Democrats Moral Collapse

[Stravo]

In this article you will discover many new and interesting facts:

New name for Dean Supporters: Dean weenies
New name for Clark supporters: Cappucino Commandoes
Bush = FDR
Iraqi Government is in of itself a WMD (No, you read that right, one would think Comical Axi wrote this)
Iraqi people welcome liberation Germans resented it. (Can you hear him wanking yet?)
Anti War people = Hitler Apologists (Someone's law got invoked here, no?)

Read and get a nice chuckle as I did. I may support the war but this is just Bush wanking

DEMS' MORAL COLLAPSE

By RALPH PETERS

October 1, 2003 -- WOULD any sane American have claimed, in the autumn of 1945, that the United States had been wrong to depose Hitler? Even in the autumn of 2003, would any Democratic presidential aspirant suggest that our war against Hitler was a mistake?

Of course not. Hitler launched bloody wars of aggression, committed genocide, created a savage police state, and tortured and killed his own countrymen. He was responsible for the deaths of millions.

Sounds like Saddam to me.

Yet the Democratic Party's uncrowned kings, from Howard the Unready to Wes the Unsteady, insist that Operation Iraqi Freedom was unjustified, whining that Saddam never attacked the United States directly and showed no inclination to do so. According to the Dems, the Bush administration had no moral or legal right to go to war against the Saddam regime, no matter its crimes.

Tell it to FDR. Far from assaulting U.S. interests, Hitler's regime took pains to continue to do business with America for as long as possible. The Japanese, not the Germans, attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Berlin's declaration of war in support of Tokyo was, at best, reluctant.

Yet FDR had the vision and courage to support the anti-Hitler forces of freedom years before America joined the war. Violating international law, Uncle Sam armed Britain long before we took our rightful place at John Bull's side. When war came, FDR gave the fight against Germany priority over the war in the Pacific. And FDR was right.

We conveniently forget that many Americans believed there was no justification for going to war with anybody, no matter how evil, prior to Dec. 7, 1941. It was none of our business. Hitler was only righting the injustice of Versailles . . .

"But wait!" Clark's cappuccino commandos and the Deanie-weenies cry, "Even if Saddam did nasty things, we had no right to go to war without the approval of the international community!"

Faculty-lounge nonsense. American policy can't depend on Belgium's blessing and the approval of Belarus. Do Dean and Clark really think Syria and Sudan are ever going to vote with us at the United Nations to overthrow a tyrant or to enforce respect for human rights?

Gen. Clark is especially elusive here. He insists (except when he doesn't) that going to war against Saddam was wrong because it defied the will of his beloved international community and broke with "accepted" laws on sovereignty.

Yet Gen. Clark (and the Democratic Party) was all for going to war to protect the people of Kosovo from Milosevic, even though far fewer Kosovars had been killed by the Serbs than Iraqis were slaughtered by Saddam. And Milosevic, though a vile creature, never attacked neighboring states beyond the boundaries of the former Yugoslavia.

Slobo was a sissy compared to Saddam. So why was Belgrade a legitimate target, while Baghdad was off-limits? Because NATO's bureaucrats in uniform said so?

Certainly, it was right to protect the people of Kosovo. But why was that a just war, while Operation Iraqi Freedom was, in Gen. Clark's view, a mistake? Because his morally perfect European friends were sick of refugees from the Balkans?

Did the Democrats only support the campaign in Kosovo because it was Clinton's political property? Must they reject the elimination of Saddam's monstrous regime solely because the initiative belonged to President Bush?

Was Gen. Clark so determined to "get" Milosevic because he harbored the sort of personal grudge the Democrats ascribe to the Bush family in relation to Saddam?

Or are the Dems simply racists when it comes to wars of liberation? Was intervention in the Balkans necessary because the victims were white?

Were the lives of half a million Iraqi citizens slaughtered in cold blood by Saddam's regime, as well as the lives of the 1.5 million to 2 million Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis who died in Saddam's wars of aggression, simply not as valuable as the lives of a few thousand Europeans?

Do Democrats secretly place a higher value on the life of a Bosnian than on that of an Iraqi Shi'a? Does Gen. Clark assign greater worth to the lives of Kosovars than to the lives of Kurds? Why don't Democrats ever mention the mass graves in Iraq? Or the relief the overwhelming majority of Iraqis feel at living to see the end of the Ba'athist regime?

Yes, there's a difference between deposing Hitler and getting rid of Saddam: The people of Iraq welcomed liberation, while the Germans resented it.

If the Democrats are unaware of their inconsistencies on such issues, then they are dangerously naive and irresponsible. If they're simply ignoring the truth for political ends, then they are immoral. In neither case should they be entrusted with America's foreign policy.

Democrats' rhetoric about Iraq is one big lie of omission. Taking Bush to task for our failure to uncover stockpiles of WMD, they conveniently forget that Saddam's regime, like Hitler's, was itself a huge weapon of mass destruction. Perhaps I'm not as intellectually sophisticated as Dean or Clark, but I don't see the difference between gassed Jews and gassed Kurds.

Or is freedom only for white folks, privileged blacks and soccer moms?

We tell our children that they should have the courage to do what's right, even if it alienates their classmates. Should we demand less of our government? Should Washington turn a blind eye to massacre and oppression for the sake of remaining a member of the international in-crowd? Or should we have the courage to stand alone and lead when our cause is just?

Those who argue that deposing Saddam was wrong are the equivalent of apologists for Hitler. One has increasing difficulty telling the difference between Gov. Dean and Prime Minister Chamberlain, between Gen. Clark and his role model, Marshal Petain.

Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace," released this week.

[Darth Wong]

Is there really any point reading past the part where he claims that Saddam was just as dangerous to his neighbours as Hitler was? That writer needs help.

[Nathan F]

That guy's screwed up in the head...

You know, I agreed with the Iraq war, and still agree that it was something that needed to be done, but this guy is just a moron.

[Joe]

I couldn't read past the Saddam = Hitler schlock.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I know all of you realize that Hilter declared war on us, we stayed out of the war as long as we could until December 7th. It is amazing this guy cant fathom such a simple concept.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Okay, I read a little further, perhaps he does understand that. So I wonder if he supports sending troops to Africa to stop the killing there? Are we the worlds police? Should we impose a Pax Americana on all nations who dont act nice?

[Stormbringer]

Is there really any point reading past the part where he claims that Saddam was just as dangerous to his neighbours as Hitler was? That writer needs help.

Pre- or Post Gulf War one?

If the world hadn't taken action after he invaded Kuwait he could have actually posed a threat to his other neigbhors. But even his semi-proffesional army was better than most of the other nations had.

Post Gulf War he didn't have the power to much more than screw everyone over before the wheels feel off.

[Darth Wong]

Is there really any point reading past the part where he claims that Saddam was just as dangerous to his neighbours as Hitler was? That writer needs help.

Pre- or Post Gulf War one?

Are you on drugs? You seriously think Saddam's decrepit armed forces posed the kind of threat to neighbouring countries that Germany's finely honed military forces did in the late 1930s?

I know you like to defend Bush apologists (does that make you a Bush apologist apologist?), but this is getting out of hand.

[Trytostaydead]

Are you on drugs? You seriously think Saddam's decrepit armed forces posed the kind of threat to neighbouring countries that Germany's finely honed military forces did in the late 1930s?

I know you like to defend Bush apologists (does that make you a Bush apologist apologist?), but this is getting out of hand.

Of course not. Saddam was never a real threat to the United States' interests unless he DID get his hands on nukes and nuke a few oil fields and/or U.S. interests/territories.. but he was sane enough to know that if he did so there wouldn't even be a Carbon atom of him to find afterwards.

I guess the subject is morality. In terms of morality and the general.. blase attitude towards the death of their "enemies," one is just as bad as the other. Granted, Saddam hasn't set up death camps.. but his hands are just as immoral as Hitlers.

But to the question on hand, I was all for the Iraq invansion. Rah-rah-rah and all that. IF it was followed up. But it seems to be the general attitude that troops are enough to bring "democracy" and "stabilization" to country that had none before. I don't think the Iraqi's even remember what a "stable" country was like. There isn't just one enemy or piece of paper that will make them embrace our way of life and make them loyal allies and good oil pumping trade partners. And I think the Bush administration is really letting the ball fall on this one.

And if he was going after all tangible threats to the US, why did he just stop at Iraq? N. Korea seems to be the utmost dangerous foe we have. And instead of just "suspected" WMDs, they came out and admitted it.

[Stormbringer]

Are you on drugs? You seriously think Saddam's decrepit armed forces posed the kind of threat to neighbouring countries that Germany's finely honed military forces did in the late 1930s?

I know you like to defend Bush apologists (does that make you a Bush apologist apologist?), but this is getting out of hand.

Actually, I asked whether that was meant pre- or post Gulf War.

Pre-Gulf War, yes. He had the forces to overrun his weaker neighbors and in fact he did so with Kuwait. By the standards of the Middle East Iraq actually a fairly decent military. A lot of the neigboring countries militaries were a joke. Of course as we saw, they wouldn't last against a modern Western military but they were quite capable of posing a threat to their neighbors,

Post-Gulf War they weren't up to the task of doing more than threatening their neighbors.

[Darth Wong]

Perhaps (although even before Gulf War 1, he never had anywhere near the kind of military power relative to the rest of the world that Hitler had). However, the article is ranting about democratic objections to Gulf War 2, not Gulf War 1.

[Stormbringer]

Perhaps (although even before Gulf War 1, he never had anywhere near the kind of military power relative to the rest of the world that Hitler had). However, the article is ranting about democratic objections to Gulf War 2, not Gulf War 1.

No, Saddam didn't have the power to challenge the rest of the world. But enough to run roughshod over his neighbors ala Hilter. And of course Germany's war making capacity was nothing spectactular compared the rest of the world. Only the foolish policy of disarmament left him in such a position of supremacy.

I'll admit I didn't get beyond the second paragraph hence my question whether he meant the first Gulf War or the second. After the first, of course he didn't have enough to conquer any of his neighbors. Though the thought of SCUD missles and Ariel Sharon is scary enough.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Perhaps (although even before Gulf War 1, he never had anywhere near the kind of military power relative to the rest of the world that Hitler had). However, the article is ranting about democratic objections to Gulf War 2, not Gulf War 1.

Well, the invasion of Kuwait as pulled off by the Republican Guard was textbook Soviet. They also suffered far too many casualties against such a second-rate army doing it than they should have to be considered a truly disciplined and professional fighting force, and that speaks nothing of the Iraqi regular army.

However, had we done nothing after the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam could have used the combination of the oil wealth of Kuwait and the tactical and strategic lessons of the invasion to field a highly capable force. Even immediately after the invasion of Kuwait he was quite capable of proceeding on to Saudi Arabia; it was just that his logistics made it impossible for him to do so immediately (which is why he didn't during his so-called "window of opportunity")--and the Saudi military at the time was not well-trained and had no combat experience. It's not implausible that Saddam could have won such a conflict; the Saudis, also, didn't have the population advantage Iran did which saved them.

So, in a strictly regional conflict it could be argued that Saddam posed the same threat that Hitler did to Europe, if Europe is looked at as a region like the Mid-East. I would, however, then, place Kuwait in the context of the Rhineland. Hitler was really very weak when he remilitarized the Rhineland. This was his supreme gamble. Saddam, also, claimed Kuwait had been historically a province of the old Iraq and that was his justification for the annexation; there are a few parallels at any rate. Had the world stood up to Hitler when he remilitarized the Rhineland, and enforced the Treaty of Versailles, there would have been no Third Reich to speak of.

For Saddam, Hitler's course would have been like getting Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Syria for free, and only having to fight when he invaded Turkey.

[Sea Skimmer]

Well, the invasion of Kuwait as pulled off by the Republican Guard was textbook Soviet. They also suffered far too many casualties against such a second-rate army doing it than they should have to be considered a truly disciplined and professional fighting force, and that speaks nothing of the Iraqi regular army.

[Sea Skimmer]

Well, the invasion of Kuwait as pulled off by the Republican Guard was textbook Soviet. They also suffered far too many casualties against such a second-rate army doing it than they should have to be considered a truly disciplined and professional fighting force, and that speaks nothing of the Iraqi regular army.

A second rate army with 75% of its personal on vacation. But the Iraqi's still managed to lose something like 30 helicopters laden with Special Forces sent to capture the nations king and a couple of there fixed wing escorts, to six Kuwait fighters and a lone HAWK battery.

[TrailerParkJawa]

However, had we done nothing after the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam could have used the combination of the oil wealth of Kuwait and the tactical and strategic lessons of the invasion to field a highly capable force.

I disagree. Saddam has almost no capability to learn how to use his forces properly. That's why he could never make any headway into Iran, and why his forces were so badly beaten by us twice.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I disagree. Saddam has almost no capability to learn how to use his forces properly. That's why he could never make any headway into Iran, and why his forces were so badly beaten by us twice.

The Iraqis did show some improvement in the Iran-Iraq war when Saddam let his generals run things instead of micromanaging the war himself.

[Steve]

I'm getting tired of Saddam=Hitler comparisons.

We all know Saddam is/was a Stalin-wannabe.

[Gil Hamilton]

No, Saddam didn't have the power to challenge the rest of the world. But enough to run roughshod over his neighbors ala Hilter. And of course Germany's war making capacity was nothing spectactular compared the rest of the world. Only the foolish policy of disarmament left him in such a position of supremacy.

I don't think you can compare what the Iraqi armies feats to that of the German army. Iraqi took excessive casualties invading Kuwait, which is a country the size of a postage stamp. Germany successfully invaded half of Europe. Saddam didn't run over his neighbors anywhere remotely like Hitler did.

[Wicked Pilot]

I'm getting tired of Saddam=Hitler comparisons.

We all know Saddam is/was a Stalin-wannabe.

And just like Stalin, when Saddam launched his invasion against the fundy Hitler wannabes of Iran, we supported him.

[Vympel]

And just like Stalin, when Saddam launched his invasion against the fundy Hitler wannabes of Iran, we supported him.

Well, Germany attacked the USSR, not the other way around.

[Wicked Pilot]

Saddam didn't run over his neighbors anywhere remotely like Hitler did.

I think he probably could have taken Saudi through shear attrition had we not shown up hours later.

[Wicked Pilot]

Well, Germany attacked the USSR, not the other way around.

Do you really believe Stalin would have not attacked if Hitler did not do so first?

[Axis Kast]

Even as his troops marched into the Sudentenland, Hitler had to be wary; with French help, the Czechs could have put up a more than respectable defense, possessed as they were of a large, professional military with a large number (relatively) of armored vehicles and decent artillery.

[Typhonis 1]

Also wasnt the Sudatenland where all the heavy Chec defensive forts were?