[Pokey78]

[gortklattu]

Steyn brings up some good points.

I am a member of a dance group that is filled with liberals. The other night I had a lot of fun when they couldn't answer any question that I asked them. Questions like, "Why hasn't war been declared?"

The peace marchers are actually increasing the possibility of war being waged. Saddam would be singing a different tune at the tables if he knew that the US had the full support of its citizens. So, siding against Pres. Bush is siding with Saddam.

Good Going, Mark

[Shermy]

This may sound stupid, but why can't it go on for ever? What precisely are the disadvantages of this form of stalemate going on for a very, very long time?"

Sound familiar?
OPEC, Russia and Iraq

"The ideal outcome for Russia is exactly the same as that for Saudi Arabia and OPEC, i.e. maintenance of the status quo and the sanctions regime on Iraqi oil. Thus, Russia's opposition to a U.S. invasion of Iraq is completely rational."

Maybe there's a fear that without sanctions to protest against, they won't have anything to protest against anymore. So continue the sanctions!

[knighthawk]

Steyn does it again.

[Travis McGee]

NOBODY says it better! STEYN PING!

[MeekOneGOP]

Mark Steyn: Marching for terror

Excerpt:

Why not ask an Iraqi what the disadvantages of stalemate are? As far as Saddam's subjects are concerned, the "peace" movement means peace for you and Tony Benn and Sheryl Crow and Susan Sarandon, and a prison for them. I was in Montreal last week, which has the largest Iraqi population in North America. I've yet to meet one who isn't waiting eagerly for the day the liberation of their homeland begins. Then they can go back to the surviving members of their families and not have to live in a country where it's winter 10 months of the year.

They're pining for war not because they like the Americans, or the Zionists, or me, but because they understand that, as long as there's Saddam, there's no Iraq. Saddam has killed far more people than Slobo, Iraq has been far more comprehensively brutalised than Kosovo. Marching for "peace" means marching for, oh, another 15 years of Saddamite torture and murder, followed by a couple more decades under the even more psychotic son, until the family runs out of victims to terrorise, gets bored and retires to the Riviera.

It's easy to say it's up to the Iraqi people to get rid of Saddam. That theory worked well in the days when all the peasants had to do was storm the palace and dodge the muskets. It doesn't work against a man who can poison an entire village from the air. Marching for "peace" means marching against the Iraqi people: it's the equivalent of turning them away as, to their shame, many free nations in the 1930s turned away refugees from Germany.

---

A ping for those that might have otherwise missed this great Steyn article...

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[GirlShortstop]

One day, not long from now, when Iraq is free, they will despise those who marched to keep them in hell.

Thanks for ping Pokey.

[JohnHuang2]

Thanks for the ping, friend :^)

[JohnHuang2]

Mark Steyn MEGA PING!!

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

Mark Steyn is one helluva good writer. Brilliant.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Devastating Steyn. And if he doesn't mind, I will attribute his words henceforth :)

Flagg

[Klein-Bottle]

One day, not long from now, when Iraq is free, they will despise those who marched to keep them in hell.


Back in the fall of 1939, when Poland was invaded, a large, well-organized American peace movement prevented our entry into WWII until December of 1941. The American peace movement watched the fall of France and did nothing. How many Europeans died because America did not bear its global responsibility in a timely manner? How many people did the peace movement destroy? How did the French feel as they watched newsreels of American peace marches while they were under Nazi occupation? How can the people of France not despise this American Peace movement?