Posted on 03/26/2003 8:50:51 PM PST by Pokey78
A HIGH SCHOOL basketball coach I know has a special approach to those who oppose the war in Iraq. "Oh," he says, "you're on the side of rape, torture, and child abuse." Naturally the antiwar people are offended and angrily insist they're for peace and protecting civilian lives and other noble things besides. Still, there's a point behind the coach's rough characterization of the antiwar crowd. And it shouldn't be forgotten as the war in Iraq enters its second week.
Yes, many of the opponents are wonderful, moral people. And many believe that while Saddam Hussein is an evil tyrant, a war to remove him will make things worse in the Middle East and the world, creating more terrorism, instability, civilian deaths, and anti-Americanism. They may turn out to be right, but I doubt it.
But what if President Bush suddenly accepted the advice of opponents of the war, stopped the American invasion, pulled most but not all of U.S. and British forces out of the region, and went back to the United Nations for a renewal of arms inspections. As best I can tell, that's what the protesters in the United States and around the world would like. And so would the French and their allies and maybe even Howard Dean.
Result number one: Saddam would win. He would be the king of the Middle East and free to slaughter the tens of thousands of Iraqis who didn't come to his defense. He would have forced the superpower to retreat. Countries that aided the United States in the war would have to come meekly to terms with Saddam. Hopes for an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement would be dashed again, this time by the strengthening of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, whose power has been ebbing, and various terrorist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The possibility of democracy being planted in Arab states would also be gone.
Bad as all that is, it's not the worst part. The worst is what would happen inside Iraq--continuation of Saddam's regime in form a more brutal than ever. The mainstream press has done a poor job in laying out the nature of Saddam's regime. But torture and rape and maiming are its defining characteristics.
Dissenters? Their tongues are cut out. Women in influential families that might be a threat to Saddam are raped so their families will be dishonored. A cabinet member who mildly criticized the conduct of the Iraq-Iran war was immediately assassinated and his body was chopped into pieces and sent to his family in a box. Children are tortured to induce confessions from their parents. Merchants accused of "profiteering"--that is, making a profit--are hung on lampposts, dead, in front of their shops.
Sports Illustrated added a new dimension to the cruelty this week in a piece on Iraq's Olympic team, which is run by Uday Hussein, Saddam's son. Instead of trying to generate pride in athletes, Uday uses torture. If athletes lose, they are beaten by Uday and then more systematically tortured by specialists. As you might guess, few Iraqis now want to play on teams internationally. A few years ago, the Iraqi Olympians were 150-strong. Now it's a team of four.
Foes of the war don't want to accept any responsibility for what happens if the war were to cease today. Saddam could have been dealt with diplomatically, they say. But that failed for 12 years. He's not a threat to his neighbors. But the neighbors think otherwise, privately if not publicly, or they wouldn't be assisting the American coalition. He's not in bed with al Qaeda. But he's in contact with them.
But forget all that. Like it or not, there's already a war going on. Would it really make sense now for the United States to negotiate a pullout? Would anybody be better off except Saddam and his subordinates? Would Saddam even consider allowing arms inspectors again? Would he disarm? Would he be chastened and act benignly? The answers are no, no, no, no, and no. Does anyone doubt that, as the coach says, rape, torture, and child abuse would continue? The answer is no to that question, too.
Just today, Barney Franks enumerated the containment philosophy as working with Iraq 'and we could always crush them if they didn't stay contained', he opined. I ask Barney Fwanks, "With what do we crush them if not ground and air forces as are being applied right now?... Is the leftist bilgespittle alternative to failed containment the annihilation of a whole nation? They offer no alternative, and that's their naked treachery ... it's all about bringing this nation down to a vulnerability state that would change our society into a mere dog in the international morass, impotent as sinkEmperor wished US to be, and being converted to Islam at the point of sword, or plastic shredder, as Saddam has shown he will use on his victims.
The Beetle has it. And, protesting now against an administration such as the previous one, might have had a chance at being effective. But protesting against a principled leader who's already committed to what he knows to be the right thing is pointless. Protesters are therefore definitionally anti-American, not exercisers of first Amendment rights.
A few years ago, the Iraqi Olympians were 150-strong. Now it's a team of four.
Somebody bet me money against the Iraqi track and field team in '04.
Result number one: Saddam would win. He would be the king of the Middle East and free to slaughter the tens of thousands of Iraqis who didn't come to his defense. He would have forced the superpower to retreat. Countries that aided the United States in the war would have to come meekly to terms with Saddam. Hopes for an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement would be dashed again, this time by the strengthening of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, whose power has been ebbing, and various terrorist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
The possibility of democracy being planted in Arab states would also be gone.Fred loses me here. If the result of this Iraq War, like the result of the Gulf War, is to pressure Israel into further capitulation against their genocidal enemies, the false, lying "palestinians," we will have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
The "palestinians" are for Hussein . They have always been so. What do they get in return? A Nobel Peace Prize and Israeli land.
How does more weakness now, to prevent the strengthening of the Egyptian Arafat, yet rewarding Arafat, serve peace?
There is no possibility of peace so long as fantasies of an "Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement" lap at the minds of pundits and politicians. To ignore the Historical fact that Jordan is the true fictitious "palestinian" homeland, is to reward decades of terrorism, yet again. More will follow. Wars will follow, and they will be worse in the future than if we and Israel fought them now.
That possibilty vanished when the Muslims killed or drove the Christians out of Lebanon.
Islamic democracy? You may as well hold your breath for Stalinist democracy. The only Islamic democracy, Turkey, was built on decades of genocide against Armenians, Kurds, Assyrians, and more. Even so, Christians have been fleeing Turkey for decades. The Turkish Christian population is a fraction of what it was only a few decades ago.
The article was intended to cast aspersions on the anti-war crowd. It was successful in that. Unfortunately, it revealed more of the folly to follow the successful prosecution of this war, from people who should know better.
First? C'mon, that's been rattling around FR for a year and a half.
I actually think there's some merit to that experiment. Iraq's secularism could give it the best shot at democracy. Either success or failure there would be instructive.
Sums the "anti-war" crowd up pretty well...
But there's still too much hype about "Democracy", "Freedom", and "Liberty" in a post-war Iraq. I could care less if these people have Democracy; they don't seem to want it. I just don't want them to continue to pose a threat to the rest of the world. First things first...
I agree. But I would point out that the Romanist Church-states were like this in the Sixteenth Century.
The good news is that Western Civilization eventually overthrew the viciously Constantinian theocratic system in favor of religious freedom. So, there may be hope for wooing a lot of people away from Islam. (As I understand it, this is already happening in Iran.)
In the meantime, our action of crushing Saddam and his cronies to death will command respect. And if it inspires more hatred, more terrorists--as it will in some quarters, the U.S. will just have to escalate the war.
Let's go ahead and find out what happens. We don't have any other choice.
I'm all for the experiment, though I think I'm more pessimistic than you are.
However, if we're going to rebuild Iraq in our image as we did Japan and Germany, we're going to need to wreak the same type of devastation upon them. Not their civilians, but among their military and their butchers. Fortunately, the weapons we have now make that possible.
Yep
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.