Anti-terror rally in India
Posted on 02/19/2003 11:51:58 AM PST by F_Cohen
They're Here! They're Loud! They're Ignorant And They're Proud!
By Lowell Phillips
Wednesday, February 19, 2003
Toogood Reports
When the subject is life and death, is it inappropriate to chuckle once in a while? It may well be, but the gibberish spewing from the anti-war movement is certainly making it difficult to avoid. To be perfectly honest, I was disappointed when I realized that the globally coordinated demonstrations against war with Iraq would include a march in downtown Detroit. I wasn't at all surprised that we have our share of delusional pacifists. They're everywhere. No, I was heartbroken that I couldn't make it down there and marvel at them in person. Now that's entertainment!
Don't get me wrong the gravity of the current situation, and the dangers of allowing Saddam Hussein to continue as dictator of Iraq are not lost on me. It's those marching on his behalf that I can't help laughing at. Though I was crushed at missing the opportunity to look into the eyes of the marchers, and would as such be unable to savor their vacant stares and irrational tirades after confronting them with a few facts and a dash of logic, I did have the media to fall back on. And the absurdity was on parade on a global stage.
All the better-known leftists were there, Rob Reiner, Martin Sheen, Susan Sarandon and the rest, and all the usual slogans were chanted. Connecticut native, Anthony Fantano, marching in New York, embraced the most common. He declared their mission to "keep up that pressure and to make sure that no more people die for oil". For some reason the charge is made exclusively targeting the United States. The French, on the other hand are believed to have the noblest of motives in facilitating Saddam's ongoing reign of terror, and assuring that the Iraqi people remain imprisoned. Surely their cozy relationship with the Hussein government, and $50 billion sweetheart oil deal are not factors.
Undeniably, oil is vital to the economic well-being and military security of the United States. But if oil is truly the motivating factor here, it seems odd that the sanctions limiting Iraqi oil production have survived, to the extent that they have, primarily due to U.S. efforts. It would be a lot easier to allow Iraq to export as much as it likes. Saddam might then have money left over from his weapons programs to feed his people (assuming he'd want to), the world's oil supply would go up, and prices would go down. We like low oil prices, don't we?
Why should we go to the trouble of invading Iraq if this were indeed the reason? We already have a huge military presence in multiple oil-rich nations, including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We could just seize control of them and save the travel time. Mexico is right next-door. They have oil. A simple push across our southern border would be considerably less expensive than shipping our military halfway around the world.
Would this even be necessary? In addition to our unexploited oil reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, there are those in the Gulf of Mexico, and other potential deposits in our national parks, forests and other protected lands. Or are we to believe that a wild-eyed gunslinger like President Bush is not intimidated by Saddam Hussein, his troops and his chemical and biological weapons, but is terrified of domestic environmentalists?
Conversely, another New York marcher, Gordon Savage, rejects oil as the motive:
"The president is trying to put one over on us. This is not a war for oil, it's a war for control. He's an unelected president and he's trying to consolidate control over a country that didn't want him as a leader."
Let me see if I understand this. The administration is trying to trick us all into thinking this is a war for oil by repeatedly saying that it's not a war for oil. Is that it? It's a good thing we have people like Gordon around to clear this up for us.
I do have a couple questions, however. What exactly could war with Iraq have to do with consolidating control over the United States? Bush might not have captured the popular vote in the 2000 election, but he did win according to our electoral system. But even if one rejects that, he still ended up in the White House, therefore, he is in control, Iraq or no Iraq. Furthermore (that means "in addition", in case Gordon is reading), if the U.S. is a country that "didn't want him as a leader", the voters would not have broken all midterm election precedents and strengthened Bush's hand in Congress a few months ago. Ya think?
The 40-year-old, from New Paltz, N.Y. offered these insightful comments wearing a mask of President Bush, carrying a toy fighter plane in one hand and a small sign that read "War 4 Ever" in the other. When asked about his appearance, he said he was trying to demonstrate how "simplistic and childish" the president is.
One of Gordon's fellow marchers, and potential intellectual soul-mate, Edith Butler, 50, added:
" I think [war is] dividing this country, once again. It's leading to a sort of distorted reality, because the truths that we're getting are being refuted by everybody else, not only in the world, but in this country. I feel that's the most serious threat of all, having our reality distorted."
I'll second that!
Another common objection to forcibly disarming Iraq on display was the idea that it will only serve to increase anger at the United States and, as a result, swell the ranks of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations. Mark Kline, also marching in New York, concurred:
"I'm completely against the war for many reasons. It's going to spawn hatred, which will increase terrorism here... The idea of bombing and killing all the Iraqi civilians because they're being held hostage by Saddam is not a very good idea. And I could go on and on..."
I have no doubt.
We can, I suppose, conclude from this that the best way to get the Iraqi people to like us is to allow them to remain under the control of a regime that has savaged them for 30 years. He may have something here. Clearly, saving the French and German people from the Nazis, and the South Koreans from the Stalinist North hasn't bought us a damned thing. Maybe, we've been going about this all wrong.
But suggesting that destroying the Hussein regime will result in increased terrorism flies in the face of all those claims that there can be no common cause between secular dictators like Saddam and Islamic terrorists. As for the U.S. "bombing and killing all the Iraqi civilians", the considerable expense that we are incurring by the use of precision munitions makes me think this isn't the goal, or at all likely. We could kill a lot more innocent Iraqis with cheap dumb bombs, but that isn't the kind of country we are. In fact, no nation in the history of warfare has gone to greater lengths to spare noncombatants.
''It's like we're pouring gasoline on the fire of anti-Americanism,'' said Boston marcher, Suzanne Shanley. And Tommaso Palladini, protesting in Rome, declared, "You don't fight terrorism with a preventive war; you fight terrorism by creating more justice in the world" Call me a hopeless optimist, but I tend to think that a war that liberates a nation that has been systematically victimized for decades, even with the loss of some civilians, won't result in a wave of recruits for al-Qaida. Already committed terrorists, who, as we have seen, are willing to sacrifice their lives to kill U.S. citizens, well, they're about as anti-American as they're likely to get. As for creating justice in Iraq, or anywhere else, it is impossible so long as tyrants remain in power. This is, or should be, self-evident.
To some the threat is George W. Bush. To some it's the United States. Others see it as global capitalism. But to many the enemy is war itself. A CNN correspondent, reporting on the protests, quoted a "Marine mother" and participant as saying her son had joined the service to "pay for college" not to fight in a war. I'm sure she wasn't asked, but I'm curious as to what part of the whole Marine thing created the disconnect from the possibility of war? Perhaps it was the battle fatigues, the assault rifles, the grenades and armored vehicles.
Molly Klopot, 84, from the New York branch of "The Raging Grannies," bragged of the organization's roots going back to World War I and reaffirmed it's goal of putting an end to war:
" I've seen war and I've seen fascism. And that's what gets me. I've been around a long time. In order to have a war against the world, you have to have an attack on civil liberties, which our government is doing. You have the deportations... All of this forms the racism we've had in our country all this time... I'm worried because I see a police state right here now." Judging from the carnage of the last century, I'd say The Raging Grannies aren't doing too well. Judging from Molly's inability to differentiate between European fascism of the last century and the present-day United States, I'd say that age and wisdom have no connection whatsoever.
My personal amusement notwithstanding, the advent of the instant communications of the technology age has given the foolish the ability to mobilize as never before. With the real possibility of bringing down the government of Tony Blair, and fracturing the current anti-Saddam coalition, there is another possibility. With global terrorist organizations working in concert with Saddam-like dictators, armed with weapons of mass destruction, antiwar activists can now increase suffering, in the name of their fatuous beliefs, to levels never before dreamed of. And they're sure to feel good about themselves all the while.
Anti-terror rally in India
And I hope the numbskulls have a chance to read the following. These people are the sort of illiterate, dumbed down masses our public learning institutions have produced for too long. They can’t even see that they are being duped and led by people who hate America and want communism/socialism to prevail. What a Great Country this is, even those who rail against the country that allows such non-Americans to protest are accepted. They would be shot in many other countries – maybe they would like to live in Saddams little world............
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/846914/posts
"There has been discussion within his circle to set up what they call a 'chemical belt' around Baghdad using his chemical weapons to entrap the residents inside," said al-Shahristani.
"Any guest that treats you as discourteously in your own home . . .
deserves to get . . . his *** kicked (( link )) - - -
all the way back to the Third World - and possibly to the Fourth."
*** . . . my addition !
Being ignorant implies that you might be capable of learning but you just don't know. These low life haven't the capacity for anything except...oh, whatever..rant on.
Poster:
No Blood for Oil!
Drill ANWR now!
Is this idiot suggesting that we could flim flam the world into thinking that Kuwait and Mexico have WMD and are a threat to world peace? Too many Muslims of a fanatic nature in Arabia to grab their oil. They's send us packing faster than Somalia did. We're going after Iraq for because they are the easiest target and have the planets second largest reserves of oil.
Richard W.
UN would not authorize the conquest mission. We were only there to remove Iraq from Kuwait. Any looting of the oil then would have been too obvious. Now, we at least have the WMD excuse but it isn't working all that well. UN knows its about oil and is defying Bushie to go it alone.
Richard W.
How is it about oil? IOW, do you have a theory to go with that ambiguous and free-floating assertion?
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.