anyone who can refute your facts” …well Clay, many on this blog have tried, including some professors and all were bested by me and by the superior quality and varifiability of the information and reasoning that I provided. All it takes is an open mind, a little knowledge of history, some Aristotilian logic, and the will to do more than 20 minutes worth of real research.

    If you think that you have what it takes to be victorious in the arena of facts and ideas with me, please consider this your personal invitation to try.

    Please provide that link about 40% of vets killing themselves as well as I would really like to investigate that.

    By the way, you claim that I am “wrong” about my post above. So please show me some evidence that the poll from Public Opinion Stratagies was flawed in its methodology.

  21. Jarett said

    Hi Chuck,

    If you regard yourself as a “classical liberal” I can certainly respect that. Modern self-described liberals and classical liberals (which is now sort of being conflated with the term “classical conservative” or “Goldwater conservative”) have a lot in common, foremost of these including a desire for the government to stay out of the people’s personal lives.

    That said, a few notes on your other points:

    The frame of the question about the war is nearly impossible to break out of. Of course no one wants to engage in a precipitous withdrawal; this would almost certainly result in a bloodbath. Where Democrats and Republicans disagree is the nature of the withdrawal and a timetable for it to happen.

    The problem with America’s involvement in Iraq is paralysis. We cannot stay there indefinitely because we simply cannot afford to. Billions upon billions of dollars have been wasted by us in a war of choice that never had to happen. Unfortunately, our unforgiveable interventionism has now inextricably tied up the United States in the fate of Iraq, which means that we cannot simply pack up and leave at once if we value the input of our consciences.

    So what do we do? I think the stick approach is doomed to failure, so let’s try the carrot: rather than waste a trillion dollars on prosecuting a war, let’s promise aid to the Iraqi government if they manage to meet benchmarks and timetables we set. The further along they get, the more aid they get. Finally, they will become autonomous and we will be able to get the priceless lives of our servicemen out of harm’s way — and we will be spending a metric tonne less money on Iraq than we are now.

    About Democratic politicians:

    Dennis Kucinich – The president is targeting innocents for assassination

    What incident(s) was he talking about here?

    Ted Kennedy – President is a liar

    Sadly, I think the evidence has borne this out to be entirely true. George W. Bush is about 25% as honest as William J. Clinton – and that’s SAYING something.

    John Kerry – Our troops are terrorizing women and children in the dark of night.

    Please don’t conflate what Kerry and Murtha said about a tiny number of troops with what they have said about our armed services as a whole (brave, dedicated, loyal, etc.). This is dishonest, and I think you know better.

    Dick Durbin – Compared our troops to Nazi’s and Pol Pot

    Compared the actions of a tiny subset of our troops. Please stop playing the “doesn’t support the troops” card.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Durbin#June_2005_Controversy

  22. Chuck Norton said

    Jarett,

    I don’t have much time right now but quickly……

    What has the President lied about, please be specific and name the lies….

    Kerry was not talking about a small number of troops, he was referring to the operation in Fallujah if memory serves but I will look this back up.

    As far as Murtha, he called troops cold blooded killers when the investigation had just begun and lets get real, Murtha has been a fountain of comments and sound bites that the jihadist web sites have just gobbled up. The latest one from Murtha is if we leave Iraq now Al-Qeada will just disappear….. amazing.

    Dick Durbin was talking about our people who serve at Gitmo.

    European leaders who had toured Gitmo say that prisoners there get treated better than civilian prisoners in some European countries. The Red Cross has a permanent presence there and they can see the prisoners any time they wish. Durbin did not give the benefit of the doubt to our own ….. that speaks volumes.

    Sensory deprivation techniques are a staple in interrogation (Janet Reno did the same things to the people at Waco…I know that’s different because she was a democrat), they are hardly like Pol Pot who was a monster. That comparison was reckless and speaks volumes about who he gives the benefit of the doubt to.

    So there is nothing dishonest in my presentation at all. The simple fact is that the enemy takes these statements and wipes their feet all over them (and that is my whole point as I stated), they also take the “cut & run” statements and wipe their feet all over them and to a large degree so does the media.

    ….and quoting wikipedia on a politician…. you know that there are people who sit on many wiki web entries and sit on them changing anything that they don’t like… so using it is rather silly.

    Speaking of giving sound bites to the enemy.. Henry Waxman – “What we have here [in Iraq] is a defeat” ….. ridiculous, the military is not going to lose any military engagements, the real battle is fought in the media and they know it.

    As far as your other statements….. all wars at some level are a war of choice…. after all it wasn’t Germany who attacked us at Pearl Harbor. So your statement there boils down to empty rhetoric.

    Interventionism?? Wow what a nice history rewrite, we had a cease fire agreement with Saddam that he violated repeatedly after he invaded an ally.

    Besides philosophically in international law, there are 5 reasons that justify one nation to invade another, I don’t have time now but I will list them when I come back.

  23. Chuck Norton said

    Oh by the way, read my article carefully, look at the history of what has happened when we settled for something less than victory and didn’t finish the job, each time it has resulted in a human tragedy that was worse than the war itself…. and yet a certain group of people who want the role of the United States diminished in the world, don’t care about that, and try to ignore it or rewrite history.

    They have blood on their hands.

    BTW, I should have included what happened when we didn’t go all the way in the first Gulf War, Saddam’s domestic opposition was nearly wiped out, the Marsh Arabs were wiped out, the Kurds faced repeated chemical weapons attacks.

  24. Chuck Norton said

    http://www.zombietime.com/us_out_of_iraq_now_sf_3-18-2007/

    “U.S. Out of Iraq Now” Anti-War Rally San Francisco, March 18, 2007

    WARNING – Photo’s show offensive displays of leftist hate of America, Jews, and support of Marxism, including those who advocate the killing of the president.

  25. Chuck Norton said

    More “Peace Activists” in action, vandalizing an office of a member of Congress.

    http://www.wxyz.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=ce4e295f-c8b4-41e2-9e66-f676f25b536a

  26. Chuck Norton said

    Here are Portlands Protestors LAST WEEK who chanted —-

    BYE BYE G.I. IN IRAQ YOUR GONNA DIE!!!

    IT’S NOT JUST BUSH IT’S THE SOLDIERS TOO!!!

    BUILD A BON FIRE BUILD A BON FIRE PUT THE SOLDIERS ON THE TOP, PUT THE FASCISTS IN THE MIDDLE AND WE’LL BURN THE EFFING LOT!!!

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=38e_1174691271

    When they were doing their chant burning a soldier in effigy, all of ONE peron there said “wait a minute arent there some soldiers who are just brainwashed?” …. So hey at least one person thought that at least SOME of the soldiers might deserve to live….. how touching.

  27. Chuck Norton said

    “The Pelosi Democrats sometimes appear to be just as eager as Osama bin Laden for President Bush to lose his war on terror. Why do I say this? Because if the Pelosi Democrats were seeking Bush’s success, then their rhetoric and actions now and over the past three years are pretty much incomprehensible. By contrast, if you presume that they want Bush’s war on terror to fail, then their words and behavior make perfect sense.” – Dinesh D’Souza

  28. Chuck Norton said

    http://www.wweek.com/editorial/3319/8693/

    The Anti-Protester

    Monday, March 26th, 2007

    WW tests the limits of Portland’s tolerance by sending a reporter posed as a war supporter to last week’s antiwar rally.

    I posed as a war supporter who wandered into a sea of war opponents at the rally March 18 in the South Park Blocks.

    (I wore a freshly ironed blue shirt and tie. The Oregonian, which noted my presence as a counter-protester in its next-day story about the rally, correctly quoted the sign but called the shirt color white.)

    Why do it? Because in a town that claims to believe in free speech, WW wanted to see what happens to those who don’t parrot the popular line.

    What followed was an hour and a half of ridicule, threats and condescension—peppered by a few high-fives from antiwar marchers for “having balls.”

    Once in the crowd, I easily attracted controversy, constantly approached by people either bemused or irate. No one touched me, and I never argued or shouted back.

    But the limits of some Portlanders’ tolerance quickly became apparent from protesters’ comments:

    “I think you should get the hell out of here before you get killed.”

    “Why are you even here? Just leave.”

    “Look, kids, that’s the guy who likes the war. He’s bad.”

    “Nice shirt. Nice tie. Fascist.”

    “You look just like a Republican. The only thing missing is your head up Bush’s ass.”

    The most common suggestion was to enlist in the military and go fight the war. Dozens of protesters branded me a “chicken hawk,” as did a local blogger who posted photos after the rally. “

  29. Jack Flash said

    Chuck,

    I grow so tired of hearing you right winger say that if we dont support the war, we dont support the troops. Your side continues to manipulate patriotism and try to mold it into something that you want it to be. But as Republican Chuck Hagel said, the administration must understand that every American has the right to know how and why we are carrying out policy in this country, and to demonize them for doing this is plain unAmerican. For people like you to suggest that questioning the administration or challenging him on a policy is undermining or hurting our soldiers in the field is not democracy, or what this country has stood for for over 200 years. Supporting the troops does not require blind obedience to the administration, but rather supporting the troops and the purest of patriotism is questioning the administration on policy and holding them responsible for their actions to make sure that they make the best decisions and put our troops in the best position to make the mission a success.

    Jack Flash

  30. Rachel Custer said

    Jack,

    I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding your ideas about “questioning” and “challenging.” It seems to me, though, that making statements regarding the murder of the commander-in-chief of our armed forces and holding signs such as the ones we have seen in the pictures Chuck has posted has absolutely nothing to do with questioning or challenging. There is a difference between having a fruitful discussion and respectfully disagreeing, and saying and doing things like we see in those pictures.

    Also, the free exchange of ideas is one of the things that make this country great. But why is it that the anti-war protesters are all for this free speech until someone shows up with a differing opinion? The hypocrisy is astounding.

  31. Chuck Norton said

    Jack Flash,

    If the people I am criticizing were merely “questioning” a policy than there would be no reason to publish this article, or the pictures, or the movies, or these facts I have presented here that have gone unrefuted.

    As the evidence CLEARLY shows is that these people at these protests by and large are haters, who are not asking questions because they think that they have all the answers. These are people who advocate the death of the President, these are people who seek to embolden the enemy and endanger the mission at every turn, these are people who would dance with glee if the United States pulled out and allowed the jihadists to take Iraq.

    These are people with a marxist or neo-marxist agenda that wish to see the role of the United States diminished in the world, because it is the United States that stands in the way of their agenda for central control.

    So why don’t you stop lying through your teeth about who I am writing about and take me on fair and square. Of course since you lack the conviction to even use your real name how could you ever muster the courage to take me on fair and square?

  32. Jack Flash said

    Chuck,

    May I ask you a question. Do you agree with Pat Buchannon’s anti semitic beliefs. Do you agree with Michael Savage’s belive that homosexuals should be burned at the stake as he has said many times. These are all conservative people, and you are obviously a conservative. So by your definintion, you must always agree with what these people say. My point is that there are extremes on both sides of the isle, and it is not fair to judge a persons beliefs by what the extremes of his party do. I do not condone what some of these people do in protest, like calling for the assasination of the President. All I am calling for is an honest and open dialoge about the events leading up to the Iraq war.

  33. Chuck Norton said

    Jack,

    Your problem is that the extremes are front and center running the show and pushing the agenda.

    If you are trying to say that most people who tend to vote democrat do not agree with the people who go to these protests, run the Democrat Party or run blatently pro-communist/anti-American groups like the American Friends Service Committee than we agree.

    So the next question is, how do you take your party back from this numerous, vocal and dare I say nutty fringe?

  34. Chuck Norton said

    No one sticks up for Josh Sparling but me, where is the condemnation of the anti-semite groups? Where is the condemnation of the pro Castro, Kim Jong Il and Chavez groups???

    The silence demonstrates an important point all by itself.

  35. Jack Flash said

    Chuck,

    How is it that pro war conservatives are more patriotic than the rest of us, when only 29% approve of the war in Iraq.

    Jack

  36. Chuck Norton said

    Being for or against the war is not the citation of patriotism, but taking the position that you can benefit from the US quitting the war is unpatriotic, trying to undermine the commander in chief during time of war is unpatriotic.

    Carrying a sign that says that the president should be killed, that you should fight for communism, that says that soldiers should shoot their officers, spitting on Iraq War Vetrans is unpatriotic and basically carrying on in the bahavior that I have shown above in photo’s and video’s is unpatriotic.

    As far as the 29% approval rating, most of that is due to the fact that the administration has not made any real attempt to get its message out. FDR made 9 times as many speeches per year than Bush has about the importance of winning the war.

    But none the less only 17% think that we should pull out now.

    This is an exerpt from a poll from Public Opinion Sratagies. The people who run this polling firm have won the Pollster of the Year Award from the American Association of Political Consultants and have even called the Colorado elections within the margin of error.

    http://www.pos.org/inthenews/20070220.cfm

    AMERICANS WANT TO WIN IN IRAQ
    NATIONAL SURVEY SAYS PUSH TO RENOUNCE WAR IN WASHINGTON ON DIFFERENT PAGE THAN MAJORITY OF AMERICAN PEOPLE ON IRAQ WAR

    FEBRUARY 20, 2007

    (Alexandria, VA) February 20 — In the wake of the U.S. House of Representatives passing a resolution that amounts to a vote of no confidence in the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq, a new national survey by Alexandria, VA-based Public Opinion Strategies (POS) shows the American people may have some different ideas from their elected leaders on this issue.

    The survey was conducted nationwide February 5-7 among a bi-partisan, cross-section of 800 registered voters. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. The survey was commissioned by The Moriah Group, a Chattanooga-based strategic communications and public affairs firm.

    “The survey shows Americans want to win in Iraq, and that they understand Iraq is the central point in the war against terrorism and they can support a U.S. strategy aimed at achieving victory,” said Neil Newhouse, a partner in POS. “The idea of pulling back from Iraq is not where the majority of Americans are.”

    By a 53 percent – 46 percent margin, respondents surveyed said that “Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw troops from Iraq.”

    By identical 57 percent – 41 percent margins, voters agreed with these statements: “I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security” and “the Iraqi war is a key part of the global war on terrorism.”

    Also, by a 56 percent – 43 percent margin, voters agreed that “even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war.”
    While the survey shows voters believe (60 percent- 34 percent) that Iraq will never become a stable democracy, they still disagree that victory in Iraq (”creating a young, but stable democracy and reducing the threat of terrorism at home”) is no longer possible. Fifty-three percent say it’s still possible, while 43 percent disagree.

    By a wide 74 percent – 25 percent margin, voters disagree with the notion that “I don’t really care what happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves, I just want the troops brought home.”
    “How Americans view the war does not line up with the partisan messages or actions coming out of Washington,” said Davis Lundy, president of The Moriah Group. “There are still a majority of Americans out there who want to support the President and a focused effort to define and achieve victory.”

    27 percent said “the Iraq war is the front line in the battle against terrorism and our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country.”

    23 percent said “while I don’t agree that the U.S. should be in the war, our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country.”

    32 percent said “whether Iraq is stable or not, the U.S. should set and hold to a strict timetable for withdrawing troops.”

    17 percent said “the U.S. should immediately withdraw its troops from Iraq.”

    The survey also found that voters thought it would hurt American prestige more to pull out of Iraq immediately (59 percent) than it would to stay there for the long term (35 percent).

  37. Bret Matrix said

    Jack,

    Because conservatives are not voting to cut and run. Because conservatives are not cowards. Anyone who wants America to lose this war is not a patriot. You cannot be an American patriot and root for the enemy to win. No one approves of war, except for Islama-facists like Mahmud Ahmademocrat, I mean Mahmud Ahmadinejad. I don’t like war, but sometimes it is necessary. If you think we should surrender, how are you going to deal with terrorism? May I challenge you to give an answer? The only catch is that you cannot offer up a suggestion that has already failed. This means you cannot offer sanctions or the UN or negotiations. I don’t mind debating the war, but if you want us the surrender, then offer up a better solution. The problem is that the pro-terrorist crowd has no solution. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending there are not extremists who want to kill us is not a solution.

  38. Jack Flash said

    Bret,

    Please do not presume to put all of us who oppose this war in the same category. Yes, I am a democrat, but not necessarily a liberal. I am what I like to call a FDR democrat, before my party was taken over by the modern day liberals of the 1960’s. Please let me quote you an excerpt from an article I read about this very issue. It can be found at http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/163437715.html
    “Liberals aren’t the traitors to America. In fact, conservatives who insist on sending American troops into the Iraqi slaughterhouse are the traitors. Most of them could care less about our troops, no more than Mao or Stalin cared about the safety of their own soldiers. In the neocons’ view, these young boys and girls are expendable test dummies. They’re dying for virtually nothing, so that the hicks in the Bush Admin can make good on their campaign promises to their buddies from the petroleum and infrastructure-rebuilding industries. By revving up the Arab threat, these people can scream “national security” and “freedom” as smokescreens, while getting their hands on a diminishing resource: Middle Eastern fossil fuels, which power everything from your lightbulbs and computer that you leave on all night, to your stupid gas-guzzler pickup truck.”

    “Pro-war conservatives are the traitors to America. With only 29% of the public approving of Bush’s policies now, it took a full 5 years for America to finally wake up in bed next to this disgusting fact.’

    “Do liberals hate America? No, in fact they care so much about the USA that they fight so aggressively to make it better. They’re not anti-American; they’re just anti-stupidity. Do liberals hate American policies? Sometimes, but only the self-destructive ones that threaten human rights, liberty, democracy, justice, inquiry, excellence and reason– the values that our country was founded upon.”

    I agree with this contention whole heartedly.

    Jack Flash

  39. Chuck Norton said

    Jack,

    Did you not see the poll I posted above…..TWICE? I have other polls that are similar to it than I can post, yet you go on pretending as if any evidence that you find inconvenient does not exist?

    So are you really trying to be substantive or are you just being a moonbat who does not wish to be confused with the facts?

    The pull out now crowd has very little support among the American people, you know it and I know it.

    Also how dare you tell me that just because I want to win the war means I don’t care about the troops. I served in the military and am honorably discharged, not only have I talked the talk, I have walked the walk. Not to mention that the re-enlistment and volunteer rates to go there and finish the mission are at an all time high. Polls of the troops show that they want to stay and get the mission done.

    Also you describe it as a slaughterhouse, what a ridiculous statement. Considering the size and scope of this military operation, this has been one of the least costly in the history of warfare. Describing it as a slaughterhouse is just a lie. The civil war, WW1 and WW2 were MUCH worse. In fact there were times when 50,000 troops were killed in just 1 battle in these wars.

    You want to talk about losses, if we pull out now the millions of Iraqi’s who threw their hat in with us will get their throats cut….. and I am not all all convinced by the nature of your arguments that you have any wish to avoid this.

    Your definition of liberal supports my statement that there is nothing liberal about these anti-war protesters as the pictures and facts and video’s linked above show beyond reasonable doubt.

    One more thing, in another thread you complained that America supported some dictators during the cold war to stop communism and how wrong it was, and now that we have removed one of the very worst of these, you are completely against it. So no matter what side of the coin you are on you are always against what America does…. that is very indicative of your true intentions.

    The end result would have been that you have worked to guarantee that the Saddam’s in the world stayed in power….so forgive me if your so called commitment to “human rights” rings pretty hollow.

  40. Bret Matrix said

    It was nice to see you admit that you agree with the statement that our troops are dying for nothing. You consider yourself an FDR Democrat. Do you know who else considered himself an FDR democrat? Ronald Reagan. You sir, are no Ronald Reagan. Reagan had the ability to see what was staring him directly in the face, i.e. the Soviet Union. The threat from Iran is much bolder and easier to see. FDR had the abilitiy to see what was staring him directly in the face, i.e. nazi fascism. You may be an FDR democrat in the idea that the government can solve all our social problems, which is not true, but you are certainly not in the likeness of FDR in foreign policy.

    Do you have an answer to the question: If you think we should surrender, how are you going to deal with terrorism?

  41. Chuck Norton said

    Bret,

    The far left sees Christians and traditionalists and the president as greater threats than Jihadists/Sharia supremacists. Remember many of them believe it was the Jews or Halliburton or the CIA who attacked us on 9/11. Just ask Rosie O’Donnell or that 9/11 “truth” outfit. Look at the hundreds of signs at the anti-war protests that say 9/11 was an inside job.

    Of course Popular Mechanics published many articles and a book debunking these conspiracy theories, but to the far left, the truth is whatever supports their political position.

  42. Chuck Norton said

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b08_1175693599

    And here we have a video of those who claim to be more tolerant than those evil conservatives…. you will notice the tolerant ones throwing rocks at Karl Rove and his vehicle and acting like animals.

  43. Jack Flash said

    Editor,

    Why wont this weblog let me post?

  44. Jack Flash said

    Bret,

    I can proudly say I am no Reagan. Reagan was a fraud. The folowing is excerts I read in an article at http://www.mikehersh.com/Reagan_the_Overrated.shtml

    Let’s begin our examination of the real Reagan Legacy by taking a look at myth number one: Democrats dominated Congress all through Reagan’s terms, and called all his budgets Dead On Arrival.

    That’s numerically and historically false. Reagan’s people shoved his program through the Congress during the early Reagan years. James A. Baker, David Stockman and other Reaganites ran roughshod over Tip O’Neill and the divided Democrats in the House and Senate, and won every critical vote. This is because of the GOP majority in the Senate and the GOP-“Boll Weevil” (or “Dixiecrat”) coalition in the House.

    Phil Gramm was a House Democrat at the time, and he even sponsored the most important Reagan budgets. Only after the huge Reagan recession — made worse by utterly failed Reagan “Voodoo Economics” – did Democrats regain some control in Congress. They halted some Reagan initiatives, but couldn’t do much on their own. That was a time of gridlock.

    Six years into Reagan’s presidency, Democrats retook the Senate, and began to reverse some of Reagan’s horrendous policies. By that time, Reaganomics had “accomplished” quite a bit: doubled the national debt, caused the S&L crisis, and nearly wrecked the financial system.

    Which brings us to myth number two: Jimmy Carter wrecked the economy, and Reagan’s bold tax cuts saved it. This is utterly absurd. Economic growth indices — GDP, jobs, revenues — were all positive when Carter left office. All plunged after Reagan policies took effect.

    Reagan didn’t cure inflation, the main economic problem during the Carter years. Carter’s Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker tried when he raised interest rates. That’s the opposite of what Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has done to keep inflation low.

    Carter’s policies and people fought inflation, but maintained real growth. On the other hand, Reagan’s policies helped cause the worst recession since the Great Depression: two bleak years with nearly double-digit unemployment! Reaganomics failed in less than a year, and it took an entire second year for the economy to recover from the failure.

    Carter didn’t cause the inflation problem, but his tough policies and smart personnel solved it. Unfortunately for Carter, it took too long for the good results to kick in. Not only didn’t Reagan help whip inflation, he actually opposed the Volcker policies!

    Another major myth: Reagan cut taxes on all Americans, and that led to a great expansion. Here’s the truth: the total federal tax burden increased during the Reagan years, and most Americans paid more in taxes after Reagan than before. The “Reagan Recovery” was unremarkable. It looks great only contrasted against the dismal Reagan Recession — but it had nothing to do with Supply Side voodoo.

    With a red ink explosion — $300 BILLION deficits looming as far as the eye could see — GOP Senators, notably including Bob Dole, led the way on tax hikes. The economy enjoyed its recovery only after total tax increases larger than the total tax cuts were implemented. Most importantly, average annual GDP growth during the Reagan 80s was lower than during the Clinton 90s or the JFK-LBJ 60s!

    Enough about the economy. Here’s the biggest myth of them all: Ronald Reagan won the “Cold War”. In reality, Reagan did nothing to bring down the Soviet Union.

    By 1980, the Soviet Union was trying to cut its own defense spending. Reagan made it harder for them to do so. In fact, Reagan increased the possibility of a nuclear war because he was — frankly, and sadly — senile. He thought we could actually recall submarine-launched nuclear missiles (talk about a Reagan myth), and bullied the Soviets to highest alert several times.

    Critically, Reagan never even tried to bring down the Soviet Union. Blind hero worship of Reagan – which ignores the facts and spouts pure fantasy – is a testimony to the great Reagan public relations operation. Reagan’s handlers were among the best at putting the best spin on events, and in Reagan they had a trained actor able to hit his mark and fake any emotion they needed at the time.

    Reagan clearly did NOT win the Cold War. It’s foolish to claim that anything he did decisively undermined the Soviet Union. In fact, Reagan lifted crushing sanctions Carter put on the USSR, enabling them to stave off their hard currency crunch. Reagan rhetoric aside, he actually made the USSR stronger than they would have been.

    Reagan’s aggressiveness undermined Soviets with a cooperative bent like Gorbachev and empowered hard-liners in the USSR. Reagan’s “jokes” about attacking the Soviets nearly provoked WW III as Andropov put their nuclear missiles on the highest alert – closest to launch.

    Reagan didn’t “win the cold war” – in fact he didn’t even try to defeat the USSR. Reagan claimed the USSR was a threat to attack the USA, and even insisted the Soviet Union had a more powerful military. Reagan called this “the Window of Vulnerability.”

    After Reagan left office, he visited the USSR where he said it was no longer “the Evil Empire” and predicted his “friend” Gorbachev would continue to lead the USSR for many years to come.

    Mere months later, a surprise kidnapping / coup swept the Soviets from power. Nothing Reagan did made that fluke more likely and nothing Reagan did made certain that the hard-right conspiracy would fail when Boris Yeltsin stood up to the tanks.

    It could have easily turned the other way, with a junta of generals prevailing and heating up the Cold War. Reagan didn’t win the Cold War, we’re lucky he didn’t start WW III. The bravery of Yeltsin and Gorbachev, rather than anything Reagan did, brought about freedom in the former Soviet empire.

    Wasteful overspending on defense didn’t end the Soviet Union. In fact, it played into the hands of authoritarian “Communist” hard-liners in the Kremlin. Reagan thought the Soviet Union was more powerful than we were. He was trying to close what he called “the window of vulnerability.”

    This was sheer idiocy. No general in our military would trade our armed forces for theirs. If it were to happen, none of the Soviet military command would turn down that deal. We had better systems, better troops, and better morale.

    Here’s the truth: we’d already won the Cold War before Reagan took office. All Reagan needed to do was continue the tried-and-true containment policies Harry S. Truman began and all subsequent presidents employed. The Soviet Union was Collapsing from within. The CIA actually told this to Reagan as he took office.

    Here’s an example: the Soviet Union military couldn’t deal with a weak state on its own border, the poor, undermanned Afghanistan. Most of the Soviets’ military might had to make sure its “allies” in the Warsaw Pact and subjects along the South Asian front didn’t revolt. Even Richard Nixon told Reagan he could balance the budget with big defense cuts. Reagan ignored this, and wrecked our budget.

    We didn’t have to increase weapons spending, but Reagan didn’t care. He ran away from summits with the dying old-guard Soviets, and the new-style “glasnost” leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev baffled the witless Reagan and his closed-minded extremist advisors.

    Maggie Thatcher finally cajoled the Gipper into meeting Gorby, and Gorby cleaned Reagan’s clock. Reagan’s hard-right “handlers” nearly had to drag Reagan out of the room before he signed away our entire nuclear deterrent. Reagan — and the planet — was lucky Gorbachev sought genuine and stable peace. Had Yuri Andropov’s health held, Reagan’s “jokes” and gaffes might have caused World War III.

    Eventually Reagan even gave Gorbachev his seal of approval. Visiting Moscow before the August Coup, Reagan said the Soviet Union was no longer the “Evil Empire.” He predicted his friend Gorbachev would lead the Soviet Union for many years to come.

    As usual, Reagan was wrong. A few months later, disgruntled military officers kidnapped Gorbachev, throwing him out of power forever. Reagan remained disengaged: nothing he did caused the coup, and nothing he did made the Soviet military support Boris Yeltsin over their superiors. We’re all fortunate things happened as they did — but once again, Reagan did nothing to make this fluke more likely.

    All this is vintage Reagan. Reagan took credit for others’ hard word and hard choices, and blamed them for his failures. Reagan even blamed Jimmy Carter for Reagan’s foolish, fatal, and reckless decision to leave 243 Marines stationed in Beirut, helpless and unguarded.

    Reagan hired over 100 crooks to run our government, and broke several laws himself. His policies were almost uniformly self-defeating, wrong-headed, immoral and unfair.

    Reagan was an actor playing the part of the president. He was style over substance; lucky, not good. And once the myths are stripped from the “legacy”, the truth becomes obvious: Reagan was by far the most overrated man in American history.

    Jack Flash

  45. Jack Flash said

    First, where did the civil tone you had yesterday go, when you complemented me on how I did not call names to people. Out with the garbage I suspect. Next, I did read your polls, but as I have learned in basic political science class, polls can be manipulated to come up with results that the administrator wants to see. It is called push polling(being the “brillian” political mind that you are I am sure your familiar with this)Next, I offer some critique on your sources. Public opinion strategies is a “a national Republican political and public affairs research firm”, this is taken straight from their website. It might as well be from the RNC. IT IS GARBAGE.
    If the pullout crowd has so little support, then did voters in the November election vote overwhelmingly for people who promised to get us out of Iraq. That is why your side lost so many seats in November. While it is true that the deaths of Americans has been lower compared to other wars, lives lost are not the only cost to consider when calculating the cost of war. According to The Institute for policy studies website at http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/failedtransition (too much information to post here)

    Jack

  46. Jack Flash said

    Chuck,

    In response to your insinuating that we democrats (not liberals) criticized the U.S for their support of dictators during the cold war, but complain about toppling Saddam, there is something wrong with your conclusion. We supported Hussein because of the cold war and because we did not have good relations with Iran. So we supported him, even when he was killing his own people, we supported him, when he was at war with Iran, we supported him, when he invaded Kuwait. We even armed him, and gave him those WMD we were so desperatly looking for. Now all of a sudden, we are the worlds angels because we want to take down a dictator that kills his own people. That is hypocritcal at best.

    Jack

  47. Chuck Norton said

    According to the Stockholm Convention, your accusation that we gave Saddam all his weapons is is completely false. Look at the weapons he had, most were from Russia, China and France.

    As far as the Iran/Iraq war, it was no no ones best interests to have either side win that war, which is why the US and the USSR made sure that no one did.

    None the less my point still stands, while we did have to pick the lesser of two evils because of the cold war, when we take steps to get rid of the worst of these guys, you are against it. I never said that we are all angels. So here is a novel idea, how about you respond to the actual arguments I make, instead of making arguments up out of thin air and applying them to me and than replying to them?

    The answer is simple, you do not respond to the actual arguments I make and the facts I present because you just cant defeat them.

    Everything that you posted about Reagan is a bold faced lie and its easy to prove. There are many former soviet generals and officials who said that Reagan had everything to do with the USSR falling, when I get home tonight I will start posting the evidence….which you will than ignore and pretend doesnt exist just like every other point you have made that I have shown to be wrong with the evidence.

    I am glad that you are posting these leftist talking points so people can watch me prove them wrong one by one.

  48. Chuck Norton said

    Now my response to post 45.

    Public Oninion Stategies is a republican polling firm. A firm that has called elections within the margin of error with the actual results. Zogby firm is a democrat polling firm, so what. As long as the internals of the poll show that the methods are sound it doesnt matter. The problem that you have is that the Zogby and Rasmussen polls had similar results that the public opinion stratagies poll had.

    Public Opinion Statagies is well respected because their polls have this strange habit of being accurate.

    Your contention that their results must be garbage because it is a republican polling firm is as stupid as saying that all Zogby polls are garbage because Zogby is a democrat.

    Your contention that the election went the way it did is because the people wanted out of Iraq is false and easily demonstrated. I got two words for you JOE LIEBERMAN.

    Also look at the majority of freshman democrats who got in in 2006, most are blue dog conservative Democrats who ran to the right of their Republican opponents. Again, this is also easily demonstrated. If you deny it I will post a ton of evidence so its up to you.

    The problem with your arguments is that they are based on hate and/or talking points and not real facts. This is why you are always going to lose.

    But like I said, I hope that you keep posting these talking points because it gives me the opportunity to debunk them one by one.

    See you tonight when I post more evidence.

  49. Chuck Norton said

    Oh by the way jack,

    The IPS stuff that you have been posting… well let us put that in context.

    The IPS – Instutute for Policy Studies, is a neo-marxist think tank. So while some of the numbers they post are true, they lack context and are designed to paint a false picture.

    They post a bunch of numbers in a way that is designed to make you think that the war is the most costly operation in world history… but they do not make a comparison with other military operations that really put those numbers into context.

    They talk about the costs of war, but never compare that with the benefits and utility of the war.

    To illustrate how the IPS spins – If Saddam pushed an old women in the way of an oncoming bus, and President Bush pushed the old women out of the way of the bus, the IPS would condemn them both as men who push old women around.

    In the mean time, I have two pictures that you need to see…

  50. Jack Flash said

    Chuck,

    Is the Stockholm convention you sited just like the data which said that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. You have not proven anything because your sources are all biased as well. It does not matter how close they call elections, what matters is that they are not biased, and they are FOR GOD’S SAKE, THEY SAY IT RIGHT ON THEIR WEBSITE. How can you call them biased and a reliable source when they say they are a Republican firm. Obviously, they are going to try to put things out the way that Republcans want things to be perceived. Next, you said “most were from Russia and France” so are you saying that NONE OF THE WEAPONS WERE FROM THE UNITED STATES. It doesnt matter what level the United States participated in the killings of innocent Iraqi’s, we still have blood on our hands. Next, if you post ANY REAL ARGUMENTS, INSTEAD OF RECYCLED RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA FROM RIGHT WING ORGAINIZATIONS, I WILL REFUTE THEM AS WELL. You cannot seriously expect anyone to accept information that is so obviously biased as POS to be seriously accepted for non partisian information, do you.

    Next, you say that “when we get rid of the bad guys, you are against it”, why was Saddam a “good guy” when he was killing his own people, and we supported him, and a “bad guy” when we wanted to take him out. What had changed. He was still the same guy, doing the same horrible things to his own people. Even after the Iran Iraq war, we still supported him, even though we still knew what he was. How do you justify that.

    Finally, I stand by all the information I posted about your god, Reagan. Care to debate economic policies of Regan and lets say Clinton. Or how about economic records of the tow. BRING IT ON CHUCK.

    Jack

  51. Jack Flash said

    ALL READERS,

    I would like to point out that any organization that my opponent, Chuck, does not agree with is automatically labeled a “Marxist think tank” and to back up his arguments, he uses “a national Republican political and public affairs research firm” How does he expect us to take him seriously?

    Jack

  52. Chuck Norton said

    Jack, the first mistake that you are making is a common one that radical ideologues make, and that is that they just dont take the other sides argument seriously.

    The polling firm I quoted is highly respected and has a long trackrecord of getting it right, which is probably why Democratic Pollsters like Zogby have gotten similar results as public opinion strategies has. For you to dismiss it out of hand just because you dont like the people who work there is silly.

    How about you look at the internals of the poll and tell me how the poll was biased or how they skewed or misrepresented the sample? I took your Institute for Policy Studies info seriously and I pointed out how the data paints a false picture, and then I pointed out the outfits bias. The simple truth is that lots of partisan organizations do accurate studies. The Democratic Leadership Council often does good research and so does National Review and so does the Wall Street Journal. So saying that it must be wrong because Republicans work there is an argument based in hate, not reason or facts.

    By the way, I got two words for you on your contention that the 2006 election meant that the American People wanted a pull out of Iraq… JOE LIEBERMAN

    So Jack, are you going to start making some real arguments or are you just going to keep making a fool of yourself with these hate screeds?

  53. Chuck Norton said

    Ok now let me destruct the idea that the Stockholm Convention means nothing “cause my sources are all biased as hell” according to Jack.

    The Stockholm Convention on arms is now known as the The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). It is in Sweden…

    ….. thats right Jack… Sweden.. you know, maybe the word STOCKHOLM was sorta a dead giveaway. So unless you can demonstrate that Sweden has been overthrown by evil Republicans, your statement boils down to you just making a fool of yourself…..again.

    Well here it is….

    Arms transfers to Iraq, 1970-2004

    Click to access TIV_imp_IRQ_70-04.pdf

    Look at it REAL close jack, it shows that Iraq got about 1% of its arms from American sources… but it sure got allot from Russia, China, and France… Hmmm come to think of it, that is exactly what I stated before you claimed that my evidence was “shit”

    Jack, in case you havent figured it out… you just got owned again…..

    PS – Hey Look here is a picture grapgh that I have been looking for from SIPRI from a previous report –

  54. Chuck Norton said

    Ok Jack,

    Now it is time to take on what you said in Post 51.

    I said that the IPS is a Marxist Think Tank… and you said that “I would like to point out that any organization that my opponent, Chuck, does not agree with is automatically labeled a “Marxist think tank” ”

    Ok Jack… time for a history lesson…. get ready to eat crow.

    The IPS was founded by the Samuel Rubin Foundation. Rubin was an Russian Bolshevik and a member of the Communist Party. Rubin’s kids who run the foundation sat on the board of IPS for decades.

    Go ahead… google it I dare ya!
    Now, while I realize that there are many left wing groups that are marxist light, or socialist, or neo-marxist…. anyone who has taken a history class knows that marxism is at its hardest core with Lenin and the Bolsheviks. In fact, I do believe it was our pal Vladimir Lenin who broke off from the moderate Mensheviks and started the violent and revolutionary Bolsheviks.

    So Jack I have a little question for you…. Do Marxist-Leninist/Communist credentials get any thicker than that?

    In fact in the 1936 elections Rubin signed up on the public voter rolls as a Communist Party Member.

    Using findarticles.com I found this… “Such an ideologue was Rubin that he named his son Reed after U.S. Communist John Reed, whom the Soviets buried in the wall of the Kremlin.”

    I tell ya what, just do a search engine with Sam Rubin with Communist or Bolshevik….

    Now if THAT isnt good enough for you…. I can start giving you a history lesson on the IPS that you are NOT going to find convenient at all…. but at this point that would be just throwing salt on a mortal wound…. as I have made my point and won the day with the facts :-)

    PS – You know what is even more satisfying than Al Gore with his 4 mansions, private jets and Zinc Mine…. is the fact that Rubin wanted to “try his hand at the capitalist game” and founded Faberge ….. yes the fragrance company that he later sold. So like so many on the extreme left – he was a flaming hypocrite.

  55. Chuck Norton said

    QUESTION OF THE DAY

    Who has killed more innocents?

    A. Marxists

    B. United States Marines

    Please think carefully before answering

  56. Jack said

    Chuck,

    Where to begin. First, I would like to point out to the readers that when a “peace” organization says something that Chuck agrees with, they are good guys, but when they dont, they are a marxist organization. A convenient double standard to have. Chuck says “For you to dismiss it out of hand just because you dont like the people who work there is silly” yet isnt that exaclty what he is doing with all my sources. Hmm.

    Next, I have some more data on arms shipments to Iraq from the United States, here is the website. Notice that, according to this information, NO WEAPONS WERE SHIPPED TO IRAQ UNTIL 1983, UNDER RONALD REAGAN. If I remember right, he is the one you right wingers call a visionary, yet he armed a man that one day we would have to topple. Chuck, I said it before, it doensnt matter how many arms we gave him, we still armed him and he killed his own people with them. Here are some sites for you to look at(yes, it is true that we were not the #1 supplier, but we still did supply him nonetheless)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990 How about this one Chuck. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm
    (isnt that a cool picture of Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, shaking hands with Hussein)

  57. Chuck Norton said

    Jack,

    How nice of you to completely ignore the evidence that I have posted above that completely defeated your previous argument.

    Now I get to ask you a question…. do you actually think that you are the first one to post this link to me?? Answer NO.

    Next question….

    Do you think that you are the first one to send me this link without taking the time to carefully read it first? Answer No…

    You really should have carefully read your own link before you sent it to me… your mistake….

    and now for the smackdown…..

    If you TOOK the time to read YOUR OWN LINK… you would see that Rumsfeld went over there to try to stop Saddam from doing Chemical and Biological weapons production and he went there to protest his use of such weapons.

    As you can see it was our policy that Saddam not make or use chemical weapons at all and when we found out that he was using them Rummy was sent over there to twist Saddam’s arm into stopping it. It would seem that while Saddam used duel use technology from western firms to get his CW weapons program going, there was only a possibility that 1 of those firms was a U.S. firm – with that one being a foreign subsidiary. FAR from the conspiracy theory that you laid out… so maybe you should be talking with FRANCE about how they helped Saddam get CW weapons.

    The following is a declassified top secret diplomatic briefing document from November 1983. This is a real as it gets.

    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq24.pdf

    We have recently received additional information confirming Iraqi use of chemical weapons. We also know that Iraq has acquired a CW production capability, primarily from western firms, including possibly a US foreign subsidiary. In keeping with our policy of seeking to halt CW use wherever it occurs, we are considering the most effective means to halt Iraqi CW use including, as a first step, a direct approach to Iraq. This would be consistent with how we handled the initial CW use information from Southeast Asia and Afghanistan, i.e., private demarches to the Lao, Vietnamese and Soviets.

    As you are aware, presently Iraq is at a disadvantage in its war of attrition with Iran. After a recent SIG meeting on the war, a discussion paper was sent to the White House for an NSC meeting (possibly Wednesday or Thursday this week), a section of which outlines a number of measures we might take to assist Iraq. At our suggestion, the issue of Iraqi CW use will be added to the agenda for this meeting.

    If the NSC decides measures are to be undertaken to assist Iraq, our best present chance of influencing cessation of CW use may be in the context of informing Iraq of these measures. It is important, however, that we approach Iraq very soon in order to maintain credibility of U.S. policy on CW, as well as to reduce or halt what now appears to be Iraq’s almost daily use of CW.

    See what happens when you don’t even read your own link, and engage is stupid conspiracy theories like the U. S. giving Saddam WMD as a matter of policy…. according to your own link that you have quoted to me with this document on it, the exact opposite is true.

    This is a problem that happens when people let an ideology of hate become a part of their reality. See what happens when you get caught up in the conspiracy web site talking points that so far you have sent my way?

    So far Jack, I have been able to completely debunk each of your conspiracy theories and allegations with verifiable evidence and solid reasoning. So what far out left wing conspiracy theory would you like me to shut down next…or perhaps it is time for you to take a long hard look at yourself and try to get a grip on reality.

  58. Jack Flash said

    All Readers,

    This is some information on one of Chuck’s “sources”, protest warrior.com The founder of this group is non other than Fred Phelps. He is the founder of godhates……/.com (the whole name cannot be written here because it may be offensive to some readers) This is the guy that is protesting at military funerals with his family because he believes God is killing these soldiers because of our “tolerance of the homosexual lifestyle in the United States”
    Does this shine some light on the kind of groups that Chuck shares his beliefs with? Is this an example of conservative values that Chuck preaches?

    Jack

  59. Chuck Norton said

    Jack,

    Slander is illegal. If you wish to engage in illegal conduct we do have the means of tracking who you are specifically as others who have posted threats here have found out the hard way. Associating me, or anyone else with Phelps when it is not true is slanderous and not legal. Consider this the only nice warning you will get. Illegal conduct cannot be allowed for obvious reasons.

    First of all, I did not use protest warrior as a source, I linked to a picture on their web site that makes an important statement. Here is the picture:

    Second, ProtestWarrior was not founded by Phelps, and has nothing to do with Phelps. It was founded by a Jewish student named Kfir Alfia who was sick and tired of the anti-Semitism of the far left.

    This is from the wikipedia entry on protest warrior…

    Protest Warrior was founded by Kfir Alfia and Alan Lipton in 2003. Alfia’s family moved to Dallas from Israel when he was two years old. He attended Hebrew school at Akiba Academy and proceeded to J.J. Pearce High School before attending the University of Texas at Austin. As a teen, he read many libertarian texts by writers such as Friedrich Hayek and Ayn Rand, as well as conservative publications such as National Review.

    Jack, The rules here are pretty simple, dont troll, dont spam, dont cuss, dont post here using several multiple personalities, dont engage in or advocate illegal behavior, …in other words use common sense. This is the only nice warning you will get.

  60. Jack Flash said

    To Chuck and all readers,

    I mispoke in my post #58, and I retract my statement and appologize to Mr. Norton.

    Jack

  61. Carlos Marx said

    I’m glad someone brought up Fred Phelps here, since it’s important to note that without a doubt the most offensive anti-war protesters are not liberal, but rather a conservative Christian group from Westburo Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. Of course, you can deny, as I most certainly would, that they really are a Christian group. But then again, any liberal could deny that the people burning soldiers in effigy in Oregon are liberals, and I think they would be right to do that too.

  62. Chuck Norton said

    Carlos,

    As I have said repeatedly on this forum, there is nothing liberal about anti-war protesters.

    And as far as Fred Phelps, did you know that he is a lawyer? Apparently he makes his money by being as royally offensive as he can be, gets himself arrested or has a technical violation of free speech case law violated against him through his outrageous acts, and than sues. Since federal civil rights cases are loser pays, the attorney who sues is likely to get a great deal of money, not just from the punitive damages, but from lawyers fees that the losing side must pay.

    Phelps isn’t about ideology at all, Phelps is running a money scam.

  63. Carlos Marx said

    Chuck,
    I’m glad to hear that you don’t think anti-war protestors are liberal.

    I didn’t know that about Fred Phelps. That’s pretty interesting. By the way there’s a good bbc2 documentary on Westboro Baptist that you can find on youtube called “The Most Hated Family in America.” You should check it out.

    “Proletarios del mundo uníos!”
    -Carlos

  64. Rachel Custer said

    Carlos Marx and Chuck,

    I just want to weigh in on the Phelps family. I have seen one of the videos on Break.com and it’s about all I could take. Carlos, I would certainly agree that these people are the most offensive war protesters, and I would also certainly maintain that they are not acting in a Christ-like manner. I also didn’t know that Fred Phelps was a lawyer, but I think that family is making both legitimate war protesters (and I feel there are many) and Christians a bad name. I feel it’s fairly obvious that God did not tell Christians to spread the message of his hate, and I also feel like there are many many people who protest the war for reasons they find highly compelling and personally important, who do so in a respectful and intelligent manner. I would hesitate to call these people conservative Christians, but I would also, as Carlos points out, hesitate to lump in the protesters who do some of the things listed above with the majority of ethical liberals who protest the war. Unfortunately, I think the extremists tend to get more press coverage because of the obvious ratings boost they bring, and this leads one side to associate the other with these extremists.

    I do not feel protesting the war is unpatriotic. Part of our patriotism is the belief in people’s rights to voice their opinions, regardless what they are; if we take that away, I’m not sure that what’s left will be something I will be patriotic to. However, protesting the war in the manner that these extremists (from BOTH sides of the aisle) do seems to be more about promoting themselves and less about persuading people over to their viewpoint (which is, in my opinion, a major reason to protest – why protest if you’re not hoping for eventual change?) Sometimes these people seem to be hoping for media coverage.

    To me, the particularly sick thing is the way the kids are involved in these “protests”. This lady is talking about God hating f–s and here come two of her kids in the door. She just goes right on talking. It’s crazy.

  65. Rachel Custer said

    Carlos,

    By the way, do you know where I can pick up a copy of the BBC documentary?

  66. Chuck Norton said

    Both Parties have real problems right now, the leadership of the democrat party is booting good people like Joe Lieberman and bringing in anti-liberal, hyper-partisan, left wing authoritarians…. I mean look at HR-800 – the Dems passed a bill in the House to take away the right to vote in secret from unions and work place votes. So that way Vinnie and Bruno from the teamsters can make sure that you vote the “right” way at work.

    That really tells you everything that you need to know about the democrat leadership right now. Authoritarian is a term that fits them like a glove. Dick Cheney today called the democrat leadership Stalinist and Cheney is a reserved man who picks his words carefully.

    The republicans are leaderless, lack a communications strategy and the current congressional leadership is more comfortable being in the MINORITY…. they are totally useless.

    Fred Thompson or Rudy might be ok to vote for, but the party itself needs an overhaul.

  67. Rachel Custer said

    Yeah…I’m not even that sure about Rudy. Apparently he has made some comments about using public money to fund abortions. The whole political system is just making me sick right now. That’s why I really don’t even debate about it anymore – they all just seem like a bunch of self-serving crooks to me. All of them.

  68. Chuck Norton said

    So much for the “steal the oil” conspiracy theory…

    http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm

    And Iraq’s big oil contracts go to …
    Companies from China, India and other Asian nations are seen getting the first contracts.

    By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
    April 5 2007: 1:42 PM EDT

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Despite claims by some critics that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to take control of its oil, the first contracts with major oil firms from Iraq’s new government are likely to go not to U.S. companies, but rather to companies from China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia.

    While Iraqi lawmakers struggle to pass an agreement on exactly who will award the contracts and how the revenue will be shared, experts say a draft version that passed the cabinet earlier this year will likely uphold agreements previously signed by those countries under Saddam Hussein’s government.

  69. Chuck Norton said

    VIDEO: Blue Star Parents take on their Member of Congress who wants to end the war on a date certain no matter what the consequences.

    http://granitegrok.com/blog/2007/04/no_fury_like_a_mother_scorned_the_movie.html

    Parents tell Congressman, how about you put the pressure on the enemy and not on the President? All you are doing is emboldening the enemy.

  70. dallas said

    Why not let the terrorists wait us out, Mr. President?

    Teddy Lee Brown
    April 12th, 2007
    The president and his supporters claim that a timetable for the withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq would be a “bad idea.” They reason that if a deadline were set, the terrorists would simply mark their calendars, sit back, and wait us out until we leave. The question I would like to ask the proponents of such reasoning is, “Wouldn’t that be a good thing?” After all, if the terrorists decided to wait us out, and there was a corresponding lull in their activities, wouldn’t thousands of Iraqi lives be spared in the interim? Wouldn’t the US military and Iraqi forces start taking a lot fewer unnecessary casualties? Couldn’t the Iraqi government utilize the time and relative peace to help better prepare themselves and their citizens for the defense of their nation from extremists without American troops? Indeed, contrary to the opinion of some, setting a deadline could be the smartest move we ever made to undermine the terrorists, and the insurgency.

    If a deadline were set, terrorists and insurgents alike would have to start asking themselves why they should continue to risk or sacrifice their lives to drive out American forces, if the Americans are already on their way out! Recruitment would definitely take a big hit. Despite the Bush administration’s self-serving attempt to paint the war as “us versus the terrorists,” at least 95% of the anti-American forces in Iraq are Iraqi insurgents opposed to the US occupation. Once a deadline was set and announced to the world, many of them could quickly come to feel that they have accomplished their goal, start planning for their post-Saddam, post-occupation lives, and act accordingly by focusing their attentions on the future of Iraq and their place in it, instead of risking it all by unnecessarily attacking Americans. The insurgency would be undermined by its own members’ self-interest, and American forces could fade into the background where they belong until they come home.

    Incidents of terrorism, terrorists, and the recruitment of terrorists, would also be greatly undermined by a timeline for withdrawal. The president claims to believe that if a deadline is set, the terrorists will simply wait us out and take over after we leave. But he and his supporters seem to continually forget that their policies have been creating more terrorists than they could ever possibly capture or kill ever since the invasion of Iraq. This administration has got to learn to do the math and accept that things are not going to change as long as US forces are perceived as occupiers.

    Terrorists presently thrive in Iraq because they are tolerated and supported by factions of the Iraqi insurgency, because the insurgents believe they share a common enemy. Once a timeline for withdrawal is set, their alliance will quickly begin to crumble because the insurgents are nationalists, not jihadists, and will not welcome foreigners trying to run their affairs any more than the US was welcome to. Without the support of the insurgency, foreign terrorists will no longer be welcomed, appreciated, or tolerated, if only for the sake of the Iraqi people. After everything the people of Iraq have been through, it is very unlikely that they would bring more of the same upon themselves by becoming a sanctuary for terrorists.

    So, maybe a deadline isn’t a “bad idea” after all. We could set a timetable for withdrawal, let the terrorists wait us out, then let the Iraqis mop them up once we’re gone. Sounds like a plan to me!

    http://brownbearpress.net/essays/whynot.html

  71. iusbvision said

    Dallas, please do not post under multiple personalities. Please pick one and stick with it.

    Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: