Andrew Sullivan at Yale: On the way there, we were confronted with protestors with "No War On Iraq" posters. Hitch noticed the Orwellian resonance of this slogan. The slogan, strictly speaking, is a lie, one of many promoted by the anti-war left and right. There is no possibility of a war with "Iraq." Half the country - inhabited by the Kurds and Shia Muslims is already protected from Saddam's murderous designs by British and American air-power. The remaining rump is not a country as such; it's a population terrorized by a police state run by a sadistic maniac. We are not therefore at war with the country or people of Iraq; and by equating Saddam with Iraq, these so-called "peace-protestors" are de facto parties to his vile propaganda, the notion that Iraq is Saddam and Saddam is Iraq. That lie was recently displayed in the humiliating spectacle of grown human beings not simply being required to vote for Saddam, as Hitch observed, but actually to dance in the streets to celebrate him, to humiliate themselves out of terror. This disgusting spectacle wasn't like "1984." It was "1984." And this is what the anti-war movement now finds itself defending. I watched part of the anti-war rally in DC on C-SPAN this weekend. Not a single speaker even addressed the evil in Baghdad. In their attempt to derail any attempt to disarm Saddam, and in their facile equation of Saddam with Iraq, they show the empty, bitter center of their alleged morality. (Check in later today for the first installment of my email chat with Hitch on his new book, "Why Orwell Matters," on the Book Club page. We both hope you'll join in as soon as you feel like it.)
i find it odd that both the extreme liberal and the conservative find parallels from Orwell's 1984. Nothing else. I just find that odd.
Nah, big fan of American soldiers. I want them to live. You'd rather they die in pursuit of some crazy PNAC-Likud dream. S'alright. Different strokes.
Sure I do, Dave, sure I do. I take it you'd rather our government do nothing about international terrorism and islamic extremism (Yes, your boy Saddam falls into that category) until they're stacked at the Canadian border. When did you stop beating your wife, Dave?
You don't give a damn one way or the other, dave. They're only in the Army because they're too stupid to know better, and you don't give a fat rat's ass about them. What you want is for them to LOSE. Or more specifically, for America to lose. Or, let's be honest, for George Bush to lose. And if Western Civilization goes down the tubes, well heck, it's a small price to pay for getting Bush out of the White House. You're a very sick person dave.
I really don't think that was his point Bill. In fact I would wager that the only loss he is rooting for is W's. I highly doubt he wants soldiers to die or for America to "lose" [whatever that means] Western civilization survived a quarter century of Sadaam's rule, and, dispite your paranoia, would have continued to survive another. Please understand, the elimination of a ruthless dictator is a GOOD thing, its the motives that are suspect here.
Western civilization will not survive if Islamofacism conquers it. Just a simple fact. And if you'd like to try actually reading what I said, you'll see that I didn't say dave WANTS American soldiers to die. I said he really doasn't care one way or the other. If you're going to try and step up to the plate here, then don't make stuff up. As for "losing" it's quite simple as well: America is at war. See, in a war, there's many time an winner and a loser. Are you taking notes. And I just can't wait to hear what you think the "motives" are here. No blood for oil? Maybe a couple of old pals of Dick Cheney's getting the soft drink concession in Nasirullah? Or is it just because George Bush likes war? Please, oh please, fill me in on the "motives" here, other than destroying the power of Islamfacism. I'm just dying to know.
Yeah, except for the international terrorism and islamic extremism part. I resurrected a thread on the politics board from last April. Y'all said alot of things you'd like to take back. The irony of the thread title is especially delish. Where are those WMDs anyway? I'd hate for the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
You've been led seriously astray if you believe Sadaam [we are talking about Iraq here right?] ever posed a serious threat to Western Civilization. That's unfortunate and I feel sorry for you. America "losing" is simply not an option and will never come into play. This war will never affect America at large in the "losing" type of way that other wars have affected us. Therefore, you're simplified "winner and loser" theory [regardless of however long it took you to come up with it] doesn't apply. There appears to a bunch of "loosers" in this situation. As far as the motives for this war, I'm simply confused. I've never really seen any justification for the attack and subsequent occupation. WMD's, Al Queda, mass Murder of Kurds in the early 80's??? If this administration can't keep their rationale straight, how can you expect me to. Regardless, Sadaam is the least Islamofacist in the region [see Pakastan, Saudi Arabia and pretty much any other county in the area], so that thinking can be thrown out the window.