A former activist with the "Voices in the Wilderness" group that opposed UN sanctions against Iraq has a fascinating and illuminating article on the real motives behind the anti-sanctions movement. It’s more proof that the radical left doesn’t care much for actual human rights, but for opposition of US policy. How else could "human rights" groups spend more time and effort opposing US policy than actively working for real peace and real change in places like Cuba, Burma, and Iraq?
Voices’ arguments about sanctions were straightforward—and utterly simplistic. In retrospect, I am embarrassed to think that I propagated them. Voices held that sanctions were violence that the U.S. government committed against Iraq, through the exercise of raw power. The Iraqi regime was entirely helpless and passive and had no ability to respond to the economic pressure the U.N. had put on Iraq since 1990. Voices was oblivious to deliberate Iraqi obfuscation on disarmament and to Saddam’s domestic policies, designed to maintain his iron grip over the Iraqi people for as long as possible. It was our stubborn view that the regime had little or no ability to control or direct Iraq’s destiny. We saw the U.S.-sponsored sanctions as the primary cause of violence in Iraq and so overlooked (or denied) Saddam’s decades-long legacy of severe repression.
Then again, such "humanitarian" groups as Voices in the Wilderness have been more about propaganda than actually helping people…
(Link via InstaPundit.)
LOL!!
You say that as though you actually cared about Human rights.
The fact is, you didn’t give a rat’s ass about the Iraqi people until George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq and needed a half-asses justification for violating international law and invading the Country on false pretenses.
Actually, I should say that you didn’t actually PRETEND to care about the Iraqi people until Bush decided to invade.
I think your “concern” is nothing mnore than a pose adopted to make yourself look better, and to bludgeon opponents of the war.
ROFL.
I’d say you both need to be whacked upside the head with nice large blunt object right about now.
The fact is, you didn’t give a rat’s ass about the Iraqi people until George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq…
Hey, if it was up to you Iraqis would still be under Hussein and under sanctions.
Well, Hesiod, I never knew you had magic psychic powers and could tell what I was thinking years ago.
For the record, I suppoerted the removal of the Hussein regime in 1992 when it should have been done. I regard the failure to remove Hussein at the end of the first Gulf War as one of the greatest mistakes in recent history.
Hang on there, Hesiod (can I call you Hes?) – isn’t imparting the worst possible motives on people for purely scurrilous reasons something that only conservatives do?
I think it’s a lock that conservatives – or pro-liberation people of all political stripes, really – can be safely said to objectively care more about the Iraqi people than those who opposed the liberation.
I agree with Jay: The removal of Mr Hussein should really have been done during GWI.
Saying today that the war saved lives of thousands of Iraqis from the dictator’s hands is wrong. It will (hopefully, if democracy succeeds) be true in the long run, but for now, it is not: Saddam never killed 4000 civilians that fast!
Saddam never killed 4000 civilians that fast!
When did we kill 4,000 civilians?
And yes he did.
you have a number?
I think the number of american lives is counted for each unit. it must be around 100 now. How many iraqis civilians? 4000 is not the real figure. what is it then?
How many iraqis civilians? 4000 is not the real figure. what is it then?
Vincent, you made a claim that we have killed 4,000 Iraqi civilians. Are you now withdrawing this claim? If not, can you cite your source?
“4000 is not the real figure.”
having problem reading?
I don’t have any figure, neither do you! Nobody has any! Nobody is counting!!!
the authorities should do it? who is that again?
Vincent, you said:
It will (hopefully, if democracy succeeds) be true in the long run, but for now, it is not: Saddam never killed 4000 civilians that fast!
Implying that US did. When I pressed you on the figure you said:
4000 is not the real figure.
And I asked if you have retracted your original claim. I guess you have. So where did number 4,000 come from? Your imagination?
(you don’t have to summarize everything again each time you know)
just answer the question: how many civilians died during this operation?
if you find a data, please let me know, because I’m reduced to make up figures since there is none.
The point is that it is really strange to have a very precise number of death of the coalition, but not even an estimation of iraqis.
…because I’m reduced to make up figures since there is none.
Well, that’s nice. At least you admit to making facts up. You’ld have a good chance writing for NY Times.
thank you for that useful comment. You are right!!!
well, the problem I was talking about above didn’t even crossed your mind, and you don’t see anything wrong about it.
YOU ARE RIGHT!!
nothing else really matters, does it?
Vincent, whatever the point you were making got overshadowed by the fact that you pulled a number of 4,000 out of your ass. And only when pressed for the source you admitted that you made it up:
… because I’m reduced to make up figures since there is none.
If you are going to make sensationalist claims why stop at 4,000? Why not 10,000,000?
Anyway, I see a pattern forming. You post baseless allegations and when faced with facts you either ignore them or make up your own (ie, “4,000”).
Remember that time you claimed that I ignored your question about Sharon which you never actually asked? What’s up with that?