Until the advent of materialism and 19th c. dogma, Western Civilisation was superior to anything Islam had developed. Islam has not aided in the development of the modern world; in fact civilisation has only been created in spite of Islam. Proof of this resides in the 'modern' world and the unending political-economic and spiritual poverty of Muslim states and regions. Squatting on richer civilisations is not 'progress'. Islam is pagan, totalitarian, and irrational.
Liberals are right, we should leave Iraq, lose the war on terror and leave the world to the UNO
Soft power is about as relevant and intelligent as global warming.
by Ferdinand III
The Liberal elite – arrogant, self righteous, hypocritical, and usually corrupt – assumes that it can regulate, manage and shape the world to the benefit of all. The benefits mostly go to themselves but Liberals persist in painting the fantasy that their selfish interests, in wearing the robes of Plato’s Guardians, are in the best interests of mankind. The Liberals are now screaming, even more vocally then before, that the war on terror is going badly, that Iraq is lost and we should pull out, and that the West is to blame for the turmoil in the Middle East and beyond. The media stands almost four-square behind the Liberals in their hatred of the Bush-Blair axis and their support of the ‘underdog’ ie. Fascist, expansionist Islam. But is the Liberal left right? Should we leave Iraq, allow Israel to be destroyed, appease Islam and call in the UN as the only police constable and arbiter of international relations? Let’s analyze those positions.
Liberals apparently believe that the war on terror is not a war that demands pre-emption and that Iraq is another Vietnam. Interesting. So when Clinton had a chance at destroying Al Qaeda and Bin Laden before 9-11 and did not take it [referenced 3 times in the 9-11 Commission Report], we can assume that 9-11 was okay – a mere consequence of past Cold War atrocities. I wonder if this same attitude would be held if it was downtown Paris or Toronto that had been decimated by Islamic terrorists. Doubtful. So if the US had invaded Afghanistan in 1999, killed and disbanded the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the war according to the Liberal-left, would have been illegal, ineffective and immoral, even if it would have saved the 3000 innocents murdered on 9-11. Fantastic logic.
How then do Liberals defend their decision to support Clinton’s intervention in Bosnia to save Muslims from being exterminated? Bombing from 30.000 feet was the preferred US battle plan leading to thousands of dead civilians and doing little to damage the Serb military. It was unauthorized and ineffective and in the Liberal sense – immoral. But no American troops died – just Serb and Muslim civilians. As well the UN never authorized this mission in 1999. Neither did the EU support it, doing everything it could, according to Wesley Clark NATO commander at the time, to hamper the operation, concerned as Clark puts it with, ‘questions of legal processes’. Ergo according to Liberal logic, this war was illegal. So pre-emption is okay as long as the Liberal-left approves and it is done from 30.000 feet and the civilian dead are never counted. Interesting logic.
We can analyse the Iraq war in the same vein. The Iraq war is indeed problematic for the Liberal-left position since all the powerful Liberal interests have at one time, including even left wing rags such as the New York Times, supported the decision to regime change Iraq. In fact the US Senate approved the Iraq Liberation Act without dissent when Bill Clinton was president. Liberals now cry, ‘Bush lied [about WMD], thousands died’, or ‘no blood for oil’, even as oil prices have skyrocketed. Unfortunately such sloganeering shows the true adolescent nature of the Liberal position on Iraq. It is contradictory, hypocritical and dishonest.
There are vast sources of information outlining the nexus of money, terror and aggression in Iraq – all targeted against Israel and the US enforced blockade of Iraq during the 1990s. A market of money, arms, weapons, and terrorism made Iraqi regime change mandatory. There were 23 reasons for going to war and WMD as one of the 23. Not taking out Iraq would have been to jeopardize Western security – a point made by former UN inspectors Duelfer and Kay. Al Qaeda affiliates such as Al Ansar were training in northern Iraq near the Iranian border. The regime was descending into chaos and the corruption of the Oil for Food scandal and the enrichment of French, Russian, Chinese, German and other non-US interests, including billions made by Hussein himself, made the embargo a farcical policy. The fact that 300.000 Iraqi’s were liquidated by Hussein during the 1990s apparently did not much trouble the Liberal-left. Five thousand babies were dying monthly in Iraq in the 1990s according to Unicef. Liberals so concerned about human rights, are seemingly hypocritical when US or Israeli actions are involved. Better to condemn the Iraq invasion as immoral and not authorized by the UN then to defend the liberation of Iraqi’s, the saving of 60.000 children per year, and the improvement of our own security.
And what about Israel? Now that Iran has joined the chorus of fascist Islamic groups threatening to wipe Israel off the map, does the Liberal left care? The PLO has said the same for decades – after all such a goal is inscribed in its Constitution. The only Islamic nation to renounce such an objective has been Jordan, targeted recently by terrorists in the Amman bombings. The Liberal-left so heavy on human rights and democracy has spent decades pillorying, and allying themselves against Israel – the only democratic state, [outside of the New Iraq], in the Middle East. Assigning all blame to Israel for Islamic terror and waging of war is to be polite rather ignorant and it is of course extremely inconsistent and hypocritical. In fact the Liberal left support of the Arab world against Israel is immoral and jeopardizes our own security. Israel is after all, on the front lines in the war on Islamic fascism. They need support, not UN inspired racist rants.
So what would happen if the US left Iraq, apologized, tore up the Constitution and let the Iraqi state devolve into civil war? What would happen if the US agreed with Iran and the PLO and ordered the state of Israel to be torn down? Would Islam thank the Great Satan? Would there be peace? Would we be safer? Would the Muslims now living in the US occupied Iraq be better off, or the Muslims living under supposed Jewish oppression be better off if the Jews and Americans left the Middle East for good? Would terror attacks across the world suddenly stop?
Of course not. The implicit assumption by Liberals is this: a war is a good war as long as someone they like wages it. A war is a good war as long as it kills no-one or no-one that matters. A war is a good war as long as France and Russia agree. A war is a good war, as long as the polls show that voters in sensitive voting districts support it. A war is a good war, as long as their media friends nod sagely and say ‘yes we agree’. A war is a good war, as long as democracy, saving lives, human rights, freedom, and securing our future are not important issues – these are after all far too difficult to attain. A war is a good war as long as we can get it over with during the weekend and all the kids in the new regime are attending Harvard by September. A war is a good war as long as no-one is offended and the Useless Nations Orgy agrees.
So let’s assume that the Liberal left is right. Let’s withdraw from Iraq and let Israel fall prey to Islamic aggression and terror. Let’s do it and see what the consequences are. Afer all what the Soviets could not do, maybe Islam can and let’s see how long the Liberals will be allowed to voice dissent under such a New World Order.
