Feb 27, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
I confess, sometimes I really like this guy. Here's some of what he said at the American Enterprise Institute the other night:
[W]e are opposing the greatest danger in the war on terror: outlaw regimes arming with weapons of mass destruction.
In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world--and we will not allow it. This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country--and America will not permit it. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed.
The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq....
Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy. Yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them....
The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.
Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before--in the peace that followed a world war. After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies, we left constitutions and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety, in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of freedom. In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home.
There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. The nation of Iraq--with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people--is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom.
The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. And there are hopeful signs of a desire for freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the "freedom gap" so their peoples can fully share in the progress of our times. Leaders in the region speak of a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater politics participation, economic openness, and free trade. And from Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward politics reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.
It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world--or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim--is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life. Human cultures can be vastly different. Yet the human heart desires the same good things, everywhere on Earth. In our desire to be safe from brutal and bullying oppression, human beings are the same. In our desire to care for our children and give them a better life, we are the same. For these fundamental reasons, freedom and democracy will always and everywhere have greater appeal than the slogans of hatred and the tactics of terror.
Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state. The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training, and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers. And other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated. [George W. Bush, 2/26/03]
Feb 27, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
There has been a lot of faux concern about the cost of the war. (Since when has the Left been concerned about the cost of any government endeavour?) The reality is that this war should be paid for in ways such as this.1) Cancel all foreign aid to any country that doesn't fully support the U.S. actions against Iraq.
2) Remove American bases from Germany, Saudi Arabia, and other countries that are less than cooperative.
3) Use Iraq's oil production profits to pay for all expenses incurred during the occupation.
4) Stop paying dues to the UN.
America should not have to pay for this war, or more precisely, it should be reimbursed.
Feb 26, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Writes Amir Taheri in a disheartening column (Rev. Jackson, Let Me Speak, Feb. 22, 2002, National Post) on his experience with leftist "anti-war" protesters:Our aim had been to persuade the [London] organizers to let at least one Iraqi voice be heard. Soon, however, it became clear the organizers were as anxious to stifle the voice of the Iraqis in exile as was Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Iraqis had come with placards reading "Freedom for Iraq" and "American rule, a hundred thousand times better than Takriti tyranny!"
But the tough guys who supervised the march would have none of that. Only official placards, manufactured in thousands and distributed among the "spontaneous" marchers, were allowed. These read "Bush and Blair, baby-killers," "Not in my name," "Freedom for Palestine" and "Indict Bush and Sharon." Not one placard demanded that Saddam should disarm to avoid war....The thugs also confiscated photographs showing the tragedy of Halabja, the Kurdish town where Saddam's forces gassed 5,000 people to death in 1988.
Amir Taheri's column demonstrates once again that today's leftists are not against dictatorship, poverty, brutality, mass slaughter of innocent people, or weapons of mass destruction in the hands of maniacal killers:
We managed to reach some of the stars of the show, including Reverend Jesse Jackson, the self-styled champion of American civil rights. One of our group, Salima Kazim, an Iraqi grandmother, managed to attract the reverend's attention and told him how Saddam Hussein had murdered her three sons because they had been dissidents in the Baath Party; and how one of her grandsons had died in the war Saddam had launched against Kuwait in 1990.
"Could I have the microphone for one minute to tell the people about my life?" 78-year old Salima demanded. The reverend was not pleased.
"Today is not about Saddam Hussein," he snapped. "Today is about Bush and Blair and the massacre they plan in Iraq." Salima had to beat a retreat, with all of us following, as the reverend's goons closed in to protect his holiness.
What these leftists fear most is America winning a just war. They are opposed to a free country's government doing what it ought to do: protect its citizens and interests from an evil and dangerous dictator.
Hashem al-Iqabi, one of Iraq's leading writers and intellectuals, had hoped the marchers would mention the fact that Saddam had driven almost four million Iraqis out of their homes and razed more than 6,000 villages to the ground.
These leftists are emotionalists driven by hatred of America and what it stands for: the right of each individual to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." They desire to see America sacrificing itself to evil in order to appease "world opinion," especially the opinion of morons and thugs. They are motivated by what novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand called "hatred of the good for being good," which is the essence of nihilism.
It's time to stop pretending that these leftists are motivated by something positive.
Feb 25, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
The Daily Telegraph (2/22/03) discusses the Eastern Europeans' reaction to Jacques Chirac's admonishment:
By antagonising eastern Europe with his indelicately chosen threats, M Chirac has done more to create a "new" Europe than Donald Rumsfeld ever dared to hope...When Poles were asked in a recent Wprost opinion poll to name countries they considered "friends", 50 per cent put America first, 34 per cent Germany and 25 per cent France. At the same time, 50 per cent considered Poland's greatest enemy to be Russia, 40 per cent said it was Germany and seven per cent Iraq...."America speaks with passion for democracy which is something that you miss in Europe," said Linas Linkevicius, Lithuania's foreign minister, whose office decor includes a blue baseball cap with "Mr Nato" emblazoned above its peak.... East European admiration for America is firmly seated in gratitude for the covert and overt support of successive Washington administrations for political dissent during the years of Soviet domination.
"Even under Soviet occupation, we trusted America rather than Europe," says Marius Laurinavicius, deputy editor of Lithuania's largest daily newspaper. "Unlike Europe, Washington never recognised the Soviet occupation of Lithuania."
Feb 25, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
The L.A. Times (2/23/03) carries an article about how Iranian expatriates hope the U.S. invades Iraq--and after that, Iran:
Others, who despair of the clerical regime's capacity for reform, even hope that after Iraq, the U.S. will take on Iran....
When newspaper headlines suggest that Washington's resolve may be wavering, anxiety sets in.
"Are they changing their mind?" Goli Afshar, a 23-year-old student, asked as she alternately tightened and loosened her grip on a mug at a cafe on Gandhi Street. "Can they hurry up with Iraq already, so they can get on with attacking us?"
James Taranto also points to an article in the Teheran Iran News, a reformist paper:
Why is nobody thinking about the immense suffering of the nation of Iraq? If one negotiates or yields to the demands of this hostage-taker Saddam Hussein, he will only be emboldened to increase his demands. He might even take more hostages. In any event, it is only the hostages [the Iraqi people] who will suffer further loss and injury….If Saddam Hussein is allowed to finesse his way out of this crisis, he may take the entire region as hostage in the near future….Moreover, someone should ask these antiwar protesters…if they realize how truly terrifying it is to live near a deranged and demented ruler such as Saddam Hussein, who has already invaded two of his neighbors?…Where were these protesters when Saddam Hussein was killing hundreds of thousands of citizens with conventional and unconventional weapons?…In conclusion, the same high and mighty Western powers who created the monster that is Saddam Hussein owe a debt of honor to the people of Iraq, as well as to the people of the entire region, to disarm and remove him from power now. [Iran News, 2/17/03]
Needless to say, this is not the position of the Iranian government.