0
   

How the Left Betrayed My Country - Iraq

 
 
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 09:15 am
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16513

Quote:

Before the last war, we Iraqis spent decades cut off from the outside world. Not only did the Baathist regime prevent us from traveling during the Iran-Iraq conflict and the period of the sanctions, but they punished anyone possessing satellite television. And of course, internet access was strictly limited. Because of our isolation, most of us had little idea or sense about life beyond our borders.


We did believe, however, that democracy and human rights were important factors in Western civilization. So it came as a shock to us when millions of people began demonstrating across the world against America's build-up to the invasion of our country. We supposed the protests were by people who had no idea about the terrible atrocities that the regime had inflicted upon us for decades. We assumed that once they learned what had happened in Iraq, they would change their minds, or modify their opposition to the war.

My first clue that this would not happen was a few weeks after Baghdad fell. I had befriended a French reporter who had begun to realize that the situation in Iraq was not how the international media or the so-called "peace camp" described it. I noticed, however, that whenever he tried to voice his doubts to colleagues, they argued that he was wrong. Soon afterwards, I met a Dutch woman on Mutinabi Street, where booksellers lay out their wares on Friday morning. I asked her how long she'd been in Iraq and, through a translator, she answered, "Three months."



"So you were here during the war?"



"Yes!" she said. "To see the crimes of the Americans!"



I was stunned. After a moment, I replied, "What about the crimes of the regime? It killed millions of Iraqis. Do you know that if the regime was still in power, the conversation we're having now would result in our torture or death?"



Her face turned red and she angrily responded, "Soon will come the day that the Americans will do worse." She then went on to accuse me of not knowing what the true facts were in Iraq�-and that she could see the situation better than me!



She was not the only "humanitarian" who expressed such outrageous opinions. One afternoon, I was speaking to some members of the American anti-war group "Voices in the Wilderness." One of the group's members declared that the Iraqi Governing Council (then in power at the time) were "traitors." I was shocked. Most of the Council were people whom we Iraqis knew had suffered and sacrificed in a long struggle against the regime. Some represented opposition parties who had lost ten of thousand of members in that struggle. Others came from families who had lost up to 30 loved ones to the Baathists.



After those, and many other, experiences, we finally comprehended how little we had in common with these "peace activists" who constantly decried American crimes, and hated to listen to us talk about the terrible long nightmare that ended with the collapse of the regime. We came to understand how these "humanitarians" experienced a sort of pleasure when terrorists or former remnants of the regime created destruction in Iraq-just so they could feel that they were right, and the Americans wrong!



Worse, we realized it was hopeless to make them grasp our feelings. We believed�-and still believe--that America's removal of the regime opened a new way for democracy. At the same time, we have no illusions that the U.S. came to Iraq on a white horse to save our people. We understand this war is all about national interests, and that America's interests are mainly about defeating terrorism. At this moment, though, U.S. interests are doing more to bring about democracy and freedom in Iraq than, say, the policies of France and Russia�-countries which also care little for the Iraqi people and, worse, did their best to save Saddam from destruction until the last moment.



It's worth noting, as well, that the general attitude of peace activists I met was tension and anger. They were impossible to reason with. This was because, on one hand, the sometimes considerable risks they took to oppose the war made them unable to accept the fact that their cause was not as noble as they believed. Then, too, their dogmatic anti-American attitudes naturally drew them to guides, translators, drivers and Iraqi acquaintances who were themselves supporters of the regime. These Iraqis, in turn, affected the peace activists until they came to share almost the same judgments and opinions as the terrorists and defenders of Saddam.



This was very disappointing for someone like me, who thought for decades that the Left was generally the progressive power in the world. You can imagine how aghast I was when my French reporter friend told me that the Communist Party in his country actually considers the "insurgents" to be the equivalent of the French Gaullists! Or how troubling it is to hear Jacques Chirac take satisfaction from the violence wreaked by the terrorists�-those bloody monsters that we Iraqis know so well�-because they justify France's original opposition to the war.



And so I have become disillusioned, at least with the Leftists I met in Iraq. So noble in their rhetoric, they looked to the stars, yet ignored what was happening around them, caring only about what was inside their minds. So glorious in their ideals, their thoughts were inflexible and their deeds unnecessary, even harmful. In the end, they proved to me how dogma and fanaticism had transform peace activists into�-lifeless peace "statues."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,681 • Replies: 46
No top replies

 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 09:20 am
Gunga - I read that early this morning. The author is not alone, but I wonder if many here will be able to see things from his perspective.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 09:29 am
I don't think there is anyone who has not been able to see that perspective. But it is only one perspective.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 09:32 am
Quote:


Yes, but their perspective is probably the most relevant and most important of all, no?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 09:33 am
"So noble in their rhetoric, they looked to the stars, yet ignored what was happening around them, caring only about what was inside their minds. So glorious in their ideals, their thoughts were inflexible and their deeds unnecessary, even harmful."

Powerful words ....
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 09:38 am
JustWonders wrote:
Quote:


Yes, but their perspective is probably the most relevant and most important of all, no?


Relevant if he does indeed speak for a majority of Iraqis, and it's hard to know if that's true. Still, we are not nor have we ever been in the business of doing what's best for other countries.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 09:41 am
I'm amused at the thought that Bush & Co. invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons.

I probably would have supported the war, if that had been the case.

Another case of after-the-fact spin.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 09:42 am
DrewDad wrote:
I'm amused at the thought that Bush & Co. invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons.

I probably would have supported the war, if that had been the case.

Another case of after-the-fact spin.


Who has suggested that? Side benefit, nothing more IMO.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 09:45 am
It seems that spinning and altering the justification for the invasion has become a full-time job in itself....
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 09:48 am
candidone1 wrote:
It seems that spinning and altering the justification for the invasion has become a full-time job in itself....


Who is saying the main reason for the invasion of Iraq was "for humanitarian reasons"?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 09:50 am
From the title of the thread, I gather that this is intended as an indictment of the left, and as reverence for the right.

The author seems to be under the impression that Bush & Co invaded Iraq for the noble purpose of freeing the Iraqi people.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 09:52 am
DrewDad wrote:
From the title of the thread, I gather that this is intended as an indictment of the left, and as reverence for the right.

The author seems to be under the impression that Bush & Co invaded Iraq for the noble purpose of freeing the Iraqi people.


I see. I take it this line was lost on you ....

Quote:
At the same time, we have no illusions that the U.S. came to Iraq on a white horse to save our people. We understand this war is all about national interests, and that America's interests are mainly about defeating terrorism.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 09:55 am
Ticomaya wrote:
candidone1 wrote:
It seems that spinning and altering the justification for the invasion has become a full-time job in itself....


Who is saying the main reason for the invasion of Iraq was "for humanitarian reasons"?


I never stated that...but it seems that once the "evidence" upon which the preempt was justified dissolved, secondary justifications followed...and were substantiated by yet more justifications.

All I'm saying is that had the Bush administration taken a different path, used different logic, different tactics, this would be an entirely different situation.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 10:00 am
candidone1 wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
candidone1 wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
I'm amused at the thought that Bush & Co. invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons.

I probably would have supported the war, if that had been the case.

Another case of after-the-fact spin.


Who has suggested that? Side benefit, nothing more IMO.


It seems that spinning and altering the justification for the invasion has become a full-time job in itself....


Who is saying the main reason for the invasion of Iraq was "for humanitarian reasons"?


I never stated that...but it seems that once the "evidence" upon which the preempt was justified dissolved, secondary justifications followed...and were substantiated by yet more justifications.

All I'm saying is that had the Bush administration taken a different path, used different logic, different tactics, this would be an entirely different situation.


Your statement that you are "amused at the thought that Bush & Co. invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons," had me thinking you had actually heard someone arguing that was the prime reason for the invasion.

Now I understand you are just "amusing" yourself. Carry on.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 12:57 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
candidone1 wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
candidone1 wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
I'm amused at the thought that Bush & Co. invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons.

I probably would have supported the war, if that had been the case.

Another case of after-the-fact spin.


Who has suggested that? Side benefit, nothing more IMO.


It seems that spinning and altering the justification for the invasion has become a full-time job in itself....


Who is saying the main reason for the invasion of Iraq was "for humanitarian reasons"?


I never stated that...but it seems that once the "evidence" upon which the preempt was justified dissolved, secondary justifications followed...and were substantiated by yet more justifications.

All I'm saying is that had the Bush administration taken a different path, used different logic, different tactics, this would be an entirely different situation.


Your statement that you are "amused at the thought that Bush & Co. invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons," had me thinking you had actually heard someone arguing that was the prime reason for the invasion.

Now I understand you are just "amusing" yourself. Carry on.


Misquote there Ticomaya....
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 01:00 pm
That was me, Tico, not Candid.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 01:03 pm
Damn! Obviously I can't keep you guys straight today. You guys know what I meant .... right?


Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 01:04 pm
I know we must all sound the same to you! Laughing
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 01:53 pm
blatham posted in the Iraq thread (sentana's) on post number 1105875 the following:

Quote:
Quote:
Iraqi insurgents now outnumber coalition forces

By James Hider
The head of intelligence services in Baghdad says that there are more than 200,000 fighters

IRAQ'S rapidly swelling insurgency numbers 200,000 fighters and active supporters and outnumbers the United States-led coalition forces, the head of the country's intelligence service said yesterday.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1425022,00.html


So it would seem that the person who expressed his views in the article does not speak for everybody in Iraq as the insurgents (Iraqi's) are now surpassing the coalition forces.

Quote:
"People are fed up after two years without improvement," he said. "People are fed up with no security, no electricity, people feel they have to do something. The army (dissolved by the American occupation authority) was hundreds of thousands. You'd expect some veterans would join with their relatives, each one has sons and brothers."
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 02:34 pm
Candidone1,

"All I'm saying is that had the Bush administration taken a different path, used different logic, different tactics, this would be an entirely different situation. "

Of course that is a truism. If different decisions were made then different results might be expected. The trouble with "What if" scenarios is that they are Monday morning quarterbacking, and too often can be made to play whatever tune the writer wants to play.

If Saddam had been open and complied with the conditions of the cease fire, then no outside military action would have been necessary.

If Saddam had placed his country and people above his greed and admiration for Stalin and Hitler, Iraq might have been a peaceful nation with human values.

If the UN had a bit of backbone, the U.S. and its partners wouldn't have had to shoulder the burden, and Saddam wouldn't have gotten the idea that he was invulnerable.

If the Bush administration had waited for the UN, Saddam would still be in power and a threat to regional peace. Gaddafy might have finally acquired a nuclear bomb. Kim Jong-Il might have stepped up the pressure in North Asia. The U.S. may have suffered more attacks by international radical Islamic terrorists emboldened by the lack of a strong US response.

If the Bush administration had failed to press the terrorists on their own doorstep the casualty count might have already been 20,000 ... American civilians instead of 1,500 soldiers.

If the European Powers hadn't been so high-handed in extending their colonial efforts, perhaps the Middle East would not be a seething cauldron today. If Hitler had succeeded in wiping out the Jews, then the Arab countries would be their naturally loving, peaceful selves.

If, if, if, if .........

War is hell, but sometimes peace can be worse. Those who live under despots, real despots, would rather a war that might strike the iron collars from their necks, than to watch their children starve or have the secret police murder their brother in some hidden place. Ask the man stretched upon the torture rack if he would rather have a brutal torturer, or a U.S. Marine standing by his side. Those who would deny liberty and human dignity ARE the radical Islamic terrorists, the so-called "insurgents", the people who are determined to deny the Iraqi people a free and open election to express their common desire for peace and stability. Our troops are doing what they can, and if the nation continues as it has in the past, to support them and continue the fight .... we will win. The Iraqi People will win. World peace will be more secure.

If, if, if, if ........
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » How the Left Betrayed My Country - Iraq
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/15/2021 at 03:00:46