Regards, Ivan
Posted on 04/19/2003 9:09:40 AM PDT by MadIvan
We all saw the scenes. The utter joy, the scenes of uncensored jubilation. Indeed, watching the euphoria did wonders for the soul.
So you might have thought that the entire free world looked at the images of a liberated Baghdad with relief and with joy. After all, we hadn’t seen such a spectacle of repressive regime bashing since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Statues were pulled down, Saddam posters torn to shreds, finally, people were able to speak their minds.
And what they have to tell us is horrifying and extraordinary. The London Times reported about the torture cells of Saddam’s regime: children as young as 11 were locked up on treason charges. Prisoners were hung from meat hooks and beaten by the regime’s thugs. As one man described upon re-visiting his former jail cell:
“They would beat us with rubber hosepipes while we were hanging until we dripped blood…They would pour water on our heads, then attach the wires to our skulls to electrocute us. Other times they brought in a machine for generating electricity and would put a wire in each ear to give us electric shocks of 125 volts. Sometimes they would run it from the nail of my little finger to that of my friend. They had plenty of methods. This corridor would echo with screams of grown men.”
Meanwhile, this oil-rich country found most of its wealth squandered on gold taps and palaces for Saddam and his cronies. According to Sky News, American marines found a small token of Saddam’s regime to his accomplices: gold plated guns.
Saddam’s dictatorship was a mix of cruelty, bad taste and kleptomania. Anyone who is free at present should be delighted that it is gone. Those who opposed the war should have to do a re-think. But apparently being an anti-war protestor means never having to say you’re sorry, or even acknowledge facts.
Some examples of this nonsensical behaviour comes from across the Irish sea. In London this past Saturday, approximately 20,000 people gathered to protest the war, which is largely over and won. Chris Nineham, an anti-war campaigner, said to the BBC: "I don't really believe the fighting is over - I think the invasion is sliding into a colonial occupation”. Silly us: here we were thinking that the Iraqis were better off in the hands of open, democratic societies rather than being tortured and beaten by a quasi-fascist dictator.
Some examples of this come not just from what is being said, but what is not being said. Michael D. Higgins made some very sweeping statements about the war, including this statement in the Dail on March 12:
“By the time this House returns on March 25 it is possible that up to one million mothers may be affected by the war, there may be 100,000 direct casualties and 400,000 secondary ones. Ten to 15 million people on food dependency may also be affected.”
There is no evidence to back up this statement. The people of Baghdad did stockpile food, and even so, shops have already re-opened. Humanitarian aid is flowing into Umm Qasr and Basra, and more will be arriving shortly. You would think that Mr. Higgins would be issuing an apology for having slandered the intentions and organisation of the British and American forces. But instead, according to the Labour Party website, he demands, in his April 10 press release, that the UN should be given primacy, in spite of the fact that it was the United Nations’ weakness that created the war in the first place. Worse, he ignores the endemic corruption and inefficiency at the United Nations; according to the Scotsman newspaper: “The oil-for-food programme says it all: a staggering $40 billion of its proceeds still sits in a French bank.” Worse, in his most recent statement, he barely passes comment about the liberation of the country and continues to ignore the facts:
"While jubilant images of statues of Saddam Hussein being toppled dominate the media, there is less space given to those shocking pictures we have seen in recent days of innocent Iraqi children suffering the brutal effects of the bombing. We will learn what type of people we are in the West in coming weeks as civilians are left to die, ignored by Fox media and Sky who will by then be doing wall-to-wall interviews with US and British Generals.”
All in all, it appears the anti-war people are looking for a reason not to celebrate Iraq’s freedom, and rather, find a rationale for saying that leaving them in chains would have been the humane thing to do. They are trying to say that a 3 week war is far worse than 30 years of dictatorship. They are refusing to look at the regime which they have been supporting, albeit many of them were doing so unconsciously.
Which leads us to the question of why. To put it simply, the anti-war left is gripped by hysteria. This hysteria is based on a hatred of George W. Bush, rather than a distaste for military action; the same people that denounced the present conflict, were mostly nowhere to be seen in 1998 when President Clinton undertook Operation Desert Fox whose aim was to supposedly bomb Saddam (and innocent civilians) into submission. This hysteria leads us to what can be called “The Anti War Syllogism”:
We can conclude that the anti-war factions are not thinking rationally, and thus will neither respond to rational argument, nor apologise for taking up irrational positions, which are detrimental to the actual rights and welfare of the Iraqi people. It is sad that a vocal minority continues to cling to this position, but we should keep in mind, the justice of any political argument does not come from the decibels used in blasting it. They may never say they are sorry, but the scenes of liberation in Baghdad, and the upcoming construction of Free Iraq, provide the most elegant and uplifting riposte of all.
Regards, Ivan
Most didn't.
And the left still cannot admit they were wrong.
Bump!
Meanwhile, this news comes from Mugabe's Zimbabwe. Apparently these guys know more than the leftist anti-Bush types.
"Mr Bush, when are you coming to liberate us?" has become a catchphrase among unemployed youths.
This fact alone should disqualify them from any legitimate debate of the war. Remember when much was made of the Clinton "haters" which automatically exempted you from any serious discussion of what went on in his administration?
Well, let's apply that stringent standard to the Bush "bashers". It should immediately identify you as a person without serious qualifications to criticise the administration.
Of course we know that THAT was then and this is now.
Letting these people continue on the warpath against Bush is another example of the bias the press has when the Left is clearly out-of-control.
If Clinton haters were routinely dismissed as irrelevant then the same standard could be applied to the Bush bashers.
The Anti-Bush people should have thoroughly discredited themselves so why are we still hearing about them? And, unlike the Clinton haters who proved to be right on his moral and ethical unfitness to be president, the Bush haters have been proven wrong on every aspect of both how this war would go and Bush's leadership of it.
BUSH cares the least about what they think, he knows what he wants do do and he does it, period.
They felt the same way about Reagan. Since they are being ignored, who cares if they acknowledge anything. Even when they brought 1 million to the streets they didn't matter. They still don't. This is what upsets them the most.
That's exactly right. Let the lies abound while oppressing the truth. It's easy to lie and never be able to prove it, and when they are caught and the truth is exposed they don't care. It was never about peace anyway, it was about supporting one of their own.
“By the time this House returns on March 25 it is possible that up to one million mothers may be affected by the war, there may be 100,000 direct casualties and 400,000 secondary ones. Ten to 15 million people on food dependency may also be affected.”
I think this may qualify for one of the "Garafolo Awards. I will nominate it here:NOMINATION THREAD FOR THE FREE REPUBLIC GAROFALO AWARDS
He is also Foreign Affairs Spokesman for the Labour Party of Ireland. Go figure. ;)
Regards, Ivan
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.