jump to navigation

The Liberal Scream Make Iraqi Ears Hurt April 12, 2007

Posted by Daniel Downs in Chrisitanity, freedom, Iraq, Islam, justice, law, liberalism, Middle East, news, peace, politics, religion, United States, war.
trackback

The liberal scream constantly heard everywhere is for bringing our troops home. The liberal scream also drowns out contemporary reality. Getting out of Iraq only serves the re-election interests of liberal politicians, not the good of either the Iraqi people or Americans. The victims of liberal politics will not get over America’s abandonment any more than the Kurds. The only reason the Kurds may feel a sense of justice for America’s leading them into Hussein’s nuclear slaughter is the Bush-led end of their destroyer.

If liberals actually cared about anything other than their political agenda, lust and greed, their loud-long scream would have ended the genocidal destruction of the Sudanese Christians and animists. What those Sudanese heard was liberal silence. Maybe it was because of their hate for the religious cause of their political opponents. More likely, it was the result of not wishing to offend the Arab-Muslim power block. The fact that Bush is in one way like them—he believes in using the sword when necessary—may be too frightening to them. Democrat Clinton used the sword but accomplished nothing. Bush is actually getting the job done. A greater problem posed by Bush is his likeness to some of those Arab-Muslims—he is actually dedicated to God’s cause. Having an actually follower of religion as President must be more threatening than radical Muslims because his religion is a reminder of what they fervently oppose. Bush is a terror to those who oppose the likeness of the founders and many of their ideals. Bush is public about his religion, liberals only give God lip service in private. Like in Saudi Arabia, they want every Christian, genuine or not, to do the same.

Be that as it may, the liberal’s nostalgia of Vietnam era socialist peace has never solved any problems of war. America may have started the Vietnam War, but Bush did not. America needs not go to Vietnam, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, or elsewhere to fight Russia’s communism. The war with Socialism is being wage on American soil. The new war is with Islamic terrorism. Real terrorists rejoiced at their brethrens’ accomplishment on 9/11. The liberals favorite supposedly victimized people—the Palestinians—danced in the street rejoicing with their brethren. They were not the only Islamic people pleased with such a result. Saddam Hussein was implicated in the act because his agents were involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and in 2001. He harbored known terrorists. He committed genocide against the Kurds. Yet, some liberals spew out of their arrogance the passionate scream for another supposed victim of Bush’s Presidential boldness, an international and moral law abiding kind of boldness.

In every war, innocent people become victims. Innocent Iraqi people are the only real victims of it. They are its victim from all sides. Saddam Hussein’s atrocities ended only to experience new ones. The atrocities of war like our military’s use of white phosphorus bombs should have never happened. It is hard to imagine any good reason why our government should ever use chemical and biological weapons. The atrocity of the American-led war did not stop with the fall of Saddam Hussein. Islamic jihadists from other countries continue destroying people who only desire freedom from oppressive rulers.

Though politicians seem to be achieving the media-engineered will of Americans, those same Americans are still not that satisfied with their performance. According to a recent Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey,

“While Democrats and Republicans disagree over what Congress should do about Iraq, there is bipartisan criticism of Congress’s handling of the issue to date. Nearly three-quarters of Americans (73%) – including 77% of Republicans, 78% of independents and 66% of Democrats – say Congress is doing only a fair or poor job dealing with Iraq. Just 22% say Congress has done an excellent (3%) or good job (19%) in this regard.”

Democrats believe their politicians should be doing more to end the war. Republicans believe liberal politicians have gone too far in challenging Bush’s Iraqi policy. Along the same party ideological lines, Americans believe the troop will have positive long-term impact towards accomplishing the war to establish a stable democratic government in Iraq. A majority of Republicans see Bush’s troop surge as accomplishing it. Most Democrats, on the other hand, believe nothing will be accomplished. The operative word is belief.

This belief, I believe, is behind the recent visits of liberal politicians to the Middle East. They seem to believe negotiation with those sending men to fight or sending resources to those who are fighting against Iraqi democracy will end ultimately end the war. I too believe it could, but at a terrible price. I also agree it will end without democracy ever having had a real chance to succeed. The Arab-Muslim block will regain its past Islamic member state. That is what is at stake.

Bush has been attempting to help Christians, other non-Muslim, and many Muslims in Iraq accomplish the impossible dream. They dream of an American-like government of freedom for all. Not mere voting rights, which they already had as long as they voted for Hussein, they dream of real religious freedom, real freedom of speech, real right to life and due process, and many others we take for granted. But, God help them if they ever achieve it based on mere secularism, a.k.a. socialist-humanist Unitarian liberalism.

Digg!Digg This! Technorati Permalink

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Duf Patrol - April 13, 2007

Well not being a Liberal Democrat I wonder if you know what Republicans are really about. They do the corporation bidding and this war is making some corporations very rich.

This war would not excist if all the Republicans that are so much in favour of the war had to send their sons off to fight it. It seems most of the ones on the front like are young and from middle class down. It has always been that way, the young poor people get to be the ones in front of the shells.

As yourself this, if the Iraq war is winable, how come no one has in the last thousand years been able to bring the Sunni and Shite together. If you really know what this war is about it is not about empowering the Iraqi’s to democracy, it is about protecting the western interest in the Gulph regions and making companies like Haliburton rich beyound their wildest dream.

Get out of Iraq and let them at it. Another life lost on our side is not worth the price. You cannot bring peace to a people who believe they will get 100 virgins and matrydom from blowing themselves up.

Bush took his eye of the war on terror when he went into Iraq. If you think I am wrong, name the party right now that if the enemies in Iraq would surrendar who would Bush have to sit across to sign the surrender document. Know one knows, that is why this war is unwinnable, we do not know who we are fighting.

Though I support the troups there I do not support the actions taken by the government. This war was unneccersay, too many old men ready to put too many young ones in harms way without any clear goals or time line. This war has lasted longer now than the second world war. Time to get it finished.

2. Daniel - April 13, 2007

Who says I agree with what Republicans are about? Halburton may be getting rich, but it does not change the law that any nation who aides another to depose of a destructive government also recups the costs of war and any rebuilding. I wonder how many other corporations are making a killing of it.

As far as your argument about Shiites and Sunnis, the same was said about Catholics and Protestants both in America and Ireland. History refutes your position against the possibilities.

You argument about only the middle class and poor young going to war and not the rich is also flawed. Memory fails as to the name of the young sports star killed in Afghanistan, but he was not poor nor was he drafted. He like others chose to join the military. That is what joining the military used to mean, fighting foes, the benefits of education or a good career was secondary.

Your position reminds me of foreign critics of America; freedom and democracy are for Americans only. Yet, Iraqis had long appealed to America’s government for help and Bush had the audacity to do what was right.

3. totaltransformation - April 15, 2007

I didn’t support this war when it began, but now that it has started we have a responsibility to see it through to some reasonable conclusion- one that does not simply equal pulling out and going home.

Personally, I like the partition idea being floated around, which would create three new nations out of Iraq. After all, before Europeans drew up these boundaries lines many decades ago, only Iran had the borders it possesses today.

4. Daniel - April 16, 2007

The partition plan might work, but I wonder if the that would be sufficent to sustain democracy in all or any of them against the external opposition of Iran or Syria or even groups like Al Queda.

5. in2thefray - April 18, 2007

The partition plan would eliminate a country probably beyond reunification. The three parts pretty much exist already via migration and allegiances but does and would still see internal conflict. Cementing the separation could require “Berlin” style occupation. Who helps with that ? The results of these three points manifests in Iranian incursions, destabilization of Turkey ala Kurds and who knows what from the Saudis.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: