HomeCategoriesWhat Anti-War Protesters Might Have Said In Response To D-Day What Anti-War Protesters Might Have Said In Response To D-Day Lorie Byrd June 6, 2006 Categories 15 Comments Read the whole list of the “top 11 things that anti-war protesters would have said at the Normandy Invasion on D-Day (had there been anti-war protesters at Normandy).” My favorites are #1, 2 and 7. Link via The Corner. Follow The Races Tonight Who Could Beat the GOP in 2008? Related Posts Ironic Liberal Media Headlines of the Day DOJ Files Suit Against Google Weekend Caption Contest Winners for March 20 2015 Contest About The Author Lorie Byrd 15 Comments virgo June 6, 2006 Yes but Hitler never had any ill will towards the U.S. like Bush does towards the rest of the world! according to the modern day mollusks on the left. Bemused June 6, 2006 This is especially funny because all of those treacherous anti-war liberals were a bunch of isolationist rats, while those brave conservatives beat the drum and liberated Europe and China. Liberals support wars waged for good reasons that are conducted properly; we’re just smart enough to know that you can dislike parts of it and wish things would improve and work (mostly just bitching and moaning) to that effect. I would have wanted MacArthur to resign after he allowed his troops to rampage through Manila after his wings of shiny new bombers, left basically undefended, were destroyed by Japanese aircraft before he got to destroy even one Japanese city. Hundreds of thousands of Filipinos slaughtered, by the Japanese withdrawing from the island and by the American artillery that fired indiscriminately into densely populated areas. His incompetence was further demonstrated by his idiotic trek through Korea, dividing his forces and ceding defeat. Military historians don’t think he was a war hero. Another example is the Most Holy Winston Churchill. I’d have said bravo for steeling his nation’s resolve and allowing the USSR and the US and the other Allies to persevere in the most necessary war of the modern era. But I would have been less impressed by this 1937 quotation about Hitler: “One may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.” Or this: “I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.” If you supported the war on terror in a thoughtful manner, you would have recognized the invasion of Iraq for what it was. Being categorically anti-war is naive at best, but not the same as being anti-Operation Iraqi Freedom. Proud Kaffir June 6, 2006 Bemused: Your attacks on Churchill and McArthur prove the point better than the satire piece. Thank you. The entire country supported the war effort in WWII once it was declared. There were no defeatists stating the very things you have on your post (unless you count Joe Kennedy Sr, but I’ll cut him some slack.) Bemused June 6, 2006 Learn how to read, Kaffir. I never said that the Japanese should have been allowed to slaughter Chinese civilians, and that Hitler should have been permitted to establish the Thousand Year Reich; I’m saying that war sucks, even when done for the right reason(s), and it is our leaders’ responsibility to ensure that it is conducted as professionally as possible. To repeat: anti-war protestors in this country, for the most part, are not pacifists. They just do not think that the current war in Iraq was necessary, and the way it has been executed has convinced an indisputable majority of Americans that it was not worth it; and, knowing what they know now, they would not have supported it. You are of a minority opinion in this matter. Make of that what you will. Saddam sucked. It took an evil sonofabitch to keep that patchwork construct of a nation from exploding with ethnic tension. He should have been deposed and tried in the Hague and sentenced with his sons and lieutenants to life in prison; and the country should have been divided into three autonomous regions to prevent a civil war that should have been obvious to anyone sufficiently steeped in Middle Eastern history in 2003. (People with no knowledge of said history, ought to have been kept the hell out of the decision making process. Lookin’ at you, Douggie Feith.) Saddam wasn’t as evil as Hitler, though. If he was, the rape rooms would have been kept open until coalition troops shut them down. Hitler’s brigades of SS cleansers were well-fed, well-clothed, and well-armed while his regular divisions starved and froze to death on the Eastern Front in 1944. GeminiChuck June 7, 2006 The anti-war activists are not pacifists? Are you nuts? And sure, it would have been awesome if the UN could have waltzed into Iraq and arrested Saddam, his sons, his regime, and took them to the Hague – dont think they would have gone quietly, thou. The biggest problem in Iraq is that we cant unleash the full power of our military to complete the job. However, eventually we will have to in order to end the Islamo-fascist movement world-wide just like we ended the nazi-fascist movement. Afganistan was the first battle ground – Iraq is the second. The best we could hope for is that Iraq will be the last battle ground in the war against militant Islam. Bemused June 7, 2006 I said nothing about what ought to be done in the present. In 2003, though, Saddam Hussein had fuck all to do with Islamofascism. Wouldn’t tolerate it, in fact. What’s the plan for stability then, GeminiChuck? The more idiots you kill, the more naive people are converted to idiocy. If the coalition bails out, they’re signing the death warrants of tens or hundreds of thousands of people. I don’t know what to do. Whoever supported the war should have some suggestions, though, because surely they wouldn’t have advocated for such an operation without a plan for the aftermath, right? I mean, haha, nobody in the upper echelons of the world’s most powerful democracy, and their media minions, would be that fucking stupid, right?! (And no, anti-war activists are not pacifists. Pacifists think WAR BAD, FULL STOP. I don’t know anybody who thinks that, and my heart is as bloody as they come.) GeminiChuck June 7, 2006 Here’s the deal, Bemused: Its true that Saddam wasn’t buddy-buddy with the Muslim fundamentalists, however, he would have given them any WMD he could develop to assist them in attacking us. Since you are so interested in history, I suggest you read up on what the Muslim fundamentalists are all about – their goal is to install a Caliph, take over the Middle East, and destroy Western civilization as a home for religions other than Muslim. Iraq happens to be the current battle ground – we wont win until the Islamo-fascists realize they cant defeat us there or anywhere else. You like our way of life? Then get on board on this fight for our freedom to live it, then. DDT June 7, 2006 For a second there I thought that commentary was linked to The Onion -Then I realized it wasn’t funny. Seriously though, That’s like the umpteenth time a 5 tooth per-household blogger who quotes Mencken on their header without one synapse firing over the historical legacy of Mencken -y’know, when he decided to change his tune in the latter part of his life: “As a nationally syndicated columnist and author of numerous books he notably assaulted America’s preoccupation with fundamentalist Christianity, attacked the “Booboisie,” his word for the ignorant middle classes: “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American middle class.” Mencken heaped scorn not only upon self-serving public officials but the contemporary state of American democracy itself: in 1931, the legislature of the U. S. state of Arkansas passed a motion to pray for Mencken’s soul, after he had raised the state to the “apex of moronia”. Hmmm.. sounds familiar, But hey, why spoil the party…. The post is repugnant and historically ignorant – D-Day was part of an ongoing campaign in response to an actual attacks and occupations by two axis powers -Not an act of outright agression to a “perceived” threat. The very idea of ever putting Iraq and WW2 in the same context deserves to have a giant shit taken on them. Do you ever pay attention to this nonsense you cite? What is it? Are you too lazy or just that stupid? Bemused June 7, 2006 GeminiChuck, I know what Osama et al want. Excuse me if I just think it’s laughable. They want to return the world to status quo 13th century, when the Moors controlled Spain and Morocco. Everybody who was dissatisfied with the “THE TERRORISTS HATE OUR FREEDOM!” line and did ten seconds of research knows this. Is it even worth responding to, though? Like, are you actually worried that there will be a global Islamic revolution and that you’re going to be forced to worship the same God but in Arabic? Grow some fucking balls! If you want to fight the terrorists, continue to live like an American, not like some poor schmuck out of 1984. That’s what they hate. They like disrupting your way of life. Don’t let ’em. New Yorkers didn’t. Give ’em the finger by watching bad TV shows and wasting your money on shit at the mall. Drew E June 7, 2006 To compare Iraq with World War II is perhaps the stupidest topic ever posted here. Sure I disagree with about 70% of the opinions, but at least the topic is relevent. I have gone to jail as the result of my opposition to our illegal invasion of Iraq. If I had been alive after December 7th I, like my father would have joined and fought. To elevate Saddam to the level of Hitler and Tojo, to equate the threat that Japan and Germany posed to America with the “threat” that Iraq posed is …well..stupid.. Sexton Lovecraft June 7, 2006 Why is the current conflict in Iraq being compared to a World War? Iraq is more like the IRA an Northern Ireland, but with more oil and Haliburton. At least Northern Ireland didn’t cost the UK taxpayers 87 billion USD. http://www.crunchweb.net/87billion/ Martin A. Knight June 7, 2006 Please avoid the historical revisionism. … Saddam Hussein had fuck all to do with Islamofascism. Wouldn’t tolerate it, in fact. Why don’t you tell that to the 9/11 Commission (Chapter 2 – Page 66 i.e. 83 on PDF); There is also evidence that in 1997, bin Laden sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of bin Laden. In mid-1998, the situation reversed, with Iraq reportedly taking the initiative. In March 1998, after bin Laden’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through bin Laden’s Egyptian deputy, [Ayman al] Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. […] Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Laden or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Laden declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicated some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. … Saddam Hussein had fuck all to do with Islamofascism. Wouldn’t tolerate it, in fact. Why don’t you tell that to Janet Reno and her Justice Department. This is from Item 4 on the background info on Al Qaeda from the 1998 Justice Department indictment of Osama Bin Laden presented to the United States Southern District Court of New York: Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq. … Saddam Hussein had fuck all to do with Islamofascism. Wouldn’t tolerate it, in fact. Why don’t you tell that to CNN. This is a report they filed on 02/13/1999 (FYI: Bush was still Governor of Texas in 1999); … Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers. … Saddam Hussein had fuck all to do with Islamofascism. Wouldn’t tolerate it, in fact. Why don’t you tell that to the Guardian (UK). This is from the story they filed on 02/06/1999. It must have been a bitterly cold and uncomfortable journey. In the last days of December, a group of Iraqi officials crossed the Hindu Kush border from Pakistan to Afghanistan on their way to keep an appointment deep in the remote eastern mountains. At the head of the group was a man by the name of Farouk Hijazi, President Saddam Hussein’s new ambassador to Turkey and one of Iraq’s most senior intelligence officers. He had been sent on one of the most important assignments of his career – to recruit Osama bin Laden. Thus the world’s most notorious pariah state, armed with its half-built hoard of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, tried to embrace the planet’s most prolific terrorist. It was the stuff of the West’s millennial nightmares, but United States intelligence officials are positive that the meeting took place, although they admit that they have no idea what happened. This was not the first time that President Saddam had offered Mr Bin Laden a partnership. At least one approach is believed to have been made during the Saudi dissident’s sojourn in Sudan from 1990 to 1996. Now, I know you wrote “In 2003, Saddam Hussein had fuck all to do with Islamofascism. Wouldn’t tolerate it, in fact.” Maybe, maybe not. I suspect that you added the 2003 caveat to shield your key assertion that Saddam Hussein would not abide co-operating with extremists, being that the Left has elevated the theory that Saddam Hussein’s secularism and Osama Bin Laden’s extremism posed an insurmountable obstacle to them even considering coming to some sort of agreement to something approaching religious dogma. In fact, the Left generally tries to pretend that nobody ever thought Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Al Qaeda could co-operate with each other when it came acting on their common hatred of the United States. Considering that most of my links above come from the late 1990s, when William Jefferson Clinton was still President, the belief that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq could co-operate with each other (given that both sides were intermittently sending delegations back and forth) was the prevalent one in Intelligence and Administration circles – worldwide. As for the view vis-a-vis 2003, nobody thought otherwise. Until after the invasion and it was discovered that Saddam Hussein was apparently making empty threats about his possessing WMDs. That was when the Left conveniently discovered the belief that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein could NEVER EVER work with each other, and the belief that NOBODY EVER believed otherwise until Bush and his band of neo-cons made it all up; they apparently time-travelled back to the 1990s and wrote all those articles (and the DOJ indictment of Osama bin Laden in 1998). In other words, when you wrote; “… in 2003, Saddam Hussein had fuck all to do with Islamofascism. Wouldn’t tolerate it, in fact.“, you were simply taking advantage of hindsight, which is very disingenuous. Neither you nor anybody on the Left (elected official or otherwise) wouldn’t have dared say this (or that Saddam Hussein possessed no WMDs) with any confidence prior to 06/2003. GeminiChuck June 7, 2006 Martin Knight – great job of research and summarizing the Iraq / al Qaeda connections. Its interesting how Bemused’s solution is for us to watch tv shows, spend money at the mall, flip them the finger – and, oh yeah, grow some balls. We should do that while the islamofascists continue their attacks. Just wonderfull! Bemused June 7, 2006 Yeah, all those attacks. I can’t remember the last time I picked up a newspaper without reading about some horrible explosion at a baseball game or a parade. Your lives have been disrupted because you allowed them to be. Bedwetters. So you think that because Hussein and bin Laden’s people had open lines of communication, that that somehow demonstrates some sort of limited partnership? If that is the best you can do, do better. Not exactly a smoking gun. “…but United States intelligence officials are positive that the meeting took place, although they admit that they have no idea what happened. This was not the first time that President Saddam had offered Mr Bin Laden a partnership. At least one approach is believed to have been made during the Saudi dissident’s sojourn in Sudan from 1990 to 1996.” That sounds like solid evidence to you? They have no idea what took place at the meeting, but they’re pretty sure it was sinister! Look, Hussein liked power; in bin Laden’s bizarro post-revolution Islamic world, exactly how much room would there have been for secular autocracies like Hussein’s? Do you think Hussein would have bowed to a caliph? Just because they had a mutual enemy, does not mean that they in fact collaborated. Tomsopinion March 14, 2007 Folks let’s just leave this war to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They know what they are doing – even if they made some mistakes. What war was ever fought without mistakes? The Revolution, WWWI, WWII, Korea and the Viet Nam war, which could have been won it we stopped listning to fifteen year old protesters high on drugs telling us what to do. Lets see to it that these M-E soldiers not have died in vain. Support them till they have succeded.