Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Deploying Marines for gays, feminism and peacekeeping (ANN COULTER)Slams the left
worldnetdaily ^ | 8/21/2002 | Ann Coulter

Posted on 08/21/2002 4:27:27 PM PDT by TLBSHOW

Deploying Marines for gays, feminism and peacekeeping

On a break from lachrymose accounts of Palestinian women weeping for their children, the New York Times has been trying to induce hysteria over the shocking Bush policy of deploying American troops in order to protect American interests. Such self-interested behavior is considered boorish in Manhattan salons.

The only just wars, liberals believe, are those in which the United States has no stake. Liberals warm to the idea of American mothers weeping for their sons, but only if their deaths will not make America any safer.

Thus the Times and various McTimes across the nation have touted the idea that invading Iraq "only" to produce a regime change is unjustifiable, contrary to international law, and a grievous affront to the peace-loving Europeans.

As the left's new pet, Henry No-Longer-a-War-Criminal Kissinger, put it: "Regime change as a goal for military intervention challenges the international system established by the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia. ... And the notion of justified pre-emption runs counter to modern international law, which sanctions the use of force in self-defense only against actual, not potential, threats."

The idea that America would be transgressing the laws of man and God by invading Iraq (unless and until Saddam nukes Manhattan) is absurd.

Does no one remember Clinton's misadventure in the Balkans? Liberals loved that war because Slobodan Milosevic posed no conceivable threat to the United States. To the contrary, as President Clinton put it: "This is America at its best. We seek no territorial gain; we seek no political advantage."

Deposing Milosevic, Clinton explained, vindicated no national interest, but was urgent because it was akin to stopping a "hate crime." Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said our purpose in the Balkans was "ending ethnic strife" and creating "multiethnic societies."

One searches in vain for some description of an American interest in the Balkans.

Instead, Milosevic was denounced – by Clinton, Albright, Tony Blair and the whole croaking chorus – for "genocide." Clinton's defense secretary, William Cohen, estimated that 100,000 Albanian men "may have been murdered."

Liberal enthusiasts for our "humanitarian" war in the Balkans, it turned out, were over-hasty in their use of the word "genocide" in connection with Milosevic. In the end, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia found fewer than 3,000 bodies, most of them men of military age.

Commentators were soon rushing in to explain that these "new details" did not change the fact that Milosevic had engaged in ethnic cleansing and the forced deportation of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

That doesn't make Milosevic a hero, but he's a piker compared to Saddam, who has gassed tens of thousands of his own people and killed almost a million enemy troops in the war with Iran. Liberals oppose a war with Iraq, despite Saddam's far more impressive credentials as a mass murderer, because acting against Saddam is in the self-interest of the United States.

The left's theory of a just war is that: (1) military force must never be deployed in America's self-interest; and (2) we must first receive approval from the Europeans, especially the Germans. (Good thing we didn't have that rule in 1941!)

By liberal logic, preventing Saddam Hussein from nuking Manhattan is not sufficient justification for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq because the United States has a special self-interest in not being nuked and therefore can't be trusted.

Similarly, Israel has less claim to act against Yasser Arafat than NATO did against Milosevic because actual Israelis are getting killed by the terror forces they are battling – so they are self-interested. The Times was warmly enthusiastic about Clinton's humanitarian effort in Kosovo, but is indignant about Israeli self-defense in Gaza.

Moreover, if forced deportation (aka "ethnic cleansing") is grounds for a war crimes trial of Milosevic, what is Arafat doing when he demands that all Israeli settlements be removed from the disputed territories of the West Bank? Milosevic gets a trial at the Hague for forced deportations. Arafat stages terrorist attacks to compel the forced deportation of Israelis, and he's a martyr if Israel messes up his office furniture in Ramallah.

The point – which is always the same point – is that we must not protect ourselves but should just let liberals run the world. Liberals believe they are best qualified in war and peace and forced busing because they aren't going to suffer the consequences. Thus, they can act freely for "humanity." If it turns sour, like their adventure in Vietnam, they can always drop it and pin the blame on others.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: anncoulterlist; liberals; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last
To: gcruse
. If you're talking national interest, then the logical people to take out Saddam are the Israelis.

How do you know that's not how it is going to work ?

21 posted on 08/21/2002 6:26:09 PM PDT by arthurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Blue Screen of Death
If "forced deportation" is ethnic cleansing and a war crime, why isn't Vicinte Fox indicted? By not doing anything to make jobs available to the people of mexico, he is "forcing" his people to "deport themselves" across our borders daily. Therefore he is a war criminal.

We must invade mexico, enact a regime change and introduce them to a "honestly" elected country. We can send demoncraps down there to show the dead how to vote.

22 posted on 08/21/2002 6:27:16 PM PDT by stumpy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Another great piece from Ann.
She is a genius in her ability to remind everybody of the dangerous national security threat that faces our nation when Democrats control the White House. Even though the Pentagon and the intelligence services may be able to keep a clown like Clinton from getting a hold of really sensitive stuff, a Democrat White House can still cause lots of mischief and can certainly compromise national security.
23 posted on 08/21/2002 6:28:09 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Learn something every day . . .


      SYLLABICATION: lach·ry·mose

1. Weeping or inclined to weep; tearful.
2. Causing or tending to cause tears.

24 posted on 08/21/2002 6:37:35 PM PDT by BraveMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: serinde
You're quite welcome.
25 posted on 08/21/2002 6:40:49 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Liberals hated the war in Vietnam and never said "thank you" to our soldiers who fought there for their loss and great sacrifices. Since then they've tried to make sure the American military never fights a war in which American national interests might really be on the line. Once again they're true to form. Ann says liberals are afraid of the consequences but what she didn't add is that what they're really afraid of is America winning at the same time as they find themselves irrelevant.
26 posted on 08/21/2002 6:44:13 PM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arthurus
How do you know that's not how it is going to work ?

         It might.  In which case, pre-emption by the
         US against a country that does not threaten
         us will have been avoided.  Once you make
         pre-emption a tactic to be used whenever
         one country sees the other developing means
         of attack, you set the stage for war by
         what-if.  There are too many what-ifs out there
         that never come to fruition to be going to
         war over them.

27 posted on 08/21/2002 6:50:02 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
American male cold shower BUMP: LOL!!!!

I actually love to hear her, but boy is she a treat for the eyes as well!

Thank you Ann's parents!!! She is a great lady!!!
28 posted on 08/21/2002 6:57:43 PM PDT by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Al Queda is operating inside Iraq isn't it? How many more "clues" does one need to suspect that Saddam is a maniac that will use what ever weapons are at hand to be the King of Babylon? He's not dealing with a full deck, you don't have to read much about him to grasp that.

I'm sure that most of us have experienced the neighborhood bully growing up. Some brave soul eventually had to put him in his place and knock him on his rear. It's much the same here only with grownups.

29 posted on 08/21/2002 7:12:29 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Once you make pre-emption a tactic to be used whenever

Things don't work that way. The country strong enough to preempt can do it and probably will do it. That is US. Any other country has to face the fight with the preempted country and the likelihood of incurring US's disfavor It is like civilians carrying guns. Doesn't mean folks are just going to randomly blast each other because of mutual deterrence and because wrongful killing gets the Big Guys mad at you, i.e. the State with its police and jails. In this world the US is the State and police. We can preempt or just go squash somebody just because it makes US feel good, as in Kosovo, and it will not lead China to preempt anyone it would not have hit anyway because Chinese calculation is based entirely on what will US do. US is the Big Dog in the neighborhood. We do not set examples for others. Others do or not do based on how we might react, not on how they see US behave.

30 posted on 08/21/2002 7:15:01 PM PDT by arthurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: arthurus
We do not set examples for others.

Of course we do.  If it's good enough
for us, it's good enough for India to
hit Pakistan or any other hot spot you
would like to bring up.

31 posted on 08/21/2002 7:23:43 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Welcome Back! I've been a lurker since 5/97 or so, never bothered posting until some time this year. Also, haven't read anything from Uncle Bill lately.

I always kept my keyboard shut because it wasn't in my best interest to educate the unwashed masses and I used to work defense projects. Still an independent with no party affiliation.

32 posted on 08/21/2002 10:25:31 PM PDT by ReaganIsRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Our "example" will not affect India's decision to attack Pakistan. India will calculate the benefits and consequences rightly or wrongly for itself. US reaction will be a large part of the calculation. US willingness to jump on a country preemptively would caution India that US might just jump on India for initiating a nuke exchange or causing Pakistan to fire its nukes. Liberal ideals do not govern the actions and reactions of nations, not even liberal nations after they have been burned a couple of times.
33 posted on 08/22/2002 6:06:50 AM PDT by arthurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

I give Ann extra points here for her comment at the end about Vietnam. How much more to the point could she have been?
34 posted on 08/22/2002 6:18:06 AM PDT by Mr. Mulliner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson