Friday, March 28, 2003
CHILDREN DIEA site that too often goes beyond rational argument and into paranoia about vast corporate conspiracies is Democratic Underground, and we have considered removing our link because it is seldom that DU adds anything serious to political discussion. I have personally been honored by a posting ban on the site because the very strict requirements of uniform thought make
Free Republic look like the UN. Today DU member "punpirate" has posted a
very earnest and emotional argument against all war, which can be summed up by this line:
"To be pro-war is to sacrifice children for political aims. America could be above such, but it is not." Yes, the military may seem callous by referring to the deaths of children as "collateral damage" and despite our best efforts, bullets and missiles will stray and children will die. But children will die if America is "above" war and leaves Saddam in power, just as they died in Basra after the first Gulf War. We know that during this war, children will die who wouldn't have otherwise. We also know that after the war, Saddam and his thugs will not be able to rape and kill adults and children ever again. After this war, Iraqi children will no longer die needlessly because their fathers opposed Saddam.
Yes, there's something comforting about knowing that Saddam is doing the killing and American troops are not. But while Saddam intends to kill children, America does not and the accidental and intentional killings will end when this war does. Without the war, the intentional killings will continue and every surrendering or smiling Iraqi you have seen on the news will be hunted down and murdered by Saddam's stormtroopers.
Punpirate mourns the death of his own daughter and understands how Iraqi's who lose children to American bombs must feel:
It doesn't matter what pilot drops the bomb on the child who is the Iraqi analogue of my child; it doesn't matter if there are words to make that strong, adult military man feel better about what he's done on order of his commander-in-chief. The child is still dead. The brothers and sisters remember who dropped that bomb. The mother and father wail and remember. The aunts and uncles mourn and curse the people who took that child from them, prevented that child from taking its rightful place in the world.
And across town or down in Basra are other families who don't have fathers because Saddam's gestapo came in the night and forced them at gunpoint to fight for Saddam. Those families don't have brothers and uncles because they were
killed or "disappeared" when they suggested that, just maybe, Saddam should build less palaces and feed the people. Those families have mothers and daughters who sob quielty at night because they remember Saddam's rape squads. And unlike those families who experience the heartrending loss of a child because of an errant U.S. missile, they know who is responsible for their losses and they see him on television every day. They see his goons, the Ba'athists and the
Fedayeen Saddam, on their street corners "keeping order." And they
cheer the American bombs.
STIFLING DISSENT? EVER HEARD OF THE FEDAYEEN?Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee (D-Mars) believes that the White House
is stifling anti-war dissent. She's not shy about complaining that, when you disagree with her, you are violating her
freedom of speech. The Left is confused if it thinks that the freedom of speech means anything other than the freedom to speak. If you say something stupid, you should expect ramifications. If your "speech" is contrary to the beliefs of more than
70% percent of the nation, then that 70% has a right to let you know. If you have shown yourself to be so out of step with the rest of the country, should you really expect to have positions of leadership in the United States Congress?
Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) is concerned that "there are consequences to pay if you don't go all with the administration's leadership." Absolutely there are consequences for disagreeing with the vast majority of the American public. If you stood on your roof yelling "Jews must die" you'd be exercising your freedom of speech, but should you continue to hold positions of authority. You could even suggest that Strom Thurmond wouldn't have been a bad president, but that doesn't mean that Ms. Jackson-Lee is going to hold a rally
defending your right to free speech. No, she'll demand that there be consequences for your stupidity. Just as there should be consequences for Rep. Charles Rangel's
stupidity. Last night, he said that the U.S. military was actually
trying to kill Iraqi civilians.
So, when Rep. Farr worries that "what we're beginning to see is a concerted attempt to attack anyone who dissents," he'd be wise to consider
real attacks on dissent that are being
carried out by Saddam's shock troops. That's curtailment of freedom to dissent. In the meantime, I am content that Farr, Jackson-Lee and Kucinich are simply being ignored and marginalized for their ignorance, which I only know about because they exercised their freedom of speech.
Thursday, March 27, 2003
BLAME AMERICA"The
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) is currently investigating the U.S. and coalition forces' bombing last night (U.S. time) of Iraqi state-run television facilities." Yeah, Iraqi TV is "state-run", and therefore a part of the Saddam regime. In fact, it seems that most if its programming involves showing slow motion video of the glorious butcher of Baghdad. I wonder how the CPJ's investigation is going with respect to Iraqi TV journalists' complicity with the murderous Saddam regime. Every trade organization and non-profit seems to see this war as a chance to jump on America's back. Even
Amnesty International finally became interested
in Iraq:
Amnesty International today cautioned that the bombing of the Iraqi state television station in Baghdad by US allied forces could be a breach of the Geneva Conventions. . . . According to Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions Article 52 (2) "Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage."
I suspect that constant reassurance that Uncle Saddam is still alive and well in Baghdad has a rather stifling effect on the Iraqis' desire to resist Saddam's
death squads. Eliminating such reassurances would certainly be advantageous to the liberating armies.
ANTI-WARRIORSMartin Sheen's anti-war buddy has some in depth opinions to express regarding Israel. See
here. It's important to know who are your ideological brethren.
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
JOHN STUART MILL ON WARThanks to Martin for sending this:
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
And here's another quote, from a less well-known philosopher:
I came from a world where the people believed that the opposite of war was peace. We found out the hard way that the opposite of war is more often slavery, and that strength, strength alone, can support freedom.
Extra credit if you can
tell me where this quote comes from.
BRIT SURRENDERS TO ALLIESApparently, a
UK citizen who opposed the war was fighting with the Iraqis. And so, the British prove once again to be more brave than the French.
(IN)HUMAN SHIELDSJoel Mowbray discusses the return to reality of some former human shields, who report that many Iraqis are truly pro-war. The average Joe Iraq doesn't seem quite as conflicted as
"Salam Pax", who is troubled by the cost of removing his dictator. We told you about Mr. Pax
last week, and now Reuters has
discovered him. He hasn't posted since Monday and that probably says something about the success of allied bombing.
Tuesday, March 25, 2003
HITLER COMPARISONSWar protesters like to compare President Bush to Adolf Hitler. A comparison so devoid of logic as to be quite funny, except that some people actually believe it, which says more about the world's education systems than about Bush or Hitler. What's even more amusing is
this man in Leipzig, Germany (formerly East Germany). He's unidentified, so let's call him Dieter. While a wee German, Dieter here failed to recognize the real Hitler, so its rather entertaining how he and his kind continue to fail to indentify the real fascist (hint: thick mustache, videotaped a lot of vague statements about believers and infidels). I also suspect that ol' Dieter didn't spend a lot of time on the streets in the 1980s protesting Erich Honecker when he and his Stasi were murdering East Germans.
RULES OF WARThe Rules of War as defined by International Law and the Geneva Convention probably seem rather quaint to many. As though they are aimed at making war into battles among "gentlemen." Actually, many of the rules are designed primarily to protect civilians and other non-combatants. The Iraqi regime violates these rules by surrendering and then opening fire and by their likely shooting of captured Americans. Because Iraq has violated these rules of war, they cannot expect their protection. When Saddam's Republican Guard surrenders, we will have every legal right to open fire because we cannot trust a surrender. And how about civilians? They are no longer safe because Saddam has authorized his soldiers to dress as civilians. Thus, everyone our troops see on the road is a potential combatant, every white flag is a potential ambush. And when Coalition troops open fire on the white flag, or kill civilians holding weapons, Saddam and his useful idiots in Syria, Russia and France will say "See, the Americans and the British are murdering Iraqi citizens."
Monday, March 24, 2003
THE IDIOT FAMOUSThe most amazing thing about the Oscars was not that several award winners spoke against the war or even that Barbra Streisand kept her mouth shut (my God, she looks like Hell), but that people actually booed the comments of
stupid white man Michael Moore for his anti-war tirade after winning an Oscar for, get this, Best "
Documentary." But I couldn't tell who was doing the booing. The Left's Joseph Goebbels
ordered the press: "Don't report that there was a split decision in the hall because five loud people booed." I suspect that five is probably close to the correct number, but since I didn't see Arnold, Bruce Willis or James Woods, I wonder who was booing? Please
e-mail if you know.
Sunday, March 23, 2003
WE CAN DO BUSINESS WITH SADDAMPeople die in war. The good guys die too. Although not welcome, this is expected. What shouldn't be expected is the summary
execution of POWs, or the parading of them on
television, all in violation of the Geneva Convention. But, then, the Geneva Convention was an agreement among civilized nations, and Saddam has showed us again and again that Iraq hasn't been touched by civilization in years. Anti-war protesters believed that this man and this regime would reform because a Swede led some inspectors to Baghdad, but a landslide of evidence proves them more wrong everyday.
FOR WHOM DO THE PROTESTORS FIGHT?For Saddam, of course. You see, the anti-war crowd can be fighting for no one else. To be sure, they
claim to be opposed to Saddam:
"I agree Saddam is crazy and needs to go, but it's not our place to do it," said Ian Wisniewski, 14, who had a fake bullet hole painted on his forehead. "It's crazy that we're bombing Iraq. It sickens me."
So, the argument is that Saddam is a bad guy who kills, tortures, maims his people but it's none of our business. And more cuteness while people die from Saddam's regime:
One group, Lesbians Against Boys Invading Anything, carried signs saying "Pre-emptive war is terrorism," "This isn't the USA I love," and "Where will the bombs fall next?"
Nice acronym. But surely the Iraqis themselves would laugh at these neo-hippies as they take a few hours out of their busy days to publicly state their opposition to their government, without fear of being
shredded for it.
At it's most basic level, this is a war between the coaltion forces and Iraq's government. In Iraq, the people seem quite pleased when they are liberated from Saddam's rule and are surely not looking to western leftists for help. From
the Guardian:
"You just arrived," he said. "You're late. What took you so long? God help you become victorious. I want to say hello to Bush, to shake his hand. We came out of the grave." "For a long time we've been saying: 'Let them come'," his wife, Zahara, said. "Last night we were afraid, but we said: 'Never mind, as long as they get rid of him, as long as they overthrow him, no problem'." Their 29-year-old son was executed in July 2001, accused of harbouring warm feelings for Iran.
So, in Iraq, you are anti-war for one of two reasons. One, because you have been successful in Saddam's Iraq and think a change in the status quo might disrupt your business. Two, you work for Saddam's government and have a lot to lose. So, why would anti-war protestors in the comfort of the west protest the only thing that can free the people of Iraq and bring them the joy they have experienced over the last few days? Their protests favor the wealthy and the government of Iraq. Not the poor. Not the oppressed. They protest because they are naive, but in the end, their naivety serves the goals of evil, of torture, of rape. And they should be held accountable for being evil's handmaidens.
IT HADN'T OCCURRED TO ANYONE THAT THE IRAQIS MIGHT ACTUALLY BE PRO-WARA
human shield learns the errors of his ways and realizes that his protests were more about him than about saving the people of Iraq.
Who links to me?