Thursday, March 17, 2005

First Blood Part II

Though Koch did concede to the point that we were defending the rights and freedoms of the Iraqi people (as with every liberal concession, there is always a ‘but …’), he made clear that “I [Koch] never claimed that this was our original intent for the war”. And nor did I Brian, but even if I had done so, what of it? I had already taken the time to cover this particular discussion in a previous blog entry, so instead of wasting my time, as well as yours, repeating myself, I am reposting the same paragraph from March 15th, 2005, where I discussed how the reasons for going to war do not matter in comparison to what positive difference the outcome of this war has on the local populace:

The invasion of Iraq, let alone any military operation for that matter, is not solely bent on one reason alone. We took military actions against Iraq for three main reasons – Hussein’s WMD programs, the obvious connection to terrorism, and the oppression of the Iraqi people. Secondly, if this was the sole reason for invading Iraq, what is the problem with that? Every single reason given as to why we invaded Iraq, whether each on their own or grouped together, is justification enough for the United States to have taken action against Iraq. And lastly, if the reasons for military intervention against Iraq did change as you claimed, again, so what? For example, the original goal of the North during the Civil War was to preserve the Union but by the end of it, the goal of the war had evolved into a fight to abolish slavery from the United States. The freeing of the Iraqi people from the brutal grip of Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical regime is justification enough for our military intervention and the childish bickering from your side of the political spectrum should simply live with this fact.
Brian then begged the question, in such a manner as only a truly vivid anti-war hippie could have done, “Why ensure peace by providing more military aid then humanitarian?” Here is yet another instance where I am going to be repeating myself if I bother to take the time and write this all out again, so instead I am going to do the old ‘cut and paste’ method and let a previous entry to the talking for me:

The left in country, while placing so much attention behind the fact that we have not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as Bush claimed going into the war (oops, better tell the NY Times not to run that story about the WMD sites the US has found … too late, but no news media, beside Fox News of course, paid attention, so it doesn’t matter) or how we have supposedly been ‘torturing’ prisoners in the country following our occupation (that reminds me, I have a number of lawsuits to file against friends of mine from high school seeing as how I was so ‘brutally tortured’ during that point in time on several occasions as I recall), has dismissed any discussion whatsoever on the UN Oil for Food Scandal, which deserves so much more attention then anyone, especially the left, have been devoting to it.

Here is the low down – In 1995, the UN Security Council, which I will get into greater detail about on how bad they were and are to this day later in the week, passed Resolution 986 calling for revenue from the sale of oil barrels from Iraq to go toward humanitarian aid for the Iraqi populace. The problem, first off, was that only seventy-two percent of that said revenue actually went to humanitarian aid as had been planned, at least as far as the public mind had assumed. Food and medicine supplies were purchased by Saddam Hussein at inflated prices, with the products themselves being either damaged or entirely worthless in sufficiency to the needs of the civilians, allowing the dictator to pocket as much as $4,000,000 from his dealings. But Saddam Hussein wasn’t the only one who benefited from his oil-bribes for peace (sounds more wholesome then those ‘masturbating for peace’ protests … ugh) – Russia was given 1.5 billion barrels of oil to oppose the US invasion along with George Galloway (British Parliament member and long time socialist), Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnopati, and (surprise, surprise) eleven (only eleven?) French individuals and companies, amongst them quite possibly was Jacque Chirac. Yes, how dare I go about describing the United Nations as scum when they have been so ethical!
Does it make sense that we should have continued to waste time, energy, resources, and taxpayer dollars that in essence feeding the beast rather then killing it? No, it does not Mr. Koch. This is the liberal solution to everything – let us simply through some more money at the problem and as long as we do not engage in the conflict in time it will eventually work itself out. That was bull-shit then and its bull-shit now, especially in light of the allegations against members of the United Nations, as well as several foreign governments, concerning their involvement in the ‘Oil-for-Food’ scandal. Brian has either truly never heard of the incident (which given the liberal biasness of the news media, with the exception of Fox News of course, would not be out of the question seeing as how they would never mention it during their broadcasts) or he, as well as every other ‘see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil (unless they are conservatives)’ liberal like him, refuses to accept it as truth. I would tell you what I think but obviously that would be stating the obvious, and I have an Anthropology quiz to study for tomorrow afternoon, so I am going to move right along.

He then went on to play the typical ‘anti-Iraq War’ liberal car, which would be that “there was never a connection with Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda”. The statements Brian has made in his response editorial are making this blog entry so much easier for me, don’t you think so? Just ‘cut and paste’, ‘cut and paste’ … give me a challenge here, buddy! Wait, I am sorry, I forgot for a moment that I was dealing with a liberal here and that would be asking too much:

In July 1998, according to the report, “an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin”. This meeting, along with several others, was arranged by Bin Ladin’s right-hand man, Zawahiri, “who had his own ties to the Iraqis”. Hell, even recent Bush-basher Richard Clarke, former terrorism czar under the Clinton Administration, admitted within the contents of the 9/11 Commission Report that if Bin Ladin were to escape into Iraq it would be “virtually impossible” to find him. Now I do not know about you, but that clearly wouldn’t be the case if no connection between the two existed. And though the report does not reveal a cooperative arrangement made between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda concerning the attacks on September 11th, you would have to be a complete dunce, in other words a Howard Dean backer, to not see the connection between these two (or at least their interest to collaborate together) and their deep-seated hatred against America. In any event, it doesn’t take much digging to discover ties between Saddam Hussein and terrorism seeing as how, as I stated within my previous Viewpoint article, he offered compensation payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and harbored infamous terrorists such as Abu Abbas, the man who pushed a wheel-chair confined man off a cruise-liner his terror group had held hostage. Yes Patrick, how dare we go about removing as respectable and amiable a ruler as Saddam Hussein who clearly had no linkage whatsoever with terrorism. Shame on us!
For more information concerning the attacks on September 11th, the connections between al Qaeda and several foreign governments such as Iraq and Iran, and the investigation that took place following this horrifying event in American (as well as world) history, click the link below to purchase a copy of the 9/11 Commission Report:

Click Here to Purchase the 9/11 Commission Report from Barnes & Noble!
In continuation of his whine-fest, Brian Koch stated, “I doubt it is better for the Iraqi people to have two groups of outsiders having a war on their soil”. All I have to say to that is better them then us, Brian. Sorry, but explain to me as why terrorists would be streaming into Iraq like crazy if there was no terrorist connection between Iraq and al Qaeda? Better yet, explain to me how it is possible that out of the entire Middle East region Iraq is the one secular state that is not participating in any shape or form with terrorism? This query becoming even more complicated to answer in the way the liberal media establishment wants it to be once you throw in the fact that Iraq is surrounded by both Syria and Iran, two infamous nations that have contributed heavily to terrorist activities over the years. Why would terrorists bother wasting their time, energy, and resources attacking American soldiers in a secular country that would have no effect on the fate of the terrorists whether it became a democracy or not when they have soldiers in Afghanistan, their former home base, to blow up? I doubt heavily that Brian has an answer to these compelling questions, which is just another liberal on the pile I suppose.

In an attempt to refute the statement I made in which I noted that Iraq had broken the Geneva Convention rules when they used poison gas against the Iranians during the Iran/Iraq War, Brian said, “We also broke the Geneva Convention when we invaded Iraq”.

Is it not sad how the liberals continue to live and speak the lie even when they have been proven wrong? Rather then waste my time explaining this all out to you just click the link below to read the Geneva Conventions for yourself:

Click Here to Learn the Truth About the Geneva Conventions
Note that the Geneva Conventions have nothing to do with how a nation enters a war but instead how civilians and prisoners of war are treated within an armed conflict. But even without the inclusion of the Geneva Conventions in the discussion of justification for war, the next excuse would be that we did not pass the resolution through the United Nations that would have allowed us to justifiably engage Iraq in an armed conflict.

The liberals are so quick to point out that the United States’ invasion of Iraq was wrong because we did not get permission from the United Nations to do so, and yet they have forgotten that Clinton preemptively invaded both Kosovo and Bosnia during his time in office and that campaigns in Afghanistan (2001) and the French military intervention in 2003 were all done without a resolution from the United Nations. Did you hear one peep from the liberals claiming that they were unjustified interventions? Hell no, which proves my point that the United Nations no longer matters and should be torn down and replaced with a Starbucks. But this begs the question: Would you have supported the war then if we had gotten permission from the United Nations to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power? Mention this to your liberal friend next time you engage them in a debate concerning the Iraq War – it will trip them up every time!

Koch then plays the naïve card by stating that he “never heard any proof Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or had the potential to create such weapons”. And what is this guy majoring in again? The newspaper does not say, all it states is that he is a student in the College of Arts & Sciences, but it better not be political science or else I have a bone to pick with the department’s professors and what they have been teaching this kid. I do not know about you but now I have the feeling that Koch has run entirely out of excuses and is simply playing possum here. There can be no other logical explanation other then the fact that he could potentially be one of those liberal political pundits who hasn’t a clue as to what he is talking about, which is of course within the realm of possibility but I am going to give him some slack here by not stating that directly, or at least not yet.

And seeing as how determined you [Brian] are in opposing the war, why would you admit that they had weapons of mass destruction or the ability to create them? If he were to even to make the slightest concession to the fact that Saddam Hussein had the ability or the knowledge to either create weapons of mass destruction or sell those secrets off to terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda then he would be defeating his anti-Iraq War position by giving justification to our intervention. As with most liberal standpoints they simply have to keep living the lie to further their political agenda.

For hard-hitting facts about the threat of weapons of mass destruction and Iraq’s ability to create them, visit the following website by click the link below:

Click Here to Learn the Truth About Iraq's Ability to Create WMDs
And finally, Brian Koch finishes off his response by stating, “It is very easy for an area to be peaceful towards its neighbors and despise other whom are farther away”. Does Brian not sound like one of those supporters of the isolation theory? Guess what, buddy? Too late, it will not work! I believe we tried this following the events that led to our involvement in World War I and look how that turned out – nearly two thousand American men and women killed in the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Is this not also what brought about September 11th? Liberals may not like the fact that we are acting as the world’s police force in the world but we are too prominent a superpower and player in foreign relations to return back to a state in which we can retreat from involvement in international conflicts whenever we feel like not getting involved. This statement is a pathetic excuse to dismiss the facts of the matter concerning Saddam Hussein and his involvement with weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda connections with Iraq, and the failure of the United Nations to act when it was suppose to and appeal to the hippie-dippy view of civilization in which everyone is good within their hearts and we should give peace a chance – and you wonder why these people truly want to legalize drug use in this country?