« today's protests: the blair blood project | Main | here's your ANSWER »

what about the children?

Here, we have the protests in Iraq. Yes, the pro-Saddam, anti-war protests. Do the peacenicks really think that these people are rallying around Saddam because they love him? The most likely have been threatened with torture or worse if they didn't get out on the streets and make like they think Saddam is the greatest leader in existence.

But the peace marchers will point to that picture and say "look, even the Iraqi's don't want to be rescued by America! Look how much they love their country!" Are they really that naive to believe that the Iraqi supporters are doing this on their own?

In Africa, they are asking America, what have the Iraqi children done to you that you want to go in their and kill them like baby seals?

Perhaps the question should be posed to their "beloved" leader, who regularly tortures, starves and kills the children of Iraq. But no, the peacenicks do not believe this. They think a war will kill gazillions of children and the remaining babies will be left to die alone in the desert. They read too much propaganda. How else do you explain their belief that Iraqi children are happy with their lives right now, that the thing they fear is the U.S. freeing them, not their own president beheading them?

I'm very frustrated watching the protests on tv today. My blood pressure is skyrocketing.

Comments

You should read my latest post. Some protestor in France said the United States is going "overboard" because of the "stress" we experienced on 9/11.

We've seen all this before, and in the end things worked out very well. Remember the mid and late 80's? Remember the massive nuclear freeze protests, when we were grinding the Soviets down with missile deployments that were forcing them to spend their last few cents trying to keep up with us? They finally went broke, but the peaceniks never grokked the big picture. Now eastern europe, and Russia are free not because of those card carrying bone-heads, but because we had a Government that did what was right in spite of them. Amazing how history sorta repeats itself, isn't it. I wonder how many of these people will admit to participating in these 'protests' after we liberate Iraq, and find out the true extent of the crimes that have been perpetrated by Saddam? I'll bet it'll be hard to find many.

I try not to watch them. The protests they stage do nothing to change my point of view and actually strengthen it.

I try not to watch them...I've given up on those deluded irrational people.

All I am saying is, give JDAMS a chance.

WHAT ABOUT THE CIGARETTES? DID YOU CAVE?

I'm not smoking. I took the counter down because I would rather think of myself as a non-smoker than to keep thinking that I am in the process of becoming a non-smoker.

Playing psych games with myself. Heh.

Actually, I'm probably one of these so-called peaceniks you write about and I believe that the Iraquis detest both Saddam and the U.S. threats. I don't think it's as "one or the other" as what you describe; just because I don't support a U.S. war with Iraq doesn't mean I'm all hunky-dory with the way Saddam treats his people. However, I don't think it's the U.S.' right or responsibility to go into any country and just take over because we think we should. Also, please think again if you think we're going in there for humanitarian reasons. That just wouldn't make much sense if you think about all of the murderous leaders we've helped put in place in the last century - a leader killing his own people isn't the thing that bothers us.

Good strategy. I was thinking of going to psychologist......teach me the art of reverse psychology. Forward Psychology dint work. Yea, you heard me; I said dint.

(smoking is unattractive anyway. Sorry.)

Emily,

The last time I read the news, the US isn't planning an attack on the Iraqi people, rather removing Sadman Insane from power.

Total inaction results in more death than a war. So it is the US's responsibilty to act when it can. Yes, there is oil over there and yes, I'm paying near 2 f**king dollars a gallon because some honcho in a suit realized that naive people think "war = higher gas prices" and that he can get away with it. So every time you fill up your ultra gas friendly Metro, realize you are paying the people who want the oil. Not Bush.

It might surprise Emily that someone such as myself, who supports the war on Iraq as an essential step in the War on Terror, agrees that it is not the responsibility of the US to go in and change the government of Iraq just because Saddam is a loathsome, bloodthirsty tyrant. We are not compelled to do that unless there are significant national interests involved. In the case of Iraq and Saddam this is the case. To win the War on Terror it is essential to reform the dysfunctional political culture of the Arab world, and the place to start is Iraq. As a byproduct, the people of Iraq will be liberated from a tyrant.

Yes, the world is full of tyrants, almost all of whom are hostile to the US to a greater or lesser degree, by the way. Do yo ever wonder why that is? Of course not. I could make arguements that dictators the US supported in the past were not nearly as bad as the alternatives realistically available at the time, both for us and for the people of their countries. I will merely point out the granddaddy of all examples of supporting a vicious dictator for the reason that he was the lesser threat at the time. We supported Stalin in fighting Hitler. Do you think we were supporting the wrong side then?