QOTD
Christopher Hitchens in Monday's Slate:
I think we should be glad that the luridly sadistic and aggressive Saddam Hussein regime is no longer in power to be the beneficiary of the rise in oil prices and thus able to share its wealth with the terrorists, crooks, and demagogues on its secret payroll. I think we should also be glad that its private ownership of Iraq's armed forces, and its control over a party monopoly called the Baath, has been irrecoverably smashed. Iraq's resources are no longer at the disposal of an aggressive, parasitic oligarchy. Its retrained and re-equipped army is being deployed, not in wars of invasion against its neighbors and genocide against its inhabitants, but in cleanup campaigns against al-Qaida and the Mahdi Army. An improvement. A distinct improvement. . .
If there is any Iraqi nostalgia for the old party and the old army, it is remarkably well-concealed. Iraq no longer plays deceptive games with weapons of mass destruction or plays host to international terrorist groups. It is no longer subject to sanctions that punish its people and enrich its rulers. Its religious and ethnic minorities—together a majority—are no longer treated like disposable trash. Its most bitter internal argument is about the timing of the next provincial and national elections. Surely it is those who opposed every step of this emancipation, rather than those who advocated it, who should be asked to explain and justify themselves.
As Norm Geras observes:
[S]o many of those who opposed the Iraq war have given voice, and for so much of the time, to the denial that there could have been any good reasons on the other side that his drawing attention to good news is very much to the point.
7 comments:
Sounds good. Now how do we get these emancipated Iraqi people to abandon their jihad and let "infidels, i.e., nonIslamic people" live according to their own beliefs instead of being bullied, threatened and beheaded by people who are certain that theirs is the only religion acceptable for the entire planet of Earth (and beyond.)
They have a pretty good constitution that grants a surprising degree of religious freedom, so I thave some hope.
Glad you are optimistic. I will join you in that with respect to Iraq. What about the rest of the Islamic world, e.g. Taliban, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran.
Anony:
I'm somewhere between pessimistic and fatalistic. Lebanon's got a chance in the near term, and Iraq in the longer-term, but not the other countries you name.
Well, I think we had better develop an effective strategy for dealing with these homocidal maniacs who feel morally superior while they are being morally inferior. It seems clear that Islam is working to take over the world right now. Is that a religious or a political goal?
Anony:
I (mostly) agree--because your question ("Is [global domination] a religious or a political goal?") literally would make no sense to devout Muslims who don't distinguish between mosque and state.
Thanks, Carl for acknowledging the political nature of Islam. I rarely see that although that is the essence of Islam.
Perhaps the USA ought to deal with Islam, the politically-ambitious, and stop pretending Islam is high and holy and religious all the while it plans to and does cut off heads and hands and feet and more of people who dare use their own heads instead of being in lock-step ("Islam" means "submission") with these Islamic control freaks.
Islamic people are actively working at killing free people everywhere and taking over the entire world. We need a plan to deal with the reality.
Islam/Koran may be causing insanity among those indoctrinated by Islam/Koran. Insane people may not realize they are insane, but rather think of themselves as "superior."
Post a Comment