U.S.-blaming, anti-war left is morally bankrupt
I may be a liberal, but I'm also a believer in common sense. Most of the anti-war Left in this country could frankly benefit from a large helping of common sense. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you....
One of the most disturbing things about the attitude of those on the anti-war Left is their unspoken and yet almost visceral hatred of their homeland. Most of the rest of the world may think we're the "Bad Guy"- yet they watch our movies, buy our Nikes, and drink our Cokes. It seems fashionable to love all things American while hating the country that provides those same amenities. It's bad enough when that attitude emanates from Europe, but when it comes from those who are fortunate enough to carry American passports, something is horribly out of whack.
NION has issued a statement opposing war with Iraq that has been published in newspapers across the country. Those behind it include academics (including Harvard University's Richard Lewontin and Stanford University's Joel Beinin), entertainers (including John Cusack and Danny Glover), writers (including Russell Banks and Barbara Kingsolver) and aging 1960s radicals (Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden protesting together again!). They all reject what they call Bush's "simplistic script of `good versus evil.' " Instead, their simplistic script is about how all the world's horror flows from the United States.
The "brutal repercussions" of the administration's war on terror "have been felt from the Philippines to Palestine," the statement says. The Philippines? Apparently the signers are offended that the United States is providing military assistance to the Philippine government in its efforts to root out the Abu Sayyaf guerrillas. This is the Islamic terrorist organization that specializes in slaughtering Christians and beheading tourists.
The petition also deplores our war against the Taliban, which resulted in the liberation of Afghanistan from one of the world's most brutal regimes. Feminist Gloria Steinem, Vassar College President Frances D. Fergusson and Harvard women's studies director Juliet Schor have signed the petition. Are they troubled that Afghan girls can now leave their homes and go to school? That women are not publicly executed for such crimes as infidelity? That females can show their faces?
NIONists seem to have a special abhorrence for democracies. Besides the United States, the only other country that receives their opprobrium is Israel. Again, in some unexplained way, the administration's response to Sept. 11 has resulted in "Israeli tanks and bulldozers (leaving) a terrible trail of death and destruction." Never mind that Yasser Arafat walked away from a Camp David peace deal in 2000 to oversee his society's embrace of suicide bombing.
The petition has a blithe, even solipsistic view of human misery. The statement says, "Peoples and nations have the right to determine their own destiny, free from military coercion by great powers." Apparently Saddam Hussein's use of his military to determine his people's destiny is of no concern to the signers. NION has no references to Saddam's terror state, where political prisoners are persuaded to confess by seeing the eyes of their children being gouged out.
I hate it when Conservatives accuse liberals of being out of touch with reality, but in this case I have to agree wholeheartedly. Yes, we all want a world where war is not the answer, where evil is vanquished with good. The reality, though, is that Iraq does not live by the same rules that govern the rest of the civilized world. That alone does not make Iraq a threat, but in combination with nuclear, chemical and/or biological weapons, Iraq is very much a threat to the rest of the world.
I still have some profoundly mixed feelings about going to war against Iraq. I do understand, though, that sometimes evil must be met on it's own terms and defeated on it's own ground. If France and Germany want to play the Neville Chamberlain role, that is their choice (though you'd hope that they would have learned something from history). If it means we go to war alone, so be it. Sometimes one has to do what one knows is right, even if no one else shares that conviction.
If members of the anti-war Left want to go to Baghdad and act as human shields, so be it. It's their choice to place themselves in the line of fire. This conflict is about making the world a safer place for ourselves and our children. If you can't get behind that, that's OK. Just don't be whining and bitching about the country you are fortunate enough to call home. There are millions worldwide who would gladly trade places with you.
Jack, I'm still waiting for an explanation of how this war is about "making the world a safer place for ourselves and our children." Arguments to the contrary -- that the war will make the world MORE dangerous, create MORE terrorists, create MORE instability, isolate America from its allies, and serve as a pit in which money AND troops are tossed in for the forseeable future seem to have a bit more meat to them than Administration arguments to the contrary. There are intellegent reasons to be opposed to the war on Iraq; just because some knuckleheads have knuckleheaded care-bear reasons for opposing it is no reason to dismiss the entire anti-war movement as airheaded anti-americanism.
I'm not dismissing the entire anti-war movement, just the "care bears" (nice choice of words, by the way...). I cannot stomach anti-Americanism from Americans. We are NOT the problem here.
Ok, if we're not making the world safer for children, how about SUV drivers?? :0)
Just for starters, John, how about drying up a major source of terrorist money and terrorist weapons and safe haven for terrorists?
Oh, wait, I know the answers -- that's all a big lie from Shrub and the oil boys, and we haven't done a thing about Saudi Arabia since he's in their pocket, right?
Well, Scott, since you know the answers there's no need to respond, is there? Wow. Saves so much time.
That's what I'm here for -- saving time. Glad I got it in one try.
Like my father used to say: "DON'T MAKE ME STOP THIS CAR!!!"
Just slowly back away to your own corners, boy.... ;0)
But, DAD! He's looking at me!
[besides, what's a Saturday without Comments sniping?]
Indeed....
When anti-Americanism eminates from Europe, it's because there's a large proportion of Europeans who drink the Coke, buy the Nikes and watch the movies, but would prefer to keep out the SUVs and the long working hours and the Starbucks. Some people like their small cars, generous holidays and FairTrade coffee, but big business appears to force their alternative versions upon us. It's not America, it's American corporate attitudes that Europeans dislike.
I think the problem is that American corporations and American government seem to be indistinguishable at the moment and the closer our governments get to yours, the more worried we are that we'll be sold to the highest corporate bidder.
where to begin? there is no justification for focusing on iraq, there are other big bads in the world. there are others not following u.n. resolutions, ..... israel.
the motives of american foreign policy has a historical tendency to be corrupt, .......nicuragua.
america also utilises torture and imprisons people without trial or access to lawyers. so much for the "free world" we're supposed to be proudly defending.
american culture is a powerful and aggresive global monoply i.e. film distribution, and it isn't so much that we europeans love coca-cola etc its more that coca-cola is now so deeply woven into 'natural' day to day existence.
americans are kept ignorant or don't care about most of the rest of the world and all things not-american.
NION and ANSWER are a lot kookier that you give
them credit for.
Check out www.AuthoritarianOpportunistsWhoCozyUptoGenocidalDictators-forpeace.org
for a nice explanation of how these front groups
for the Workers World Party (yes, the Stalinist
cult) got to be in charge of the US Peace movement.
There's more than enough "out of touch" to go around on both sides of this issue, methinks.
Please remember that the last two times we interfered militarily in Iraqi affairs left things worse, not better, for the Iraqi people and left Saddam more, not less, entrenched in power. Other nations remember this, even if we'd like to forget.
Yes, some of the anti-war supporters have rocks in their heads--but had the current administration engaged in less saber-rattling and more diplomacy, we'd be having an easier time of this now with the international community.
Jack, I've listened to Iraqi exiles on radio news. I would like to think that this administration is genuinely committed to finally going in, getting the job *done* and getting *out* of Iraq. I think there are those in the administration, moreover, who truly are--Powell and possibly Rice. However, they aren't the ones calling the shots here--and those with veto power I think are more than capable of leaving the job undone and the Iraqis hanging yet again, were it to become politically convenient. (Not to mention the fact that we're not done in Afghanistan...)
Saddam has got to go--for the Iraqi people's sake, not ours. But we cannot do it without the rest of the free world. We can't afford a unilateral war--we haven't even budgeted for it!
And do we really want to borrow money from, say, the Saudis to finance it? What do we say: "We don't tolerate states that shield terrorists, except when they give us a nice interest rate?"
I'm sorry--this administration is just going to have to show me. I think we could really have used McCain in office right now.
On the subject of leaving the job undone...
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=379060
"the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do." --Samuel P. Huntington
while the FBI DEFINITION OF TERRORISM which states that-
"Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. "
....sounds like the entire history of american foreign policy. not to mention the slaughter and containment of the original native americans.
They say that in any argument between a large group of people, the biggest loudmouths will win out.
I guess that's true. But I see so many people who believe Saddam is a threat, and that taking him out is the right thing to do for our future--and so many of them try so hard to be reasonable about it, only to be beat back by people who rant about "the Bush Junta" and comparisons to Nazi Germany and...
It just gets old, ya know?
I really am sick of this crap about how if you don't support the Bush-driven warmongery against Iraq, you're not really an American.
Yesss, Saddam should go. Do we have to have a war to make it happen? I don't think so.
Osama's still laughing from some hideaway.
The 19 airplane thieves were all Al Qaeda, and 15 of them were Saudis. Their chief was from Egypt.
We should finish what we started in Afghanistan, and then if the Kurds and the Iraqis are still suffering under this jerk, we can keep the promises we made them after Desert Storm, when Bush I was in office (but it became poor politics to keep them, so we conveniently forgot...)
I hope everyone keeps in mind that Saddam is the largest money-launderer in the world. It has to go somewhere and we'll be watching.
As to the Saudis, all in good time. Got to get our ducks in a row. (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, NK) then we'll move on.
As to the cost of Iraq, say $600-750 per person, can you're family afford that? I think I can scrape up $2400 to get rid of him.
Russell, as to Israel, their resolutions are at a lower level, we're shaking our fingers at you but you don't have to do anything. Saddam's resolutions are the must comply variety. That's the difference between Israel and Iraq's UN stance.
As to Afghanistan, it's going to take a few years. We don't have that kind of time, Sarah.
We've been living in a bubble for most of the 90s. The world was always a dangerous place, now we have to deal w/it. It will most probably get worse in the short term, but this is a very, very long term war. We have to drag a part of the world to at least the mid-17,18th century so they can go thru their reformation and learn to reconcile beliefs from the dark ages and living in the 20th, much less 21st century.
And Russell, American's foreign policy is corrupt?? Please. Europe is no virgin in this area. At minimum, if they had drawn the India/Paki border with some sense, there might not be as many tensions in that area.
Lisa,
I know how Europeans can keep out American SUVs. Don't buy them.
As to the longer work hours. Americans get a lot of satisfaction out of our jobs. We like working. I know that gives us an unfair advantage, but it is a free country and we do what we like.
What happened to the party of FDR, Truman and JFK?
JFK's inaugural address:
http://128.138.129.27/government/national/speeches/inau3.html
"Please remember that the last two times we interfered militarily in Iraqi affairs left things worse, not better, for the Iraqi people and left Saddam more, not less, entrenched in power. Other nations remember this, even if we'd like to forget."
The responsibility for leaving Saddam in power after Gulf War I, though, lies primarily with the UN, not the US. The US left Saddam in power because the UN had only authorized the liberation of Kuwait and not of Iraq. Other nations do indeed remember this, which is why they have once again been seeking to use the UN's processes to achieve the same result.
War would be illegal
Lawyers tell Guardian there is no justification under international law for the use of military force against Iraq.
"We are teachers of international law. On the basis of the information publicly available, there is no justification under international law for the use of military force against Iraq.
The UN charter outlaws the use of force with only two exceptions: individual or collective self-defence in response to an armed attack and action authorised by the security council as a collective response to a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression. There are currently no grounds for a claim to use such force in self-defence.
The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence against an attack that might arise at some hypothetical future time has no basis in international law. Neither security council resolution 1441 nor any prior resolution authorises the proposed use of force in the present circumstances." source