A new right-wing hero

Damn, down goes another brother.

 

Right-Wing Gangster Lean...

"This is for my homies...See you when I get there..."

 

And Peter Hitchens, Christopher's right wing nut of a brother, has come out in opposition to Bush.

Christopher sees the war as one against facsism.

Peter on the other hand blames the US for ending the British Empire and causing the war.

http://www.femail.co.uk/pages/standard/article.html?in_page_id=2&in_article_id=153029

So you see, this whole thing is far more complex than simple "left-right". To both myself and Christopher Hitchens, this war is about fighting fascism. Be the battle of the moment against the isloamofascists of Al-Qaida or the Stalinist wet dream of Hussein.

The difference (other than Israel) between Chirstopher Hitchens and myself is that I generally would stay out of other quarrells unless they drag me in, while Hitchens would be more interventuionist.

Now, one final point. Lots of folks ask what Iraq has to do with September 11. The answer is everything and nothing. Yes, none of the hijackers were Iraqi and the evidence for any Iraqi connection with this attack (as opposed to the 1993 attack) is weak.

But the "root cause" of the attack is the lack of stable, working, responsibile governments in the Middle east. Only two governments really work there, Israel and Turkey. Others, like Jordan, Morrocco and some of the smaller gulf states are at least forward looking and have made some steps toward modernity.

But most of the governments have no connection to the people, and do not work. And the governments, fearing for their survivial, try to point people's anger away from the government and toward "Israel" and "the West" and "America."

And the most dysfunctional of all these countries is Iraq. And the most dangerous. And the one that we can do something about. And the one that is ripe for revolution.

A few weeks ago, in Switzerland, I was asked by a Swiss man when I thought the war would end. My answer was "when Arab women can go to school and Moslem women can be doctors and no one thinks it strange." He was shocked. "How dare you impose your beliefs on others. What if you want the Swiss to change their ways."

To which I answered, "I have no desire to make the Swiss change. Swiss terrorists are not flying planes into American buildings to protest the Holocaust settlement. If you did, they I would think differently."

 

But then, why is Iraq the next target and not...f*** it, it's never convinced the warmongers before, it's not going to now.

 

And not whom? Try to convince me--don't just call me names.

North Korea? North Korea is a different situation on many accounts. Hussein is trying to give his Stalinism a Pan-Arab face (hence the money to suicide bombers) while North Korean ideology has appeal nowhere outside North Korea.

And besides, China has a vested interest in keepoing North Korea in line and the influence to do it -- no one has that power or influence with Hussein.

Israel? Israel is brutal but they at least try to be democratic, and besides, if Arafat and theArab leaders tried to negotiate in good faith over the past 10 years, there would be a Palestinian state right now.

As for the warmonger comment, say what you want. I want no war. If it were up to me, the US would not ave even gotten involved in Bosnia or Kosovo, no US troops would be in Europe or the Middle East, and I'd ask the South Koreans to make up their minds, do they want us there or not, and if they hesitated for a second, I'd pull our troops out and say good-bye.

But 9/11 changed that.

Ufortunately, this war was thrown on us. Things must change in that part of the world.

BTW, they called Churchill a warmonger too. I wonder what history would call him if Baldwin and Chamberlain listened in 1936? Neither Baldwin nor Chamberlain were Nazis--they simply and rightly feared a repeat of the bloodletting of World War I.

Now I do not claim to be an equal of Churchill's, far from it, but sometimes, strength early will save alot of bloodletting later. I fear for my cousin who is now starting F-15 training, I fear for another cousin considering joing the military. I fear that the longer we wait, the more Iraqis and Americans (and Brits, etc.) will die.

 

You hit the triple crown, son, congratulations!
1. You brought up North Korea (and somehow managed to call it fascist.)
2. You brought up 9/11 to justify a war with no link to 9/11.
3. You (obliquely, with the Churchill reference) brought up Hitler.

 

So, this is what passes for political discourse these days. Stop simply insulting me and TRY, TRY to use your head and convince we. "Against whom?"

1. Please show me where I called North Korea fascist (although to someone like me, Stalinism and fascism has so little distinguishing between them that any actual differences are irrelevant).

2. I noted that 9/11 has everything and nothing to do with Iraq. You asked, I answered. The sole reason in my mind that 9/11 is important is that it forces us to once again be a force in the Middle east, whereas without 9/11 I would be content being fat dumb and happy and letting the autocrats plot and scheme against each other.

3. Why not cite Churchill. He was the greatest man of the 20th Century, an advocate of democracy and freedom, and a bulwark against fascism and communism, the two greatest threats to freedom. And why not cite the Hitler threat as one from which the world should have learned?

Now that I have explained myself AGAIN, please do me the august honor and answer my question, against "WHOM"?? You insinuate the fiendish warmongers like me should really be going after someone else. Well, whose children should I be advocating killing?

 

Glad to see someone finally come to their senses.

 

> TRY to use your head and convince we. "Against whom?"

I believe he was talking about Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other nations that oppress their people and turn a blind eye towards terrorist groups.

 

Thank you. Unlike David Icke, I do not claim to have some mystical connection to the cosmos that gives me any incredible insight.

And he would be right. Most of the hijackers came from those two countries. And as I alluded to earlier, countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia are failing. In the Saudis case, they are failing despite sitting on top of the most valuable object on the planet, and in Egypt's case, the US annual subsidy is all that is keeping them afloat.

So what do we do?

We do need to push both countries more toward reform. But right now we need them. Sort of like Churchill (anti-communist and democrat that he was) allying with Stalin (a communist and anti-democrat).

But that is why Iraq for me is even more imperative. Iraq unlike Egypt or Saudi Arabia has the ability right now to cause some serious damage. But is a freer Iraq can be created, the people of Egypt and Saudi Arabia might begin to ask "Why not here" instead of always saying "the power went off because of the Zionist Americans." Any maybe, just maybe, things might really change. Then we can all go back to being fat, dumb and happy.

And yes, I am a realist enough to know that the government of a post-war Iraq will not look like the Berkley City Council. But if you can have an Iraq (with its educated middle class) run in a freer way, with a freer press and a more responsive government (without a nuclear weapons program), then it is worth the risk.

But I will state, that if we plan to replace Hussein with a Baathist general in the name of "stability" -- then we should pull our troops home.

 

Kind of how we allied ourselves with Hussein when it suited our purposes? That worked out OK.

With what exactly can Iraq cause "serious damage" "right now?"

 

Hah! You know, if you look in the dictionary for the word "optimism", you will find the definition is "pursuing an answer to that question from the armchair generals out there".

 

But does Iraq really have the ability to cause serious damage right now. Their military is (according to Alex) about 1/4 the strength it was 10 years ago. They're isolated by the UN and know that the US is ready to smash them if we can connect them to al-Qaeda at any level more than "I thought I might have seen Mohammed Atta sharing a kabob in Prague with an Iraqi corporal" or if we find one drop of chem or bio weapons there. The only damage that Saddam can do is, unfortunately, to his own people. Which almost makes invasion worthwhile for me, until I think of the US record of unilateral nation building since WWII. I too fear the "stable" Baathist general.

Meanwhile, the damage wrought upon the US on 9/11 came primarily from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. If anyone can provide a reasonable argument why a US invasion of Iraq, without doing anything to address Israel-Palestine, will have any effect except further radicalizing folks in Egypt or SA, I'd love to hear it. (Notice, I said reasonable and not a magical flowering of Jeffersonian democracy)

 

Maybe there will be a magical flowering of Jeffersonian democracy.

Doh!!

 

I wish we'd have one of those over here.

 

That's a relief. No war can be justified if the end result is the Berkeley City Council.

 

Ahhhhh, but the deflowering is so much more fun.

(And who says it can can only happen once? Apparently it can happen over and over and over . . .)

 

LOL. Although ... the new Iraqi government could start marketing their "organic oil"