Sunday, March 19, 2006


"Lunatic Fringe
We know you're out there
But in these new dark ages
There will still be light"

Tom Cochrane/Red Rider, As Far As Siam

What's the antiwar crowd up to these days? Actually I like to refer to them as the pro-Saddam crowd, because that's what they support. I ask this because they have reared their ugly little heads again this weekend to mark the third anniversary of the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. AP is reporting that the planned protests generally drew "smaller-than-anticipated crowds" worldwide.

Al-Jazeera, on the other hand, reports "massive rallies" on Saturday, and then goes on to mention the 500 who showed up in Sydney, the 2,000 that showed up in Tokyo, and the 300 that turned out in a town in East Punjab. On Sunday, al-Jazeera reported 200 in New Orleans, 2,000 expected in Seoul, and down to 800 in Tokyo, for Day 2. It looks like London had the biggest turnout, with a reported 15,000. I guess that's because the Muslim Association of Britain ordered everyone to show up. Can they do a fatwa for that? Chicago appeared to have 7,000, outdoing Times Square in NYC with its piddly 1,000-participant rally.

The NYTimes has a similar report. They seem to be featuring Hurricane Katrina survivors at these things in the US. I guess everyone wants their fifteen minutes. Speaking of which, I'm glad I didn't come across anything from the usual Hollywood hypocrites.

This is pretty sad when you consider that a relatively small city like Amed can turn out a crowd of 80,000 on short notice.

It's more revealing to read what the "pundits" are writing on the subject. The "pundits" I checked were at and because these sites are composed of the left and those who are so far right, that they are actually on the left, but don't realize it. I mean, where else are you going to find Patrick Buchanan and Juan Cole listed together as "Additional Contributors?" has a link to an article by some guy named Todd Chretien, titled Why Is the Left Understating the Carnage. But if you click on the link at, you get redirected to a article, so let's go with that. The interesting thing is that Todd Chretien is from the Green Party and he's in the process of challenging Dianne Feinstein for a California seat in the US Senate. Click back to the homepage for, and you find an article titled Where's the Resistance Here on the Homefront?.

Get this--after obligatory breast-beating about the deaths in Iraq and the failed contributions of Jack Murtha and Cindy Sheehan to the homefront resistance, they mention that Cindy Sheehan was considering challenging Dianne Feinstein in the Senate run also, until Barbara Boxer, the other California senator, talked her out of it. Too much competition for the Wicked Witch of the West, I guess.

Then we get to the heart of this article, which is the censure campaign against Bush 2 and how none of the big name Democrats are backing the Senate censure motion. I betcha Todd the tenderfoot would make sure everyone else paid attention to the censure motion if he won that California senate seat.

So it all boils down to these dirtbags using Iraq in order to push their own, homegrown, American ethnocentric agenda, just as I have always suspected. These scumbags don't give a damn about what is happening to Iraqis, nor to what is happening in the greater Middle East, they just want to censure Bush. That is the only reason they whine about Jack Murtha and "immediate withdrawal" is to push their own agenda.

These creatures could not stop Operation Iraqi Freedom. The US had no postwar plan to reconstruct Iraq, or at least whatever they did have was not in the least bit practical. Now that Iraq is in a situation which precludes "immediate withdrawal," that's all these antiwar morons can shriek about. Let me remind everyone, that these were the same antiwar morons who never came up with any alternative to the pre-war sanctions or to the war itself. The reason is that they don't really give a damn if Middle Easterners die.

Guess what else? Not a single one of these morons has bothered to contact the Iraqi left to see what needs to be done to help Iraq, but people in Iraq, like Kurds, will get sanctimonious lectures like this one:

Rather than defining themselves vis-à-vis powerful states, the Kurdish people must find ways to link up with those resisting imperialism. This is an imperative that was at the heart of the world socialist movement of the early 1920s when the Kurdish nation was first seeking ways to define itself politically and culturally. As an oppressed nation, they certainly deserve the right to self-determination. This task is complicated by the failure of socialism to reach a critical mass in the Middle East and by the collapse of the USSR, which once provided aid to progressive movements even if in a compromised manner.

Resisting imperialism?? I'd be damned happy to avoid the Syrian suicide bomber down at the local bazaar! What in the hell are these lefties thinking?

What does the Iraqi Communist Party have to say about the situation? Didn't know there was an Iraqi Communist Party, did you? Their political position statement from January, 2006 can be read here. What do they say specifically about "immediate withdrawal" and "support of the international forces of the left?" It goes something like this:

We struggle for creating the conditions for the withdrawal of foreign troops at the earliest possible time. However, we believe that calling for their immediate withdrawal does not take into consideration the sharp current polarization in our country, the existence of paramilitary organizations, and the insufficient preparedness of the Iraqi security forces. Hence we call for a timetable for withdrawal together with doubling the efforts to provide the internal political, institutional and security conditions for this withdrawal. As was evident in the statement of the National Accord Conference held in Cairo last November, there is an Iraqi consensus regarding such a withdrawal timetable in order to avoid chaos and additional suffering. This is a realistic agenda and can be implemented in a relatively short period.

We hope that the anti-war forces take into consideration the complexities of the situation in Iraq. At the same time, we respect the right of all parties and organizations in the countries that have sent troops in Iraq to call for their speedy withdrawal. It is their own internal affair, while we too reserve the right to formulate our own position in accordance with what we consider to be in the interests of our country. Such an approach can provide an effective and practical basis for joint action that would serve the noble cause of world peace and the struggle for freedom, democracy, human rights and social progress.

We welcome an enhanced UN role in this transitional period, towards achieving full national sovereignty, ending the presence of all foreign troops as soon as possible, and providing support for the country's reconstruction. We also call for activating the role of the UN to enable Iraq and our people to complete the political processو build democratic constitutional institutions, and set up a fully legitimate elected government, as well as ensuring a free, fair and transparent election process.

We have to note, with regret, that the Iraqi democratic forces have not received, in their difficult struggle, effective solidarity and support from international forces of the left. As a result, most of the latter have unfortunately been rendered observers of events, rather than exerting positive influence on the ongoing struggle over the future course of developments in Iraq, especially in supporting the struggle for a democratic prospect, at a time when the Iraqi patriotic and democratic forces are in urgent need for such concrete and multifarious support and solidarity.

"[T]aking into consideration the complexities of the situation in Iraq"? Not likely for the lunatic fringe whether they are on the left or on the far right. Your eyes are too black for the international forces of the left anyway, comrades.

Neither is the worthless UN capable of considering the complexities of the situation. Nor are France, Germany, Russia and all the other dirty Europeans who refuse assistance to the Iraqis because they have their own, petty anti-American agenda. Besides, they're all still upset that their cash cow, Saddam, isn't giving them oil vouchers anymore.

The bottom line reads like this: They don't care. And that makes all the stupid comments by all the stupid antiwar/pro-Saddam people, to the effect that they are protesting for the Iraqi people, utterly hypocritical.

Hmm. . . I'm having thoughts about karma again. How many thousands of Kurds and Iraqis were murdered under the Saddam regime? How many Americans have died so far in Iraq?

Lunatic fringe, you have a long way to go until you pay off your karmic debt.


Anonymous said...

Hermann Wilhelm Göring: "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

philip said...

Mizgin, since the late 1960's, if you have any questions what is the moral and practical policy for a given situation, observe what the American Left supports--then oppose it.

You furriners are only so many meaningless pawns, like the Cambodians and the Afghans and the MittelEuropeans and all the countless millions whose freedom was written off by these morons since the 1960's. If Bush is behind you...THEN THEY WILL BE AGAINST YOU.

Notice how many people we see in the media this week pushing the "Saddam-kept-order-and-blocked terrorism" line? It's like a million innocents blasted and maimed never happened, they were pitched right down The Memory Hole.

Someday I'm gonna find an interested shrink, and we're goona wirte a real interesting book about this phenomenon.

Litmus said...

I have one long as yet unfinished post going on about the don't-call-us-we'll-call-you crowd. When the Left runs out of moral arguments they suddenly adopt a supposedly realist cost-benefit stance, and when the realists run out of arguments they suddenly show an interest in morality. That's whats ingenious about calling yourself a "realist", no one is going to question your desire to represent reality as accurately as possible. It's hilarious when they in all seriousness point out that Saddam was not a threat to the US and conveniently purge from their account of reality the very thing that prevented Saddam from being a threat-- the Iraqi Fucking Sanctions, or more accurately, the Iraqi-fucking sanctions.. Which, after all, was one of the harshest sanctions imposed on a country in history and which had resulted in 200,000-500,000 deaths in a decade, and which would have continued indefinately if it wasn't for the invasion. Hence, The West was already conducting a war against Iraq, a war that was approved unanimously by the UN Security Council, which shows that "death by apathy" is always more agreeable than "death by war".

Mizgîn said...

So when are you going to finish that post, Litmus? I never understood the sanctions. How is it that anyone can believe that the sanctions were going to harm Saddam? But no one really believed that, did they? It was merely a convenient dodge of what was an extremely inconvenient situation for Iraqis and Kurds, carried out by the morally cowardly, i.e. Bush 1 and Colin Powell, aided and abetted by the entire rest of the world. As for the UN security council, well, if you look back at the beginning of the UN, you can see that it took very little time at all for the idea of maintenance of territorial integrity and sanctity to take hold. After all, everyone had to look after their own interests, and this is what has made it convenient to disregard the slaughters of peoples within recognized borders, because it meant that if you were to do anything like that within your own borders, someone else could come poking their nose in.

"Oh, Saddam is using chemical weapons on his own population? It's deplorable, naturally, but it is entirely an internal matter."

And then I wonder about the media. They spent far more airtime on such stupid things as the OJ Simpson trial and the Michael Jackson trial than they ever did, or do, on atrocities committed by dictators and other evil types. Why, for example, is there nothing in the mainstream media about Darfur? How many people, especially in the US have ever heard about Darfur? But I bet they can tell you OJ Simpson's glove size. Who is it that makes the decision to air nauseatingly endless hours of Michael Jackson but completely buries atrocities? I think that the decision-makers here should be held accountable.

And then we should be grateful to these "pacifists" or phony "dissenters?" Why? Because they "feel our pain?" They have not felt pain until they have seen their loved ones consumed feet-first by a wood chipper, or their neighbors machine-gunned en masse, or all of their relatives bulldozed over in a mass grave, or the REAL Abu Ghraib, where the inmates of overcrowded cells were fired up, and the prisoners in the cells below were inundated with the blood.

Their reality TV is not anywhere near any kind of reality.

They don't care.

Philip, when you get around to that book, make sure and include a chapter on what it is that makes the left and the far right link up because the psychology of that should be very interesting.

In fact, since we have a quote from a notorious fascist, let me point out the fact that fascism is the name of the tangent point where left and far right meet. Examples: the National Socialist Party and the Arab Ba'ath Socialist Party. The slogans: "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" and "Unity, Freedom, Socialism." The result: How does the Arab/Muslim world differ from the Third Reich? In practical terms, it doesn't. But then, if these hypocrites knew about the REAL Abu Ghraib, they would clearly see that.

And if they were human, they would oppose it.

Litmus said...

"How is it that anyone can believe that the sanctions were going to harm Saddam?"

I think the idea was that such dismal conditions would lead to defections in his army and Saddam would become vulnerable to internal plots against him, possibly within his inner circle. The sanctions were there because Saddam continued to pursue WMD program throughout the 90s, violating, as it has been often advertised, UN resolutions some 17 times. Rolf Ekeus, who was the UNSCOM head from 91-97 (some claim he destroyed more Iraqi weapons than the first Gulf War), and who is pro-Iraq War by the way, said that as long as Saddam was in power the sanctions were necessary in order to prevent him from acheiving his goals.

Anonymous said...

Very nice! I found a place where you can
make some nice extra cash secret shopping. Just go to the site below
and put in your zip to see what's available in your area.
I made over $900 last month having fun!

make extra money