I hope to make this a regular feature. Today’s: "if you think that the casual heartlessness displayed by many on the Labour left towards Bosniacs and Iraqis is a new development, see what their predecessors had to say about Germans in the 1950s"
Yup, it’s clear that the only possible reason for opposing the war was casual heartlessness. Imagine how terrible it would be if the Iraqis were still dying in their thousands at the hands of Saddam, instead of dying in their thousands at the hands of Western soldiers, local armed goons and terrorist murderers.
Update: SIAW correctly points out that it never claimed casual heartlessness was the only reason for being antiwar. I accept this is sloppy phrasing on my part, not that it actually changes the meaning of the post in any way. Change the first sentence of the second paragraph to "it’s clear that people who opposed the war were casually heartless", if it makes you feel better.
Imagine how terrible it would be if the Iraqis were still dying in their thousands at the hands of Saddam, instead of dying in their thousands at the hands of Western soldiers, local armed goons and terrorist murderers.
That is a hypocritical statement, john b
First off, what are your reasons for opposing the war?
It’s a war btw, people die in wars, "western" soldiers included. Iran is manipulating the strings of the "local armed goons" and provides them with arms and money. The "terrorist murderers" are Al-Qaeda affiliated groups who are on a jihad against westerners and don’t care whom they kill in the process.
Finally, a war is not morally equivalent to the actions of an autocrat who’s been murdering his people by the thousands with impunity for a few decades.
I’m certainly not claiming we’re morally anywhere near as bad as Saddam, and I’m aware of the origin and funding of the goons and terrorists. But that doesn’t alter the fact that the Iraqis aren’t significantly better off now than they were under Saddam.
There are still several grounds under which one could still argue the war was justified (e.g. credibility, stability, getting troops out of Saudi, maybe even counter-terrorism), but saying that "if we hadn’t fought the war then Iraqi suffering would have been much greater" doesn’t seem to be empirically justifiable.
"But that doesn’t alter the fact that the Iraqis aren’t significantly better off now than they were under Saddam. "
In your extremely humble opinion, which I suggest does not amount to a hill of beans compared to that of any Iraqi.
Either you’re concealing your Iraqi heritage well, or that’s another contender for the non-sequitur of the week award.
John, I never said my opinion mattered more than a hill of beans.
Post your evidence to support your "fact" that Iraqis are not better off. Do recent polls suggest this?
And I had given john b such a good link to a wonderful article about Iraq. john b, did you even read it? You’re a bad boy, johnny…
The Caravan Moves On
johnny, read the bloody article, this is like the second time I’m giving it to you! Read it, ok? I expect a report after you’re done.
:-)
WTF?! That’s the wrong article!
john b, dammit, you so fucking need preview!
I’ll go find it again.
Ok, the link I want is messed up. But this is the article:
The Caravan Moves On – A roundup of the past two week’s good news from Iraq.
BY ARTHUR CHRENKOFF
Monday, September 13, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
Elections are still a few months away, but the people of Iraq are already looking forward to the opportunity of electing their own government. The Iraq office of the International Republican Institute recently released the results of an August poll of Iraqi attitudes, conducted by the Independent Institute for Administrative and Civil Society Studies (the International Republican Institute, by the way, is not a part of a vast right-wing, neocon conspiracy, but a " non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to advancing democracy, freedom, self-government and the rule of law worldwide"). Among the results:
More than 77% of respondents feel that "regular, fair elections" would be the most important political right for the Iraqi people and 58% feel that democracy in Iraq is likely to succeed. When asked about the upcoming elections, 62.2% expressed confidence that their ballot selection would be kept secret and above 75% felt that the elections would reflect the will of the Iraqi people.
Iraqis remain optimistic about the future and committed to seeing Iraq through her democratic transition. 50% disagree with the statement that "my life was better before the war." In contrast to daily media reports of the hardships of today’s Iraq, more than 70% of respondents would not leave their country if given the opportunity to live elsewhere. An overwhelming majority express an optimistic streak that belies foreign naysayers, with 75% expressing hopefulness about the future. . . .
Government officials and governing bodies have also earned the trust of the Iraqi people. President Sheikh Ghazi al-Yawer and Prime Minister Ayed Allawi are "completely" or "somewhat" trusted by 68% and 60.6% respectfully. While IRI’s July/August poll showed that Iraqis were concerned with security, the Iraqi Police and Army are well-placed to deal with these concerns, with 80.3% and 71.6% of respondents expressing trust for the Iraqi men and women trying to bring about peace. The Interim Government of Iraq (IGI) is trusted by 65.1% of Iraqi citizens. Iraqi courts and judges–critical in implementing the rule of law in Iraq–maintain the trust of 64.4% of respondents.
Arguably, the Iraqi people would have a far more pessimistic attitudes had their been exposed to the same media diet as we are in the West.
This appeared in Opinion Journal but you’ll need to find it yourself if you don’t mind.
"I hope to make this a regular feature": Oh, please do. There can never be enough ill-informed, sanctimonious pseudo-leftist bullshit in the world, can there?
Well, certainly you seem to post quite a lot of it.