Saturday, March 22, 2003

What kind of cost can you put on this:

You just arrived," he said. "You're late. What took you so long? God help you become victorious. I want to say hello to Bush, to shake his hand. We came out of the grave."
"For a long time we've been saying: 'Let them come'," his wife, Zahara, said. "Last night we were afraid, but we said: 'Never mind, as long as they get rid of him, as long as they overthrow him, no problem'." Their 29-year-old son was executed in July 2001, accused of harbouring warm feelings for Iran

The real purpose of this war should be to give them a chance to justly rule themselves, thsi is their chance. After what they have been through I think they will take it.

Read it all here, thanks InstaPundit.

Friday, March 21, 2003

Did you know the largest Iraqi community in the U.S. is in Detroit? 160,000 strong. Oddly the Anti-War movement did not manage to recruit even 1 single one, not even a deaf mute for their protesting efforts. Now if I was going to protest military action against Mexico, well it would be natural to put a few Mexicans up there and have them speak up. Yet they cannot even pull in one. The reason for this is that they think the anti-war movement, from a moral standpoint is bankrupt.

Iraqis are welcoming coalition troops already.

A choice tidbit from the complete story.

"Americans very good," Ali Khemy said. "Iraq wants to be free."
Some chanted, "Ameriki! Ameriki!"
Many others in the starving town just patted their stomachs and raised their hands, begging for food.
A man identifying himself only as Abdullah welcomed the arrival of the U.S. troops: "Saddam Hussein is no good. Saddam Hussein a butcher."
An old woman shrouded in black -- one of the very few women outside -- knelt toward the feet of Americans, embracing an American woman. A younger man with her pulled her away, giving her a warning sign by sliding his finger across his throat.
In 1991, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died after prematurely celebrating what they believed was their liberation from Saddam after the Gulf War. Some even pulled down a few pictures of Saddam then -- only to be killed by Iraqi forces.

This should be a nightmare for the anti-war crowd, although I am sure either they will say these are robots created by the vast military industrial concept in the U.S., or for each happy Iraqi there are millions unhappy about U.S. forces arriving. This is beginning to smell like bullshit. Although I am sure Baghdad hates getting bombed and they deem it horrible, they will prefer liberation to Saddam's reign of terror.

Via LGF we also have the report of a human shield who woke up and figured out Iraqis hate Saddam, here is a taste of the story:

A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."

More happiness in Iraq...

"We're celebrating (Nawroz) a national holiday," said Samad Abdulla Rahim, 22. "But today we also celebrate the attack on Saddam."

When I read stories like this I how you can say the U.S. not going in is a bad thing if you are acting in the interest of the Iraqis.

Thursday, March 20, 2003

Further proof living under Castro in Cuba sucks. When someone cannot just leave the country but has to hijack a plane to leave the country, this tells you people really want to leave. Why does the Cuban government not just let them leave?
Iraqis in exile in Bangkok support toppling Saddam, read all about it.

Now why are there no Iraqi's living abroad supporting Saddam? This is as strange as there being no Iraqis at anti-war rallies, although they do appear at pro-war rallies. The only people truly supporting Saddam seems to be the anti-war bunch. Still they cannot answer a question such as "How exactly will leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?". Hard question, I am glad I am not on the side that has to answer that.

Tuesday, March 18, 2003

Lookie here, now France is willing to jump in, if Iraq uses Chemical or Biological weapons.

The headline is "The French military could help the United States if Iraq uses biological or chemical weapons against U.S.-led invaders, the French Foreign Ministry said Tuesday."

This has irony from a few different levels.

Level 1- Other than some former African colonies, who would be afraid of the French in a war? Is this supposed to worry Iraq or make the US feel more secure in their war effort? Their statement fails on both fronts.

Level 2- Sorry I have to go back to, who wants France’s help in a war? Will they be sending a clone of their last two good military leaders; Joan of Arc and Napoleon.

Joan of Arc would not be of legal age to serve in the military now but she did save their asses last time.

Level 3- France has helped Iraq in its quest for the ultimate weapon of mass destruction. They sold them a nuclear reactor, which the Israelis kindly bombed. Now why would a developing oil rich country, which can power their country just fine, want an alternative form of fuel? To develop a bomb, according to well documented sources, no one can deny that the Iraqi government had a nuclear weapons program.

How sad.

Tony Blair makes a compelling case for war to the house of Commons. Why can’t Bush take some tips from his speeches?

Here are some interesting parts of that speech:

So: why does it matter so much? Because the outcome of this issue will now determine more than the fate of the Iraqi regime and more than the future of the Iraqi people, for so long brutalised by Saddam. It will determine the way Britain and the world confront the central security threat of the 21st century; the development of the UN; the relationship between Europe and the US; the relations within the EU and the way the US engages with the rest of the world. It will determine the pattern of international politics for the next generation.
But first, Iraq and its WMD.

In April 1991, after the Gulf war, Iraq was given 15 days to provide a full and final declaration of all its WMD.

Saddam had used the weapons against Iran, against his own people, causing thousands of deaths. He had had plans to use them against allied forces. It became clear after the Gulf war that the WMD ambitions of Iraq were far more extensive than hitherto thought. This issue was identified by the UN as one for urgent remedy. Unscom, the weapons inspection team, was set up. They were expected to complete their task following the declaration at the end of April 1991.

The declaration when it came was false - a blanket denial of the programme, other than in a very tentative form. So the 12-year game began.


1441 is a very clear resolution. It lays down a final opportunity for Saddam to disarm. It rehearses the fact that he has been, for years in material breach of 17 separate UN resolutions. It says that this time compliance must be full, unconditional and immediate. The first step is a full and final declaration of all WMD to be given on 8 December.

I won't to go through all the events since then - the house is familiar with them - but this much is accepted by all members of the UNSC: the 8 December declaration is false. That in itself is a material breach. Iraq has made some concessions to cooperation but no-one disputes it is not fully cooperating. Iraq continues to deny it has any WMD, though no serious intelligence service anywhere in the world believes them.


What is perfectly clear is that Saddam is playing the same old games in the same old way. Yes there are concessions. But no fundamental change of heart or mind.


Just consider the position we are asked to adopt. Those on the security council opposed to us say they want Saddam to disarm but will not countenance any new resolution that authorises force in the event of non-compliance.
That is their position. No to any ultimatum; no to any resolution that stipulates that failure to comply will lead to military action.
So we must demand he disarm but relinquish any concept of a threat if he doesn't. From December 1998 to December 2002, no UN inspector was allowed to inspect anything in Iraq. For four years, not a thing.

What changed his mind? The threat of force. From December to January and then from January through to February, concessions were made.

Read the whole thing.

Monday, March 17, 2003

How would the anti-war fair against an Iraqi refugee? You figure they would have similar interests and be supportive of each other. The result is quite different when a spokesperson for an anti-war movement has a run in with an Iraqi exile, pretty amazing stuff.

The caller, Mohammed an Iraqi exile asks the question: "How exactly will leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?". The spokesperson from the anti-war movement never answers the question. She maybe makes a good points, but never answers that question.

I guess this is why Iraqi people are not invited to anti-war rallies.

Hattip to LGF, always has the good stuff.

An American woman was killed by an Israeli bulldozer that was taking out a house belonging to a terrorist. I figure she had plenty of time to get out of the way, since those things go 5 miles an hour, unfortunately she decided to play chicken with the damned thing. I do wonder if the person who was driving saw her or did not care, I hope she/he did not see her, otherwise how heartless.

Nevertheless this is tragic, it is a human life. What is interesting is that when Americans are killed by terrorists in Israel, it is not such outrageous news, such as the bombing at Hebrew University a few months back.

As one of Instapundits put it, paraphrasing here; a real peace activist would also go to cafes and malls threatened by suicide bombers and sit there, as a show of solidarity against the random violence the Israeli's put up with from the "oppressed". I doubt they would do this, radicals think that the “oppressed” have no responsibility to act like human beings. Peace only belongs to the “oppressed” in this view. It is much easier for these activists to stand up to the Israeli’s since they function within a civilized system, such as a democracy and inquiries when something goes wrong. The terrorists they defend do not have such “distractions” and only cheerleaders when they bomb a bus with children in it.

Here is a look at the story thanks to Instapundit.

Well girls and boys, looks like we are going to war.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?