Driving around this last week, I saw a good number of protesters in small groups on street corners, holding signs and wandering around slowly in tight circles. They seemed more bored than angry and the only real message one is able to pick up from their ongoing demonstrations is a simple "No War."
This still suprises me to a certain extent because if there is any war the Left ought to support, it's this one. A madman is in power -- and no sly grins; I'm talking about Saddam, not Bush -- who for years has been hurting his people in the most brutal of ways. An opportunity exists to bring real democracy to a nation suffering near constant oppression and all the Left can do is point fingers at Bush and compare him to Hitler. It's sad, it's pathetic, and it speaks to a growing intellectual bankruptcy among what used to be such an educated and articulate group.
Andrew Sullivan has written a piece looking at why this war should be the Left's war, why the Left should be not only supporting the troops, but also supporting the mission. Whether or not you like Bush, whether or not you still have any ounce of respect for the French, this is a war worth applauding.
Comments
Two things I agree very much with:
1) Bush argumentation for going to war was incredibly flawed (has become apparent if it wasn’t before).
2) Regardless of the motivation for the war, I have faith that Iraq will be a much better place to live now. I think the greater good has been achieved (at horrible costs, yes, but still, in the long run…).
A shame that Bush couldn’t just go out and say “We need to remove Saddam because he defies the UN, he’s a horrible tyrant and a threat to his own people”. We all know why Bush could/would not say this (UN violations: Israel, Tyrants: other Saddam-similar untouchable regimes)… a real shame I think, because the unity would have been much broader.
Posted by: Mikkel Hansen at April 10, 2003 01:48 AM
Although I agree in part with the article, I think that the proof of the pudding will be in the crust on this one. Does the US really wish to install a fully functioning, independant democracy? Or is it going to be an excuse to get a solid toehold in the region, by turning it into yet another Okinawa military base to “assure the stability of the region” (the usual catchphrase)? As the Okinawan example easily proves, once Americans dig into an area, they are very hard to dislodge and so are the problems they bring with them (assault, vehicular manslaughter while inder the influence and drunken rapes have recently been reported in the Japanese Mainichi Shimbun newspaper). I think this is the real threat that many people of the left are dreading, but they, for whatever reason, are finding more difficult to articulate.
Posted by: Gunnm at April 28, 2003 04:55 AM
In my opinion, the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare is a dangerous one. It is outside of America’s best traditions, and a poor example to give to the world.
The U.S. was a co-author of Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. It was a legal penalty against Germany for aggression and pre-emptive military action.
Sept. 11th seems to be the reason we have so dramatically turned away from our own words and wise tradition. May God help us.
Posted by: Gary Santoro at May 27, 2003 02:02 AM
Funny how after all our promises of a democratic government in Iraq, that anytime the issue is brought up senior US officials deftly avoid it. Every time questions are raised as to when or if a democratic government will be put in place, those in power answer with what can be summarized in “They’re not ready for a democracy.” Of course they choose much different words in order to mask the meaning, but it should be clear to those visiting this site (hopefully). The problem our government has with setting up a democratic government in Iraq, is that there is a very high likely hood that the person/persons that would be voted into power would, in all likely hood, not grant the US every request we make, such as cheap oil. Maybe we shall see an “interim” president installed who will turn out to be not so interim, or maybe we’ll see a repeat of Vietnam, where we agree to elections then declare them invalid when the candidate that differs from us ideologically is chosen by the population. We can be certain of only one thing, that even if we were to honestly attempt to establish a democratic government in Iraq, that it would not last long. The middle east is an area that is very conducive to despotisms/theocracies, and any democratic government will not last long there.
Posted by: Matthew C. at February 7, 2004 09:23 AM
Two questions:
1)What is “real Democracy”? 2)Can “real Democracy” be bestowed upon a people whose way of life revolves around a religion that denies certain segments of the population basic freedoms?
-Chris
Posted by: C. Edwards at April 9, 2003 10:52 AM