SwiftVets.com

[fortdixlover]

On the folly of Kerry's anti-Bush appeasement platform. I find particularly interesting the observation that:

the third "no" (of the left) is that no human-rights high ground can be claimed by us regarding Saddam's torture chambers because we mistreated Iraqi prisoners. This equates sleep deprivation with life deprivation, illegal individual humiliation with official mass murder.

The leftist principle of "moral equivalency" is being used by Kerry regarding Iraq, and was used extensively regarding Vietnam - i.e., that the U.S. was as bad or worse as the enemy regarding the slaughter of civilians by the North Vietnamese. (of course, Kerry used an even older principle as well, that of the "Big Lie.")

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

The New York Times
May 19, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST

Sarin? What Sarin?

By WILLIAM SAFIRE

You probably missed the news because it didn't get much play, but a small, crude weapon of mass destruction may have been used by Saddam's terrorists in Iraq this week.

The apparent weapon was sarin gas, a highly toxic nerve agent that causes victims to choke to death. Developed by the Nazis, it has been used in the past by terrorists in Japan to kill a dozen subway riders and panic thousands, and by Saddam Hussein, who produced tons of it to kill Iraqi Kurds.

Rigged as an "improvised explosive device," or roadside bomb, the 155-millimeter howitzer shell was accidentally detonated by a U.S. ordnance team. Two men were treated for what an Army spokesman called "minor exposure" to the nerve gas.

You never saw such a rush to dismiss this as not news. U.N. weapons inspectors whose reputations rest on denial of Saddam's W.M.D. pooh-poohed the report. "It doesn't strike me as a big deal," said David Kay.

"Sarin Bomb Is Likely a Leftover From the 80's" was USA Today's Page 10 brushoff; maybe the terrorists didn't know their shell was loaded with sarin. Besides, say our lionized apostles of defeat, a poison-gas bomb does not a "stockpile" make. Even the Defense Department, on the defensive, strained not to appear alarmist, saying confirmation was needed for the field tests.

In this rush to misjudgment, we can see an example of the "Four Noes" that have become the defeatists' platform.

The first "no" is no stockpiles of W.M.D., used to justify the war, were found. With the qualifier "so far" left out, the absence of evidence is taken to be evidence of absence. In weeks or years to come — when the pendulum has swung, and it becomes newsworthy to show how cut-and-runners in 2004 were mistaken — logic suggests we will see a rash of articles and blockbuster books to that end.

These may well reveal the successful concealment of W.M.D., as well as prewar shipments thereof to Syria and plans for production and missile delivery, by Saddam's Special Republican Guard and fedayeen, as part of his planned guerrilla war — the grandmother of all battles. The present story line of "Saddam was stupid, fooled by his generals" would then be replaced by "Saddam was shrewder than we thought."

This will be especially true for bacteriological weapons, which are small and easier to hide. In a sovereign and free Iraq, when germ-warfare scientists are fearful of being tried as prewar criminals, their impetus will be to sing — and point to caches of anthrax and other mass killers.

Defeatism's second "no" is no connection was made between Saddam and Al Qaeda or any of its terrorist affiliates. This is asserted as revealed truth with great fervor, despite an extensive listing of communications and meetings between Iraqi officials and terrorists submitted to Congress months ago.

Most damning is the rise to terror's top rank of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who escaped Afghanistan to receive medical treatment in Baghdad. He joined Ansar al-Islam, a Qaeda offshoot whose presence in Iraq to murder Kurds at Saddam's behest was noted in this space in the weeks after 9/11. His activity in Iraq was cited by President Bush six months before our invasion. Osama's disciple Zarqawi is now thought to be the televised beheader of a captive American.

The third "no" is no human-rights high ground can be claimed by us regarding Saddam's torture chambers because we mistreated Iraqi prisoners. This equates sleep deprivation with life deprivation, illegal individual humiliation with official mass murder. We flagellate ourselves for mistreatment by a few of our guards, who will be punished; he delightedly oversaw the shoveling of 300,000 innocent Iraqis into unmarked graves. Iraqis know the difference.

The fourth "no" is no Arab nation is culturally ready for political freedom and our attempt to impose democracy in Iraq is arrogant Wilsonian idealism.

In coming years, this will be blasted by revisionist reportage as an ignoble ethnic-racist slur. Iraqis will gain the power, with our help, to put down the terrorists and find their own brand of political equilibrium.

Will today's defeatists then admit they were wrong? That's a fifth "no."

[ROTC DAD]

This is an opinion piece with just about every so-called "fact" stated in it being wrong.

Where to start: David Kay was the chief US Weapons Inspector for the CIA. He was not a UN Weapons Inspector as Safire tries to imply.

David Kay, chief US Weapons Inspector, has stated that he believes no WMD's shall be found.

Point 2) Even the President has stated that there was no connection between Al Qeada and Iraq. It is publiclly available information which can be found easily by anyone willing to look.

The stories of al-Zarqawi in Iraq for medical treatment all say he was there to have his leg amputated. Unless he's somehow learnt how to regrow limbs, that one is knocked down just by looking at any recent video of the man.

3) We are not talking about just abuse; we are talking about torture. We are talking about guards sodomizing 14 year old boys, about guards sodomizing prisoners, about killing prisoners in their charge, about taking people prisoner whose only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Safire's statements are just more idiot propaganda meant to distract people from the truth.

4) We plan to "impose democracy?" An interesting choice of phrase that!
You can't impose democracy.

I'm sure there will be some idiotic rebuttal about how this is all some leftist spin, but the facts as we presently know them bear out everything stated above. So go ahead.

[ROTC DAD]

This is an opinion piece with just about every so-called "fact" stated in it being wrong.

Where to start: David Kay was the chief US Weapons Inspector for the CIA. He was not a UN Weapons Inspector as Safire tries to imply.

David Kay, chief US Weapons Inspector, has stated that he believes no WMD's shall be found.

Point 2) Even the President has stated that there was no connection between Al Qeada and Iraq. It is publiclly available information which can be found easily by anyone willing to look.

The stories of al-Zarqawi in Iraq for medical treatment all say he was there to have his leg amputated. Unless he's somehow learnt how to regrow limbs, that one is knocked down just by looking at any recent video of the man.

3) We are not talking about just abuse; we are talking about torture. We are talking about guards sodomizing 14 year old boys, about guards sodomizing prisoners, about killing prisoners in their charge, about taking people prisoner whose only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Safire's statements are just more idiot propaganda meant to distract people from the truth.

4) We plan to "impose democracy?" An interesting choice of phrase that!
You can't impose democracy.

I'm sure there will be some idiotic rebuttal about how this is all some leftist spin, but the facts as we presently know them bear out everything stated above. So go ahead.

[Greenhat]

[ROTC DAD]

Well, I can't tell you anything about Thailand, so I'll take your word for it, but both Japan and Germany had democratic institutions before WWII. Admittedly, in the case of Japan, not full-blown ones, and in the case of Germany, one which was crippled by the reparation demands of WWI.

As for imposition of democracy - there need to be fundamental underlying principles in place to have Western Democracy, and we are talking about a Western-style Democracy, not an Iranian Theocracy. We could have democracy in Iraq tomorrow if it were only the concept of democracy, but that's not what we want, because if we did that we'd have Iran II.

[Greenhat]

Ever look at a list of democracies in the world today, Dad?

Do so, and find out how they became democracies. Might be enlightening.
_________________
De Oppresso Liber

[fortdixlover]

Let's play the game of "Let's be a Leftist!!!!!!!!!"

Behind Door #1:
There are no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. It is crystal clear that the only two WMDs left in the entire country were employed in the failed IED attacks involving sarin and mustard gas conducted in recent days !!!


Behind Door #2:
Nick Berg decapitation video declared "a fraud" by medical doctor: The first casualty of war is the truth and this one has been no exception. La Voz de Aztlan obtained a copy of the video showing the beheading of American Nick Berg of Philadelphia and immediately something very odd was readily apparent. Not only were the purported screams of Nick Berg not in synchrony with the decapitation but their was also a total lack of blood spurting out as his jugular and other veins and arteries were being cut. We forwarded the video to Doctor Raul Castro Guevara, a surgeon and forensic expert in Mexico City for his expert opinion. He wrote back and commented that there is no way that the individual in the video was alive and his heart pumping while his neck was being cut. The doctor adds that in these cases, while the heart is pumping, cutting a person's artery in the neck, would cause copious amounts of blood to spurt all over the immediate environment. He says that in his opinion the video is a fraud.

Behind Door #3:
Adolf Hitler would be proud that an American President is emulating him in so many ways. Hitler, it will be remembered, routinely ignored his military, other world leaders, and the clergy. Bush seems to think that this policy, which ultimately failed for Hitler, will work for him.


Which door shall we choose today, ROTC Dad? Pick the right one, and you win the super duper GRAND PRIZE! A week for two in sunny Pyongyang, N. Korea! (AUDIENCE APPLAUSE!!!!!)

[ROTC DAD]

Greenhat,

Which ones would you have me look at?

[Greenhat]

All of them. Everyone.
_________________
De Oppresso Liber

[ROTC DAD]

Every Democracy? Okay - England, Parliamentary System way back when. France - Democratic since forever. Germany- Already talked about. Italy - Democratic since the Roman Empire, then became a Monarchy and later returned to democracy. Switzerland - Democratic for a really long time. I know - Austro-Hungarian Empire - Democratic tendencies before WWI (gave the Hungarians limited autonomy). Czechoslovakia - Democratic before WWII (given to the Nazis during the Appeasement). Russia - Tsarist with Parliamentary tendencies. No real Democracy until Gorbachev. Poland - Democratic before WWII, Soviet Satellite after WWII, Democratic since fall of Soviet Union. Spain - Fascist from WWII on until death of Franco who turned country into a Democracy (being very liberal with the word democracy here since most of these are actually parliamentary systems - some with Monarchs, some not). Essentially most of Europe has some form of Democracy, though some of these are still democracies in name only. So which ones did we impose upon anyone?

South America - Let's see: Chile - Democratic after Pinochet stepped down. Of course, it was democratic before Pinochet took power but we didn't like the government so we helped him overthrow a democratically elected one. Argentina - ditto. Cuba - well, you know. Nicaragua - Tried to overthrow the duly elected government there as well. And so on in Central and South America.

The MidEast - hoo, boy! How do you describe this mess. With the exception of Israel and Iran (who'd of thunk it), nothing that even closely resembles a democracy, unless you want to count Egypt with its President-elect for life.

Asia - Japan: Already talked about. China - Let's not talk about that. Taiwan: Democratic institutions held over from the civil war in China. South Korea - we protect their democracy from North Korea, but I don't think you can say we imposed democracy on them as much as they chose democracy and we help defend it for them. Vietnam - fledgling democratic institutions after our failure to impose US-backed leaders on the South; Cambodia - fledgling democratic institutions. Laos - sorry, don't know. Burma - military dictatorship. Philippines - now, here you may have something. US involvement in the Philippines did lead to stabilization. Of course, it also lead to Marcos who was finally ousted after 20 years. Singapore - a muslim democracy based of colonial models.

So which ones did we impose on a country that actually worked?

[ROTC DAD]

I forgot Africa - And that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish!

[Greenhat]

[ROTC DAD]

No I didn't fail to understand what you wrote. Nor do I need to study up on the English Civil War or Magna Carta. Or France - I'm being somewhat facetious in that reply.

I just don't have time, nor am I going to make the effort, to go indepth seperately on every single democarcy on the face of the earth so that you can point out that English Colonial Rule created the majority of them. We weren't talking about the English. We were talking about the US.

So tell me two - I'm asking for only two - democracies which were imposed by the US which still work (other than Japan and Germany, which we have already discussed somewhat).

BTW, Mussolini was democratically elected. He may have been a Fascist and his regime may have been dictatorial, but the people chose him in the first place. So you're wrong there.

[Greenhat]

[ROTC DAD]

I said other than Germany and Japan which we could argue for ages, but since you brought them up:

Germany, while under the Kaiser, already had fledgling democratic institutions, otherwise the Kaiser would not have been able to step down without leaving the country in chaos. That did not happen. No imposition of Democracy. Already on its way; hastened along by end of war. If anything imposition of Weimer Republic led to rise of Hitler (also democratically elected, btw. Just because once they were elected they chose to rescind all democratic rights, the countries were democracies at the time of both Mussolini and Hitler's election).

Japan before WWII already had the beginnings of a parliamentary system, otherwise the Emperor could quite easily have held off the miltarists. You really should look these things up. Again, democratic institutions were growing in the country before the War and we simply gave them greater impetus once the War was over. (Though McArthur did do a great job in creating the Japanese Constitution).

Are you arguing that by killing an indigenous population, we can create Democracy, because that appears to be what you are saying with the Seminole Wars, the Northwest Territory, California, and the Louisiana Purchase.

As for the arguement: Perhaps I should clarify - Imposition of Democracy by the US on a foreign country through invasion of that country's sovereignty.

Thailand (assisted). Not arguing about assisted, arguing about imposing it.

Nicaragua (assisted) - ditto, after we screwed it up.

Panama - Again, fledgling democratic institutions were there (even under Torrijos whom we helped prop up for years.)

The Philippines - We helped stabilize the Philippines, but we did not impose democracy. Marcos ruled there for quite some time because of US aid. It wasn't until we threatened to withdraw that aid, under a President I'm sure you don't particularly like, that the situation changed.

The 13 Colonies - Geez, I guess there were no democratic institutions in the British Empire (What was Parliament again?)

Btw, here are the first 3 definitions of impose by dictionary.com:

To establish or apply as compulsory; levy: impose a tax.
To apply or make prevail by or as if by authority: impose a peace settlement. See Synonyms at dictate.
To obtrude or force (oneself, for example) on another or others.

So, no, they were not imposed; they were the will of the people. Even the ones that occurred after British Colonial Rule occurred because the people of the country wanted Democracy. You can't force people to be democratic.