The Capital Times of Madison, Wisconsin reports on some local "peace activists" who recently visited Iraq. Marion Stuenkel admits that deposing Saddam was the right thing to do, even though she's sure there's a dark lining in that silver cloud:
The people of Iraq are grateful that Saddam Hussein is gone. And a year ago they were filled with hope, she said, but that is not the case now.Both Stuenkel and her partner in peace, George Martin, say it's time for the troops to leave and surrender Iraq to the terrorists:
"We hear the argument that if we leave, there will be a civil war," Martin said. "But it couldn't get any worse." The people he talked to in Iraq want to take charge of their own destiny, he said.I can't say with certainty whether Marion Stuenkel took to the streets in early 2003 to call for the overthrow of Saddam which she now endorses. But her sponsoring organization, "Christian Peacemaker Teams", was doing what it could to "get in the way" of the liberation of Iraq, so it's fair to assume that she probably wanted to keep Saddam in office.
Meanwhile, George Martin went on the record in February 2003 claiming that
there's unanimous support in the Middle East to say there should be no attack on IraqIf the people of Iraq really are grateful that Saddam is gone (which we're also hearing from other sources), the Middle Eastern support for leaving him in power probably wasn't "unanimous". So if Stuenkel and Martin were completely wrong about Iraq before the war, why should anybody pay attention to what they have to say about Iraq now?
This member of their audience put it all in perspective
Activist and Vietnam veteran Will Williams, sitting in the back of the room, piped up.That says it all. In the minds of these so-called "peace activists, it really is better to leave the world to tyrants and terrorists than it is to build democracy and nurture freedom. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 24, 2004 07:00 AMAmerica is governed by powerful corporations that pull the strings of its politicians, he said. Before the war in Iraq there were protests around the world, and the people were ignored.
"If democracy in Iraq is anything like it is here, they are better off without it."
Do you think these activists would change their minds if their children had their eyes plucked out with a spoon or tossed into a shredder? What bothers me graetly is the number of these leftists who imagine that America is a police state. is it some massive charade or are these people truly insane with rage?
Posted by: StarBanker on June 23, 2004 11:39 PMStarBanker:
None so blind.
Many of these people wilfully refused to see what the USSR was like, but had no problem believing that Ronald Reagan was busily creating a police state.
They could not believe the level of depravity that a North Korea could produce, but felt that South Korea (under the generals) was one step away from Nazism.
I have no doubt they honestly believe that the "digital Brown Shirts" are little different from the actual Brown Shirts. I just as much believe that they dismiss reports of shredders as little different from claims of incubators being looted.
"They" are never as depraved as "we," I think, encapsulates their mantra.
Posted by: Dean on June 24, 2004 01:43 PMThe Baath party was a socialist party, so it is not too surprising that American socialists would sympathize with it. I think they sympathize with a lot of African tyrants for the same reason. The same people might be much less sympathetic to, say, the Saudi royal family.
“Unless we . . . are ready to start to die by the thousands in dramatic vigorous new exploits for peace and justice, we should sadly confess that we never really meant what we said, and we dare never whisper another word about pacifism to our sisters and brothers in those desperate lands filled with injustice. Unless we are ready to die developing new nonviolent attempts to reduce conflict, we should confess that we never really meant that the cross was an alternative to the sword . . . ”
Posted by: Jacob on July 3, 2004 04:32 PM