How to Win a Pro War Argument
When Facts, Logic or Consistent Moral Codes are Just Too Tough to Muster
Those pointy-headed peaceniks are always up to something tricky. Just the other day, I ran into one at the grocery store. He was sitting at a table all nice-like, handing out pamphlets against the war. Chad was his name.
Well, Chad ambled up to me in his lime green cableknit sweater made from some kind of Guatemalan hemp or something and said, "What are your feelings about war?" I replied, "I sure do think it's a good thing for us to be doing right now." Chad smiled at me and said right back, "Now, why do you think that?"
Well, darn it to the bridge and back, the chump had me stumped. I'd left my Limbaugh Letter at home on the kitchen table, and it had been a while since I'd watched one of those Pentagon briefings. I just plum couldn't think of anything on the spot. So instead I just kind of said, "well, shoot" and stalked off. I could feel that hippie's smile burn into my shoulder as I drove off in my Taurus.
Now, some might say that if I couldn't come up with a logical argument based on agreed-upon facts, or that if I couldn't at least make some kind of statement about right and wrong that was based in a consistent moral code, then I shouldn't be throwing my support behind a war in the first place. Well, the hell with that! I know what I know, and I think what I think, and I shouldn't have to be able to explain myself to you, myself or anyone else.
I know I'm not alone here. Across this fine nation of ours, pro-war patriots like myself find themselves losing arguments against war because they just can't muster the facts, logic and moral consistency to demonstrate the righteousness of their cause. Well, no longer, I say! It's time we red-blooded white-bread true-blue Americans figured out how to put those anti-war activists in their place.
That's where this article comes in. Motivated by my own embarrassment, I decided to write a how-to guide to avoid difficult situations like these. When facts, logic and moral consistency fail you in your pro-war argument, just follow these handy steps. Now supporting a war can be as easy as 1, 2, 3 - and you don't even have to make a lick of sense!
If you've got a wily anti-war activist on your hands, they may say that everybody who is a citizen is a "real American," and that nobody appointed you Grand High Guardian of Americaninity. Never fear, just move on to the next tactic...
Inevitably, some smart chick will respond to your "traitor" remark by noting that to be a "traitor" requires "betraying" something, and that calling for the cessation of dissent betrays the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. She'll top that remark with a "so who's the traitor?" challenge. You know your answer: "you are! traitor!" Just keep saying it. "Traitor traitor traitor!" They'll probably give up sooner or later if you keep it up. But hey, if they don't, you can always try this goodie...
At this point, some egghead historian in the gathering crowd will point out in a nasal voice that, as a matter of fact, members of the military are proud to say they are fighting precisely to protect freedom, which in the U.S. includes the freedom to spout pansy-ass pacifism. At this point, I suggest you retreat to the secondary claim, "[insert relative in the military] is making the ultimate sacrifice for you, pal! I hope you're happy knowing you're breaking their hearts, you flag-burning traitor" (see, you can combine tactics). Do so with care, however. Someone might have the unmitigated gall to point out that the dissenters suggest we take troops out of harm's way, while war boosters (many of whom are conveniently not on the front lines themselves) are eager to send soldiers to the slaughter. This is a sneaky Jedi mind trick. Cover your ears and hum loudly until they're finished, then adjust your tactics to...
Speaking of right country/wrong country...
Someone will bring up Jesus; they always do. Usually it's some part of this quote of Jesus from the Book of Matthew:
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."
Don't let this stop you. Just point out that Jesus was a commie, so who cares what he said anyway. Besides, he probably didn't really mean it. This brings us to our next tactic...
If "socialist" doesn't work, try "peacenik." It really means the same thing: "nik" is a Russian suffix, get it? Well, ok, the Russians spell it with funny-looking backward "H"s and "N"s, but you get my point. You and I know that all those people calling for nonviolence are in league with the commies. Or socialists. Or something like that. Well, it's all the same thing, right?
If your anti-war opponents say they aren't socialists, they're lying. All anti-war activists are socialists. Tell them you know they're lying, and you know about their secret conspiracy to make you look stupid. If you come upon an anti-war activist that admits he or she is a socialist, but says "so what?" then you're in a bit of a pickle, since a response would require you to actually have ever read Karl Marx. Just move on to the next level of anti-war argument, and...
Now, every once in a while a stubborn anti-war activist will just refuse to be cowed by your name-calling, jingoism, religious rhetoric and threats. In these cases, you might want to try...
Now I bet some of you are thinking "now, you can't just slap people around!" or "that's a bit much, isn't it?" or "it's not right to engage in acts of violence against somebody who hasn't done anything to you!" or something like that. But hey, then aren't you missing the point just an eensy, teensy bit?
Irregular Times require talking back.
Give us your Irregular Retorts!
We are also eagerly awaiting original submissions of quality irregularity.