igloo Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 DEMS' MORAL COLLAPSE By RALPH PETERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Email Archives Print Reprint October 1, 2003 -- WOULD any sane American have claimed, in the autumn of 1945, that the United States had been wrong to depose Hitler? Even in the autumn of 2003, would any Democratic presidential aspirant suggest that our war against Hitler was a mistake? Of course not. Hitler launched bloody wars of aggression, committed genocide, created a savage police state, and tortured and killed his own countrymen. He was responsible for the deaths of millions. Sounds like Saddam to me. Yet the Democratic Party's uncrowned kings, from Howard the Unready to Wes the Unsteady, insist that Operation Iraqi Freedom was unjustified, whining that Saddam never attacked the United States directly and showed no inclination to do so. According to the Dems, the Bush administration had no moral or legal right to go to war against the Saddam regime, no matter its crimes. Tell it to FDR. Far from assaulting U.S. interests, Hitler's regime took pains to continue to do business with America for as long as possible. The Japanese, not the Germans, attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Berlin's declaration of war in support of Tokyo was, at best, reluctant. Yet FDR had the vision and courage to support the anti-Hitler forces of freedom years before America joined the war. Violating international law, Uncle Sam armed Britain long before we took our rightful place at John Bull's side. When war came, FDR gave the fight against Germany priority over the war in the Pacific. And FDR was right. We conveniently forget that many Americans believed there was no justification for going to war with anybody, no matter how evil, prior to Dec. 7, 1941. It was none of our business. Hitler was only righting the injustice of Versailles . . . "But wait!" Clark's cappuccino commandos and the Deanie-weenies cry, "Even if Saddam did nasty things, we had no right to go to war without the approval of the international community!" Faculty-lounge nonsense. American policy can't depend on Belgium's blessing and the approval of Belarus. Do Dean and Clark really think Syria and Sudan are ever going to vote with us at the United Nations to overthrow a tyrant or to enforce respect for human rights? Gen. Clark is especially elusive here. He insists (except when he doesn't) that going to war against Saddam was wrong because it defied the will of his beloved international community and broke with "accepted" laws on sovereignty. Yet Gen. Clark (and the Democratic Party) was all for going to war to protect the people of Kosovo from Milosevic, even though far fewer Kosovars had been killed by the Serbs than Iraqis were slaughtered by Saddam. And Milosevic, though a vile creature, never attacked neighboring states beyond the boundaries of the former Yugoslavia. Slobo was a sissy compared to Saddam. So why was Belgrade a legitimate target, while Baghdad was off-limits? Because NATO's bureaucrats in uniform said so? Certainly, it was right to protect the people of Kosovo. But why was that a just war, while Operation Iraqi Freedom was, in Gen. Clark's view, a mistake? Because his morally perfect European friends were sick of refugees from the Balkans? Did the Democrats only support the campaign in Kosovo because it was Clinton's political property? Must they reject the elimination of Saddam's monstrous regime solely because the initiative belonged to President Bush? Was Gen. Clark so determined to "get" Milosevic because he harbored the sort of personal grudge the Democrats ascribe to the Bush family in relation to Saddam? Or are the Dems simply racists when it comes to wars of liberation? Was intervention in the Balkans necessary because the victims were white? Were the lives of half a million Iraqi citizens slaughtered in cold blood by Saddam's regime, as well as the lives of the 1.5 million to 2 million Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis who died in Saddam's wars of aggression, simply not as valuable as the lives of a few thousand Europeans? Do Democrats secretly place a higher value on the life of a Bosnian than on that of an Iraqi Shi'a? Does Gen. Clark assign greater worth to the lives of Kosovars than to the lives of Kurds? Why don't Democrats ever mention the mass graves in Iraq? Or the relief the overwhelming majority of Iraqis feel at living to see the end of the Ba'athist regime? Yes, there's a difference between deposing Hitler and getting rid of Saddam: The people of Iraq welcomed liberation, while the Germans resented it. If the Democrats are unaware of their inconsistencies on such issues, then they are dangerously naive and irresponsible. If they're simply ignoring the truth for political ends, then they are immoral. In neither case should they be entrusted with America's foreign policy. Democrats' rhetoric about Iraq is one big lie of omission. Taking Bush to task for our failure to uncover stockpiles of WMD, they conveniently forget that Saddam's regime, like Hitler's, was itself a huge weapon of mass destruction. Perhaps I'm not as intellectually sophisticated as Dean or Clark, but I don't see the difference between gassed Jews and gassed Kurds. Or is freedom only for white folks, privileged blacks and soccer moms? We tell our children that they should have the courage to do what's right, even if it alienates their classmates. Should we demand less of our government? Should Washington turn a blind eye to massacre and oppression for the sake of remaining a member of the international in-crowd? Or should we have the courage to stand alone and lead when our cause is just? Those who argue that deposing Saddam was wrong are the equivalent of apologists for Hitler. One has increasing difficulty telling the difference between Gov. Dean and Prime Minister Chamberlain, between Gen. Clark and his role model, Marshal Petain. Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace," released this week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoppanils Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 2 things:1. What would the author of the article say about the GOP's resistance to the US intervention in Serbia?2. There are equal atrocities occuring around the world. Congo. Zimbabwe. Why just Iraq? Why Iraq over other nations/conflicts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mursa Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 How about China or even Saudi Arabia who comit human crimes and opression every single day ?? LETS BOMB EM TOO !!! I think the Hypocrits are amongs us . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank4g63 Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 the part where the author likened Saddam to Hitler is where I stopped reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mursa Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 blah blah blah , more republican propoganda . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted October 1 Author Report Share Posted October 1 Originally posted by mursa blah blah blah , more republican propoganda . My suggestion is to email the author, and debate him....He is very responsive to well constructed mail...And BTW--I would check out Ralph Peters and his past articles and positions before you moronically label his opinion as "republican propoganda"...If you have the competence to articulate a well thought out position to counter his, I challenge you to email him......If he responds, please publish his answer...I am sure all of us here would enjoy reading it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seximofo2k Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 Another polite and mature response from igloo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted October 2 Report Share Posted October 2 Originally posted by seximofo2k Another polite and mature response from igloo ACTUALLY.....it was Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoppanils Posted October 2 Report Share Posted October 2 Originally posted by mrmatas2277 ACTUALLY.....it was mofo....thats about as polite as he gets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.