Instant Amnesia

[fintstone]

What if we had a war....protest...and noone came? I think that this article sizes up the war protests in Europe quite well...particularly the part about Saddam's possible Nobel Peace Prize. And why not? Carter and Arafat got one and he probably did more to promote peace than either.

INSTANT AMNESIA
By RALPH PETERS
NY POST

I SPENT last week in Europe watching acrobats perform. There were no high-wires or circus tents — just left-wing intellectuals contorting themselves into bizarre shapes as they "explained" the changing Middle East.

A few Euro-papers raised the possibility that Bush might have been right about some things — only to knock down that notion with excuses so convoluted even the writers and editors couldn't begin to believe them. They were trying, desperately, to save face.

The commonly agreed alibi runs that the Middle East was changing on its own, that Anglo-American actions had little or no effect, that the outbreak of democracy has been on the way for years, that the Arabs did it themselves.

Oh, really? Guess our troops overlooked the warehouses full of multi-party ballots when they took Baghdad.

The Independent, a Brit rag that's been hilariously wrong about Iraq, talks around the icky little details — such as that minor impediment to democracy, Saddam Hussein. The Iraqis were headed for free elections on their own. No reason at all to praise Bush.

Dead Kurds? Not our kind.

Saddam's slaughter of the Shi'as? Can't quite remember, old man.

Torture chambers? My dear fellow, you must mean Abu Ghraib.

Saddam's wars of aggression, the employment of poison gas and the network of mass graves? Talking about that sort of thing simply isn't done. Anyway, the true aggressors are George Bush and his henchman Tony Blair.

One starts to suspect a movement to nominate Saddam for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Presented with irrefutable evidence of the success of that incoherent cowboy in the White House, the brilliant minds of Europe are glummer than they've been since the Berlin Wall came down (that really hurt).

What intellectuals long for is an audience. And ever fewer people are paying attention. The workers and peasants have lost their faith in the central committee.

It's even getting tough to stage a decent anti-American protest. Despite the overblown media coverage, the "massive" rallies on the eve of Iraq's liberation were small compared to those of the glorious Cold War years when Moscow still provided a beacon of hope and American troops defended Jean-Paul Sartre's right to defend Comrade Stalin.

Last week, on the second anniversary of the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the European Left called for mass demonstrations to protest the American "occupation" of the Middle East. The turn-out was pathetic.

My wife and I passed through London on demo day. The temperature was an unseasonable 70 degrees, and the sky was Texas blue — perfect weather for a protest.

Instead of attracting hundreds of thousands, the anti-freedom rally was a bust. Londoners were basking in the sun, filling the outdoor cafes around Covent Garden. The burning issue of the day was whether to have beer or wine at lunch.

Strolling down Piccadilly toward Hyde Park, we saw the disappointed protesters straggling home, their signs as slack as their spirits. They came in three sad flavors: Dreary kids of the sort who blame "the system" when they can't get a date; aging Lefties struggling to believe that the Soviet collapse was a hallucination, and Middle Eastern expats outraged that Coalition soldiers had done what they lacked the courage to do themselves.

I don't recall a single protester calling for more democracy in the Middle East. Nobody protested Syria's occupation of Lebanon or the Damascus regime's program of assassinations and terror. Not a single earnest undergraduate demanded free elections in Iran. No one criticized that great human-rights advocate, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The protesters represented a forlorn hope that the new Middle East would fail. They found little sympathy among a population that had been promised an American defeat, only to find Washington winning again. There was more interest in the tale of the young British soldier who won a Victoria Cross in Iraq than there was in the demonstration.

Europeans are masters of instant amnesia. When they find themselves shamed by history, they simply move on. That's what they're doing now.

In France last week, there were more than 10 times as many strikers protesting a possible lengthening of the 35-hour work week than there were anti-war protesters.

Germans are far more concerned with unemployment levels last seen in the 1930s than they are with Iraq. And the Italian Left's brief moment of delight in the accidental shooting of a hot-dogging agent by American troops has already passed.

And the French government, terrified of being shut out of the new Middle East, is standing shoulder-to-shoulder with its cherished ally and old friend, the Bush administration.

C'est la vie.

[Superman]

Fint, if you wanted to get someone like me to admit that Dubya found himself in the right place at the right time...if you want to get folks to admit that this Iraq situation seems to be sort of a blasting cap that may have ignited some sweeping changes inthe ME that needed to happen....if you want me to agree that the time was ripe and that there is new hope for that area of the world, you could probably do that. But certainly not with the kind of literary DUNG you posted above. I'm sure it was fun for him to write, and fun for you to read, but that's about the limit of its usefulness. Glancing back at it, it's a complete aberration of the ACTUAL positions we lefties take. So, if the above writing makes sense to you, you haven't a clue.

[Jeff Higgins]

Great stuff, Flinstone. As an admitedly struggling born-again leftie, I have been perusing the popular media for clues as to how I should feel about Dubya's apparent success. Can I tell you what a relief it has been not to have to make my own decisions on such vital matters? Anyway, in my former existance as a "neocon", I was somewhat pleased with the glimmer of hope we had given an oh-so-obviously pretty hopeless corner of the world. People actually voting for the first time, rival factions looking like they might really want to try to get along; all of that was encouraging. Now, however, I find it somewhat disturbing. I now realize it is not so much about their long-term success in the ME as it is about the political and intellectual debate here and in Europe. While it's kind of fun to live in this intellectually driven world of the abstract, it's been kind of tough for me to come to grips with the possibility of losing the first really important debate since I switched sides. I'm told I will get used to it and learn to just move on, but it will be hard at first. Articles like this are valuable to me at this tender time during this admittedly hard transition. I think I'll head to Seattle to try to stir up a more successful protest this weekend; I hear that might be a good place, and it's pretty close to home. I really have no idea just how to get started or exactly what it is I would be protesting. Again, I'm told details like that really are not that important once you get started; I'm told if I just learn to follow my emotions and try not to think it through to far, I should be o.k. Wish me luck.

[cmccuist]

Superman, i have read your posts and think you are genuinely passionate about your convictions and a rational thinker. But you have to admit, that the left has continuously moved the goalposts since the morning of September 11, 2001. And when I say the left, I'm speaking of those who begin with "W is a moron" and descend to "W is hitler."

I submit it is the left who has missrepresented what the Bush Doctrine is. Simply put, if you area a terrorist, or sponsor terrorists, you are the enemy of the US and we will "Malcolm X" you (by any means nesessary) to protect our interests and security.

These arguments of "where are the WMD's" are valid and should be debated, but are irrelevant to the ultimate goal of defeating terrorists. And spare me the arguement that there were no terrorists in Iraq - there were.

As far as the people of the middle east wanting democracy, having spent a couple of years there (Algeria and Saudi Arabia), believe me, they want freedom as much as any feminist Havard math professor, only they wouldn't take it for granted.

Why can't the left admit that there are positive developments in the region and that the US, Britain, Australia and the rest of the coalition in general and Bush in particular deserve some credit for it?!?

[Superman]

I cannot deny much of what you say here, Craig. And it is possible to get lefties, even passionate ones like myself, to recognize and give credit for at least some of what's happening over there. My point above, for Fint's consideration (yeah, right), is that the article he posted is pure entertainment and will not get you any closer to a rational dialogue with folks like me. In fact, the article above is so cartoon-y, so much of an over-caricaturization, that I kinda feel sorry for folks who would even get entertainment value out of it.

Craig, I'll disagree with your notion that any substantial support for terrorists was coming from Saddam, or that Iraq was a popular place, in the slightest, for terrorists. Yes, they had their extreme religious right-wingers (we have ours, too). But righties are just not listening when they continue to insist that Iraq was useful to terrorists. If terrorists came to Iraq, they'd be visiting the right-wing Muslims that Saddam was so directly at odds with. There was simply no connection. Saddam and fundamental Islam were like oil and water. But since there were no WMD, some folks need to pretend there was a connection with terrorists. Al Queda would view Saddam as being nearly the same as Dubya. Completely detestable. And Saddam would view Al Queda as a rival power, and as a potential drain of his personal resources. There was no love lost. No connection. No cooperation. If there had been, then right-wingers here would have some shred of evidence to show. there isn't any.

But again, the rest of what you say is actually true. There are positive developments there. Dubya ignited a powder keg. The time was right. And perhaps democracy will spread. But that is Reason #3 for the Iraq War. Dubya tossed the dice. A dolt trying to get into the history books.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by cmccuist
These arguments of "where are the WMD's" are valid and should be debated, but are irrelevant to the ultimate goal of defeating terrorists.
Wow, talk about moving the goalposts!
And spare me the arguement that there were no terrorists in Iraq - there were.

Assuming you're correct - so what? I'll bet you could find terrorists in every country in the ME, not to mention Eastern Europe. Conventional military actions are uselss against terrorists. Unless you're prepared to nuke the entire region as a form of terrorist 'chemotherapy', it's it's a pointless excercise.

Unless of course, you want their oil, then it makes perfect sense.

Why can't the left admit that there are positive developments in the region and that the US, Britain, Australia and the rest of the coalition in general and Bush in particular deserve some credit for it?!?
Is it really a positive development when it comes at the barrel of a gun, and said gun is the only thing maintaining it? I can put my 911 up on the lift; that doesn't mean it can fly - it's only in the air as long as I have the lift under it.

Are Iraqis really 'free' with American rifles pointed at their heads? No. Are they really a 'democracy' when their 'elections' take place under American martial law? No. The last thing the US wants in Iraq is a true democracy in Iraq; they'd vote us off the island in a heartbeat.

Is it worth it in terms of American lives and American taxpayer dollars (in the hundreds of billions) to forcibly impose a sham democracy on the unwilling?

Let's be realistic. There are lots of people across the world who want freedom. Always have, always will be. We can't afford to send hundreds of thousands of troops and hundreds of billions of dollars to every corner of the world that wants to be 'free'. So what makes Iraq so deserving of US-granted "freedom"? Oh yeah, they're in the unfortunate circumstance of having their sand on "our" oil.

[cmccuist]

Supe, I'll give you that Iraq wasn't the great terrorist breeding ground that Afghanistan was, but the original reason for going in was a combination of WMD's and terrorists. The WMD's were not there, thankfully, but that doesn't make the Iraqi's election any less legitimate.

And Wide, what's wrong with democracy at the barrel of a gun? Worked for the US! I don't think this is a sham democracy that we're seeing. The people who were elected weren't all Baathists, but Shi'ites and Kurds, secularists and religeous. The election was a success because the results were not one party!

Wide, you do have a good point about lot's of people wanting freedom all over the world. Hopefully, this thing will spread across the ME to Africa (Libya, Algeria are more democratic now than before 2001) and then to China and North Korea.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by cmccuist
And Wide, what's wrong with democracy at the barrel of a gun? Worked for the US!

No, there was no 3rd-party nation that forced us to become a democracy. It was done from within. If somoene puts a gun to your head and a Koran in your hand, does that make you a Muslim?

I don't think this is a sham democracy that we're seeing. The people who were elected weren't all Baathists, but Shi'ites and Kurds, secularists and religeous. The election was a success because the results were not one party!

Whether it was a true success remains to be seen. It appears that everyone voted for their local tribal leaders; success will be whether they are able to sustain the process on their own without the life support system of US intervention. With the construction of 13 US bases in Iraq, that's not going to happen any time soon.

Hopefully, this thing will spread across the ME to Africa (Libya, Algeria are more democratic now than before 2001) (more democratic? that's about as nebulous as 'more gay') and then to China and North Korea.

Bartender! I'll have what he's having, and make it a double!

[cmccuist]

Originally posted by widebody911
Bartender! I'll have what he's having, and make it a double!

We still have troops in Germany and Japan, that doesn't make them any less democratic - or whatever their system of govt is.

Yes, it's still way too early to tell what will become of Iraq and the region in general, but I would venture that Iraq is "more democratic" (and probably more gay) right now than they were before 2003.

[Moneyguy1]

What are the fundamental differences between a ME religious extremist and a religious extremist from any other part of the world? It seems that neither can be convinced that the opposition has any credibility, and their own beliefs are the right ones.

It is so unfortunate.

[cmccuist]

It seems that the Islamic fundamentalists are the only ones who want to kill you and themselves if you don't convert. I haven't heard of any Buddhist or Hindu - or Christian for that matter - suicide bombers.

You do have your holy warriors in every religeon, but the suicide bomber seems to be isolated to the Muslim faith.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by cmccuist
We still have troops in Germany and Japan, that doesn't make them any less democratic - or whatever their system of govt is.

We didn't just up and unilaterally invade Japan for no other reason than to change their government/WMD's

Germany was already a democracy.

[Moneyguy1]

I agree on the "suicide bomber" part, but I submit there are many ways to destroy the enemy, and not all of them involve explosives...Emotional abuse, exclusion, ridicule...all are divisive to a civilization. I further submit that other religions have used murder and torture (not necessarily suicide) to further their cause over the centuries.

Just my thoughts....

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
I further submit that other religions have used murder and torture (not necessarily suicide) to further their cause over the centuries.

Yes, they have. This in no way justifies or minimizes what today's Muslim extremists are doing. If they start again, hopefully the world will be just as repulsed as it is today with these particular Muslims.

[widebody911]

(*singing*)
The In-qui-sition, here we go..
The In-qui-sition, what a show!
...

[Moneyguy1]

Of course, we can always look at the bombings of so-called abortion clinics or the murder of doctors who provide this service.....

Once again; the difference is in degree, not in concept. Hate, founded in extreme religious beliefs that God Himself would refute.

[rrpjr]

Entertaining, Fintstone, thank you. I saw it only as a caricature of Leftist attitude, yet not far off the mark:

Protestor turnouts have indeed been weak, intellectuals are indeed tripping over themselves to deny Bush credit, as well as contorting themselves to explain away the positive changes in the Middle East as “inevitable” (I even heard one on TV recently shrilly challenge a conservative: “you can’t prove this was Bush’s doing!”). They have from the start been Cassandras about Iraq and Afghanistan (RW Apple’s “quagmire” claims two weeks into the Afghan campaign, Noam Chomsky’s predictions of US incited “genocide”, the cataclysmic fears of death and mayhem on election day), and, yes, they are never compelled by the major media to retract or even explain any of their absurd and defeatist alarums.

They don’t call for more democracy, do not protest Syria's occupation (a protest joined by one of the most diverse collections of people in the world – conspicuously absent the Western Left), and do not ever raise a harsh word against the likes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

As for longing for failure in the Middle East – while this seems a proposition very hard to believe, and even churlish to suggest – what are we to make of the near total absence of public support for democracy for a legendarily oppressed people?

And, yes, the French are now making nice with Bush.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Once again; the difference is in degree, not in concept. Hate, founded in extreme religious beliefs that God Himself would refute.

Agreed. The difference in response is likewise one of degree, not concept. We strive to track down and punish religious terrorists regardless of which faith they proclaim. I believe God has a very special place in hell for those who murder in his name. I think one of the points trying to be made here is the very obvious fact that the left protests certain despicable acts but not others. Using your example, they cry out loudly against abortion clinic bombers and abortion provider murderers. They don't seem to have much to say about Muslim fanatics, other than to make excuses for their behavior and to try to blame it all on Dubya.

[Moneyguy1]

Jeff:

I really cannot make that connection. Certainly, both extreme ends of the spectrum make claims that cannot be rationally defended to or understood by sane people in the middle. And, it is these extremes that make the most noise, stir up their followers and outshout what used to be called "the silent majority". Here in the US, instead of having Mullahs spewing hate to the masses, we have the radio and tv "commentators" plugging their own agendas and bumping their ratings. A strange type of religion. I am a Christian, but I cannot connect with any group that claims to be in direct contact with the Creator and know what He has in mind. The words they spew are not what Christ said, nor what He preached. Where is the tolerance, the forgiveness? We have a world wide modern Tower of Babel. And, to be fair, the radical right can and is just as inconsistent, only about other issues.

DO I like war? no, but there are times it may be necessary. Do I like abortion on demand? no, if it is simply to be performed for the convenience of the individual at the expense of the unborn, but I do have reservations about blanket elimination of the right to choose; rape, incest, potential harm to the mother. Right to die? I am in favor of it, and if I am not capable of making the decision for myself, I have people who will. Is all life sacred? I don't know the answer to that. I do not know if there are not individuals so warped and bent that they should be eliminated from society. I do not believe in prolonging life beyond the point were the individual can maintain dignity and some degree of independence. I wonder why those condemned to death for crimes cannot be allowed to die by being organ donors rather than poisoning their organs by injection.

Do I believe our leaders act in our best interests? No. Do I believe the war was the right thing to do? Yes and no. It reminded me in a way of WWII with the Germans fighting a two front war. Results may turn out to be quite positive, but the end does not always justify the means. And here we are, as a society, fretting over one brain dead woman while people are being killed and maimed almost daily. Does that really make any sense to anyone? Where are the priorities? Our military and their well being should, right now, be one of our highest priorities.

So where does that put me on the social/moral spectrum?

Heck..it's late and I am tired....

[RoninLB]

Bush's detractors need something to believe in..

Heeerrrs Hillary.
Local NYC bs is that she will not be seeking Senate reelection. The on going brain damage specticle style is a game that she has to avoid if she runs and wins again in NY. Rumor has it that Rep traps are being set up to force dicisive issues on her in 2nd term.

GOP wins by default.. Rep Pataki runs for Hillary's spot and is a sure win. That's bingo#1. The lib Dem Spitzer is dialed in to run for Gov. The next wild card is Guilani sic vs Spitzer. Rudy is a sure win. That's bingo #2. Rudy figures that if somebody like Arnold can gather US attention so can he. Fe'll still be young enough to be Pres later.

So she'll piss off the DNC and loose another Sen seat to the Rep's is one good hump.

otherwise the post cold war strategic policy has been on the burner for a long time. Bush is only following this. Any policy change is controversal.

Old Europe is somewhat similar to Canada on the issue of the function of their military. Both can remove it from public issues because the US won't ever allow anything to happen to either one. This leaves more room for political social issues as defining election issues. Their are severe terrorist threats residing in Canada that haven't been realized yet up north. Europe seems to be reacting faster than Canada imo.

Afg is a tremendous success in detuning the warlords because the media has been left out and our military was thus given the room to develop strategy. They started paying off the warlords and their soldiers asap. The salaries and encouragement has seen many warlords involved with public nation building. The presssure has been kept up to become more socially constructive. It works.

"Bush's detractors need something to believe in.. "
" Heeeerrrs Hillary. "