Why They Hate W

[igloo]

WHY THEY HATE W

By RALPH PETERS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email Archives

Print Reprint

November 18, 2003 -- THIS week, TV screens will fill with protests against American policy. As President Bush visits Britain, European leftists will gather to denounce him as a threat to world peace. Mock courts will judge our president and find him guilty on every wild charge. But the most instructive demonstrations will be those that won't happen.

We won't hear a word about Saddam's tyranny, about his wars or the mass graves still being unearthed. No demonstrator will celebrate the liberation of 25 million people.

All we'll hear from the streets is that Bush is bad.

No protesters will chant about the Iraqi families sundered, the fathers tortured and shot, the daughters and wives raped, the use of poison gas against the Kurds or the million-and-a-half Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis who died in Saddam's wars.

Bush is worse than Saddam, you see, because he refused to look the other way. His resolve is an embarrassment.

American wars of liberation humiliate the complainers on the left. We've seized their professed ideals and made them a reality. We fought for freedom, while they only chattered. Their protests are the result of wounded egos.

During the Cold War, America was mocked for its ill-judged support of dictators because they were "our dictators." Now our government has left the distortions of the past behind and returned to America's traditional role of championing freedom. And look how the tables have turned.

Europe's left so hates America and all it stands for that the dictators have become "their dictators." Of course, European intellectuals supported Stalin, too. But it can only amaze anyone who believes in elementary human rights that America is pilloried for putting an end to a murderous regime.

On one level, the European left's protests against all things American are understandable. We won, they lost. All their cherished rhetoric led only to the Gulag in the East and to bankrupt welfare states in the West. Now, the East, where terror reigned, aligns with America, further angering the West Europeans who lived on credit for the past 50 years, loafing in the shade of America's might.

President Bush is an especially appealing target for their scorn, since he's the least European U.S. president since Andrew Jackson. Bush speaks awkwardly, but acts powerfully. The European ideal is a politician who speaks beautifully and does nothing.

As the protesters parade in front of the cameras, Americans should be proud of the great thing we've done in Iraq. We haven't done it perfectly, but perfection isn't a common human trait. We've served the cause of freedom, even as "Old Europe" accused us of fabricated sins.

What have we really done?

* We faced up to our historical and moral responsibilities by removing Saddam from power. Although our past role has been exaggerated, we foolishly supported him in the 1980s. Thus, we had a special responsibility to liberate Iraq (the Europeans bear as much guilt or more, but preferred to keep doing business with Saddam).

* We're giving long-oppressed Arabs and Kurds a chance to build a rule-of-law democracy. There are no guarantees that they'll succeed in the end. But simply giving them a chance is more than anyone else has ever done for them.

* We've created the possibility of a Middle Eastern success story, of an Arab-majority state that respects its citizens and honors basic freedoms. This is vital. Behind all their f*****sh accusations against us, Arabs fear they may be incompetent to build a modern, democratic state. We've made a noble effort to plant a garden of freedom amid the briars of oppression. No soldier's life has been lost in vain. Our cause is worthy of comparison with America's finest hours.

Of course, we face no end of criticism, beginning with the complaint that no weapons of mass destruction have been found (would it have better pleased the protesters had WMD been found?). Ultimately, this is a minor matter, amplified by the administration's tactical error of using the WMD issue as its public rationale for war.

Had we stressed the need to remove Saddam in the cause of human rights, it would have been much harder for cynical European governments to oppose us. They would have opposed us, anyway. But at least we would have embarrassed them.

Leftists love to retreat into false comparisons, asking, with a smirk, why we chose to depose Saddam when there are plenty of other dictators in the world. It was only because of oil, they insist, ignoring the fact that we'll never recoup our financial investment in Iraq's future.

Why Iraq? Because it was doable, while North Korea isn't. Because we bore a special responsibility, due to our bygone support for the Baghdad regime. Because Saddam had launched wars of aggression unmatched by other contemporary dictators. Because he did seek weapons of mass destruction. Because the situation in Iraq continued to worsen. And because you have to start somewhere.

No coward has ever been short of good reasons for doing nothing.

AS with Islamic terrorism, European protests against our actions in Iraq are not so much about us as about the protesters' own demons. The current French and German gloating over their belief that we're trapped in a quagmire against which they oh-so-wisely warned us is as shabby as it's fundamentally wrong.

We aren't trapped in a quagmire in Iraq. But the European left is trapped in a quagmire of failure, mendacity and guilt.

How could they not hate the land of the free? Whether we speak of America or Iraq.

Retired Army officer Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad."

[jamiroguy1]

This editorial is full of hate and aims to stifle debate.

[igloo]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

This editorial is full of hate and aims to stifle debate.

:bored:

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

This editorial is full of hate and aims to stifle debate.

You have ZERO argument. Ralh Peters pulled your card and you are speechless... Debate one thing in the article that doesn't make peferct sense. You hippies can't get past the concrete operational stage where a hypothetical scenario is virtually impossible to imagine. SIMPLETON is the correct adjective, a person who can't fathom going to war to dimish the terroism by attacking the promblem of OPPRESSIVE REGIMES THAT SUPPORT TERRORISM AND BREED ANT-AMERICANISM for further grabs at power..

This part below shows the HYPOCRISY of the left's argument..

No protesters will chant about the Iraqi families sundered, the fathers tortured and shot, the daughters and wives raped, the use of poison gas against the Kurds or the million-and-a-half Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis who died in Saddam's wars.

The guy is on point!

[igloo]

Originally posted by mr mahs

You have ZERO argument. Ralh Peters pulled your card and you are speechless... Debate one thing in the article that doesn't make peferct sense. You hippies can't get past the concrete operational stage where a hypothetical scenario is virtually impossible to imagine. SIMPLETON is the correct adjective, a person who can't fathom going to war to dimish the terroism by attacking the promblem of OPPRESSIVE REGIMES THAT SUPPORT TERRORISM AND BREED ANT-AMERICANISM for further grabs at power..

This part below shows the HYPOCRISY of the left's argument..

No protesters will chant about the Iraqi families sundered, the fathers tortured and shot, the daughters and wives raped, the use of poison gas against the Kurds or the million-and-a-half Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis who died in Saddam's wars.

The guy is on point!

To support your point about how lost these morons are, this was my favorite from my other post:

"We really want to stop Bush and Blair from going around killing babies," she said. "Our objective is to force the U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan."

But what if a U.S. withdrawal means the return of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein?

"Anything would be better than American Imperialist rule," she snapped back.

[starvingartist]

There are so many things wrong with that article I havent the faintest idea where to begin. Ok let's start with the title which is why they hate W. The entire article fails to encompass the myriad of sentiments felt around the globe towards the U.S. in particular the Bush family.

Brief synopsis what does this war mean to the rest of the world? Well America can be your ally and support you one day and the next it will take it upon itself to use armed force for your country to change it's government as is to fit what Americans believe is "the right way to govern". That means no one is free from the potential seizure of power by force from the U.S. It also means that the very world organizations founded by the U.S. and the regulations are meaningless because the U.S. does not follow them. Chaos that stretches far beyond the terrorist attacks. When the attacked takes the offensive it begins making unwarranted or justifiable attacks on the rest of the world. Bush is the top proponent for war and therefore he is hated. Hated because selfish interests are at the heart of the attack on Iraq. Anyone who begs to differ is niave or has trouble seeing the issue from the outside in. Yes the article mentions the lack of proof which may seem to be minisicule to Americans but not to Irag and other foreign countries. It means the war was fought on speculation alone, how many more wars is the U.S. willing to fight on speculation? And if finding the terrorists was also an objective, well all that was accomplished was the creation of more hatred towards Americans, the same hatred that breeds terrorism. Further if the freedom of the Iraqis was the main issue it still remains to be seen if they are in fact "free" and will remain that way. it can also be said if freedom was the main goal, then war was unnecessary and the use of force was uncalled for. That is why the fact that there was no immediate threat from Irag (no wmd found), is at the forefront of everyones mind and the resons for the on-going criticism of w and u.s. in general.

[jamiroguy1]

Originally posted by mr mahs

You have ZERO argument. Ralh Peters pulled your card and you are speechless... Debate one thing in the article that doesn't make peferct sense. You hippies can't get past the concrete operational stage where a hypothetical scenario is virtually impossible to imagine. SIMPLETON is the correct adjective, a person who can't fathom going to war to dimish the terroism by attacking the promblem of OPPRESSIVE REGIMES THAT SUPPORT TERRORISM AND BREED ANT-AMERICANISM for further grabs at power..

This part below shows the HYPOCRISY of the left's argument..

No protesters will chant about the Iraqi families sundered, the fathers tortured and shot, the daughters and wives raped, the use of poison gas against the Kurds or the million-and-a-half Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis who died in Saddam's wars.

The guy is on point!

Pu-lease... this right wing propaganda isn't even worth a response.

[xpyrate]

Originally posted by starvingartist

There are so many things wrong with that article I havent the faintest idea where to begin. Ok let's start with the title which is why they hate W. The entire article fails to encompass the myriad of sentiments felt around the globe towards the U.S. in particular the Bush family.

Brief synopsis what does this war mean to the rest of the world? Well America can be your ally and support you one day and the next it will take it upon itself to use armed force for your country to change it's government as is to fit what Americans believe is "the right way to govern". That means no one is free from the potential seizure of power by force from the U.S. It also means that the very world organizations founded by the U.S. and the regulations are meaningless because the U.S. does not follow them. Chaos that stretches far beyond the terrorist attacks. When the attacked takes the offensive it begins making unwarranted or justifiable attacks on the rest of the world. Bush is the top proponent for war and therefore he is hated. Hated because selfish interests are at the heart of the attack on Iraq. Anyone who begs to differ is niave or has trouble seeing the issue from the outside in. Yes the article mentions the lack of proof which may seem to be minisicule to Americans but not to Irag and other foreign countries. It means the war was fought on speculation alone, how many more wars is the U.S. willing to fight on speculation? And if finding the terrorists was also an objective, well all that was accomplished was the creation of more hatred towards Americans, the same hatred that breeds terrorism. Further if the freedom of the Iraqis was the main issue it still remains to be seen if they are in fact "free" and will remain that way. it can also be said if freedom was the main goal, then war was unnecessary and the use of force was uncalled for. That is why the fact that there was no immediate threat from Irag (no wmd found), is at the forefront of everyones mind and the resons for the on-going criticism of w and u.s. in general.

Becareful when using logic and rational thought around igloo it tends to get him a little aggitated

[normalnoises]

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

Pu-lease... this right wing propaganda isn't even worth a response.

No argument because you can't>>

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by normalnoises

shit for brains

[igloo]

Originally posted by xpyrate

Becareful when using logic and rational thought around igloo it tends to get him a little aggitated

IMBECILE ALERT!!!IMBECILE ALERT!!!

[normalnoises]

Originally posted by mr mahs

shit for brains

It takes someone with shit for brains to have an avitar showing a gun that's pointed in the direction of Bush in their sig.

How do you brainwash an Italian?

Give him an enema.

I'm sure Igloo gives you great enemas.

Why is Italy shaped like a boot?

Do you think they could fit all that shit in a tennis shoe?

What is Sicily?

The shit that fell out.

What is Sicily's greatest contribution to our world history?

Proof shit floats.

Apparently one of it's morsels floated here and reproduced and it's offspring is currently posting under the sn of mr mahs on clubplanet.com.

What do you call an Italian with an I.Q. of 180?

Sicily.

No wonder you're a simpleton.

What's an innuendo?

An Italian suppository.

Must be igloos mingia uppa u ass.

What is mr mahs greatest contrubition to clubplanet.com?

Proof Italians have shit for brains.

[kramadas]

Originally posted by starvingartist

There are so many things wrong with that article I havent the faintest idea where to begin. Ok let's start with the title which is why they hate W. The entire article fails to encompass the myriad of sentiments felt around the globe towards the U.S. in particular the Bush family.

Brief synopsis what does this war mean to the rest of the world? Well America can be your ally and support you one day and the next it will take it upon itself to use armed force for your country to change it's government as is to fit what Americans believe is "the right way to govern". That means no one is free from the potential seizure of power by force from the U.S. It also means that the very world organizations founded by the U.S. and the regulations are meaningless because the U.S. does not follow them. Chaos that stretches far beyond the terrorist attacks. When the attacked takes the offensive it begins making unwarranted or justifiable attacks on the rest of the world. Bush is the top proponent for war and therefore he is hated. Hated because selfish interests are at the heart of the attack on Iraq. Anyone who begs to differ is niave or has trouble seeing the issue from the outside in. Yes the article mentions the lack of proof which may seem to be minisicule to Americans but not to Irag and other foreign countries. It means the war was fought on speculation alone, how many more wars is the U.S. willing to fight on speculation? And if finding the terrorists was also an objective, well all that was accomplished was the creation of more hatred towards Americans, the same hatred that breeds terrorism. Further if the freedom of the Iraqis was the main issue it still remains to be seen if they are in fact "free" and will remain that way. it can also be said if freedom was the main goal, then war was unnecessary and the use of force was uncalled for. That is why the fact that there was no immediate threat from Irag (no wmd found), is at the forefront of everyones mind and the resons for the on-going criticism of w and u.s. in general.

nice!

I totally support the humanitarian reasons for going to war, though - however, those reasons would have meant shit if not supported by reasons of national interest.

I guess this is my take - you went to war, fine. But stand up to the heat and don't make it seem the main reason you went into Iraq was to "save the Iraqi people".

[cintron]

the fact is, a lot of people protest against bush because he IS an embarrasment. he's kicked over every rock in the world and people think that's making us look bad.

i still dont like him and i think he's a fucking moron, but the article is right. we've got to start somewhere. setting a precedent is difficult, but that's what we did.

i'm sure north korea shat their pants when they realized we actually were going to invade iraq. look at how they've been clamoring for a non-aggression treaty from us. they know we're fully capable of kicking their loudmouth ass into next week and they're admitting that they're scared we might actually do it.

[kramadas]

Originally posted by cintron

the fact is, a lot of people protest against bush because he IS an embarrasment. he's kicked over every rock in the world and people think that's making us look bad.

i still dont like him and i think he's a fucking moron, but the article is right. we've got to start somewhere. setting a precedent is difficult, but that's what we did.

i'm sure north korea shat their pants when they realized we actually were going to invade iraq. look at how they've been clamoring for a non-aggression treaty from us. they know we're fully capable of kicking their loudmouth ass into next week and they're admitting that they're scared we might actually do it.

Actually, they've been asking for a non-aggression treaty even before Iraq was invaded. They just don't want to give up their nuclear weapons (like Iraq) since then they won't have that extra bargaining chip. It does act as a deterrant of sorts.

[marksimons]

yeah, iraq - no nukes - invaded

north korea - nukes - not invaded

simple really

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by marksimons

yeah, iraq - no nukes - invaded

north korea - nukes - not invaded

simple really

So do you think the U.S and Britain should invade North Korea?

[marksimons]

no, I just think that their whole rhetoric about weapons of mass destruction was balls.

it's about oil and power, and privatising iraqi infastructure.

it's not humanitarian, it's not about democracy, it's not about helping the iraqi people.

it's about the corporate bottom line and securing america's much needed oil supplies.

north korea, fuck knows what to do with that state, but it needs something doing to it, but invasion wouldn't work, neither would air strikes, for the retaliation would be very brutal to south korea.

no, I get the feeling that so long as north korea keeps only hurting it's own people then the world will do nothing.

the problem is that this whole situation is fucked up, political ideologies helped create and sustain the regime in north korea, the west helped keep saddam in power...

it's fucked up.

but no-one seems to want to commit to a real un peacekeeping, country saving force...

if I could actually order such things I'd have liked to have been able to get rid of saddam, but you could do it without the occupation, I would point to the way the CIA managed to take down the billionaire drug dealer Pablo Escobar, he basically had an army and a country to hide in, saddam could have been deposed of the same way, but then the precious oil and infastructure couldn't be had...

[cintron]

Originally posted by marksimons

it's about oil and power, and privatising iraqi infastructure.

it's not humanitarian, it's not about democracy, it's not about helping the iraqi people.

it's about the corporate bottom line and securing america's much needed oil supplies.

man, no offense but i've had it with this argument. People are going to chant that about america no matter what we do because to the rest of the world we're one big greedy corporate oil grubbing monster.

you know what, fuck you. We're over there getting soldiers killed every day because we thought we had a duty to do in kicking a badboy dictator out who was causing us problems and acting like a jackass to the international community.

We aren't pumping their oil out of the ground and shipping it straight to our shores. We're going to buy it on the market just like everyone else. Then again, at the rate the terrorists keep blasting holes in the pipelines, i don't think ANY oil is going to get exported. Basically they're fucking THEMSELVES because that oil is what's going to get THEIR ass out of the massive international debt they need to pay, thanks to Saddam and the fifty palaces he built for himself with the oil-for-food money that was supposed to go to rebuilding his own economy.

Iraq needs infastructure. it needs a power grid, it needs water mains, it needs all those things that we take for granted. who are we going to send to do all that, Joe the Plumber?

NO. you send a company or COMPANIES that have the resources to build it. You give them a contract, you say 'BUILD' and they do it.

people diss america's efforts because they think we're there for our own good. I won't admit some things we do work out to our benefit - but name me one country who wouldn't do the same if they were in our shoes. I"d like to see France fork over 87 billion to help rebuild Iraq's infastructure and then say "no, we don't want anything in return. Nothing at all. We're doing what Jesus would do."

Don't criticize the man in the arena. I don't see france or germany losing soldiers and billions of dollars to rebuild a country that is still not going to be their own at the end of everything.

Much as i disagree with bush's cowboy tactics, we still made a promise to fix everything we broke and make it better than before we arrived. If we bail out now, then we are setting a horrible precedent for the rest of the arab world.

They're shooting at us now because they believe the same bullshit that you believe. That we're there to steal the oil. That we're there to expand US imperialism. That we're there to steal and loot and pillage from the Iraqi people.

motherfucker, we forked over 87 billion, and that's not paying for the "Steal from Iraq" fund. Maybe if more people believed that, or at least were patient and worked with the US to help build something meaningful over there, then this world could get somewhere.

...because those thousands of people in london chanting against bush and toppling mock statues are REALLY doing something to help make the world a safer, better place.

[jamiroguy1]

[cintron]

go ahead and roll your eyes. you probably didnt' read a thing i just wrote.

i challenge you to go pay your respects to one of the dead soldiers caskets and say outloud to everyone present that their son or daughter died because the united states is wrong and the motherfucker that blew them up or shot them is only doing what any reasonable person would do.

next time write a real reply.

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by cintron

man, no offense but i've had it with this argument. People are going to chant that about america no matter what we do because to the rest of the world we're one big greedy corporate oil grubbing monster.

you know what, fuck you. We're over there getting soldiers killed every day because we thought we had a duty to do in kicking a badboy dictator out who was causing us problems and acting like a jackass to the international community.

We aren't pumping their oil out of the ground and shipping it straight to our shores. We're going to buy it on the market just like everyone else. Then again, at the rate the terrorists keep blasting holes in the pipelines, i don't think ANY oil is going to get exported. Basically they're fucking THEMSELVES because that oil is what's going to get THEIR ass out of the massive international debt they need to pay, thanks to Saddam and the fifty palaces he built for himself with the oil-for-food money that was supposed to go to rebuilding his own economy.

Iraq needs infastructure. it needs a power grid, it needs water mains, it needs all those things that we take for granted. who are we going to send to do all that, Joe the Plumber?

NO. you send a company or COMPANIES that have the resources to build it. You give them a contract, you say 'BUILD' and they do it.

people diss america's efforts because they think we're there for our own good. I won't admit some things we do work out to our benefit - but name me one country who wouldn't do the same if they were in our shoes. I"d like to see France fork over 87 billion to help rebuild Iraq's infastructure and then say "no, we don't want anything in return. Nothing at all. We're doing what Jesus would do."

Don't criticize the man in the arena. I don't see france or germany losing soldiers and billions of dollars to rebuild a country that is still not going to be their own at the end of everything.

Much as i disagree with bush's cowboy tactics, we still made a promise to fix everything we broke and make it better than before we arrived. If we bail out now, then we are setting a horrible precedent for the rest of the arab world.

They're shooting at us now because they believe the same bullshit that you believe. That we're there to steal the oil. That we're there to expand US imperialism. That we're there to steal and loot and pillage from the Iraqi people.

motherfucker, we forked over 87 billion, and that's not paying for the "Steal from Iraq" fund. Maybe if more people believed that, or at least were patient and worked with the US to help build something meaningful over there, then this world could get somewhere.

...because those thousands of people in london chanting against bush and toppling mock statues are REALLY doing something to help make the world a safer, better place.

:aright:

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

You revert to those GHEY smileys when you're speechless..

I will challenge you AGAIN like I did for the RALPH PETERS article Igloo posted... to debate one thing Cinton wrote who is NOT a cheerleader for the team Bush..

You granola crunchers are pathetic

[igloo]

Originally posted by cintron

man, no offense but i've had it with this argument. People are going to chant that about america no matter what we do because to the rest of the world we're one big greedy corporate oil grubbing monster.

you know what, fuck you. We're over there getting soldiers killed every day because we thought we had a duty to do in kicking a badboy dictator out who was causing us problems and acting like a jackass to the international community.

We aren't pumping their oil out of the ground and shipping it straight to our shores. We're going to buy it on the market just like everyone else. Then again, at the rate the terrorists keep blasting holes in the pipelines, i don't think ANY oil is going to get exported. Basically they're fucking THEMSELVES because that oil is what's going to get THEIR ass out of the massive international debt they need to pay, thanks to Saddam and the fifty palaces he built for himself with the oil-for-food money that was supposed to go to rebuilding his own economy.

Iraq needs infastructure. it needs a power grid, it needs water mains, it needs all those things that we take for granted. who are we going to send to do all that, Joe the Plumber?

NO. you send a company or COMPANIES that have the resources to build it. You give them a contract, you say 'BUILD' and they do it.

people diss america's efforts because they think we're there for our own good. I won't admit some things we do work out to our benefit - but name me one country who wouldn't do the same if they were in our shoes. I"d like to see France fork over 87 billion to help rebuild Iraq's infastructure and then say "no, we don't want anything in return. Nothing at all. We're doing what Jesus would do."

Don't criticize the man in the arena. I don't see france or germany losing soldiers and billions of dollars to rebuild a country that is still not going to be their own at the end of everything.

Much as i disagree with bush's cowboy tactics, we still made a promise to fix everything we broke and make it better than before we arrived. If we bail out now, then we are setting a horrible precedent for the rest of the arab world.

They're shooting at us now because they believe the same bullshit that you believe. That we're there to steal the oil. That we're there to expand US imperialism. That we're there to steal and loot and pillage from the Iraqi people.

motherfucker, we forked over 87 billion, and that's not paying for the "Steal from Iraq" fund. Maybe if more people believed that, or at least were patient and worked with the US to help build something meaningful over there, then this world could get somewhere.

...because those thousands of people in london chanting against bush and toppling mock statues are REALLY doing something to help make the world a safer, better place.

CIntron,

Good post

I still disagree with you about Bush the Cowboy (most is a media hyped, leftist-European elitist charge to diminish the reality that this underestimated Texan was a leader during a changed time where the status quo needed to be challenged and reformed)

But good job using the lost art of common sense, especially to those who continually look to conspiracy theories of bad U.S. intent as a platform for their baseless views.