« Breaking the law | Main | Pledge Drive: For the Children »

whose human rights are we talking about here?

Thousands protest war on Human Rights Day

There were posters that read Stop the War in Iraq and the requisite No Blood for Oil, the astute Fuck A War, and my personal favorite, Iraqi Children are not Collateral Damage.

One would think that on something called Human Rights Day, these protesters would not be out there - in essence - supporting the continuation of Saddam's murderous regime.

Human Rights? How about sticking the children of political prisoners in tightly packed cells and starving them to death? Torture? Acid baths? Hanging and beheading right on the streets? Why aren't you over in Iraq protesting that?

Oh, but what about the children of Iraq who are being starved by sanctions, you ask?

Well, it seems to me that if their leader is living in splendor in palaces with servants and gold trim on the molding and luxuries that most people in America couldn't afford, then protesters should be asking not why the American government is starving Iraqi children, but why Saddam is living in the lap of luxury while his people live in poverty.

Oh, perhaps they forgot that Saddam does not really give a damn about "his people." Yet there goes the Human Rights brigade, shouting at us to stop the suffering, to leave the people of Iraq alone, to think of the children.

We are thinking of the children, kiddies.

Remember Afghanistan? I was reading an article in National Geographic about the people of that country, and how they are faring post-invasion. For the most part, they talked about freedom. They talked about being able to walk the streets and show their faces and go to school. They were smiling. They were happy. They were relieved.

Why wouldn't you want that for the people of Iraq, too? You talk about human rights and human suffering and blood for oil and protest and chant and march, but did you ever ask the people of that country if you really speak for them? I think you would be hard pressed to find an Iraqi who would say "no, please do not liberate us from Mr. Saddam, he is so good to us." Unless, of course, Saddam was standing close by with a watchful eye and a gun.

Human rights, indeed. In my eyes, to call for America to not take Saddam out of power is to call for more and more Iraqis to die and suffer. And don't think it doesn't go unnoticed. I'm sure your buddy Saddam smiles wryly every time one of his lackeys tells him about anti-war protests.


these are the card carrying members of "People Against Arab Democracy", or PAAD for short. ( I'll leave it to the other kids to come up with the apropriate maxi-paad, mini-paad and paad's-with-wings jokes :)
They don't want the rest of the world to enjoy the bounties that freedom gives, and as such are the most repulsive type of idiotarians, the "useful idiots" of the dictatorial monsters of the world.

The PAAD stink of racism.

Err, Afghanis aren't walking around talking about freedom. Not with warlords fighting and the Taliban making a comeback. The NG was a bit off on its reporting.

The right judges the need for war based on national interest
The left judges the need for war based on humanitarianism.

In Iraq, both justifications are present in spades.

But the left opposes a humanitarian war because it is also in the national interest.

The left will always forgo being for something given the option of being against

Discuss the issues. Ad hominem attacks are the lowest form of argument, whether originating on the left or right. Many on the "left", whatever the hell that means, simply feel that the war against Iraq is arbitrary and opportunistic. Plenty of countries suffer horrendous human rights violations. Some feel that Iraq is singled out because they are a comfortable enemy and doing so disguises the economic problems we currently suffer. No surprise that there was little sentiment expressed for going to war with Iraq prior to 9/11. I totally respect the opinions posted on this site, but really wish that we could eliminate all talk of "left" and "right" and just discuss issues. Edit yourself. If you find yourself talking about liberals or chickenhawks, you likely have no substantive point to make.

Of all the arguments for and against attacking Iraq, I like two:

1. Because Saddam's a scumbag.
2. We need an easy warm-up target to test our wartoys on, before we use them on China.

Scott, I know you're a jerk and all, but do you really need to post to every even mildly anti-Saddam message, to nitpick and "correct" something that has been said? Maybe the Taliban is making a comeback somewhere in Afghanistan, maybe not. Maybe warlords are fighting. What isn't open to debate is whether the average Afghani is better of now or before the USA erased the evil Taliban government. He is. Too bad brain-dead liberal sycophants like you can't see that.

Dave, you get my vote.

Labelling is patronising and narrow-minded. I'm not a great collector of statistics, and im not very good at dropping them into comments, which makes my opinions here look a little threadbare, but there are always commenters here that are willing to address all comments and concerns in a civilised way, whether backed up by facts and figures or not, and i enjoy those intellegent discussions immensely. it's why i keep coming back here.

Of course, there are always people who can't argue without name-calling, and who believe that the sheer weight of consensus behind them gives them the right to be abusive and spout idiotic generalisations from the 'other orifice'. But then, it's not like you can avoid people confusing bullying with persuasion...

remember the women who were battling to overthrow the taliban?
Here's what they think one year on:

these are the card carrying members of "People Against Arab Democracy", or PAAD for short . . .
They don't want the rest of the world to enjoy the bounties that freedom gives

This evening I heard a woman on Radio Pacifica's "Peace Watch" (gag) claiming that there was a subliminal strain of racism driving the war talk towards Iraq. She said that it's easy to view people with different skin colors as "weird," and to think that "they don't deserve what other people have."

I sincerely wanted to reach through the radio, grab her by the hair and say, "They don't have what other people have NOW, you freaking moron! Do you honestly think that to give these people a life without Saddam Hussein would consign them to an existence worse than one WITH him?"

But those are the sentiments we get from the antiwar crowd. Right, left, whatever--doesn't matter. There are people who are correct, and there are people who are wrong, and the antiwar crowd is wrong.

to Scott: it's "Afghans," not "Afghanis." That would be their currency. Afghanistan is still a backasswards tribal hellhole in most places. But in the big cities, there really is a lot more freedom for the girls and the women.

We can't force every primitive jerk not to oppress the women around him, not when they live out in the boonies. But we can have an influence on Afghan culture in the cities, and that influence will hopefully seep out a bit.

to g: RAWA is full of it, they are a Maoist organization. They opposed American intervention from the very beginning, and now that we haven't delivered a perfect miracle (there are still backwards tribal folk in Afganistan! golly! we totally failed!) they're criticizing us again. Screw 'em.

to the antiwar doofuses: one of your big signs said "WAR IS TERRORISM no more Palestinian & Iraqi blood for oil"

How does the Israel/Palestine situation help America get oil? Wouldn't we get more oil if we were on friendlier terms with the Arabs (and sold out Israel completely)? How does backing Israel help our economic self-interest?