Sadistic Uncle Saddam

 Posted by on 30 March 2003 at 3:22 pm  Uncategorized
Mar 302003
 

This commentary was found at the end of an otherwise normal review of the documentary Uncle Saddam:

However, Americans, who were led to believe by President George Bush that Iraq would be a cakewalk with ‘liberated’ Iraqis dancing in the streets to welcome the Anglo-Americans axis troops, are looking askance at reports that the Iraqis are actually holding out. It is evident that the Iraqi people, in their time of crisis, have proven to like Saddam and are now rallying behind him against the US-British aggression.

The heroic resistance of the Iraqi people has stunned the West and the Arab world, and all those who believed the battle would end quickly for the benefit of the US and British armies. It is clear that the Iraqi people, whom they wished to liberate, refuse to accept freedom brought to them by the tanks of the occupation forces. Western policy makers miscalculated their strategy and admitted that the time was ripe for Britain and the US to seek an “honorable” solution in the United Nations.

I must have missed the “Aggression Against Iraq” banner at the top of the page on my first reading. In any case, perhaps these folks should read Arab News more often, where this startling report appeared:

When we finally made it to Safwan, Iraq, what we saw was utter chaos. Iraqi men, women and children were playing it up for the TV cameras, chanting: “With our blood, with our souls, we will die for you Saddam.”

I took a young Iraqi man, 19, away from the cameras and asked him why they were all chanting that particular slogan, especially when humanitarian aid trucks marked with the insignia of the Kuwaiti Red Crescent Society, were distributing some much-needed food.

His answer shouldn’t have surprised me, but it did.

He said: “There are people from Baath here reporting everything that goes on. There are cameras here recording our faces. If the Americans were to withdraw and everything were to return to the way it was before, we want to make sure that we survive the massacre that would follow as Baath go house to house killing anyone who voiced opposition to Saddam. In public, we always pledge our allegiance to Saddam, but in our hearts we feel something else.”

Different versions of that very quote, but with a common theme, I would come to hear several times over the next three days I spent in Iraq.

The people of Iraq are terrified of Saddam Hussein.

I certainly didn’t expect so much resistance and so little uprising by the Iraqi people in this war. But in hindsight, the present situation makes perfect sense. In 1991, we encouraged rebellion… and then allowed Saddam to slaughter and brutalize those who did so. (Wisely I think, we are actively discouraging such rebellion this time around.) And Saddam clearly learned his lesson from 1991, given his present use of the Fedayeen to terrorize the locals into submission — and into fighting. The Iraqi people are — and should be — wary of our invasion until they know we have eliminated the threat from Saddam. Let’s hope they need not be wary for long.


Share This Post

Virgin Indeed

 Posted by on 29 March 2003 at 8:37 pm  Uncategorized
Mar 292003
 

I just read the most revolting OWL post ever from Mike Rael. Mike has been around a long time. He should know better. Anyway, here it is:

Hi friends:)

I’ve begun looking for Saddam’s actual uncensored speeches. So far, I have found the following link, that involves his talk with Dan Rather:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/26/60II/main542173.shtml

Saddam sounds like a conman, mixing truth and lies. But, in all fairness, he sounds far more dignified than we could have imagined from the soundbytes we have heard on TV.

One thought stands out: Saddam proposed a debate with the President of the United States. This was immediately rejected by the White House as “unserious.” As I read what Saddam had to say, and factoring in that Rather avoided the tough questions about Saddam’s rule, whatever else it was, that question of a debate sounded awfully serious to these virgin ears.

One thought stands out: Saddam proposed a debate with the President of the United States. This was immediately rejected by the White House as “unserious.” As I read what Saddam had to say, and factoring in that Rather avoided the tough questions about Saddam’s rule, whatever else it was, that question of a debate sounded awfully serious to these virgin ears.

best wishes all,
Mike

I didn’t bother posting the following response on the list; I just sent it to him privately.

Mike,

I must admit your OWL post to be one of the most revolting proposals I’ve ever heard. Should FDR have debated Hitler about the proper response to the “Jewish problem”? Saddam is a brutal dictator who does not deserve the pretense of being treated as a respectable or rational person. The only debate ought to be over the mode of his speedy demise.

Go read this article on what his son is allowed to do:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2003/03/24/son_of_saddam/.

Sheesh, even Sports Illustrated is writing on the brutality of his regime. Do you pay no attention? Do you notice nothing more than the facade?

No self-respecting, moral person would ever even consider standing up in debate with a known liar, let alone a man who routinely uses torture, rape, and murder as means of securing his domination over others. I’m truly amazed that you would regard the proposal of debate as “serious” or at all worthy of consideration. The mind boggles.

diana.

I think I need to go take a shower or something. Ick.


Share This Post

More From Den Beste

 Posted by on 29 March 2003 at 7:46 pm  Uncategorized
Mar 292003
 

Steven also has this sober and insightful analysis of the progress of the war from a friend and a retired military officer.

And more… Steven offers a delightful description of France’s recent mangled olive branch. To take it, “all we have to do is apologize and repent, and France won’t hold our misbehavior against us.” That reminds me of a former friend’s attempt at reconciliation after a rather serious break. There too, acceptance would have required me to grovel in apology and repentance — but I had little hope of wiping the slate clean of my allegedly horrible crimes. (I won’t name her, but surely my friends — often former friends of hers as well — know exactly who I’m talking about.)

Oh hell, forget this piecemeal stuff. Just start at the top and read down.


Share This Post

War Crimes?

 Posted by on 29 March 2003 at 7:19 pm  Uncategorized
Mar 292003
 

A question: If Iraq is using state-run television to commit war crimes (by showing American dead and POWs) and to urge terrorists attacks (by urging civilians to suicide bomb US military forces), how can bombing it be the “war crime” that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch? Do brutal dictatorships have a right to spread propaganda, to commit war crimes, and encourage terrorism?

Steven Den Beste has the real round-up on the sell-out of these organizations to leftist ideology, first in this post and then in this one.


Share This Post

War Images

 Posted by on 29 March 2003 at 12:04 pm  Uncategorized
Mar 292003
 

Pro-war liberal Michael Totten has one of the best collections of war images I’ve found. Just keep scrolling down for more, as he posts them periodically.


Share This Post

Pro-War

 Posted by on 29 March 2003 at 9:39 am  Uncategorized
Mar 292003
 

Thomas Sowell comments on who is pro-war… and it’s not who you might think.


Share This Post

Moore Captions

 Posted by on 28 March 2003 at 11:24 pm  Uncategorized
Mar 282003
 

The BBC’s winning captions for the picture of Michael Moore (below) sucked. The proper caption surely must be “Yes, yes, without my spandex girdle, my butt really is that wide!”

Really, what else could he be saying?


Share This Post

Maps to Scale

 Posted by on 28 March 2003 at 10:53 pm  Uncategorized
Mar 282003
 

I’m none too enamored of retired military men drawing upon maps for the news channels; they’re just too coarse to be informative. Lileks puts the point just so much more nicely:

I’ve kept track of the war via the radio and the web. Radio gives you the news of the moment; the web gives you detail and commentary. TV is useful for pictures – I get the feeling sometimes this should be called Operation Stock Footage – and it’s useful for seeing retired military people draw lines on maps. I am heartened by the maps that show where our troops are located – if the pictures are indeed drawn to scale, we have three soldiers on the ground, and each is about 135 miles tall; they have at their disposal four tanks, each of which is the size of Rhode Island.

Yup!


Share This Post

From Friendly Links to Grouchy Rants

 Posted by on 28 March 2003 at 10:11 pm  Uncategorized
Mar 282003
 

War has inspired a great deal of excellent blogging. Heck, even I’m posting more than once per day. So here’s a few tidbits:

  • Phil Carter has a nice discussion of why urban warfare is so bloody.
  • Eugene has some terrible quotes from Mugabe favorably comparing himself to Hitler.
  • While the press is busy second-guessing our military after a mere week of war, we all ought to be reminded of the dangers of the retrospectoscope.
  • One of the most strident pacifists on the Atlantis list posted a list of quotes from anti-war activists in Baghdad. The comment by Lisa Ndjeru was particularly amazing. She wrote:

    We get many phone calls from the media wanting to know casualty numbers and information about places hit. There’s a lot of talk about precision. Are the Americans hitting precise targets? Are they keeping casualties to a minimum? It makes me very angry. Even if it were precision bombing, precision being that not a single civilian or home were hit, it still doesn’t make this war legitimate. (Emphasis added.)

    How is that not being objectively pro-Saddam?

  • That last one is almost as good as Salam Pax complaining about broken windows near precision bombing. Ah right, how can the overthrow of a brutal dictator be worth the terrible evil of a few broken windows! It should not be borne! Really, such lamentations should be saved for the genuine horrors of war.
  • Oh, and here’s an old one, particularly relevant to our delicate ladies in uniform… A nice warm GO TO HELL is my only response to this idiotic article on how women are incapable of honor. I’m neither an angry nor a violent person, but such self-demeaning stupidity makes me want to beat the crap out of someone. Ah, but then I remember that such actions would violate my nature as a nurturing creature. Excuse me while I go read Lt Smash for some butt-kicking consolation… Then perhaps I’ll watch Aliens or T2 for their morally uplifting examples of properly feminine ladies.

    Okay. Wow. I’ll stop ranting now.


    Share This Post

  • Anti-American

     Posted by on 28 March 2003 at 4:51 pm  Uncategorized
    Mar 282003
     

    As many have commented, calling the anti-war protesters “peace protesters” is inaccurate, as peace is not their object. Life under Saddam’s rule, after all, is hardly peaceful. But today, Nordlinger goes further, arguing that “anti-war” might not be so accurate either. He writes:

    Speaking of the very, very ugly: You may have seen the banner that “antiwar protesters” carried in San Francisco: “We Support Our Troops When They SHOOT Their Officers.” So let us put to rest the notion that all of the protesters want only the “safe return of our boys”; that they are simply gentle, high-minded peace-lovers.

    It reminds me a little of the Vietnam era. After the fall of Saigon — and after reports of reeducation camps, boat people, and mass murder reached the West — the Left said, “All we wanted was for our boys to come home, to be out of harm’s way.” I’m sure this was true of many activists. But a great many of them were openly pro-North, pro-Ho, pro-Communist, pro-American defeat. This was a fact that got greatly obscured, in later years. Jane Fonda, for example, was in no significant sense antiwar: She was for the victory of the Communist North against the America-backed South.

    Although it has long been impolite to say that.

    Incidentally, you probably noticed that I put “antiwar protesters” in quotes above. That is because some of these people are hardly antiwar, more closely resembling the Fonda of yore.

    So perhaps such Fonda-like people should be called “pro-defeat” or “anti-victory” instead of “anti-war.” Or perhaps the label “anti-American” is really the most descriptive.

    Update: Josh Zader has posted some further analysis of this issue!


    Share This Post

    Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha