A robust defense of freedom – The Washington Times has a good summary of the President’s speech in London yesterday. Here’s the beef:
The president forcefully rebutted critics who complain about the supposedly “unilateralist” foreign policy approach pursued by the United States and the Bush administration in particular. “In all these cases, military action was proceeded by diplomatic initiatives and negotiations and ultimatums, and final chances until the final moment. In Iraq, year after year, the dictator was given the chance to account for his weapons programs, and end the nightmare for his people. Now the resolutions he defied have been enforced,” the president said. “And who will say that Iraq was better off when Saddam Hussein was strutting and killing, or that the world was safer when he held power? Who doubts that Afghanistan is a more just society and less dangerous without Mullah Omar playing host to terrorists from around the world?”
Apparently some people doubt that Iraqis and Afghans are better off today than they were before their respective liberations, as some 30-50,000 objectively pro-fascist demonstrators turned out in Trafalgar Square for the kind of protest that’s been commonplace in England since the 1930s, when “anti-war” meant “pro-Hitler”.
if you’re one of the people who equate anti-iraq-war to being ‘pro-fascist’ then you’re not paying attention. the vast majority of people who protested before the war expressed themselves as anti-Saddam, and I suspect that people on London are the same.
also, 47 percent of Iraqis (recent poll) said the country is worse off now than before the invasion, so it’s not just protesters who might think that.
The polling I’ve seen says that the vast majority of Iraqis are grateful to the US for overthrowing Saddam, that things are much better than before, and that the US shouldn’t leave for at least two years.
Any actual citations to the contrary would be worth considering, but made-up numbers aren’t.
I won’t make up numbers here if you won’t imply that I am.
The poll is old, without a doubt. sept 23rd, but it’s the same poll still being cited today by many journalists, bloggers, and news outlets…47 percent (versus 33) felt they weren’t any better off than before the invasion.
AP wire story:
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/6845120.htm
but I’m actually skeptical of any sorts of polls in general. the same poll also says that “62 percent think ousting Saddam was worth the hardships” and that “67 percent, say they think that Iraq will be in better condition five years from now”.
Once again, Gwynne Dyer, and not the chickenhawks get it right:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1069369808261&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795
“Iraq is just the mundane, functional terrorism of anti-colonial resistance from Algeria to Vietnam, carried out for the most part by the same sort of people ? ex-army officers, political ideologues, young men with big chips on their shoulders ? who would be doing the same thing in the United States if foreign troops suddenly took over the country. (You doubt me? Go rent Red Dawn out of the video store.)…The Islamist terrorists who plotted the attacks on two Jewish synagogues in Istanbul on Nov. 15 and on the HSBC headquarters and the British consulate in the same city yesterday, killing 50 people and injuring many hundreds, would have tried to do it whether Iraq was invaded or not.
They didn’t need excuses to attack. The difference is that if the intelligence services had been paying attention to Al Qaeda instead of barking up the wrong tree in Iraq, they might actually have been stopped.”
Meanwhile, Mr. Bennett has to make excuses for the fact that the US is violating the Geneva Convention:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031121/pl_afp/iraq_us_demolitions_031121210913
“Amnesty International said it had learned that 15 houses were destroyed in the Tikrit area since November 16 in military operations.
It said in one case a family in the village of al-Haweda was reportedly given five minutes to evacuate their house before it was razed by tank and helicopter fire.
The organization said it received reports of a November 10 incident in which soldiers gave people living in a farmhouse near the town of al-Mamudiya south of Baghdad 30 minutes to leave. The farmhouse was bombed and destroyed later in the day by F-16 fighters, it said.
It said the bombing appeared to have been carried out in retaliation for an attack several days earlier on a convoy in which a US officer was killed. ”
How much better off these people are!
Gee, I suppose you’re right, “JJJ” – the Iraqis are bound to be nostalgic for good ole Saddam, the man who respected the UN and never violated the Geneva Conventions because gassing Kurds is specifically permitted, right?
I love that moral clarity.