Posted on 08/24/2002 8:04:05 AM PDT by elcaudillo
On a break from lachrymose accounts of Palestinian women weeping for their children, The New York Times has been trying to induce hysteria over the shocking Bush policy of deploying American troops in order to protect American interests. Such self-interested behavior is considered boorish in Manhattan salons.
The only just wars, liberals believe, are those in which the United States has no stake. Liberals warm to the idea of American mothers weeping for their sons, but only if their deaths will not make America any safer.
Thus the Times and various McTimes across the nation have touted the idea that invading Iraq "only" to produce a regime change is unjustifiable, contrary to international law, and a grievous affront to the peace-loving Europeans.
As the left's new pet, Henry No-Longer-a-War-Criminal Kissinger, put it: "Regime change as a goal for military intervention challenges the international system established by the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia. ... And the notion of justified pre-emption runs counter to modern international law, which sanctions the use of force in self-defense only against actual, not potential, threats."
The idea that America would be transgressing the laws of man and G-d by invading Iraq (unless and until Saddam nukes Manhattan) is absurd.
Does no one remember Clinton's misadventure in the Balkans? Liberals loved that war because Slobodan Milosevic posed no conceivable threat to the United States. To the contrary, as President Clinton put it: "This is America at its best. We seek no territorial gain; we seek no political advantage."
Deposing Milosevic, Clinton explained, vindicated no national interest, but was urgent because it was akin to stopping a "hate crime." Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said our purpose in the Balkans was "ending ethnic strife" and creating "multiethnic societies."
One searches in vain for some description of an American interest in the Balkans.
Instead, Milosevic was denounced -- by Clinton, Albright, Tony Blair and the whole croaking chorus -- for "genocide." Clinton's defense secretary, William Cohen, estimated that 100,000 Albanian men "may have been murdered."
Liberal enthusiasts for our "humanitarian" war in the Balkans, it turned out, were over-hasty in their use of the word "genocide" in connection with Milosevic. In the end, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia found fewer than 3,000 bodies, most of them men of military age.
Commentators were soon rushing in to explain that these "new details" did not change the fact that Milosevic had engaged in ethnic cleansing and the forced deportation of hundreds of thousands of civilians.
That doesn't make Milosevic a hero, but he's a piker compared to Saddam, who has gassed tens of thousands of his own people and killed almost a million enemy troops in the war with Iran. Liberals oppose a war with Iraq, despite Saddam's far more impressive credentials as a mass murderer, because acting against Saddam is in the self-interest of the United States.
The left's theory of a just war is that: (1) military force must never be deployed in America's self-interest; and (2) we must first receive approval from the Europeans, especially the Germans. (Good thing we didn't have that rule in 1941!)
By liberal logic, preventing Saddam Hussein from nuking Manhattan is not sufficient justification for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq because the United States has a special self-interest in not being nuked and therefore can't be trusted.
Similarly, Israel has less claim to act against Yasser Arafat than NATO did against Milosevic because actual Israelis are getting killed by the terror forces they are battling -- so they are self-interested. The Times was warmly enthusiastic about Clinton's humanitarian effort in Kosovo, but is indignant about Israeli self-defense in Gaza.
Moreover, if forced deportation (aka "ethnic cleansing") is grounds for a war crimes trial of Milosevic, what is Arafat doing when he demands that all Israeli settlements be removed from the disputed territories of the West Bank? Milosevic gets a trial at the Hague for forced deportations. Arafat stages terrorist attacks to compel the forced deportation of Israelis, and he's a martyr if Israel messes up his office furniture in Ramallah.
The point -- which is always the same point -- is that we must not protect ourselves but should just let liberals run the world. Liberals believe they are best qualified in war and peace and forced busing because they aren't going to suffer the consequences. Thus, they can act freely for "humanity." If it turns sour, like their adventure in Vietnam, they can always drop it and pin the blame on others.
Just call me "insensitive".
".. all Israeli settlements be removed from the disputed territories of the West Bank (is forced deportation)".
Naw, more like asking your mother-in-law to leave after a two week visit. Kind of, we'd like our house back now.
And the US Senate ratified this treaty when, Henry?
Yea. But the Jews got their house back in 1948 and in 1967.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/736913/posts
Their neighbor never did think this was fair (since other neighbors didn't do it to each other when they disputed), and have been wanting their property back for the last 35 years. Finally, ten years ago, they started to play rough.
You are ommiting historical facts. Did the arab neighbors not attack Israel on the day of its independence? Was there not a war of 1956? Did Arafat's PLO come about not prior to 1967??
After a dispute with their neighbor in 1967,
Dispute with their neighbor? Arabs were conducting raids against Israel all up to (and after) 1967. Nasser ordered UN "emergency force" stationed at Sinai since 1956 to waithdraw. UN complied (and people wonder why Israel doesn't trust UN), after the withdrawal of UNEF the Voice of the Arabs proclaimed (May 18, 1967):
As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.
An enthusiastic echo was heard May 20 from Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad:
Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.
Peaceful neighbors, eh? On May 22, Egypt has imposed a blockade on Israel by closing Straits of Tiran. etc.etc.etc. Read more on the so called "dispute" here
they built an addition to their house on their neighbors property (which they annexed as a result of the dispute).
Did Germany not loose territory as a result of WW2?
Their neighbor never did think this was fair (since other neighbors didn't do it to each other when they disputed), That all would make sense if it was true. But it's not. If you go back to history you would see that parties that lost wars - lost territory. Add to the fact that Israel won those lands in the defensive wars and the fact that those lands hold a strategic value and you would see that arabs have nothing to complain about. As for "fair", arabs didn't recognize Israel (and still don't) since 1948 - not since 1967. PLO was organized prior to 1967, etc.
and have been wanting their property back for the last 35 years. Finally, ten years ago, they started to play rough.
35 years? Are you claiming that the period between 1948 and 1967 was a period of peace and quiet? Are you saying that Israel was not attackeded on its very day of independence? War on 1956? Nothing I love more then posts by people like you - they truly show the ignorance of the other side of the argument. Thanks!
What a great show we would have if she could debate Field Marshal Hitlery von Rottenham Klinton!
Can you blame them? Egyptian's blockade on the Straits of Tiran constituted declaration of war (block any country's only maritime passage and see how it will react). What's more there were well over a 100 raids against Jews by arabs in the period of 1965-1967. Syria constantly shelled Israeli kibutzim from the Golan Heights (on april 7, 1967 Israel shot down 6 syrian migs in a retaliatory strike)... On may 15th Egyptian troops began moving into Sinai and massing on the Israeli border, Nasser kicked out UN's force from the Sinai. Declared his intent on May 18, 1967 "The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence" on May 27th he declared "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight, We will not accept any...coexistence with Israel...Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel....The war with Israel is in effect since 1948"... etc.etc.. Should I go on? Ok, I will:
On may 30th Nasser announced:
The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations
Still not enough? President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq joined in the war of words: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map." On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.