Grant McCool and Reuters should be embarrassed to print this kind of garbage.
More than a million antiwar protesters have poured into the streets of cities around the globe on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq to demand the withdrawal of U.S.-led troops.Worldwide?
From Sydney to Tokyo, from Santiago, Chile, to Madrid, London, New York and San Francisco, demonstrators on Saturday condemned U.S. policy in Iraq and said they did not believe Iraqis were better off or the world safer because of the war.And I'm sure there was a huge anti-war protest in Baghdad, right? Well, way down, buried under miles of crap:
Many in Iraq said their lives had improved since Saddam was toppled, but others said guerrilla attacks and lawlessness left them fearful.So lots of people who weren't living in daily fear of murder, torture, and rape think the war was a bad idea, but the folks freed from horrible oppression seem to approve. They're afraid of "guerrilla" attacks (actually terrorist attacks, since the targets aren't military), but that's still an improvement.
Here's an after-action report from the pro-murder, pro-torture, pro-rape rally I went to last year around this time (with a great AP photo of me being attacked by a "peace" protester!).
So I'm pro-rape, pro-murder and pro-torture? Michael, I always knew you held me in high esteem. At least I wore the uniform for several years, unlike a lot of chickenhawks.
But the Iraqis did protest. There was a large protest in Baghdad on Friday. It was widely reported in the media. Here, for example:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/20/iraq.main/
And among other perspectives, Riverbend of Baghdad Burning has some choice comments on the "liberation" she's been living under:
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#107981292647420559
I'm not sure what information sources you're using these days, but if they lead you to believe there is anything other than global revulsion at what Bush did in Iraq, you need some new sources. Because that's pretty much what's out there right now: global revulsion.
Yeah, global revulsion that Bush toppled a sadistic freak who killed and maimed. Says a lot more about the state of the rest of the world than it does about the US.
Global revulsion? So that means that the global community thinks that what Saddam Hussein did was ok, as long as it was to his own countrymen?
No, it doesn't mean that. And I think it's revealing that it's not just random blog commenters, but even the president and his top appointees, who feel the need to engage in this kind of strawman argument as the only way they can defend the Iraq war.
No one is saying Hussein was a good guy. No one is saying that, absent any consideration of the costs and longterm consequences of the manner in which it was done, it is a bad thing that he was removed from power. So y'all should stop talking like that's the position the other side is taking in the debate. Because it isn't. And you (and the president, and his top appointees) sound like third-graders when you try to argue from that position.
I realize you've got nothing else. But you know what a grownup does when his argument falls apart? When the facts persist in directly contradicting his position? He acknowledges that he was wrong, and moves on.
Little kids don't do that. They persist in arguing their position. They didn't break the cookie jar, and you're a poopy head for saying they did. Up is down.
Yeah, well, fine. But the rest of the world is under no obligation to go along with your self-serving version of reality. And, as the original article Michael pointed to indicates, that's exactly what the rest of the world, in this situation, is doing: failing to go along with your self-serving version of reality.
No, John, we understand the rest of the world perfectly. If the price of getting rid of Saddam was the US invading Iraq, the rest of the world didn't want him gone all that badly. You can say whatever you want, you can spin it however you want, but you would rather he be in power than the US remove him.
What about this?
"In New York, scene of the September 11, 2001, hijacked plane strikes by Islamic MILITANTS, tens of thousands created a sea of signs in midtown Manhattan, many of them criticising Bush, who is running for re-election in November."
Shouldn't that be changed from "militants" to Islamic terrorists? If 9/11 wasn't clearly an act of pure terrorism (even the extreme western left and the extreme islamic right acknowledge this) then what was it. Grant McCool indeed.
JT: Serving in the military doesn't given you any special insight into international politics or any special dispensation to protect dictators.
JC: Actually I hadn't read about the protests in Iraq. I guess we mustard-gassed the protesters huh?
RC: I think you're right on the bottom line. Most of the world wanted Saddam to stay in power because it was incredibly profitable. Lileks explained it pretty well today.
And Michael, you don't know me well enough to claim that I am pro-murder.
Actually, the United States is the country who gavfe Iraq the mustard gas!