Skip to comments.The arrogance of liberals (George Will)
Posted on 01/22/2003 9:13:02 PM PST by kattracks
WASHINGTON--After braving subfreezing temperatures here to urge the president to heed John Lennon (``Give peace a chance''), the 30,000 or 500,000--estimates differed; and how--at last Saturday's antiwar demonstrations returned to their suburban homes or their hotels, where they could watch HBO's live telecast of a concert by the Rolling Stones, three of whom are older than the president. Mick Jagger once said he could not imagine being 45 and still singing ``Satisfaction.'' He will soon turn 60, and so, it sometimes seems, will the unsatisfactory rhetoric of today's left.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Russia's kind of with you, if the money's right. BYOB.
If we had fought WWII the way some people want us to fight the war against terrorism, California would have been destroyed 40 years ago by a Japanese nuclear bomb, and New York would have been destroyed a little earlier by a German nuclear bomb. It's sad that we had to kill innocent Germans and Japanese in order to break our enemies' will to keep fighting, but that's the nature of war. If we want peace with the Muslim extremists, we must either surrender and be subjugated or hit them hard enough to make them surrender.
Bring your own borscht? Babushka? Balalaika? Babka?
I was making the point that in order to win a war, we have to be willing to strike at the enemy with tremendous force in a way that will hurt the enemy. This means that we must accept that some innocent people are going to be killed. Maybe we can't directly connect Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but Iraq is clearly on the side of our enemies. If we depose Hussein, we hurt our enemies' morale. Deposing Hussien may also have a real material effect on our enemies. To the extent that many Iraqis are innocent, they are no different from thousands of Japanese and German citizens who were killed during the war. Their deaths were tragic, but if we hadn't been willing to make the attacks that killed them, we would have never won the war. If we hadn't won the war in the 40's, it's likely that the Axis powers would have invented nuclear weapons and used them against us. Therefore, fighting Iraq may not be any more optional than fighting Germany and Japan was. (By the way, this was the point of the post to which I was replying.)
Whether you agree with my analysis is irrelevant. Honorable people can disagree on this and other issues, but I certainly wasn't trying to draw comparisons between Hussein and Hitler. Maybe you're tired of hearing that comparison and jumped to a wrong conclusion, but I think you need to read more carefully before making that jump.
International opinion, whatever that is and however it might be "measured", cannot be allowed to direct actions taken in our own national interest -- anymore than domestic opinion polls have any role in forming foreign policy. And international law clearly allows any nation to defend itself against any other -- which is the underlying premise of our actions.
"Since we are a nation built on laws I think we should accept the laws we have agreed to uphold. We ARE members of the UN. It IS in our best interest to abide by international law (IMO)."
How are we not abiding by international law? There is the acknowledged right of self-defense. And there is the stated penalty for ignoring the twelve years of UN resolutions -- which are that, if necessary, they will be enforced by the responsible powers. Which happen to be the USA and UK -- that's why these two countries have been responsible for patrolling the no-fly zones, by the way.
The US and its allies are in the process of enforcing international law, not ignoring it. That some other nations, like France and Germany, for their own intenal political reasons, don't particularly like how we're going about it is unfortunate...but irrelevant.
That the Clinton administration did nothing and that the UN did nothing is how we got where we are. That (some) others would like us to continue doing nothing is not, under the circumstances, a good reason for inaction.
As such, he is becoming less and less effective in the clash of classes in America.
Streetfighters like Rush, Ann and Sean are the only antidote for rap artist murderers, Presidential rapists, and Liberal media conspiracies.
Those who know the Socialist game, know that it isn't about rationality or the truth, it is about power and control.
Liberal arguments are like a dog chasing its tail - when you're talking to a Liberal, words have no meaning.
Freepers, don't fall for the trap. Liberals are wind-up toys of cliches and talking points and have no desire nor ability for critical, independent thinking.
Set in motion by their Socialist masters, Liberals are the useful idiots in a political coup. Conservatives need rightly to skewer these fools with scorn, ridicule and humiliation, for as stupid as they are, they vote.
With the power to confiscate your money and direct future political decisions, they are your enemy, dangerous to the very lives and futures of you and your children.
The time for action is NOW for true Crusaders, Warriors for Good, unafraid to call out the evil scum that is corroding the values of America.
Free Republic, the rallying for true American fighters, has influenced more votes on the political battlefield than nearly any other organization.
Tonight, somewhere in America, someone damn well better be thanking God for Jim Robinson and Free Republic.
But the left also is inarticulate because nowadays it is little other than an amalgam of baby-boomer nostalgia and moral vanity.
Nostalgia and moral vanity, indeed. You just gotta love Mr. Will!
I will blame not going into Baghdad back in 1991 PRECISELY on the UN, which gave a mandate ONLY to force Iraq out of Kuwait. Because the UN did NOT want to press on, and because we were operating under that mandate, we failed to finiish Hussein off.
Now, you cannot gripe at Bush 41 because he did what the UN wanted, and then in the same breath insist that his son comply with all the UN's wishes.
We are operating under the UN resolution which Saddam Hussein has never obeyed. How come no one is interested in HIS flagrant flouting of international law?
Iraq has never ever threatened or shown agression against the U.S.
1. shooting at our planes enforcing the no-fly-zone
2. financing terrorism by giving the families of suicide-bombers (who have killed Americans) $25,000
3. It doesn't matter if he hasn't attacked the US, as you were the wuss who brought up the "need" to obey "international law"... we are enforcing those rules. Did you miss the speech to the UN?
The problem I see is that by declaring self defense as a rational[e] for a preemptive strike invites LOTS of trouble.
self-defense has always been a rationale for striking... or would you rather wait until after your child has been killed before you oust an armed madman?
I mean mutual assured destruction (the cornerstone of our nuke policy throughout the cold war) worked because both sides accepted that pre emptive strikes were not self defense. If one side had, we would all be dead now.
Saddam doesn't have nukes (yet). MAD doesn't apply. (This is also the reason we aren't using the same approach to North Korea... they do have nukes. Get it?)
Ignoring what resolutions?
Apparently you DID miss the UN speech. Do a quick internet sesarch. The 14 resolutions are listed. These include refusing to buy food and medicine for his citizens, preferring weapons build-ups and palaces.
a) there is no smoking gun to show that Saddam has not disarmed.
And start watching the news... we've already found undeclared chemical weapons cases that should have been destroyed.
b) I think we can all name countries who have not complied with UN resolutions (one specifically comes to mind but I am not prepared to open that can of worms ;) ) and yet face no sanctions, let alone war from the US or her/his allies.
Funny thing, there's a difference between intentionally targeting/murdering non-combatants and self-defense against those who desperately desire your extermination.
Lets not forget Bush Sr. did not march into Baghdad when he had the chance.
So now you advocate taking Saddam out? Typical liberal... can't hold a consistent opinion for an entire post.
Don[']t go blaming it all on Bubba and the UN.
Who blamed Clinton for Iraq? On the other hand, his 3 refusals to accept Osama binLaden on a silver platter...
And let[']s not forget that the reason he did not go in are the same reasons used by the anti-war crowd as reasons for not going in now (instability, US stuck running the place, civil strife)
Bzzt. That is NOT why the anti-war crowd is against military action in Iraq. They were eerily quiet when Clinton got Congress to authorize military action against Iraq. Look at the reference to the dolt who brought a "no nukes" sign to the rally, when we're expressly trying to stop Saddam (a habitual murderer who is the ONLY leader in the history of the planet to use WMD's against his own population) from getting nukes. These are anti-American and anti-GWB protestors, not anti-war. If they were anti-war, they would have protested Kosovo, Somalia, etc.