Irrational Opposition to War

Lee Harris looks at opposition to the war with Iraq as expressed by Robert Fisk. Fisk is a man who feels guilty about being a member of the white oppressor race. His opposition is not based on the results and the benefits flowing to the Iraqis. He is projecting base motives to the reason for the US action against Iraq. Opponents of a war with Iraq clearly misread Bush's intentions because they are not used to someone saying exactly what they mean. Shortly after Bush took office some Democrats were aghast that Bush intended to do exactly what he said he would do during his campaign. The same is true for his motivation to go to war with Iraq. He has repeatedly said that the war will be about getting rid of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. He has never said it was a war about oil. Yet, the anti war pukes continue to march with signs that say no war for oil. OK, we will not fight a war for oil, especially when it would be cheaper to just buy it, or go to war with an oil producer like Mexico or Canada who do not have WMD. Are you listening Fisk? We have decided we are going to fight to get rid of WMD so that Saddam will not be free to use them against the US or to give them to third parties like al Queda to use againt the US. You may not think that is worth going to war over, but the President and most of the people in the US do. Liberated Iraqis will also and that must bother you. Liberated Iraqis will also finally get the benefit of the oil production that has been going to build palaces and WMD. Is it really going to bother you that Americans will be helping Iraqis enjoy the benefits of this war?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t...
Read more

Is the F-35 obsolete?

Headline USA: Pentagon Fires Back after Musk Calls Its Most Expensive Project ‘Obsolete’ 'Yeah, as I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Musk is, currently, a private citizen, I'm not going to make any comments about what a private citizen may have to say about the F-35....'   ... ... Drones appear to be replacing jets for many operations.  The Russia-Ukraine war is an example of that.  Drones are often hard to detect and can be used for intelligence operations as well as for attacking enemy targets.  It would not surprise me to see drones engaging other drones in combat.  They also cost much less than manned fighters.  
Read more