| GREG-STRANGE.COM |
"If you haven't found something strange during the
day, it hasn't been much of a day." -- John A. Wheeler
day, it hasn't been much of a day." -- John A. Wheeler
PROVIDING SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTARY ON THE
PEOPLE, POLITICS, EVENTS AND ABSURDITIES OF
OUR TIME. SERVED UP WITH ACERBIC WIT, YOU
SHOULD FIND IT QUITE SATISFYING.
PEOPLE, POLITICS, EVENTS AND ABSURDITIES OF
OUR TIME. SERVED UP WITH ACERBIC WIT, YOU
SHOULD FIND IT QUITE SATISFYING.
The Enemies of Democracy
“Let [President] Bush, [and British Prime Minister Tony]
Blair . . . know that we are the enemies of democracy.” ---
Statement by al-Qaida, according to an Associated Press
translation, following the recent election in Iraq.
Well, thanks a heap for that clarification, al-Qaida. Some
among us--specifically, the “War never solved anything”
crowd--had no idea. Enemies of democracy, huh? No kidding?
News flash for Michael Moore: the “insurgents” fighting in Iraq
aren’t really the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers
after all. And Abu Musab al-Zarqawi isn’t really an Iraqi
patriot fighting for freedom against imperialist aggressors.
Come to think of it, Zarqawi isn’t Iraqi, period. He’s a
Palestinian-Jordanian, so his cause has absolutely nothing to
do with Iraqi patriotism. What it has to do with is an insane
aversion to modernity, freedom and anything non-Islamic, any
or all of which if tolerated, might actually contribute to
bringing the Middle East out of the Dark Ages.
So of course Zarqawi was vehemently opposed to elections
in Iraq. Why give Iraqis a chance for freedom, progress and
prosperity when Baathist/Islamic fascism is so much more of a
hoot? Right before the election he declared that anyone who
votes in it is an infidel. Then immediately after the election he
said, “These elections and their results will not affect us in the
al-Qaida in Iraq but will increase our strength and intention to
getting rid of injustice.”
It is difficult to take seriously talk of “getting rid of
injustice” when it comes from someone whose organization
recruited (or tricked?) a teenager with Down’s syndrome into
becoming a suicide bomber on election day. It doesn’t get
much more depraved than that, but such is life on planet
Zarqawi-bunga. Still, Iraqis turned out to vote in greater
numbers than Americans usually do, even spitting on the dead
body of a failed suicide bomber as they stepped around it on
their way into one polling place.
Given the relative success of the Iraqi election and given the
aforementioned al-Qaida/Zarqawi statements about “enemies
of democracy,“ etc., one has to wonder if the antiwar
contingent, both in the U.S. and around the world, has yet
begun to get even the slightest clue as to what this war is all
about and why it is so justified.
Forget about weapons of mass destruction. And no, it wasn’t
a grand Republican lie. It was a colossal intelligence failure,
but one that was made by every other organization of spooks in
the civilized world. But it was never, ever offered as the sole
reason for going into Iraq. The reason WMD was emphasized
above all else was because the Bush administration understood
it was the only reason that wasn’t dismissed out of hand in the
narrow and timid minds of the vaunted international
community. For anyone who honestly cannot comprehend
what other legitimate reasons there could have been, here’s a
brief primer:
1) Umpteen willful violations of UN resolutions by Saddam;
2) constant destabilization of the region by Saddam; 3) the
huge cost of maintaining the no-fly zones indefinitely, all
because of Saddam; 4) the bragged about payment of large
rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers by
Saddam; 5) mass graves, rape rooms, torture dungeons, all
constituting crimes against humanity by Saddam; 6) psychotic,
kill-crazy sons of Saddam poised and ready to continue their
father’s legacy in perpetuity.
Notice a pattern? Saddam was rather a bad actor, though
the UN and its fawning admirers never regarded his
performance as bad enough to forcibly yank him offstage. But
by any standard of morality or legality, we had every right to
remove him and if the coalition of the unwilling had any
reasonable sense of morality themselves, they would have, at
the very least, not objected.
But beyond correcting the items on the list above, there was
another more far-reaching objective behind the overthrow of
Saddam. If you want the Middle East to ever cease being the
world’s incubator for apocalyptic Islamic terrorism, the
fundamental nature of the region has to be changed. And why
start with Iraq? Because, as cited above, by any standard of
morality or legality, we had every right to remove Saddam. So
the idea was that once he’s out of the way, some semblance of
democracy gets established in Iraq and that’s the necessary
foot in the door to changing the entire region.
Bush-haters, pacifists and apologists for Western
civilization will want to know what gives America the right to
forcibly change a region on the other side of the world. It’s very
simple. Apocalyptic Islamic terrorism is what gives America
the right. No rational argument can be made for doing nothing
significant to prevent barbarians from committing acts of mass
murder and vandalism on a scale that threatens the civilized
world.
But it’s not only good for us, it’s good for the citizens of that
region as well. If given a choice between a) the status quo in
the Middle East; b) the lunacy of bin Ladenism; or c) peace,
freedom and prosperity, which do you think the Arab masses
would choose? If you say anything other than “c” you are
basically saying the Arab people as a whole are incapable of
rationality, which makes them some sort of inferior breed of
people, which doesn’t exactly fall within the usual parameters
of politically correct speech so adored by the war-hating left.
Besides being plotters of apocalyptic Islamic terrorism--as
if that isn’t enough--al-Qaida has explicitly stated that they are
the enemies of democracy. When given the chance, the Iraqi
people turned out in droves to vote anyway, even at the threat
of death. They obviously want something different than what
has been forced upon them for so long. It is only reasonable to
assume that other people in the Middle East would welcome
the same chance also. How much clearer does it have to be for
the “War never solved anything” crowd?
“Let [President] Bush, [and British Prime Minister Tony]
Blair . . . know that we are the enemies of democracy.” ---
Statement by al-Qaida, according to an Associated Press
translation, following the recent election in Iraq.
Well, thanks a heap for that clarification, al-Qaida. Some
among us--specifically, the “War never solved anything”
crowd--had no idea. Enemies of democracy, huh? No kidding?
News flash for Michael Moore: the “insurgents” fighting in Iraq
aren’t really the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers
after all. And Abu Musab al-Zarqawi isn’t really an Iraqi
patriot fighting for freedom against imperialist aggressors.
Come to think of it, Zarqawi isn’t Iraqi, period. He’s a
Palestinian-Jordanian, so his cause has absolutely nothing to
do with Iraqi patriotism. What it has to do with is an insane
aversion to modernity, freedom and anything non-Islamic, any
or all of which if tolerated, might actually contribute to
bringing the Middle East out of the Dark Ages.
So of course Zarqawi was vehemently opposed to elections
in Iraq. Why give Iraqis a chance for freedom, progress and
prosperity when Baathist/Islamic fascism is so much more of a
hoot? Right before the election he declared that anyone who
votes in it is an infidel. Then immediately after the election he
said, “These elections and their results will not affect us in the
al-Qaida in Iraq but will increase our strength and intention to
getting rid of injustice.”
It is difficult to take seriously talk of “getting rid of
injustice” when it comes from someone whose organization
recruited (or tricked?) a teenager with Down’s syndrome into
becoming a suicide bomber on election day. It doesn’t get
much more depraved than that, but such is life on planet
Zarqawi-bunga. Still, Iraqis turned out to vote in greater
numbers than Americans usually do, even spitting on the dead
body of a failed suicide bomber as they stepped around it on
their way into one polling place.
Given the relative success of the Iraqi election and given the
aforementioned al-Qaida/Zarqawi statements about “enemies
of democracy,“ etc., one has to wonder if the antiwar
contingent, both in the U.S. and around the world, has yet
begun to get even the slightest clue as to what this war is all
about and why it is so justified.
Forget about weapons of mass destruction. And no, it wasn’t
a grand Republican lie. It was a colossal intelligence failure,
but one that was made by every other organization of spooks in
the civilized world. But it was never, ever offered as the sole
reason for going into Iraq. The reason WMD was emphasized
above all else was because the Bush administration understood
it was the only reason that wasn’t dismissed out of hand in the
narrow and timid minds of the vaunted international
community. For anyone who honestly cannot comprehend
what other legitimate reasons there could have been, here’s a
brief primer:
1) Umpteen willful violations of UN resolutions by Saddam;
2) constant destabilization of the region by Saddam; 3) the
huge cost of maintaining the no-fly zones indefinitely, all
because of Saddam; 4) the bragged about payment of large
rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers by
Saddam; 5) mass graves, rape rooms, torture dungeons, all
constituting crimes against humanity by Saddam; 6) psychotic,
kill-crazy sons of Saddam poised and ready to continue their
father’s legacy in perpetuity.
Notice a pattern? Saddam was rather a bad actor, though
the UN and its fawning admirers never regarded his
performance as bad enough to forcibly yank him offstage. But
by any standard of morality or legality, we had every right to
remove him and if the coalition of the unwilling had any
reasonable sense of morality themselves, they would have, at
the very least, not objected.
But beyond correcting the items on the list above, there was
another more far-reaching objective behind the overthrow of
Saddam. If you want the Middle East to ever cease being the
world’s incubator for apocalyptic Islamic terrorism, the
fundamental nature of the region has to be changed. And why
start with Iraq? Because, as cited above, by any standard of
morality or legality, we had every right to remove Saddam. So
the idea was that once he’s out of the way, some semblance of
democracy gets established in Iraq and that’s the necessary
foot in the door to changing the entire region.
Bush-haters, pacifists and apologists for Western
civilization will want to know what gives America the right to
forcibly change a region on the other side of the world. It’s very
simple. Apocalyptic Islamic terrorism is what gives America
the right. No rational argument can be made for doing nothing
significant to prevent barbarians from committing acts of mass
murder and vandalism on a scale that threatens the civilized
world.
But it’s not only good for us, it’s good for the citizens of that
region as well. If given a choice between a) the status quo in
the Middle East; b) the lunacy of bin Ladenism; or c) peace,
freedom and prosperity, which do you think the Arab masses
would choose? If you say anything other than “c” you are
basically saying the Arab people as a whole are incapable of
rationality, which makes them some sort of inferior breed of
people, which doesn’t exactly fall within the usual parameters
of politically correct speech so adored by the war-hating left.
Besides being plotters of apocalyptic Islamic terrorism--as
if that isn’t enough--al-Qaida has explicitly stated that they are
the enemies of democracy. When given the chance, the Iraqi
people turned out in droves to vote anyway, even at the threat
of death. They obviously want something different than what
has been forced upon them for so long. It is only reasonable to
assume that other people in the Middle East would welcome
the same chance also. How much clearer does it have to be for
the “War never solved anything” crowd?