Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Thursday, March 27, 2003

This is a great picture.

This would be the result if the war protesters had their way:

"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."

"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."

It's not an exaggeration to say that this is exactly what the protesters are fighting for. They can get mad and turn red in the face at the accusation, but if the protesters got their way this would be what they fought for. They wouldn't be able to deny it or to justify what they accomplished. The blame would lay squarely on their shoulders. But I'm sure the moral superiority they would feel would shield them from any pangs of guilt.

Ann Coulter has another brilliant piece this week. I love how funny she is:

"Saddam's Vice Despot Tariq Aziz says the war is being fought only to "create something called greater Israel." Aziz seems to be positioning himself to run for Congress as a Democrat."

"Most auspiciously, the Arab League has appealed to the United Nations Security Council to stop the war. One can only hope the Security Council will agree to intervene. How would they stop us? Would France threaten us with war? Young men across America would have to enlist as a matter of honor. The Army could use as its recruiting slogan: "Are you afraid to fight the French?" Even liberals would enlist as a way to pick up glorious service with no risk of injury."

That's hilarious.

Here's another piece that shows there is hope for Hollywood after all:

"Gretzky told a press conference in Calgary on Tuesday: "All I can say is the president of the United States is a great leader, I happen to think he's a wonderful man and if he believes what he's doing is right, I back him 100 percent."

"Accepting the Oscar for Best Actor on Sunday, Adrien Brody.....made this eloquent statement, "I have a friend from Queens who's a soldier in Kuwait right now, Tommy Szarabinski, and I hope you and your boys make it back real soon and God bless you guys, I love you."

"Rush and Molloy reported in the Daily News this week that Brad Pitt may have his doubts about the link between Saddam and al Qaeda, but he believes now's the time to stand with the president: "We're in this together as Americans. We're going to have to go in and get the job done as soon as possible." Joe Pantoliano, who played Ralph Ciffredi on "The Sopranos," told Rush and Molloy that now that the war is on, "there's something compelling about a photo of hundreds of Iraqis kissing U.S. Marines." But perhaps most gratifying to many of the young soldiers abroad is the support of starlet Brittany Murphy, who appeared in "8 Mile" with rapper Eminem. She sent her thanks to American soldiers and their families."

I have to add that I saw Janeane Garofalo and Joe Pantoliano on O'Reilly one night several months ago and both were opposed to the war. I am glad to see that Pantoliano has been affected by pictures of Iraqis kissing U.S. Marines. The more conspiratorial leftist would say that the marine probably somehow forced them to kiss him. Ok, that's pretty unlikely, but then again I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to hear that from some leftwinger. Really.

This is part of an exchange that took place on the floor of Canada's parliament:

"Senator Buchanan: Honourable senators, I was making a statement, and I hope His Honour will not take a minute off my time!

What would have happened if, in Toronto or Montreal, two, three or four planes had flown into the tallest buildings or hit the Centre Block in Ottawa and hundreds, maybe thousands, were killed? Would we be saying, "Let us wait until Saddam Hussein really gets some nuclear weapons. Let us wait until he gets biological weapons. Let us wait until he gets more missiles. Let us wait for authority from the UN to do it all.''

No way, that would not happen! However, it happened to our friends.

Who are our friends in this world? Who have been our friends for over the last 100 years? The United States is our best neighbour, our best friend. The United States, Britain, Australia, Denmark and Holland are our friends, and we have turned our backs on them.

Do not forget it. We have turned our backs on them. That is a fact.

Honourable senators, what are we doing? Here in Canada, we are saying, "Oh we want to have this all sanctioned by the Security Council of the United Nations. Never mind the genocide and murder that is taking place in Iraq.''

What a double standard, what hypocrisy! When there was genocide and murder in Kosovo and Serbia, we did not need sanctions from the United Nations to move ahead. We did move ahead in those areas. That is the double standard. That is the hypocrisy. We moved ahead there, but we cannot do it here. We will back off, and we will let our friends do everything to protect us.

What would happen, honourable senators, if Canada were attacked? We have brave soldiers, airmen and sailors. I know many of them. However, we do not have the wherewithal to defend ourselves, and we all know that. Who will protect us. Will France, Germany, or Russia, who has provided weapons to Saddam Hussein, or China protect us?

Hon. Laurier L. LaPierre: Screw the Americans!"

Canada is totally dependent on us to defend them, and of course we would if the situation should arrive, yet the last speaker takes the opportunity to spit in our face. The world has lost it's mind.

Tiger Woods issued a statement that expresses his views on the war.

"26 March 2003 by Tiger Woods

I have great respect for the men and women fighting overseas to protect our way of life in Iraq and other parts of the world. As the son of an Army officer, I understand the strength, courage and discipline required to successfully carry out their missions in hostile environments and feel tremendous pride they are representing us.

Obviously, no one likes war. Our Congress and President tried hard to avoid the use of force, but ultimately decided it was the best course of action. I like the assertiveness shown by President Bush and think we owe it to our political and military leaders, along with our brave soldiers to be as supportive as possible during these difficult and trying times. I just wanted to take this opportunity to let our forces know that I am thinking about you and wishing you and your families the best."

Wednesday, March 26, 2003

This is some prime Soapbox material. Use it wisely grasshopper:

From the Top Ten Myths About the War in Iraq:

"4-The United States armed Saddam. This one grew over time, but when Iraq was on it's weapons spending spree from 1972 (when its oil revenue quadrupled) to 1990, the purchases were quite public and listed over $40 billion worth of arms sales. Russia was the largest supplier, with $25 billion. The US was the smallest, with $200,000. A similar myth, that the U.S. provided Iraq with chemical and biological weapons is equally off base. Iraq requested Anthrax samples from the US government, as do nations the world over, for the purpose of developing animal and human vaccines for local versions of Anthrax. Nerve gas doesn't require technical help, it's a variant of common insecticides. European nations sold Iraq the equipment to make poison gas."

There is much more that might be useful. I'm glad I have the link.

France's treachery and betrayal has reached new depths. Michael Ledeen (via Instapundit) is reporting that France and Germany threatened to keep Turkey out of the European Union:

"The French and German governments informed the Turkish opposition parties that if they voted to help the Coalition war effort, Turkey would be locked out of Europe for a generation. As one Turkish leader put it, "there were no promises, only threats."

France must pay dearly for what it has done. Their behavior these past several months has served as a formal announcement of the beginning of hostilities. If that's what they want, then let the games begin.

It bears saying, mostly because Jay Nordlinger makes the point again in his Impromptus column for National Review Online, that leftists slaughtered over one hundred million people in the 20th century. As Nordlinger puts it, "Mao may be said to have outdone Hitler in the genocide sweepstakes, killing something like 60 million." Indeed.

We should never forget the roots of the peace movement and what the ideology behind those people are capable of. The leaders of this movement are well known. They are communists and they go by the name A.N.S.W.E.R which stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. That sounds fine and well, but the ideological ancestry of those people should make the war protesters pause (it won't) to think about who they are aligning themselves with. Communists and leftists slaughtered over one hundred million people in the last century. I am talking about Hitler (Nazi meant National Socialist), Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro. Oh, I forget to mention Saddam.

These people also sent people to re-education and labor camps to change their way of thinking. They used physical and psychological torture as well as starvation to force people to come around to their way of thinking. It's not a stretch at all to say that political correctness has it's roots in leftwing ideology. Anyone who has read about the intolerance of campus leftwing radicals or stifling newsroom political correctness will immediately understand where the intolerant modern day radicals got their ideas.

Bottom line: Beware of the well intentioned leftwing. They might be forced to slaughter or torture in their zeal to do what is best for the people. They've done it before.

Tuesday, March 25, 2003

The story hasn't hit the internet site yet, but the British equivalent of Fox News, Sky News, is reporting that a popular uprising is taking place in Basrah. The report indicates the British forces are aiding the minority Shia citizens of that city and that they are preparing to move into the city.

Fox News is characterizing this as the turning point in the war. They are saying that this is an unexpected development and that it could spread throughout the nation.

It appears to me that the Iraqi people believe now that we mean business. That we aren't going to abandon them like we did in 1991. They have taken it upon themselves to fight for their own freedom when it would be much easier to simply allow us to do it all for them. This is a sign of how desperate these people are. Fox News is saying that the people are starving and that they have no water.

I think it's particularly interesting to contrast how the Iraqi government deals with dissent and how the U.S. government deals with it. In the west, we tolerate and even expect dissent. In the Arab world, you're shot, tortured, or forced to watch while your loved ones, including children, are tortured. You think our protesters will note how the Iraqis are dealing with this uprising or will they attribute this report as a bit of propaganda, distortions of fact, or, most likely, that it's a conspiracy by neo-conservatives to justify the so-called President Bush's war of aggression and imperialism? I tend to believe that they will call it a conspiracy. I know what I'm talking about. I visit the Soapbox chatroom. I know what these people believe. They are the most conspiratorial people you will ever meet. They attribute every bit of bad news to some sort of conspiracy and nothing is too ridiculous or outrageous.

If you need more proof, watch the next time Janeane Garofalo appears on TV. She's typical. So is Noam Chomsky.

Update: Here are the Sky News and Fox News stories.

Glenn Reynolds thinks that the U.S. administration may be downplaying the find at Najaf because it's best to let Saddam think he's not been found out. If he has nothing left to lose he might be more ready to use his chemical weapons.

Reports are springing up everywhere that the people who opposed this war were wrong. They said that there was no proof of chemical weapons and they believed that Saddam when he said he didn't have illegal weapons. The Scotsman reports that Scud missiles were found in a chemical weapons plant. I have to say it. The chemical weapons and Scuds were banned by the U.N.

I think we will all be surprised by the actual number of chemical weapons facilities that we will find in post war Iraq. The French still won't think the war was justified. They'll argue that the weapons inspectors would have eventually found these weapons, but reasonable people will only be able to conclude that the inspections were a fraud. A worthless fraud designed to soothe peoples' fears.

Those opposed to the war also denied any connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. The connection doesn't exist, they say, because Saddam is a secularist and Al Qaeda is a zealously religious organization. That they hate each other. I wonder what those people will make of this report from The Australian:

"So now an Australian cameraman has been killed by people most Australian commentators and many politicians said did not exist – members of Iraq's al-Qa'ida connection.

Ansar al-Islam, the group that killed Paul Moran, operates in northern Iraq in an area not controlled by Baghdad. It has been trained by al-Qa'ida, funded by al-Qa'ida and includes Arab al- Qa'ida operatives in its number."

You know what the opponents of this war will say? They'll say that this is either (a) propaganda or (b) (my personal favorite) a conspiracy theory by right wing neo-conservatives to justify war against poor helpless innocent Saddam Hussein. Ok, that was a bit of exaggeration, but don't be at all surprised to hear that. I have heard so many unbelievably and laughably ridiculous conspiracy theories by leftists that I won't be at all surprised to hear this one at some point. I'm serious.

I'm glad I didn't watch the Oscars the other night. I knew that Michael Moore would win for best documentary (documentary my ass....more like editorial) and I knew he would take the opportunity to say something hateful about President Bush or America or both. I was right. I also thought that he would get a standing ovation. I was right. But what I didn't expect were the boos that cascaded down on him. There weren't a lot of boos, but the people who did boo him did so vigorously. It was more than I expected.

Timesonline sets the stage for the coming battle for Iraq:

"The line will remain fixed as waves of air and ground-launched missiles pound the Republican Guard while the heavy artillery and tanks of V Corps rumble up for an eventual land assault. By the time that is launched the coalition aims to have 60,000 combat troops, 400 Abrams M1 tanks and 100 Apache attack helicopters massed on the front. The Republican Guard divisions have 500 tanks.

From what I've seen, the Republican Guard divisions are outside the city of Baghdad. That's suicide, but experts have said that Saddam won't let them in the city because of the chance for a revolt. The Republican Guard is screwed.

Sunday, March 23, 2003

It has been a bad day for America in the Iraq War. A supply convoy was ambushed after taking a wrong turn, a U.S. soldier tried to kill several of his comrades in a grenade attack on three tents, and the Iraqi's are parading our dead and captured on TV.

All in all it has been a bad day and from the sounds of a retired military man, things could get worse.

I don't know the man's name, but he was describing the most likely Iraqi defense of Baghdad and to call it a nightmare scenario is an understatement. Five divisions are ringing the city and they will have the advantage of natural defenses (a lake and a river) to go along with Saddam's use of civilian human shields, a likely use of chemical weapons, not to mention the thousands of mines that have been laid. This could end up being very much like the taking of Berlin at the end of WW II.

I hope our soldiers are quick studies and that we learn from the terrible events of this day. I am still convinced we are doing the right thing, but public opinion is fickle and the more timid could quickly change their minds if we start to lose hundreds of soldiers.