The hate shines through

Irate reader Ken demonstrates the overwhelming hatred that animates much of the left with a typically violent, insulting comment.

The Posse will address the points therein rather than delete it outright, because it is illustrative of the "anti-war" movement's blinding and irrational fury. 

Perhaps you might explain to us America-hating LIBBURULS how this clusterf___ of a war is producing anything but death and misery.

Certainly.  What was Saddam Hussein's regime producing?  What aspect of his regime was so admirable that it should have remained with its boot squarely on the face of the Iraqi people indefinately?

Ba'athist Iraq was not a place where children flew kits happily and the population shared the national wealth equitably.  It was a fascist dictatorship that used rape, murder and torture as routine procedures.

How many more soldiers are going to get killed by those "dead-enders" that our moral and wise President and His holy ministers failed to take into account?

We do not know, but apparently Ken would like to see us capitulate to them.

What happened to the flowers that the grateful Iraqis were sure to shower on their liberators?

They are signing up to fight along side the Coalition by the hundreds, every day.

Every damn day, I see another young soldier has died or is going to come home without legs or eyes or arms, and for what?

For freedom.  Of course, in this case, it is freedom for the Other - people with brown skin who could have lived out their lives under a brutal dictatorship for all the words and deeds of the "anti-war" movement.

Moreover, these brave men and women are fighting to destroy terrorism in its very next.  The limbs they lose and blood they shed is not in vain.  A wind of change is sweeping the Middle East, and the tyrants and despots that rule their tremble on their thrones.

We are hard-pressed to think of a nobler or better cause in which to give one's life and limb.

Oops, forgot--those of us who oppose this war aren't supposed to care; we're too busy making common cause with the terrorists.

Arguably, yes.  You want the same thing as the terrorists - an immediate pullout from Iraq and an abandonment of the democratic regime now forming there.

Color us skeptical of the motives of people who approvingly quote Chinese Communist propaganda; who would rather believe the words of Islamic militants bent on killing than their own elected leaders.

Just the sort of neo-Nazi viewpoint that makes me sleep so well.

Of course, we must include the obligatory Nazi comparison.

The problem with bringing up National Socialism is that it is utterly irrelevant.

The United States has no desire or claim to more Lebensraum.  Even the most cursory examination of the Hitler regime shows that there are no parallels whatsoever between the current administration and that which took power in 1933.

The most obvious example is that Ken would be dead for his remarks in 1933 Germany, confined to a concentration camp.  Hitler consolidated his power quickly; within six months all other parties were outlawed and the Reichstag reduced to a rubber stamp.

To put it another way, to compare the US to Nazi Germany is to spit in the faces of those that lived through the Hitler regime.

Now there was a government that was set up and based on principles very similar to those of Nazi Germany - Ba'athist Iraq.

Saddam utilized all of the mechanisms pioneered by Hitler: parallel security agencies, divided military commands, crude propaganda and unfeeling brutality to maintain control.

The Republican Guard was clearly inspired by the Waffen S.S., with the Special Republican Guard serving as a Liebstandarte - or bodyguard role.

The Fedayeen Saddam clearly has roots in the SA and later the Volksturm - a shadowy movement that offers additional check on both the regular military and the two offshoot branches.

Saddam also felt the need to repeat Hitler's political theatre of holding elections and referenda - though the results were obviously fixed.

Finally, the Ba'athist ideology had its roots in National Socialism.  Both established one-party states to further "the revolution" and both were so good at maintaining their control of society that only external forces can overthrow them.

In sum, the Nazis who should be keeping you up at night are the ones our forces are fighting in Iraq. 

But all this is somewhat academic.  If reader Ken actually cared about debating the substance of what is going on in Iraq he wouldn't lower himself to crude remarks like this:

Go fXXX a drain pipe full of rats.

What is most noteworthy about this barely literate screed is not the hatred it embodies, but who the hatred is directed at.

Captain Grimes was a good man, an old friend and a trained healer.  He was killed by people who pillaged their own country, starved their countrymen and are now willing to blow up children in order to resume their stranglehold on the nation.

A moral person, a rational person would hate those monsters responsible for these atrocities.

Instead, Ken hates those who are fighting them.

This is really the problem with the sickness that consumes the left today.  True anti-war activists would be demonstrating every day against the wanton murder of children, not finding excuses for it.

They would be calling for a renewed commitment to defend the growing democracy movement in the Middle East, not demanding immediate retreat.

In the end, Ken and the terrorists both share a common belief: that Iraq was better off with Saddam and his thugs in charge.

They are both working diligenty to reverse this regime change, only their methods differ - for the present at least.

Comments

[rimfirejones]

Ken is delusional.

Thanks for putting his weasel mantra out there on display.

[dwilkers]

Everyone agrees that Government needs to raise money and provide some basic services that people cannot provide for themselves. For most of my life the tug-of-war has been between liberals - those who have a more expansive view of what Government can and should do - and conservatives - those who have a more restrictive view of the appropriate role of Government. Even libertarians agree there is a need to provide for the common defense.

There is a big difference between that traditional political push and shove and what's going on today. Many traditional liberals have backed away from strident criticism of the war effort since the Iraqi elections. Some have straight out admitted they MIGHT have been wrong.

The left hasn't and isn't going to do that though. Its become clear to me that the left is not motivated by freedom, or democracy, or what's good for children (remember the 5,000 kids that were dying each month in Iraq due to the sanctions?). The left is motivated by something else.

The only thing I can conclude about what I now call the "left" is they wish for the failure of Western Civilization. Sounds harsh, I know. This has been bothering me for a few years now and its the only answer that fits from what I can tell.