Join us as we thrust into
Week of 03 09 03
I'm afraid I may bore you this week but I
am so annoyed by anti-war protesters that I must direct my
That we'd go to war with so little support in the
world is tragic, but I am shocked at how many in the world, including
my friends, are so completely, utterly wrong. I am not against
the war. In my world of self-righteous, Ralph Nader-voting, Noam
Chomsky-reading, ultra-left downtown vegan Bush-hating Clinton apologists,
this makes me an outcast.
"Peace" protesters wallow in a sense of moral
superiority. Their ignorance sickens me. Whose "peace" did they
march for? There is no peace in Iraq, and there hasn't been for
decades. They march for peace at any price, as
long as others - the Iraqi people - pay that price. Theirs is
cowardice masquerading as moral high ground. Why isn't the
suffering of Iraqi people worth anything?
Humor me for a moment. If in 1980 a murderous
tyrant took over, say, Australia, and forced one million Australian
boys to their deaths in a war against New Zealand, where one
million more people died (akin to the Iraq/Iran War), and then
this tyrant spent the next decade torturing countless thousands
of his own people, murdering hundreds of thousands more, even setting
up a division of his army dedicated to terrorizing the populace by
raping women and spraying poison gas into hospitals and schools, would
that mean anything to those who marched for "peace"?
Why is the institutional murder, torture,
and rape of millions of Iraqis somehow tolerable? Is it because
the Iraqis are Arabs? Are we too used to seeing Arabs suffer?
The "peace" movement ignores the desires of
Iraqis who overwhelmingly want this war. Instead, the "peace"
movement sends ridiculous "human shields" to defend a fascist
state. "Peace" activists speak of Saddam Hussein, responsible for
the deaths of millions, as if he were the victim.
"Peace" activist celebrities fail to impress me,
not because they're against the war but because celebrity, however
well-meaning, can never be substituted for intelligence.
Janine Garofalo, bless her heart, was asked
if she believed in the concept of a "just war" and she reacted
as if she had never even heard that phrase before. "Gee.. uhhh..
that's a tough one," she said. And yet isn't accepting or rejecting
the "just war" concept probably step one in formulating an informed
opinion on any impending war? Especially if you have the confidence
to go on TV and yap about it?
said she hoped we'd get what we deserve
and lose the war. I don't understand this attitude. Even if you're
against the war, how could you say this? How could you cheer it?
She'd like Saddam to win? Has she lost her mind?
Yesterday we had the travesty of women marching
for "peace" in "solidarity" with the women of Iraq for International
Women's Day. CNN broadcast shots of these women dancing,
banging drums and waving around pink flags before cutting to
a press conference held by Iraqi refugee women who were completely
confused by the spectacle. One of them said plainly "These women
do not speak for us. This war is needed."
Saddam uses rape as a political tool. Iraqi
women in prison give birth alone in the dirt and spend the next
few days watching their newborn babies die. Iraqi women are brought
to dungeons where they are gang raped in front of their fathers,
sons, and husbands. Videotapes of these atrocities are distributed in order
to scare the public into obedience.
So what were all of these well-to-do white women
in frivolous pink wigs doing yesterday? Which Iraqi women are
they in solidarity with if they're against a war that will free them,
a war that these women are desperate for?
"Peace" protesters say they don't support
Saddam either, of course.. but not enough to actually do
anything about it.
"Peace" protesters express respect for UN
resolutions while not wanting America to enforce them. This
is moral infantilism. One cannot support an end while opposing
the only means to that end.
If the means are more objectionable than the
end is desirable, why pass UN resolutions in the first place?
Is France asking itself that question?
"Peace" protesters often spout off slogans
that mean nothing.
"No blood for oil"
This was the phrase bandied about for the first
Gulf War. And yet after that war, we didn't take over the
Kuwaiti oil fields and give them to Exxon, Mobil, and Shell.
What makes people think we're going to do that now?
After the first Gulf War we gave the oil fields
back to the Kuwaiti people. They are now among the richest in
the Middle East because of it. The Iraqi people were among the richest
before Saddam seized power. Now they are the poorest. No blood for
oil? Why not? Lets put an end to the suffering of the Iraqi people
by liberating them and giving them back their oil fields. Prosperity
and billions of dollars a year await.
American oil companies would actually be
by a victory in Iraq because more oil on the
market means that prices go down and profits decrease.
mean nothing to "peace" protesters if a catchy slogan will do
instead. Maybe the phrase could be applied to France and Russia,
who are perfectly willing to lift the sanctions and enrich Saddam
for oil while letting him continue to torture and slaughter the innocent
"Let the inspectors work."
In the 90s, inspectors failed to halt Iraq's
development of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Time
and time again, defectors revealed that Iraq was farther ahead than
even the most fearful inspectors suspected. What sane person would
trust that Saddam has suddenly decided to cooperate?
That Hans Blix hasn't found WMD is immaterial; Iraq
continued to use them throughout the 90s against the Kurds and
others, so we know they have them somewhere. The demand was made
for an prompt, thorough account of these weapons, and no account
has been given.
The situation reminds me of a little brat hiding
something behind his back, and he only shows you one hand at
a time, constantly switching whatever he has to the other hand.
The inspectors allow Saddam to do this on a massive scale.
If Saddam uses these weapons on our troops, will the war then
be justified to the "peace" protesters who actually believe that
Iraq has disarmed?
"North Korea has nuclear weapons and we're not going
to war against them."
Obviously, we can't attack North Korea because
they DO have nuclear weapons.
We can learn a hard lesson from
. Inspectors, monitoring equipment and even a treaty all
failed to prevent North Korea from developing nuclear weapons.
Are we to let the same thing happen now in Iraq? Will Iraq somehow
be different despite 12 years of defiance and 12 years of practice
in developing weapons in the shadow of inspectors?
North Korea is a huge worry, but
North Korea has also given indication that their weapons
are weapons of deterrence against "American" aggression and
a bargaining chip for more humanitarian aid.
On the other hand, it is clear that Iraq intends
to use nuclear weapons offensively.
"Yes, Saddam Hussein is evil, but we don't have
the right to attack a sovereign state."
Heard of Somalia, Bosnia, East Timor, Kosovo?
The war to liberate Muslims in Kosovo happened without any direct
threat to the US and without UN approval too, yet
I seem to remember people cheering
us on then. And what about Rwanda?
Why is it that "peace" activists in the 90s
lambasted America for ignoring the crisis in Rwanda, and yet
the same people now lash out against any interference in Iraq?
Are the people of Iraq not suffering?
A moral world shouldn't respect the "sovereign
rights" of murderous tyrants.
"The UN sanctions lead to the murder of a million
The truth is a bit more complicated than this
ludicrous Iraqi propaganda and I can't stand when stupid people
First of all, the figure of "one million" dead
Iraqi children comes from Iraq. Outside estimates put the
figure at half that or less - still an unacceptable tragedy, of
course, but not a tragedy that can only be blamed on sanctions.
Even with sanctions, Saddam always had enough
money to provide for the Iraqi people. But instead of building
hospitals and buying medicine or food, he spent billions on
the military and in building extravagant new palaces and hundreds
of new monuments for himself.
Even so, the UN twice tried to fix things
by passing resolutions specifically allowing Saddam to sell
oil for food, medicine, and humanitarian aid. At first he declined
each offer, choosing instead for Iraqis to die in order to drum up
sympathy from the world and sap support away from the sanctions. And
when he finally did agree to the oil-for-food program, he ended up selling
much of the food and medicine to the black market in neighboring countries
anyway, rather than give it to his own people. So much for American culpability.
Did the sanctions work at hurting Saddam?
No. In fact they gave him more power by making the civilian
population even more dependent on him for food and basic needs.
The sanctions backfired. But saying that the sanctions were responsible
for the deaths of a "million" Iraqi children is wrong and naive
and excuses the real evil.
The sanctions ought to end, but the same "peace"
protesters who want to end the sanctions also want "containment"
to continue in lieu of war.
How will we prevent dangerous items from entering
Iraq if sanctions are lifted, thereby making it infinitely easier
for Iraq to import banned goods? Iraq already smuggles in billions
of dollars worth of who-knows-what every year, even from our alleged
Containment didn't work with sanctions. Without sanctions,
containment is simply impossible, and then it only becomes a matter
of time before Saddam strikes again with WMD, and lets hope it isn't
"But we supported Saddam in the 80s."
That we supported him is all the more reason
to make it our responsibility to get rid of him.
I often read about how Arabs hate us for supporting
dictators. Indeed. But now that we're opposing the worst
of the world's dictators, we're just as hated. We can't win.
"War will only inflame Muslims and strengthen their
resolve against us."
I've come to the politically incorrect opinion
that Muslims are crazy. It is true that the US hasn't been
an angel in world affairs. But the West came to the defense of
Muslims in Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, Kurdistan, East Timor and
Afghanistan. Despite this, Muslims still don't get that the West
isn't at war with Islam.
Are Afghan Muslims not better off today
than they were under the Taliban? Are the Kurds - all Muslims
- not prospering under our protection? Why can't Muslims connect
the dots of reality?
America goes to great lengths to show that it
is not at war with Islam; but Islam, in the form of Osama Bin
Laden, countless Muslim clerics and huge swaths of the Muslim population
does seem to be at war with America.
Anti-American Muslim opinion shouldn't prevent
us from doing what's right, which is to liberate the Iraqis,
but it should put additional pressure on us to set up a just
government in Iraq. We should drown the Iraqi people in kindness
and loads of money after this war for food, schools, hospitals,
and more. Maybe this will get through the thick uneducated head
of the Arab street.
"We're rushing to war."
Iraq defied 17 UN resolutions and continued
to develop banned WMD over a period of 12 years, so this is
hardly a rush to war.
"We need to go through the UN."
UN Resolution 1441 imposed a strict deadline
for an accurate, full, and complete declaration of weapons
by December 9. That was months ago. We are going through
the UN. Enforcing UN resolutions strengthens the UN. Not enforcing
them weakens it.
"Iraq has nothing to do with Al
No, likely not.
"We need to concentrate on the war on terror."
Indeed, we must do that also.
"Bush stole the election."
Yeah, he did. Get over it. We're stuck with
"War is never right."
Please. Find a hole in the ground. Insert
head. Say hi to Sheryl Crow.
"But the whole world is against this war!"
The "peace" protests involved millions. But
millions of people also believe that cows are sacred. Millions
of people believe that women should be stoned if they cheat on
their husbands. Millions of people buy Celine Dion records. That
millions of people marched for "peace" doesn't make their cause just,
it just means that there are millions of horribly misguided people
in the world.
Millions of people have died because of Saddam Hussein.
And however many millions marched, there are 20+ million
inside Iraq who overwhelmingly want us to invade. Since they're
the ones an invasion would directly effect, I think their wishes are
slightly more important than those of Martin Sheen or any other "peace"
A quick word about the French. Surely there
are good French people. I enjoy French films. I have nothing
against little French boys looking for their bicycles or running
down cobblestone streets with loaves of bread. But their President
Chirac is a corrupt and dangerous man.
France signed off on all 17 of the UN resolutions
that Saddam has defied and yet Chirac still feels compelled
to make excuses not to enforce them. Chirac is the man who sold
that the Israelis had to destroy, knowing
full well what Iraq wanted it for. Saddam and Chirac, the former
Chirac is perfectly content to keep Saddam in
power because French companies have billions of dollars tied
to Saddam's regime. If I were French I'd be ashamed.
Then there is China, who the US discovered installing an underground
fiber optic communications network for Iraq's military at the height
of sanctions and failed "containment". China, France, and Russia have
no problem endangering world peace for a few extra bucks from Iraq.
The Pope may speak out against the impending war at the
UN. Why didn't the Pope speak out against Saddam's gassing of the
Kurds at the UN? Why is it more important for the Pope to protest
American power, even when clearly used for a good end? Has the Vatican
There's a knee-jerk liberal opposition to everything
Bush does. Indeed, he's a frightening, overly religious, inarticulate
buffoon. His economic plan is absurd. He hates gays. He's anti-choice.
He stands for nearly everything I'm against. But truth doesn't
become a lie just because someone you don't like utters it. Even
a stopped clock is right twice a day.
I can't help but think that if Clinton were in office
things would be very different. He was as persuasive as Bush is
In fact there is a
case for this war, and there are prominent
liberals who explain it well:
), Salman Rushdie, Bob Kerrey, Kenneth Pollack,
Nat Hentoff, Paul Berman,
Joe Lieberman, and Gary Hart to name a few.
There is also Tony Blair, who is as
as George Bush is not. Tony Blair spearheaded
the rescue of Muslims in the Balkans when the rest of the world,
including France, didn't care. Russia threatened to veto that war
in the UN and so it was done without UN approval.
Tony Blair's bravery in regards to Iraq and the fervent, misguided
opposition of even his own party should be applauded. I don't
understand why his inspiring words are falling on so many willfully
And then there is Vaclav Havel, former President
of Czechoslovakia, and Jose Ramos-Horta, East Timor's minister
of foreign affairs and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1996.
These are people who know what its like to live under tyrannical
regimes. They know terror. Their liberal credentials can't be questioned.
"I think it's not by chance that the idea of
confronting evil may have found more support in those countries
that have had a recent experience with totalitarian systems compared
with other European countries that haven't had the same sort of
- Vaclav Havel
"I still acutely remember the suffering and
misery brought about by war. It would certainly be a better
world if war were not necessary. Yet I also remember the desperation
and anger I felt when the rest of the world chose to ignore the tragedy
that was drowning my people. We begged a foreign power to free us
from oppression, by force if necessary..
I am unimpressed by the grandstanding of certain European leaders.
Their actions undermine the only truly effective means of pressure
on the Iraqi dictator: the threat of the use of force..
Abandoning such a threat would be perilous.
Yes, the antiwar movement would be able to claim its own victory
in preventing a war. But it would have to accept that it also
helped keep a ruthless dictator in power and explain itself to
the tens of thousands of his victims.
History has shown that the use of force is often
the necessary price of liberation. A respected Kosovar intellectual
once told me how he felt when the world finally interceded in
'I am a pacifist. But I was happy, I felt liberated
when I saw NATO bombs falling.'"
- Jose Ramos-Horta
When the war is won, when Iraqi intellectuals
rise from the dust and speak; when more WMD are unearthed;
when more of Saddam's atrocities come to light; what will those who
marched for "peace" say then? And how do they answer the question
that Iraqis are asking now: Why won't you save us?
Kenneth Pollack, a leading expert on Iraq,
writes of Saddam's regime:
"This is a regime that will gouge out the eyes
of children to force confessions from their parents and grandparents.
This is a regime that will crush all the bones in the feet of a
two-year-old girl to force her mother to divulge her father's whereabouts.
This is a regime that will hold a nursing baby at arm's length from
its mother and allow the child to starve to death to force the mother
to confess. This is a regime that will burn a person's limbs off to
force him to confess or comply. This is a regime that will slowly
lower its victims into huge vats of acid, either to break their will
or simply as a means of execution. This is a regime that applies electric
shocks to the bodies of its victims, particularly their genitals, with
great creativity. This is a regime that in 2000 decreed that the crime
of criticizing the regime (which can be as harmless as suggesting that
Saddam's clothing does not match) would be punished by cutting out the
offender's tongue. This is a regime that practices systematic rape against
its female victims. This is a regime that will drag in a man's wife, daughter,
or other female relative and repeatedly rape her in front of him. This
is a regime that will force a white-hot metal rod into a person's anus
or other orifices. This is a regime that employs thalium poisoning, widely
considered one of the most excruciating ways to die. This is a regime that
will behead a young mother in the street in front of her house and children
because her husband was suspected of opposing the regime. This is a regime
that used chemical warfare on its own Kurdish citizens..
[ warning: these images are disgusting:
As terrifying as this is, so too is the ease with which
an Iraqi can realize such a fate.. Torture is not a method of last
resort in Iraq, it is often the method of first resort..
Most Iraqis, especially Baghdadis, automatically
assume that everything they say in public will be heard by the
regime. Even in private, many Iraqis are wary of expressing any political
views for fear that the regime is listening or that a member of their
household will inform on them. Iraqis have learned to adapt and survive
in this Orwellian nightmare, but they live their lives on a tightrope,
knowing that the slightest misstep could plunge them into a vat of
acid - figuratively or literally."
Worldwide hatred of Bush and resentment of American
power have prevented people from seeing the real evil here.
issue is not America, the "rogue superpower", but rather a totalitarian
regime responsible for decades of armed conflict, terror, torture,
rape, crimes against humanity, war crimes and mass murder.
Protesting a war that would end this regime is
not just cruel but against the wishes of the people who want
it most, the people of Iraq, and in a moral world there is no
excuse for prolonging their suffering.
Protesting the Protesters
An amusing video short about how utterly clueless
many of the "peace" protesters are.
Activists Co-opted By Anti-American Protest Agenda
Why the "peace" movement isn't really for peace.
Anti-war campaigners believe there is another way to be rid of Saddam.
More on misguided "peace" protesters.
A Last Chance to Stop Iraq
An essay by Kenneth Pollack
I also strongly suggest you check out his
, which I quoted from above. If you're into facts you'll learn
a lot from this book. Even the Amazon reviews are informative.
War for peace? It worked in my country.
The full Jose Ramos-Horta essay which I quoted above.
Why I believe this war is right.
This, from a man who has seen war up close.
When will the Americans come?
Straight from the mouths of the Iraqi people.
We return next week.
Go back to the
of past thoughts.
but we make
We thrive on
Your thoughts will be assimilated into our own.