Posted on 06/06/2004 2:40:52 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
It's not just the American president who is against us cutting and running from Iraq, as Opposition Leader Mark Latham wants.
"It would embolden the enemy who believe that they can shake our will," George Bush said at a press conference alongside our Prime Minister at the White House last week. "They want to kill innocent life because they think that the . . . free world is weak, that when times get tough, we will shirk our duty to those who long for freedom and we'll leave."
As howls of outrage engulfed Australia at what was deemed outrageous meddling by "this popinjay of a president", as the Greens's Bob Brown put it, Iraq's new leaders were warning even more forcefully of the disastrous consequences of cutting and running.
Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told the UN Security Council on Thursday that "any premature departure of international troops would lead to chaos and the real possibility of a civil war in Iraq. This would cause a humanitarian crisis and provide a foothold for terrorists to launch their evil campaign in our country and beyond our borders".
The next day, Iraq's new prime minister, Iyad Alawi, reiterated the point in a televised nationwide address, as reported by the Associated Press.
"Targeting the multinational forces, led by the US, to force them out of Iraq would be a catastrophe for Iraq, especially before the completion of the building of security and military institutions," said Alawi, a neurologist chosen last week to lead Iraq's interim government, which is due to take power at the end of this month ahead of elections next January.
For those Australians of good faith who supported the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein it has been heartening, amid an avalanche of bad stories and malicious I-told-you-sos, to see how determined the Iraqis are to create a democracy anyway, and do it on their own terms.
There is an encouraging bolshiness being displayed by Iraq's leaders, who first surprised the UN with their choice of Alawi as prime minister last week, then, over strong US opposition, appointed 46-year-old tribal chief Ghazi al-Yawar as their first post-Saddam president rather than the 81-year-old candidate preferred by the Americans. On Friday, too, the UN announced the 275 members of Iraq's national assembly would be elected by a system of proportional representation, which would allow more small parties to gain seats. At least one quarter of the seats in the assembly are to go to women, as each party is required to name a woman in every third position on its ticket, a system surely envied by the Emily's List advocates in Latham's ALP.
It is the nature of news to focus on the car bombings and gruesome images that accompany each step forward, giving the impression Iraq is an irredeemable mess. But every assassination, every bombing, every setback seems to have made Iraqis more determined. There is no sign of anyone "shirking their duty" in Iraq, not the coalition soldiers, nor those courageous men and women who invite assassination by becoming prime minister, president, local mayor or election candidate.
After so many decades of totalitarian rule, the procession to democracy in Iraq appears remarkably orderly, despite the bungles and odd atrocity, which are probably an inevitable part of any war. But those without a moral compass, who find their life's daily motivation in hatred and envy, can see only the mistakes, never the triumphs. Their America is Super Size Me and Michael Moore. Their Iraq is perpetual misery. They despise Howard and Bush because neither has the gravitas or eloquence of a wartime leader from central casting. Both men are too ordinary, which endears them to a good part of their electorates but enrages those who fancy themselves extraordinary and entitled to designer leaders.
Today, when Howard and Bush join world leaders in Normandy to mark the 60th anniversary of the D-day landings, it is worth considering the outcome of World War II if the US had not gone to war, or imagining a future in which America grew tired of the insults and blame and turned inward.
P.J. O'Rourke wrote last week in a satirical piece for The Wall Street Journal that America should just cut and run from Iraq and leave the world to the mercy of Islamic fundamentalists.
"America had everyone's sympathy after the World Trade towers were attacked. We can get that sympathy back if we limit our foreign policy objectives to whining," he wrote.
Normandy was a place where "the fate of millions turned on the courage of thousands", Bush reminded us last week. The same might be said for Iraq.
I have to admit, I've let my knowledge of Aussie lingo slip ever since I stopped watching films starring Paul Hogan.
What exactly does that mean?
On a serious note, I enjoyed the "Herald's" characterization of the naysayers of President Bush and Prime Minister Howard, both of whom exhibit a style that attracts millions of fervent adherents: "but enrages those who fancy themselves extraordinary and entitled to designer leaders."
I couldn't have put it better myself.
"Bolshiness" = leftist tendencies. From the word "bolshevism", Soviet Communism.
I guess it is a local quirk of the language. I never really thought of it as such.
Miranda Devine is one of our better columnists. I liked this article too.
As for Paul Hogan movies... I thought (make that "fervently hoped") EVERYONE had stopped watching those years ago!
Now I have confirmation from two FReepers on the etymology of this phrase. I'll be sure to add it to my lexicon for future reference.
P.S. No more Paul Hogan movies? But how will I ever find out if he makes it back to Queensland after those harrowing adventures in the mean streets of Compton?
What about all of those rowdy crocs he's slain and roughs he's dispatched over the past two decades?
Doesn't that count for anything?
Okay, maybe they should've stopped at the first picture.
American Pie,
Indiana Jones,
Back To The Future,
and,
Star Wars.
Of course, in the last case, I'm referring to the prequels. The new movies they've recently released are insufferable tripe!
Plus, I'm excluding films that are not major motion pictures, such as programs shown on public broadcasting or produced as TV miniseries; ergo, "The Hitchhikers Guide" is not included.
The same rule applies to pretentious, art-house flicks like "The Decalogue."
They belong on another list altogether.
I'd argue with "American Pie". Those started out cringeworthy and stayed that way.
Or, maybe a very immature young adult thing.
One or the other.
When you think about it though, the "American Pie" franchise is really just a funnier, bawdier version of all those 'Brat Pack' movies they made during the '80s.
I mean, the basic plot structure revolves around a bunch of teenagers-growing into adulthood as the series progresses-who struggle with romance, difficult friends/family members and the overall complexity of life's challenges.
Even though people hone in on the most grotesque scenes-and I know that there are a lot of those-the overall theme of these films is very positive and uplifting.
Give me "The Breakfast Club" any day. Yes, it's a Brat Pack movie, but I reckon it stands up, 20 years later. (Oh my god, when did I get old enough to say "Twenty years later"??? /end minor early-thirties crisis...)
That was one of my favorites too.
The best though had to 'Pretty in Pink.'
Ooh, sexy girlfriend!
"Sixteen Candles."
This early in the morning all of the films from Molly Ringwald's corpus of work are getting jumbled in my head.
I disagree.
"Does Barry Manilow know you raid his wardrobe?" has to be one of the best cinematic lines ever. :-)
Oh BOY have we gone off-topic... perhaps this would best be taken elsewhere. You've got FReepmail, BTW...
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.