Zinn and the Art of Diversion

Submitted by Mary Ann Meier (United States), Oct 9, 2002 at 23:45

In his debate with Daniel Pipes, Mr. Zinn displays typical liberal bias and ignorance on political issues. Mr. Zinn begins his debate arguing that the US has no right to declare war on Iraq for obsequious reasons. Mr. Pipes shoots the man down until he whines about the US government using US wealth on this war when some US citizens do not have health insurance. Where did all that come from? What is his point? The point is that Mr. Zinn is an immature, bleeding heart liberal, who cannot understand or begin to address the politics or nature of world war, peace, tyrants, their regimes, or anything else pertinent to these subjects. Mr. Zinn decided somewhere along his way, or was conditioned, to hate and to resent the US.

This attitude taints his logic and ability to discuss and to see true reality, i.e. that Saddam Hussein's breach of the 1991 US/Iraq agreement is the tip of the iceberg of reasons we have for destroying him and his regime. I am puzzled at anyone who bemoans the loss of lives, military or civilian, when the discussion is about war. Get a clue!! Do I worry about my butter spoiling when I decide to cut down on fat intake and therefore cook more often with olive oil? And his point is? Oh, bother. Go, Daniel Pipes!

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".