LAST UPDATE: 8/27/2005 5:47:25 PM
Posted By: Jim Forsyth
This story is available on your cell phone at mobile.woai.com.
By Jim Forsyth, News Radio 1200 WOAI
Like most Texas reporters, I have made the pilgrimage to interview Cindy Sheehan and her anti war comrades parked in front of Crawford. One of the made-for-television signs held up behind Cindy during the news event I attended was particularly disturbing. "Iraq," read the sign held aloft by two prosperous looking white women,"is Arabic for Vietnam."
By holding this sign, I presume they would favor that the Iraq war end the same way the war in Vietnam ended. I also presume that this means they would not oppose the same fate for the people of Iraq that befell the people of Vietnam and Cambodia after the end of US involvement there, which was one of the more horrible in the sorry annals of twentieth century tyranny. But in 1975, we were told by the anti war crowd that, after all, they were only Asians, they probably couldn't understand democracy anyway, and knew it wouldn't work 'for them.' Its sad to see the same at ude repeated today, that its not worth the blood of white Americans like Casey Sheehan to win freedom and democracy for 'those people,' in this case, brown skinned Arab Muslims.
Even if you drink every last drop of the anti war Kool Aid, even if you are convinced that President Bush was ordered by the Chairman of Halliburton to start the Iraq war and that he intentionally lied to the American people about the existence of weapons of mass destruction, the simple fact is that today, there is demonstrably more freedom for the people of Iraq and for the people of Afghanistan, some 50 million brown skinned Muslims. Yes, there is dawdling over the drafting of an Iraqi cons ution, but before April of 2003, metal shredders and rape rooms awaited any Iraqi who breathed the word 'cons ution.' Yes, a brutal insurgency continues to threaten the Iraqi people, an insurgency which has killed some 25,000 Iraqi civilians since April of 2003. But Saddam Hussein, even by conservative estimates, butchered 1.5 million Iraqis during his 25 years in power (not counting the one million who died in the war he started with Iran). So Saddam and his goons killed an average of 60,000 people a year, while the insurgency has killed 25,000 in two and a half years. Despite the hand-wringing over the insurgency, the devil's arithmetic would indicate that life for the average Iraq is actually safer today than it was under Saddam. But they're brown skimmed Muslims, so not worthy of America's notice, let alone America's sacrifice.
President Bush is actually the greatest liberator of Muslims in history, considering that there weren't 50 million people in the entire MIddle East when Saladin beat back the Crusader hordes. But to the anti war activists, providing freedom from slavery, democratic and economic opportunity to brown skinned people isn't worth the sacrifice of white Americans. Good thing they weren't around when Lincoln was drafting the Emancipation Proclamation.
I recently watched the magnificent Don Cheadle film "Hotel Rwanda" with a group of friends, certified Bush Bashing Democrats all. After it was over, the general murmur in the room was 'why didn't America do something!' to stop the carnage in Rwanda. If Cindy Sheehan were to get her way, and President Bush would be 'impeached and tried for war crimes' over his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as she has demanded, the real losers will be the future citizens of Rwanda, and the other places where brutal dictators will have free reign to massacre people in large numbers, knowing that American leaders will pay too high a political price for them to get involved and 'do something.' And I don't think many of those places will be populated by white Europeans
Countdown to pat liberal propaganda response #1348(the one asking why we haven't liberated a poor country like Darfur, ignoring both Afghanistan and Saddam's violation of the cease fire agreement):
5
4
3
2
1...
And yes I have noticed their racism and have called several of them out for it....don't forget their trending towards anti-semitism either.
Oh and you'll never hear a Vietnam Anti-War activist own up to what happened to the Vietnamese after the US pulled out, in particular John Kerry...I often hope they'll some day run into a Vietnamese refugee that was forced out after we pulled out and they'll tell them how they were on their side and protesting the war...I often hope this because I'd enjoy watching the Vietnamese, who probably had several members of their family slaughtered as their property was stolen from them, spit in their face after hearing that. I'd get a kick out of the stunned look on their face.
The flaw in both conflicts was thinking that you could "give" someone democracy at all. It has to be earned, and you have to do it yourself. As an aside, it's funny to see the NeoCons now comparing this Iraq mess to SE Asia. Two years ago, there was no comparison and they were nothing alike, dammit! It's also sad to see the Iraqi forces turning out to be every bit as wussified and needing their hands held as the ARVN was. Will the joke of the new millenia be "Hey, need a rifle? Here's an Iraqi forces model, never fired, and only dropped once..."?By holding this sign, I presume they would favor that the Iraq war end the same way the war in Vietnam ended. I also presume that this means they would not oppose the same fate for the people of Iraq that befell the people of Vietnam and Cambodia after the end of US involvement there, which was one of the more horrible in the sorry annals of twentieth century tyranny. But in 1975, we were told by the anti war crowd that, after all, they were only Asians, they probably couldn't understand democracy anyway, and knew it wouldn't work 'for them.' Its sad to see the same at ude repeated today, that its not worth the blood of white Americans like Casey Sheehan to win freedom and democracy for 'those people,' in this case, brown skinned Arab Muslims.
I don't know about them being racist, but I believe that those who share Cindy Sheehan's position (demanding a total and immediate withdrawal from Iraq) are showing a staggering and callous lack of concern and compassion for the Iraqi people.
Come to think of it, considering they have David Duke in their corner, I wonder how many of them are, in fact, coming from a racist viewpoint...
What a joke! lolPresident Bush is actually the greatest liberator of Muslims in history, considering that there weren't 50 million people in the entire MIddle East when Saladin beat back the Crusader hordes. But to the anti war activists, providing freedom from slavery, democratic and economic opportunity to brown skinned people isn't worth the sacrifice of white Americans. Good thing they weren't around when Lincoln was drafting the Emancipation Proclamation.
So now the liberation of Iraq is like Lincoln emancipating the slaves just cause the locals happen to be 'dark-skinned'? Only a Republican would have the gull to try that argument. Next they'll to be talking about their 'dark-skinned' Iraqi friends.
How can anyone write this while the US does nothing for Sudan? Clinton should have done something in Rwanda, but to compare the situations in Rwanda and Iraq is a real stretch considering that Iraq was a modern secular triving nation before we embargoed it for 13 years and then invaded in 03. We created the crisis in Iraq.I recently watched the magnificent Don Cheadle film "Hotel Rwanda" with a group of friends, certified Bush Bashing Democrats all. After it was over, the general murmur in the room was 'why didn't America do something!' to stop the carnage in Rwanda. If Cindy Sheehan were to get her way, and President Bush would be 'impeached and tried for war crimes' over his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as she has demanded, the real losers will be the future citizens of Rwanda, and the other places where brutal dictators will have free reign to massacre people in large numbers, knowing that American leaders will pay too high a political price for them to get involved and 'do something.' And I don't think many of those places will be populated by white Europeans
Last edited by Nbadan; 08-28-2005 at 01:37 AM.
I can't believe that Jim Forsyth from WOAI 1200AM wrote this diatribe. Yes, Cindy Sheehan and David Duke have combined forces to bring home our white children because they don't want them dieing for them ‘dark-skinned’ people. See how ridiculous that sounds? Someone should remind Forsyth hat many of the troops Sheehan is fighting to bring home, who are dying for his right to write garbage like this, are ‘dark-skinned’ minorities.By holding this sign, I presume they would favor that the Iraq war end the same way the war in Vietnam ended. I also presume that this means they would not oppose the same fate for the people of Iraq that befell the people of Vietnam and Cambodia after the end of US involvement there, which was one of the more horrible in the sorry annals of twentieth century tyranny. But in 1975, we were told by the anti war crowd that, after all, they were only Asians, they probably couldn't understand democracy anyway, and knew it wouldn't work 'for them.' Its sad to see the same at ude repeated today, that its not worth the blood of white Americans like Casey Sheehan to win freedom and democracy for 'those people,' in this case, brown skinned Arab Muslims.
What? Secular in that the Sunnis were ing over the Kurds and Shiites left and right.Iraq was a modern secular triving nation before we embargoed it for 13 years and then invaded in 03. We created the crisis in Iraq.
Thriving in that Saddam had 26 palaces while his people lived in poverty.
ANd the embargo would never have happened if Saddam hadn't gone into Kuwait. He created the problem for his own people.
Thriving? US caused all the problems? That's laughable at worst, unequivocable proof of you being a dumbass at best.
Actually, spreading democracy is a very liberal concept and had the W administration approached the rebuilding of Iraq correctly, and prepared for the insurgency as many Generals recommended (before they summarily replaced with Yes-men by Rummy), and we didn't torture people in Iraq, who knows how this could have turned out?The flaw in both conflicts was thinking that you could "give" someone democracy at all. It has to be earned, and you have to do it yourself
We lost control of the war when all those thousands of prisoners in Abu-Gharib and other prisons In Iraq went home and told everyone what happened to them.
Secular as in not based on Islamic law like we have under the proposed cons ution.What? Secular in that the Sunnis were ing over the Kurds and Shiites left and right.
The Kurds have been liberated for quite some time. Yeah, we really cared for the Kurds while Saddam was 'allegedly' gassing them. I think Reagan did, ummm, nothing.
You don't think Saddam ruled with Islamic law? The dude wanted to be the new world caliph. Gimme a break.
Yeah, Clitton was sure pro-active. If you're gonna call out a president, you've got a couple to mention.I think Reagan did, ummm, nothing.
Thriving as in hungar in Iraq was almost non-existant before the 13 years of embargo. Compare that to the thousands of malnutritioned elderly, women and children in Iraq today. The most vulnerable are always those who suffer the most in any war. Many go without running water and electricity for more than 12 hours daily.Thriving in that Saddam had 26 palaces while his people lived in poverty.
Ummm..his Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz is a Catholic. In fact, Catholics lived peacefully along-side Muslims in Iraq for many years. Yes, it is possible.You don't think Saddam ruled with Islamic law? The dude wanted to be the new world caliph. Gimme a break.
I believe I did call out Clinton. Even Clinton has called out Clinton calling not acting on Rwanda one of the biggest mistakes of his administration.Yeah, Clitton was sure pro-active. If you're gonna call out a president, you've got a couple to mention.
Aggie...I hate to tell you this...but like every dictator and murderous regime of the past century...
Saddam was a left winger, a Socialist...not an Islamist. He was about as much of a Muslim as Castro is a Catholic.
The Ba'ath Party and the RCC are both Socialist movements.
And Saddam killed ing everyone...including other members of the Ba'th party, Sunni's and Shia's...
He didn't embrace Islam until late in his career....and he only embraced it then because he saw the positive aspects of terrorism.
But Dan...get off the ing crack you insane ...saying he was secular is like saying Stalin was secular, that doesn't excuse him from being a mass murderer. You're insane man.
Where did I write that this in any way excused Saddam? All I was saying is that Iraq was a secular state before we broke it.But Dan...get off the ing crack you insane ...saying he was secular is like saying Stalin was secular, that doesn't excuse him from being a mass murderer. You're insane man.
I think the racism is from those who think that this is another case of white man's burden, and that these nations can't possibly be competent to decide and implement their own futures without our "help".I don't know about them being racist, but I believe that those who share Cindy Sheehan's position (demanding a total and immediate withdrawal from Iraq) are showing a staggering and callous lack of concern and compassion for the Iraqi people.
Those of us who who feel we should stay until things improve, do not feel that way because we think Iraqis are incompetent (though there is a problem with incompetency and corruption in Iraq). We feel that way because America has created this sitation in Iraq and we know that an immediate withdrawal would lead to the slaughter of millions. That is a fact. Even Iraqis who are tired of the occupation and feel the U.S. has screwed up a lot do not want us to cut and run. The current conditions are unmanageable for the Iraqi forces. As Colin Powell said "if you break it, you own it".
BTW NBADan, with all the photos you post, couldn't you find one of Cindy Sheehan at the Lynn Stewart rally?
Last edited by Jelly; 08-28-2005 at 09:33 AM.
Funny how nobody claims media bias here.
No comments about the mainstream media being biased, no comments about overstepping their bounds as reporters.
If Bob Guthrie or Rosalinda Montero wrote this same piece one way or the other, they'd be blasted and forced to turn off their mics.
we went in to kosovo and bosnia to stop genocide... they have no oil or resources, but nobody really ed about that... well, the UN, Russia and China did, but the rest of the world didn't
"we went in to kosovo and bosnia to stop genocide... they have no oil or resources, but nobody really ed about that"
shrub's position in the 2000 election "I don't do nation-building" was obviously distancing himself from the US intervention in the Balkans and Mogadishu (ie, playing to the red-state/Repug true believers), and positioning himself/Repugs as isolantionist rather than interventionist (well, isolationist until oil corp profits suffer). (and distancing himself/Repugs from anything Clinton/Dem, which included ignoring the out-going Dems serious, urgent warnings about bin Laden.)
Why isn't Jim Forsyth standing on his racist soapbox and fomenting for US intervention in Darfur and Zimbabwe, which are the Rwandas of today? No oil.
shrug/Repug (who are owned by the oilco's and defense contractors) are intervening in Muslim-on-Muslim affairs because the USA is dependent upon oil from that region. Oil is the mitigating factor that prioritizes Iraq above all the other going on in the world.
so, that is why you are mad? bush said he wouldn't nation build and now he is in iraq and afghanistan?9/11 happened and changed the world. HE WAS FORCED to go into Afghanistan and re-build their nation.
He then decided we'd be safer off with Iraq in check and the majority of the United States agreed with him. We will re-build their nation as well.
i believe you probaby have offered up the weakest reply ever. "bc he said he wouldn't!" Would you have applauded if bush said, "i will not go into afghanistan and maim the taliban bc i said i wouldn't nation build. i know 3000 people died because of them and osama, but i just can't. my hands are tied."
"that is why you are mad"
no. try something else.
"HE WAS FORCED to go into Afghanistan and re-build their nation."
No, he wasn't. Iraq is a bogus war of choice, not necessity. Iraq was effectively "in check" as our super-easy invasion and "end of major combat operations" showed, as did our findings that Saddam was militarily castrated, had been since Gulf War.
With the Kurds controlling the north and the US/allies overflying damn near everywhere and stationed just across the border, how was Saddam "unchecked"? More complete BS from the right.
Outside of your befoggged and befuddled cranium, Afghanistan was not an invasion of choice nor nation-building, but an attack directly on the terrorists in a country ruled by an govt harboring and aiding the terrorists who hit WTC. I support/ed the invasion of Afghanistan completely.
Yes, but wasn't freeing the Iraqi people and giving them democracy the rationale (at least the latest) of the Bush administration's entry into Iraq in the first place? That's what I'm talking about.Those of us who who feel we should stay until things improve, do not feel that way because we think Iraqis are incompetent (though there is a problem with incompetency and corruption in Iraq). We feel that way because America has created this sitation in Iraq and we know that an immediate withdrawal would lead to the slaughter of millions. That is a fact. Even Iraqis who are tired of the occupation and feel the U.S. has screwed up a lot do not want us to cut and run. The current conditions are unmanageable for the Iraqi forces. As Colin Powell said "if you break it, you own it".
1) Why do we get involved with such reasons as the motivator?
2) If it's a bad idea to go in, it's a worse idea to stay. That's compounding one mistake into two.
The west has been stepping on their s in the Middle East since the aftermath of World War ONE. How else can you explain deliniating Iraq into one country? Or the splitting of the Pashtuns between Afghanistan and Pakistan? This has been a patchwork of tribal cultures for thousands of years. To pretend that we can just jump into the middle of that without resentment and backlash is ignorance personified.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
