Leany Home Leany on Life Archive Contact Us
Have you slugged your protestor today?

We're going to war in Iraq (See note 1). You can like it or you can hate it, but you can't change it.

I'm not necessarily pro-war-in-Iraq. But I am anti-war-protestors.

The first thing you need to understand is that the protestor has no opinion on Iraq and no particular philosophical opposition to war. The person you're arguing with is just frustrated that we had a presidential election instead of simply installing the person he wanted.

Understanding this, you know that nothing you can say will change this person's mind. That's not the point. The point is to entertain yourself. You shoot down their silly objections and they'll say "Yeah, but . . . but, but . . . " Then they'll run back to their little poetry readings in bookstore cafes to try to think up more chants to respond with. That gets them out of our hair for a little while so we can go back to running the country.

So, for your convenience and enlightenment, I've put together a catalog of these peoples' objections to the war along with the proper responses to them.

Let's give the inspections a chance.

If the So-Called Humanitarian who Mis-Understands Conflict with Killers (SCHMUCK) is following his sanctioned agenda, this will be his first objection. In response, you lean in real close and say "That's amazing. I can barely see the lobotomy scar."

The SCHMUCKs maintain that the inspections have only had a few months.

That's wrong. They've had years. They began right after the Persian Gulf War. Then Clinton allowed Saddam to kick them out. All during that time, the inspections weren't working, you see (but Saddam was).

I'm guessing that all during that time Saddam was busily destroying his weapons and keeping his word so he could surprise the inspectors with his squeaky clean regime when they came back (when the US got a real president again).

I wish I could operate that way. There's a stretch of road between my house and my work that I'd like to speed on. I wish I could dictate to the cops that they not patrol that stretch of road.

The weapons the inspections have found should scare you to death. The rest of the iceberg is why we're going to take out Saddam.

If you believe the inspections are working I'm guessing you have a hand-written deed to the Brooklyn Bridge in your safe.

You're right. War is not pleasant. Let's just do nothing. Don't get treatment for your disease. That might be unpleasant for you. Keep trying that chicken soup that isn't working. By the time you're convinced you need treatment, it'll be too late.

No blood for oil

Once you shoot down the appeasement argument, the SCHMUCK will go to the next item on the list: no blood for oil. They like this one because it can be chanted with Kumbaya in the background. Since liberals don't take majors that include math classes, we'll dispatch this one without the use of complex mathematical concepts like percentages.

Explain to me, exactly how do we get oil by going to war with Iraq? That's like saying "I'm going to fight Mike Tyson so I can have his muscles."

If we wanted lots of cheap oil from Iraq, we'd lift the sanctions. See if you can find a rocket scientist to explain it to you.

But Bush is an oil man! He's from an oil family! So? Clinton is white trash from a white trash family. In all the times he attacked Iraq did he ever come back with trailer houses?

After we pulverize Iraq we're going to get their oil exactly the same way we're getting it now. We're going to buy it. We can dispatch the argument that this is all about oil with the leftist argument that it's going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars to go to war. They would have you believe that I'm going to use a tank of gas to drive to a gas station to buy a tank of gas that's 10 cents cheaper?

Side note on the argument of how much this is going to cost: cleaning up after terrorism costs a helluva lot more than preventing it. I remember after the Persian Gulf War a group of cretins got together in Boston and had a little sit-in where they discussed all the ways they could have spent the money that it costs to fire off a patriot missile. There's only one answer to that question: You can use it to clean up a fraction of the damage that a scud missile causes . . . you stupid morons.

North Korea is worse.

I'm with you. I've had it with North Korea, too. I can't wait until we remove them from the map. Oh, you mean we can't go to war at all as long as there's more than one threat? I can't replace my worn out fuel filter because I have a worn tire?

Maybe if we cave in to Iraq, North Korea will see how weak we are and leave us alone out of pity.

We don't have any proof Iraq's involved in terrorism or has weapons of mass destruction.

To answer this one, you lean in real close again. You say "Hey, I recognize you. You were on the OJ Simpson jury."

Funny thing is, they always follow this up with their objection that if we do go to war he'll unleash terrorist attacks with those weapons of mass destruction that he doesn't have.

If we go to war, the terrorists will increase their attacks

One of the stupidest reasons to not go not to war is because is if we do they'll hurt us.

To avoid war in order to be left alone is wrong. Wrong and stupid. They are bullies; they prey on the weak. They can't hurt us after we destroy them. Others who want to pick on us might want to think twice after they see what we do to people that hurt us.

You psychology majors are thinking "This guy has some chronic violence issues." Well, that would indicate that you have some chronic stupidity issues. I love peace. I want to be left alone to live my little life in peace. I couldn't care less about how you live your little life. I love my peace so much that if you threaten to disrupt it, I'm going to solve the problem as swiftly and decisively as I can.

This is the battered wife syndrome. If your husband hits you, don't go to the police; don't stand up to him--'cause if you do he'll hurt you more. Wrong. If he hits you, you get rid of him and right now. Don't think 'Oh, I need to figure out what I did that offended him; what justified his hitting me.' No, I advocate the trial separation. You get your heaviest cast iron skillet and try to separate his skull while he's asleep.

Then just like the battered wife, the SCHMUCKs will always use the fear argument to segue into the "It's our fault" angle.

America is evil and brought it on ourselves

When the SCHMUCK regains consciousness and his nose stops bleeding, you explain to him that no country in the world -- no country with no exception -- treats its people better than we do here. Pick a country, any country, that treats its people better, and I'll personally help you load your moving van.

If the terrorists' outrageous claim that they attacked us because we are an immoral society were true, they would have attacked Amsterdam. Okay, granted, people from other countries watching American TV would see evidence of a decadent society. But isn't it ironic that the people who are talking about how evil America is are the same slime balls who are scrogging each other with wanton abandon, taking drugs, and promoting homosexuality?

They might argue that our policies in the Middle East are the reason the terrorists attacked us. That's bullcrap. You want to know why the terrorists attacked us? I'll tell you. Here's the answer.

It doesn't matter.

I couldn't care less. I'm not going to try to analyze the motivations of evil minds. Why does a man beat his wife? It doesn't matter. In fact, it's obscene to ask that question because it implies there might be some justification for his actions.

There is no change in behavior that we or the hypothetical abused wife can implement that will convince the attacker to leave us alone. The only question to ask is 'What is the most efficient way to remove the attacker's ability to attack?'

We could lose a war with Iraq

This objection is also known as the George Clooney approach. If someone uses this, you need to pause in your political debate to take advantage of an economic opportunity. The moron that believes this is always going to bet against the Harlem Globetrotters.

Isn't it funny that actors that appear on TV don't seem to watch the news on TV? If they did, they might have seen how decisively we cleaned Iraq's plow in 1991. Back then they made the same threats about uprisings and mass killings of Americans.

I'm telling you, forget the oil in the Middle East. There's more available energy in the hot air over there.

This is a racist action against Arabs and Muslims.

Can you see the direction this agenda is going? These arguments are getting more and more desperate and absurd? Very simple: There is no religious or racial group you can belong to that allows you to blow up our buildings!

Bush is a cowboy; He can't go this alone

Actually, yes he can. But he isn't. Since it's a leftist you're talking to, data and facts aren't going to help. So don't waste your breath going into the immense list of countries that are backing us on this. What's important here is to notice the direction the discussion has moved. It's not "We can't go in alone." It's not "The government can't do this on its own." It's always "Bush can't go it alone."

I think your SCHMUCK is getting warmed up to pull his final arrow from the quiver:

I . . . I . . . I . . . You . . . ! The supreme court stopped the recount!

Uh huh. That's what I thought.


Frank Leany

Note: You'll notice I didn't say go to war WITH Iraq. When you go to war with a country, they show up to do battle with you. What we're going to do in Iraq is destroy their equipment and installations and kill their soldiers just like we did in 1991. All this talk about people fighting us house to house will come to nothing just like Saddam's "Mother of all Battles." They have a lot of bravado. We have missiles. Guess which way I'm betting.

Related articles:
Beaten Wife Syndrome
More responses to leftist sound bytes

Home  |  Contact Us  | LoL Archive