TRYING TO HELP - By Dennis Miller

All the rhetoric on whether or not we should go to war against Iraq has got my insane little brain spinning like a roulette wheel. I enjoy reading opinions from both sides, but I have detected a hint of confusion from some of you.

As I was reading the paper recently, I was reminded of the best advice someone ever gave me. He told me about the KISS method ("Keep it Simple Stupid"). So, with this as a theme, I'd like to apply this theory for those who don't quite get it. My hope is that we can simplify things a bit and recognize a few important facts. Here are 10 things to consider when voicing an opinion on this important issue.

1) President Bush and Saddam Hussein......... Hussein is the bad guy.

2) If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right thing, keep this in mind. They have Libya heading the Committee on Human Rights and Iraq heading the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own math here.

3) Stupid French insult DELETED. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

4) If your only anti-war slogan is "No war for oil," sue your school district for allowing you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the education you deserve.

5) Saddam and Bin Laden will not seek United Nations approval before they try to kill us.

6) Despite what some seem to believe, Martin Sheen is NOT the President. He plays one on T.V.

7) Even if you are anti-war, you are still an "Infidel" and Bin Laden wants you dead, too

8) If you believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy," but not in the danger that Hussein poses, quit hanging out with the Dell computer dude.

9) We are not trying to liberate them.

10) Whether you are for military action, or against it, our young men and women overseas are fighting for us to defend our right to speak out.

We all need to support them without reservation.

[ 03-20-2003, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: Ziroc ]

DM does have a way of cutting to the chase. :D

It's a shame that it includes yet another gratuitous insult against the French. :(

True, even though you might disagree with some (or a lot) of Bush's policies he is an indefinately better leader than Saddam Hussein. Still, the knowledge that the enemy is viler, does not give one green light to act without responsibility. A war is a serious matter, not a thing just to be chosen in a moment of political enthusiasm.

Yeah, but they are hardly the leaders of the organisation. The whole concept of the UN is to make sure that international policies that would only be in the interest of a limited part of the world from taking place. In order to win the approval of the UN one must convince that the policy would be in general interest to the international community. This could maybe have been done in this case. After all many would agree that the world would be better off without the Baath party sitting on Iraq. Unfortunately US diplomacy have been more about claiming the right to act without foreign interference.

Err, that have been confirmed as being a joke. Besides, if you value a country's political stances after how useful they are in battle you are clearly a proponent of "might makes right". If that is the case I would only respect you out of fear.

This is an ad hominem argument. Generally considered flame. Discrediting another's argument by simply calling them stupid or uneducated is not a gud way of debating. Evin if it is done in a nifty fashion.

True, but does Saddam really want to kill us that badly? I think he values his position (and his life) too much to do anything that would so certainly mean his demise. After all, if Saddam started lobbing bombs after anything outside his borders the UN would certainly come round to support military action immediately!

True.

True, the anti-war groups wants this guy dead (or otherwise neutralised) just as badly. After all Al Qaeda has caused hatred and strife like only the worst (Nazis, anyone?) have done.

Believing in any spurious vast conspiracies is stupid and dangerous. I agree with that.

What are we then trying to? Liberating them from the evil Baath regime seems to me to be the most noble goal for an invasion of Iraq.

But does invading Iraq ulimately serve this purpouse?

[ 03-19-2003, 07:12 AM: Message edited by: Indemaijinj ]

Ziroc, I know you aren't anti-French, and I know Dennis Miller is a comedian, and I even admit that most of that stuff is funny, but I also know this post has hurt people's feelings. Feelings that are already hurting.

You've been very good about having a no nation bashing rule, and you and the mods have enforced it as much as possible in this situation, but I'm afraid this post may leave some thinking you consider that anti-French stuff is ok.

I know you don't think it is, and I'm not trying to critique your post because I know you didn't mean it that way, but I just thought I'd mention it. [img]smile.gif[/img]

It's a shame that it includes yet another gratuitous insult against the French. :( </font>[/QUOTE]Regardless, while the statement is true, it *is* a slam against the French, and probably not necessary. But hey, isn't Dennis allowed to express his opinion too?

EDIT: Took out my Google reference.

[ 03-20-2003, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: Nachtrafe ]

Sure Dennis is entitled to express his opinion to the world - but not on a forum which outlaws nation bashing - nuff said :( .

True, but Dennis didn't post it, did he? [img]smile.gif[/img] Ziroc quoted Mr Miller.

A Google search did not bring that up for me, but it did lead me to this link.

Apparently, this search result asking if you meant French defeats was actually due to a prank by a Canadian who was upset with the French point of view. :(

Google lists 63,100 pages of French military victories. ;)

[ 03-19-2003, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Thanks Nachy ole bean, but did you honestly think that perhaps I hadn't worked that out? [img]smile.gif[/img]