Please help me respond to this ass-hole freeper...PLEASE!!!!!!

[jab105]

I go on a local message board about politics (its run by the local right wing radio show, so you'll know the context), and to be frank, most of the people on there would make "Moran" man look like Einstein...

I'm very nice, and very patient on the board, and I've had people private message me to thank me for writing on the board...I've even had people write me and tell me that they are getting away from the Republican party based on the debates that I've had on the board...

So, anyways...I wrote this big thing about all the lies that the administration told about the war...all about PNAC, etc....

So, the fucker writes me back this shit (sorry I know I shouldn't let it get to me, but these lies and the way they are just spewed out there just like that really get to me):
***************************************************************

now on the thousands that died in iraq if they had laywed their guns down they would be alive but war is hell isnt it! she always mentions the thousands that died but like a lib. she forgets about the hundreds of thousand that the nut case murdered, and the thousands that would have died if he was still in charge. ***** cant see past the lib. garbage and see the light. i bet she would have done the same if she was alive when hitler murdered thousands of jews and more.

******************************************************************

Can you help on the response for this, I mean the guy is an idiot...I probably shouldnt even respond, but I think that if I got a zinger of a response, it could be really good...

I NEED YOUR BRILLIANT MINDS TO HELP ME WITH THIS!!!!!
PLEASE HELP!!!!
Edited to make it a bit less confusing.....

[Wonk]

1. Respond to what exactly? I can't tell what of that is hers and what

is yours :shrug:

[Dookus]

3. yes....

I agree.

Please post a SPECIFIC argument and I'm sure we can rebut it.

[Julien Sorel]

10. I think this is it:

now on the thousands that died in iraq if they had laywed their guns down they would be alive but war is hell isnt it! she always mentions the thousands that died but like a lib. she forgets about the hundreds of thousand that the nut case murdered, and the thousands that would have died if he was still in charge. ***** cant see past the lib. garbage and see the light. i bet she would have done the same if she was alive when hitler murdered thousands of jews and more.

It's the old Saddam-is-Hitler argument, plus it draws subtly on the 'soft on defense' stigma that Dems suffer from, and tells an outright lie -- Saddam did not murder 'hundreds of thousands.'

1) Prove that Saddam 'murdered' hundreds of thousands. (He might try to hit you with the Iran-Iraq war, but wars aren't 'murdering,' and in fact, he said that himself. If he does, point that out. I'll be happy to help you further along those lines if it is necessary.)

2) The invasion was sold to us based on the premise, since proven false, that Iraq was an imminent threat. Now you want to turn around and say it was really because Saddam was a bad guy? Bullshit. Let's go out and invade Burma, or China, or North Korea, or any one of a dozen other countries that have far worse human rights records than Iraq did. You're covering for Bush, not trying to make an honest argument. He screwed up and lied to the people. The least thing you can do is be honest about it now, since the president won't.

3) Hitler murdered a lot more than 'thousands of Jews.' But since you've got everything else wrong, one more thing hardly matters at this point. By the way, if I'd have been alive then, I would have done exactly what the Democratic and liberal President of the United States FDR did, and do everything in my power to stop Hitler. Saddam simply wasn't Hitler, however desperately you try to pretend otherwise.

[jab105]

13. Haaa...ohhh, you guys are so good!!

Between this and sandnsea's response...this will be good...

I think a few short point by points is going to be perfect...

THANK YOU!:)

Will update in about half hour how "the response" going...

[jab105]

15. Should I mention the Shiite uprising that poppy bush encouraged?

??

[Julien Sorel]

17. I wouldn't.

Don't go off on tangents -- it lets him off the hook. I doubt this guy is bright enough to handle a head-to-head discussion using facts, and the more stuff you throw out there, the more chances you give him to change the subject until you have a big mess on your hands. Beat him into the ground on this topic, where you have a ton of stuff at hand, and besides, it's extremely topical -- nobody cares about Poppy anymore.

[jab105]

18. Good good...

very good point...

redneck hick people need simple words and to the point discussion....

[jab105]

19. Billy, do you think the hundreds of thousands thing...

would send him off on a tangent...

Here's what I have so far:

*****************************************************************

1. You can read about the specifics on where/how these people died here: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm
Where are the guns that they didn’t lay down? When we were “shocking and aweing” they didn’t exactly have much of a chance to lay down those guns you seem to think they were holding …

2. Yes, war is hell!

3. The invasion was sold to us based on the premise, since proven false, that Iraq was an imminent threat. Now you want to turn around and say it was really because Saddam was a bad guy? Bull. Let's go out and invade Burma, or China, or North Korea, or any one of a dozen other countries that have far worse human rights records than Iraq did. You're covering for Bush, not trying to make an honest argument. He screwed up and lied to the people. The least thing you can do is be honest about it now, since the president won't…

4. Hitler murdered a lot more than “thousands of Jews.” But since you've got everything else wrong, one more thing hardly matters at this point. By the way, if I'd have been alive then, I would have done exactly what the Democratic and liberal President of the United States FDR did, and do everything in my power to stop Hitler. Saddam simply wasn't Hitler, however desperately you try to pretend otherwise.

[Julien Sorel]

20. He might try.

But he told an out and out lie, and sometimes you have to call people on that stuff. It has three advantages: first, it weakens the premise of his argument -- that Saddam was so horrible we had to take him out; second, it damages his credibility on the board; and third, it might piss him off to the point where he starts mentally sputtering. Basically, you are calling him a liar without using the words.

I can see your side of it -- he might try to mire you down with nonsense 'facts' and take the focus away from the real argument. But personally I like crushing people who do that ;-)

[jab105]

21. It would be pretty easy to crush....

if he started up on it...

I dont know, they always focus on one thing, so I want it to be able to stand alone...

How many Kurds were gassed...thats where he'll go with it...

Do you know?

EDIT: Found out for myself, it was around 5,000....

[jab105]

4. Wonk.....I LOVE YOU!!

Hey wonk, just have to say, that you are the best thing about DU, thank you so much for all your audio/video uploads....

Anyways...sorry....the stars were supposed to separate mine from his...the long one is mine...

This is his:

now on the thousands that died in iraq if they had laywed their guns down they would be alive but war is hell isnt it! she always mentions the thousands that died but like a lib. she forgets about the hundreds of thousand that the nut case murdered, and the thousands that would have died if he was still in charge. ***** cant see past the lib. garbage and see the light. i bet she would have done the same if she was alive when hitler murdered thousands of jews and more.

I think it needs to be a fairly short response, these dumb people cant read more than a few words...but I think the response could be really good, cause this is such a "Rush" response!!

[roguevalley]

2. Make sure that this moran knows that dictators don't spring up

out of the ground. Send them the picture of Rumsfeld shaking Hussein's hand and his comment about how we 'needed him'.

Ask the idiot if they would lay down their gun if they were
invaded by another country. Would they just lay it down and
throw bouquets? No. War IS hell and since she has no understanding
of what its like, go to her house, shoot her dogs and drown her
turtle. <Just kidding.>

Sometimes you can't save asses but the Rumsfeld picture is hard
to dismiss.

Good luck, honey.

RV

[Wonk]

5. 3 M quicktime vid of that infamous handshake

here

[Dogmudgeon]

6. War is Hell, isn't it?

"Yes, I remember that War is Hell.

"I also remember that when George Bush's dad was the head of the CIA, he secretly funded the Afghanistan Muhejadin.

"I also remember that he funded and trained the torture doctors in the early regime of Saddam Hussein. And Don Rumsfeld shook Hussein's hand.

"I also remember that George Bush was holding secret, high-level talks with the Taliban just weeks before 9-11, offering Bin Laden's henchmen hundreds of millions of dollars -- a "carpet of gold".

"I also remember that Prescott Bush -- the president's grand-dad -- actually DID give Hitler and the Nazi Party money.

"So go stuff your talk-radio patriotism up your KKK-talking ass."

[Old and In the Way]

7. Geesh, I think you got this well under control.

I mean, you worry about a simplistic 2 sentence, poorly constructed response stymie you....you obviously know how to Google.

Here's a good start, though:

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html

U.S. Diplomatic and Commercial Relationships with Iraq, 1980 - 2 August 1990
Prepared by Nathaniel Hurd.
15 July 2000 (updated 12 December 2001 by Nathaniel Hurd and Glen Rangwala).
Before 1980
• Following the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Iraq severed diplomatic relations with the U.S. In late 1979 the State Department (SD) put Iraq on its list of States sponsoring groups categorized by the SD as "terrorist."<1>
1980
• The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) asserted in a report that Iraq has been ‘actively acquiring’ Chemical Weapons capacities since the mid-1970s.<2>
1982
• Despite intelligence reports that Iraq still sponsored groups on the SD's terrorist list, and "apparently without consulting Congress", the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the State terrorism sponsorship list in 1982.<3> The removal made Iraq eligible for U.S. dual-use and military technology.<4>
1983
• A SD report concluded that Iraq continued to support groups on the SD’s terrorist list.<5>
• Iraq reportedly began using chemical weapons (CW) against Iranian troops in 1982, and significantly increased CW use in 1983. Reagan’s Secretary of State, George Shultz, said that reports of Iraq using CWs on Iranian military personnel "drifted in" at the year’s end.<6> A declassified CIA report, probably written in late 1987, notes Iraq's use of mustard gas in August 1983, giving further credence to the suggestion that the SD and/or National Security Council (NSC) was well aware of Iraq's use of CW at this time.<7>
• Analysts recognized that "civilian" helicopters can be weaponized in a matter of hours and selling a civilian kit can be a way of giving military aid under the guise of civilian assistance.<8> Shortly after removing Iraq from the terrorism sponsorship list, the Reagan administration approved the sale of 60 Hughes helicopters.<9> Later, and despite some objections from the National Security Council (NSC), the Secretaries of Commerce and State (George Baldridge and George Shultz) lobbied the NSC advisor into agreeing to the sale to Iraq of 10 Bell helicopters,<10> officially for crop spraying. See "1988" for note on Iraq using U.S. Helicopters to spray Kurds with chemical weapons.
• Later in the year the Reagan Administration secretly began to allow Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt to transfer to Iraq U.S. howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons.<11> Reagan personally asked Italy’s Prime Minister Guilio Andreotti to channel arms to Iraq.<12>
1984
• The SD announced on 6 March that, based on "available evidence," it "concluded" that Iraq used "lethal chemical weapons" (specifically mustard gas) in fresh fighting with Iran.<13> On 20 March, U.S. intelligence officials said that they had "what they believe to be incontrovertible evidence that Iraq has used nerve gas in its war with Iran and has almost finished extensive sites for mass-producing the lethal chemical warfare agent".<14>
• European-based doctors examined Iranian troops in March 1984 and confirmed exposure to mustard gas.<15> The UN sent expert missions to the battle region in March 1984, February/March 1986, April/May 1987, March/April 1988, July 1988 (twice), and mid-August 1988. These missions detailed and documented Iraq’s CW use.<16>
• According to the Washington Post, the CIA began in 1984 secretly to give Iraq intelligence that Iraq uses to "calibrate" its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. In August, the CIA establishes a direct Washington-Baghdad intelligence link, and for 18 months, starting in early 1985, the CIA provided Iraq with "data from sensitive U.S. satellite reconnaissance photography...to assist Iraqi bombing raids." The Post’s source said that this data was essential to Iraq’s war effort.<17>
• The United States re-established full diplomatic ties with Iraq on 26 November,<18> just over a year after Iraq’s first well-publicized CW use and only 8 months after the UN and U.S. reported that Iraq used CWs on Iranian troops.
1985
• In 1985 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to put Iraq back on the State terrorism sponsorship list.<19> After the bill’s passage, Shultz wrote to the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Howard Berman, cited the U.S.’ "diplomatic dialogue on this and other sensitive issues, " claimed that "Iraq has effectively distanced itself from international terrorism," and stated that if the U.S. found that Iraq supports groups practicing terrorism "we would promptly return Iraq to the list."<20> Rep. Berman dropped the bill and explicitly cited Shultz’s assurances.<21>
• Iraq’s Saad 16 General Establishment’s director wrote a letter to the Commerce Department (CD) detailing the activities in Saad’s 70 laboratories. These activities had the trademarks of ballistic missile development.<22>
1986
• The Defense Department’s (DOD) Under Secretary for Trade Security Policy, Stephen Bryen, informed the Commerce Department’s (CD) Assistant Secretary for Trade Administration in November that intelligence linked the Saad 16 research center with ballistic missile development.<23> Between 1985 and 1990, CD approved many computer sales to Iraq that go directly to Saad 16. CD approved over $1 million worth of computer equipment for sale to Saad 16 after Commerce received the above-mentioned November letter from DOD.<24> As of 1991 Saad 16 reportedly contained up to 40% U.S.-origin equipment.<25>
1988
• The CD approved exports in January and February to Iraq’s SCUD missile program’s procurement agency. These exports allowed Iraq to extend SCUD range far enough to hit allied soldiers in Saudi Arabia and Israeli civilians in Tel Aviv and Haifa.<26>
• On 23 March, London’s Financial Times and several other news organizations reported from Halabja, located in Iraqi Kurdistan, that several days prior Iraq used CWs on Halabja’s Kurds.<27>
• In May, two months after the Halabja assault, Peter Burleigh, Assistant Secretary of State in charge of northern Gulf affairs, encouraged U.S.-Iraqi corporate cooperation at a symposium hosted by the U.S.-Iraq Business Forum. The U.S.-Iraq Business Forum had strong (albeit unofficial) ties to the Iraqi government.<28>
• The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee sent a team to Turkey to speak to Iraqi Kurdish refugees and assess reports that Iraq "was using chemical weapons on its Kurdish population."<29> This report reaffirmed that between 1984 and 1988 "Iraq repeatedly and effectively used poison gas on Iran," the UN missions’ findings, and the chemical attack on Halabja that left an estimated 4,000 people dead.<30>
• Following the Halabja attack and Iraq’s August CW offensive against Iraqi Kurds, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed on 8 September the "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988" the day after it is introduced.<31> The act cuts off from Iraq U.S. loans, military and non-military assistance, credits, credit guarantees, items subject to export controls, and U.S. imports of Iraqi oil.<32>

<snip>

This follows on through to the day before Bush1 declared war on Hussein.

Completely documented with footnotes and US government publications

[jab105]

9. The problem is that they wont read it....

I'm pissed because these assholes CANT get away with saying shit like that without a good quick zinger (a few sentences) that even a retarded freeper can get through reading...

[sandnsea]

8. When we were shocking & awing?

They didn't have much of a chance to lay their guns down when that was happening, now did they? And no, I haven't been ignoring the Iraqi people, I have been concerned about the sanctions causing Iraqi people to die for quite some time now. Just like I was concerned about the Afghani's who were dieing because we had put the weapons in the country that the Taliban used to kill their people. And was concerned about people dieing at the hands of Pinochet, Amin, Duvalier, Marcos and all the rest of the dictators we've supported for the last 50 years. I can't understand why we were friends with them when they were killing their people, but we somehow find it necessary to kill Iraqis in order to save them from being killed by Saddam who we helped bring to power in the first place.

The 'I' being you of course.

[jab105]

11. That's very good...

Gonna work with that some...excellent!!

[Spirochete]

12. He's most likely unswayable

Tell him spelling and capitalization are his friend.

[jab105]

14. LOL.....

My problem is that my spelling and capitalization is pretty bad too...

If I say that, he'll focus on when mine was bad instead of the arugment....

I'm not necessarily trying to sway HIM in particular...I am trying to show the other people who read the message board that the "Rush" bullshit argument is just that, bullshit!!

[TreasonousBastard]

16. As near as I can tell...

the near illiterate is repeating the nonsense about how Saddam was such a bad guy, and we did such a nice thing throwing him out.

The only reasonable answer to that is to pose the question of whether or not it is the responsibility of the US to decide who is a thieving, murderous, scumbag dictator and whether or not it is our job to depose said thieving, murderous, scumbag dictators. Entirely on our own, and without the advice, consent, or assistance of the rest of the world.

There are many more of them out there, and we could spend quite a bit of time rooting out all of the world's warlords and dictators.

Note that we are also picking up the entire tab for this act of good will, and it now comes out that the Iraqi oil sales that were supposed to pay for it won't be happening for a while now. It turns out that we are now subsidizing the Iraqi oilfields to the tune of 5 million bucks a day.

But, we're not paying for it because we got a tax reduction and have less money to spend on wars and stuff. The money must be magically appearing from somewhere.

Also note that many Iraqis don't seem to be all tha grateful for this act of charity on their behalf. And they are getting less grateful as time without electricity, water, or jobs goes on.

Many of the people presently quite happy with all of the activity in Iraq, btw, were frothng and foaming at Clinton's invasion of Haiti. An invasion which was bloodless, inexpensive, and called for by many in the international community, including the Haitians.

They were also aghast at our eventual involvement in Kosovo, and did what they could to derail that.

[Brucey]

22. Analogy:

Abraham Lincoln killed thousands of his own people. Lincoln was a Republican. Therefore, we should murder Republicans! QED.