A European named Gustaf recently left me a longish comment in another thread telling me how America has killed thousands of Iraqis and Afghans, and asking why we went to those countries even though "most of the world" opposed us. He also asked why we were so willing to go against the public opinion, in other words squander the good will, of so many people around the world.
I left him a comment in response, but I'm reprinting it here:
Gustaf: I can't answer all your questions at once, but, I'll try to make a couple of basic points.
More democratic nations supported our action in Iraq than opposed it. Many dozens of them supported us. Some who opposed us, nevertheless, understood why we acted anyway, and have supported us in the aftermath, like good friends who had a disagreement would and should.
Aside from those nations, the democratic ones, why should I care even a little what the others think? I frankly don't give a rat's ass what nations ruled by dictators, thugs, and theocrats think. Their governments are vile, their systems dysfunctional, their attitudes warped by an unfree press and oppressive mentality.
Furthermore, hatred toward America has been ongoing for decades. I see no evidence, at all, that this is any worse since we went to Baghdad. We saw that kind of hatred during the Cold War (in which we were the good guys most of the time), and we saw it all throughout the 1990s under Clinton, when terrorists were attacking us around the world.
The fact is that since we took out the evil monster in Baghdad--who killed far more Iraqis than we ever did, and whose people are already now freer, safer, and more prosperous than they have been in all their history--terrorism around the world has declined, as have wars in general. The same is true for our action in Afghanistan, where we killed far fewer Afghans than the Taliban, and and whose people are now freer, safer, and more prosperous due to our actions.
People will always say bad things about America. I am not impressed when shallow people in places like Europe, who lived under our protection all during the Cold War, now say stupid, ungrateful, ill-informed things about us. Most such people automatically oppose anything we do anyway. The thinking is pretty clear: "If America is doing it, it must be wrong."
In fact, let me be even more blunt with you: What the hell does your "good will" mean to us if, when we ask you for your help in our time of darkest crisis, when we need you in our most important moments, all you do is slander us, interfere with us, call us imperialists, call us murderers?
Why don't you people start asking yourselves why we should even want your good will?
I mean it. What the hell have you ever done for us? If you aren't there for us when we sincerely ask for your help, then why do we even want your friendship? Why? So you can continue to spit on us, call us murderers, call us imperialists? Hmm? Is that what your friendship is worth?
Let me tell you something about imperialism, and let me tell you something about oppression: if we were an Empire, our flag would fly over your capital now. The regional Governor, appointed by our President to rule your province, would order your tongue cut out for speaking against us, your fingers chopped off for typing words against us. Perhaps he would order your family imprisoned for good measure.
Because THAT is what imperialists do. THAT is what Empires do.
Instead, I imagine you still have your own flag, your own government, your own language, your own way of life. And you can say vile things about us and our nation, and all we do much of the time is apologize to you for being so rude.
But I'm sick of apologizing to people like you. We aren't an empire. But you really should start wondering why YOU are so willing to squander OUR goodwill. Because many of you around the world have done exactly that.
I, as one American, frankly no longer give a rat's ass what people like you--people who call us imperialists, call us murderers, call us oppressors--think. Indeed, I find the question of why we are willing to squander your good will to be breathtaking in its arrogance.
Why are YOU so willing to squander OUR good will, my friend?
Because you have acted as fools, and your friendship increasingly seems to be worth nothing.
Peace.
Dean,
Thats a good "shove it up your ass" response.
In the end, however, I don't really think we're disliked all that much around the world...sure, the elites of the world hate us with a white-hot passion, but the millions who are trying to get in here give a different indication of how we are viewed. I'm much less interested in what a editor of Le Monde thinks of us than I am in the opinion of Juan who just cross the border looking for a job...the editor will never lift a finger for us, while (if the current situation is any guide) Juan might feel so grateful for our bounty that he joins the Marines to fight for us...
WOW, well said!
Millions? More like thousands, of whom fewer than we would have liked, but certainly the greater number, were enemy combatants. Even the official War is Evil Bodycount™ is claiming just under ten thousand Iraqis killed. Once someone is wrong by three orders of magnitude he is too out of touch to argue with until you can drag him to an awareness shift.
After the regime fall, the Iraqi military all became civilians, so I am going to assume they are indeed counted in the official War is Evil Bodycount™.
Whoa Dean. Calm down. Tell us what you really think.
Well said. The only thing I can say in the defense of the Gustafs of the world is that perhaps they are really just trying to get us to see things their way, maybe they feel like our friends after all...
Nah!! They hate us, we don't need them, they need us, and they will someday wake up and try to make up. But we are at war, and they are closer to the fromt lines than we are, after all. Gustaf may soon see the error of his ways, at the wrong end of a suicide bomb. As long as he blames us for the bomber's attitude, we will be disinclined to offer much help.
And, we have G.W.Bush to thank, for calling a spade a spade, and accurately describing the Emperor's new clothes for us.
I make you laugh -- and you make me think.
Thank you Dean and Rosemary, too.
(Oh, and remind me to NEVER piss you off. Heh.)
My bad. Gustaf said we'd killed "thousands," rather than millions.
I corrected the article.
Excellent Dean, just excellent.
Think about Gustaf's Europe. What do they have to do to "ensure peace"? After centuries of war on the Continent, mutual passivity is the only policy that has kept this generation at peace. Indeed, European passivity runs so deep that they are essentially bystanders in the ongoing process of Islamicization of the Continent (if current trends continue, half of all Dutch children will be Muslim within a generation). When the chattering classes suggest, in all earnestness, that Swedish women dress more modestly in order to help reduce Muslim immigrants' penchant for rape, they are not arguing from morality, they argue from the internal logic of the pit that passivity has dug for them.
Gustaf (and the others like him that I used to argue with on WildMonk) simply does not believe that there is *any* undertaking worth the loss of innocent lives. The very calculus whereby we reason (fewer people will die if we act than if we permit Saddam to maintain power) simply has no meaning to Gustaf. In his world, YOU ARE ONLY GUILTY IF YOU ACT. Or, put another way, passivity means never having to say you are sorry. And, after WWII, this is the highest morality to which Europe dares aspire.
Well said, Dean- and it needed to be said.
Some years ago, I read a snotty German the riot act in much the same vein. I was sick of paying high taxes to protect them from the Soviets. We should have let the Russians have them.
Good response.
Actual goodwill isn't rescinded after one disagreement, even if it's serious. What we saw amounted to "We told you so, now are you ready to do it our way?". When we told them thanks but no thanks, they went back to their previous posturing. Anyone who claims this was goodwill in the first place is self-deluding to a dangerous degree.
People who can't trust themselves with an army are smart, but not smart enough
"Let me tell you something about imperialism, and let me tell you something about oppression: if we were an Empire, our flag would fly over your capital now. The regional Governor, appointed by our President to rule your province, would order your tongue cut out for speaking against us, your fingers chopped off for typing words against us. Perhaps he would order your family imprisoned for good measure."
After the "governor appoited by our President" line you are no longer talking about all empires. You are only talking about totalitarian empires. For instance I'm not familiar with a british policy of torture and mutilation of disentors in their colonies (execution sometimes yes, but frequently not even that just for dissent)
I found that detracted from the (very good) point that we don't want good will, we want friendship. We don't want sympathy as a fellow victim, we want assistance in getting the world out of this mess. And if someone will give us that we will listen to them, and work with them, but if someone won't give us that then we will ignore them unless they actively oppose us.
Dean,
I saw Gustaf's comments, thought about responding to them, and decided to pass. In his defense, it is probable that he gets a steady diet of anti-American propoganda from his press. So I am willing to cut him a little, and only a little, slack for his complete misunderstanding of our nation, our government, and our people.
That said, I appreciate you responding to him, because I have grown tired of responding to those like him. I do appreciate his interest, and his willingness to aske questions. But after two years of responding to idiotic rantings like his, I now just pass in silence. I guess I have already passed over into the "who cares what they think" mode.
You go boy!
I am starting to take the "Don't know, don't care" attitude when people talk about how some other nation dislikes us due to the WOT.
Michael, I see where you are coming from, and you make a good point, but I disagree with you in this sense:
I believe that in order for Empire to exist, it must be enforced by strong military might. Because the subjects will want to keep their own languages, their own customs, their own militaries, chart their own destinies, and not have to pay taxes to the center of the empire that's foreign to them. They will inevitably demand independence, and to cease paying taxes to the Imperium.
Thus the Empire will either collapse, or will use violence, and means to silence opposition and critics, and will have to grow increasingly brutal in order to maintain itself.
Except we don't collect taxes from anyone but ourselves and merchants who import goods here, and we don't silence our critics--no reason to, becuase we don't rule them. Because we aren't an Empire.
All Empires are brutal to their subjects. They have to be, or eventually, they crack apart.
(It's exactly what happened to the Soviets, by the way.)
"Indeed, European passivity runs so deep that they are essentially bystanders in the ongoing process of Islamicization of the Continent (if current trends continue, half of all Dutch children will be Muslim within a generation)."
And don't say Pim Fortuyn didn't warn you.
"When the chattering classes suggest, in all earnestness, that Swedish women dress more modestly in order to help reduce Muslim immigrants' penchant for rape,"
Despicable.
"they are not arguing from morality, they argue from the internal logic of the pit that passivity has dug for them."
Exactly right. I'm going to keep on saying it: Don't say Pim Fortuyn didn't warn you. With his death and in his the battle lines were drawn. We are in a life-and-death struggle for the survival of Western civilization and human freedom. You are either with us or you are with the terrorists.
I don't know what "morality" means, the word is always used by the rottenest people, but there is nothing whatsoever ethical, honorable, right, or good about rape, hatred of sex, or misogyny. And there is nothing whatsoever ethical, honorable, right, or good about appeasement. And I say that to that jerk who said we shouldn't have a Jew as President because it might offend "moderate" Muslims (i.e., "moderate" Nazis). Despicable.
Hallo Dean, hallo all, hallo America!
I will try to reply to all the attention.
Pacifism? Yes genuinely I agree on that idea, and think most of you do too, I guess most of us admire people like Gandhi, Mandela and M.L. King. But sadly enough I agree with you that the old fashion metal sometimes is justified.
In the case of the Gulf war, I debated for the war.
In the case of Yugoslavia, I think European policy was lousy, and probably caused more suffering than less, and it all was a big shame. And the role of the US was actually strong and as I se it morally justified and made peace happen.
But as we all know this is a complicated thing. Vietnam. Some of you start justifying that, hmm I se no justice in the Vietnam war for anyone to be proud of.
So why am I arguing at all. Am I an extremist? Or am I just lost?
Well that’s putting my arguments of way to easy, and Dean you’re not doing that in your last response, I respect you for giving me a god reply although the new posting on the main page is misquoting me and not referring or cross-linking.
Down to facts. Please, don’t mistake an apple for an orange. It’s different with the Iraqi war. The rhetoric may be the same, but case is different.
During the gulf war the US based coalition set stop for an illegal occupation, however bad the feudal governing in Kuwait may be. UN, NATO stood behind and a whole lot of other countries to sanctioned the force. Morally, yes. Legally, yes.
With the new war, as you say, “For 12 years we kept him in a box, but by keeping him in his box, we kept his people there too, and they suffered and died as a result.”
True, true. But two wrong doesn’t make a right. The problem was mainly that the world stood aside when the slaughtering took part after the Gulf.
The problem got worse when your new president neglected the Palestinian Israeli conflict.
As I isn’t very happy about illegal occupations you probably guessed my opinion on this one. (Taking about illegality, Kosovo didn’t end up with occupation)
If your president truly want to stop terrorism, the big problem is the ever going occupation and ill functioning peace process in Israel / Palestine.
Do you remember the Saddam-money? Money from Saddams regime that went to people that had lost their suns and daughters in self-suicidal terror acts? Money talks, he got popular, and terrorism was up, now those people getting exported to Iraq, to do what you might guess.
Well, as anything the Saddam-money was a sufficient way of getting sympathy, why not use the billions spend on army costs in that kind of pin-pointed action? And in this case, in actions putting children in school, giving people work, support a new kind of Palestinian authority, create a law system, making possibility for business. I guess the money spend still would have been less.
And for Saddam, even dictators are kept by their people. With the right support on the right people the support for Saddam would dramatically declined.
The other big thing to solve, Saudi Arabia. With an allied like that, you need no enemies. Get the act together with that regime, why is that country an allied of yours? Well we all know why, but anyway with some closed room talk about democracy I think you could set them straight pretty soon.
And as fast as common people get better off in the middle east, the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict solved America is going to be praised.
Your President Clinton actually did get someway in that direction; compare his visit to Palestine with the one Bush made to Baghdad.
Also, I think your comparing Bush with the wrong people, why say his better than the Talibans or Saddam, those are not to set the standard,
Yours
/Gustaf
Hmm
Forgot the propaganda link that I was going to add. And guess what, it's American!
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0402/perlstein.php
Gustaf: "The other big thing to solve, Saudi Arabia. With an allied like that, you need no enemies. Get the act together with that regime, why is that country an allied of yours? Well we all know why, but anyway with some closed room talk about democracy I think you could set them straight pretty soon."
Not living here (at least I assume you're not from here) you may not be aware of the general view among the average citizen of the Saudi problem. Waste no time under the illusion that most of us view them as a great friend. However, one project at a time. And I have no doubt their time will come. Sooner or later, violent or passive. Its coming.
Just a thought: It might come in the form of the USA withdrawing her "goodwill" and protection from them.
Another thought: I don't agree with most of what Gustaf says, but I think he says it very well and elevates the level of honest discussion. I've become rather pessimistic about seeing polar opposites remain civil in places other than DeansWorld.
Gustaf,
I do appreciate your willingness to open yourself up, but you need to realize something. Only a minority of the US population agrees with you.
When US embassies, US servicemen abroad, US civilians abroad, and US warships were attacked in the past, we acted like spurned guests. That is, if your host doesn't want you, you leave. When 9/11 happened, we were attacked in our own home. That forever changed the situation.
Al Queda is not the problem. Neither is the Israel/Palestine situation. The problem is an entire region of people being brainwashed by their leaders into hating modernism, and hating America (and Israel) as a proxy for their own failures.
Once attacked at home, we are not going to politely leave. We are not going to obsess over any complicity our past submissiveness played in causing the problem. And we certainly are not going to continue in that submissiveness.
We are coming into the home of the attacker and he is either going to be convinced attacking us was a bad idea, or he is going to be killed. We will not surrender to coercion.
Bush did not foist this war on the American people. The American people demanded it. And the quickest path to electoral failure would be for Bush to deviate from his current path. The American people demand that he stay the course until the task is accomplished.
The task is NOT revenge for 9/11.
The task is NOT the liberation of Iraq.
The task is NOT general liberation from tyrants.
The task is NOT finding weapons of mass destruction.
The task is NOT solving the internecine conflict of the Palestinians and Israelis.
The task is NOT converting the world to democracy.
The task is NOT foisting American ideology on the world.
The task is NOT grabbing control of oil fields.
The task is NOT playing the world's policeman.
The task is NOT trying to please internationalists, or multiculturalists.
The task is NOT paying attention to the concerns of Arabs.
The task is NOT paying attention to the concerns of Europeans, or anyone else.
The task is NOT trying to make the world like us.
The task may include any of the above, in part, or in whole. But any of the above things which are accomplished are merely necessary for accomplishing the real task, or side effects of accomplishing that task.
The real Task at hand is the utter and complete destruction of the threat of terrorism to our way of life, our freedom, our people, and our nation.
We are set on a course to overcome the enemy. We will not be swayed. If Bush stops before this task is accomplished, he will be punished at the polls. If a Democratic candidate fails to convince us that he will stay the course, he will fail at the polls.
Because we value human rights, human liberty, and human life, we will attempt to minimize the damage caused in this endeavor. But if you are convinced of anything, you must be convinced of this one thing. You must get this through your mind. You must internalize it. You must believe it.
There is no price that we are unwilling to pay to protect our lives, our liberty, our nation, and our way of life. There is no weapon we will not be willing to employ to achieve that goal up to and including nuclear annihilation.
We are angry. But our anger is tempered by our power and our responsibility. It is a quiet and determined rage. But it is a rage. Those who would dismiss it, or denigrate it do not understand us.
Dean is correct. We have no desire for empire. We are not bloodthirsty. But we will eliminate the threat to our nation. We have stayed in Europe for 63 years to ensure that the conflicts that cost 1 million American lives will not be repeated.
And we will stay the course in the Middle East as well. It is now our problem. And it WILL be solved. It is up to Middle Easterners to determine how many lives that will require. We are willing to be best friends. But we are also willing to be executioners, if necessary. Never forget it.
It is the people of the Middle East who must change to stop offending us. We are a forgiving people. But our memory is long, and our determination is high. We have the means and the motive to ensure this task is completed. And we will see it succeed, one way or another.
Dean you brought me back to the magnificent Winter Olympic Games after September 11. All those Flags that flew right here in the United States Of America!
When OUR FLAG came out onto the ice after the World Towers had gone down..Our Flag that has been so very many times the enemies target, Our flag was a mere humble symbol of our American hope and honor and dignity and freedom and everthing you Mr. Dean Esmay spelled out for me. At that moment I most sincerely came to my knees watching all of those other flags from around the world pay homage to the UNITED STATES of AMERICA!
YOU TELL THEM DEAN ESMAY AND WE KNOW ROSEMARY ESMAY IS STANDINGING RIGHT BESIDE YOU!
Scott: US casualties in WWII in both theaters was significantly under one million lives.
Otherwise, I love your post.
Gustav:
For of Clinton's efforts to solve the Palestinian problem, he accomplished NOTHING in fact, his efforts were probably a net minus. Bush wisely tried to stay out of this insoluable problem but events dragged him into it. His efforts also achieved NOTHING.
The Palestinian problem is used by Arab states and terrorist to incite their fellow citizens but is not the real problem in the Middle East and solving it will not solve the deep seated problems of this region. Actually, it is the US action in Iraq and its aftermath that offers some real hope that the Palestinian conflict may get better. Already there are positive signs in the ME as a result of the Iraq conflict.
As for Saudi Arabia, I think most Americans agree they are not our allies. Bush's recent speach in England admitting the US has supports tyranies in the past but should stop doing so now surely refered to Saudi Arabia. As things get better in Iraq, we will be in much better position to deal with Saudi. Before, the US could not risk a direct confrontation with SA for many reasons. A cut off of ME oil supply would have a catastrophic impact on the entire world.
As for Saddam being kept by his own people, his control and brutality made it virtually impossible for the Iraqi people, who overwhealmingly hated him, to get rid of him. It required outside military action to oust him.
Tallan,
I was including WWI causualties and Cold War casualties in addition to WWII casualties which, as you point out, were significantly less than 1,000,000. I don't have the exact figures.
Now THAT'S tellin' 'em! My bile rises when anyone, ANYONE, intimates or states we should be currying the favor of France or any of the weasels in general. I visited France in 1969 as a sweet little 15 yr. old on a French study tour and believe me, the French had the most acrid air of superiority and loathing towards Americans in general that it was a nasty shock. Why should I or anyone here give a rat's ass about them? I defy anyone to tell me, other than it's a nice way to be when you can afford it. This country can no longer afford to be nice to our pretend-ally enemies. I've had a bumpersticker on my office wall since before the war: FIRST IRAQ, THEN FRANCE. It still makes me smile.
Even the libs I work with hate the French now, I notice. This "multilateral" b.s. is just silly noise and everyone knows it. It's code for France/Germany/Russia (Belgium's a pimple IMO).
If everyone hates America so much, how come millions are clamoring to get in here? No, it is NOT primarily for the welfare and freebies. It's for the freedoms and prosperity and opportunity we offer. And that is why they hate us, and we no longer give a damn. I love that they're wondering why WE hate THEM.
Gustav,
On pacifism, I do not have any particular respect for that point of view. Most pacifists refuse to use violence for any reason- or say they do- but have no problem with calling law enforcement to protect them. You know, those nasty, armed people? Who they then condemn for using violence to protect said pacifist.
In an ideal world, the world would have stepped in and stepped on Saddam. Instead, most made deals or ignored him. And then tried to keep the U.S. from acting. If we hadn't acted, no one would have, and the mass graves would still be filling up.
I don't think the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is being ignored. Personally, I think the president has spent far too much time & effort keeping the Israelis from acting as they should have. By taking Saddam out of the equation, lots less money goes to the Palestinians to buy bomb materials to murder people. At some point the Pali's are liable to do something so horrible that the Israelis will really turn loose- with our approval and possibly assistance- and it will be very messy. And the Pali's will cease to be a problem. Do I like the idea? No. But if they keep acting as bloody-handed, murdering barbarians, they'll wind up being treated as such. They don't like the idea? Then stop acting as bloody-handed, murdering barbarians.
By the way, it's kind of hard to increase resistance to a dictator to push for change, when anyone who opens their mouth or raises a hand winds up in a shredder.
I'm unsure that we should have gone to war in Iraq, and agree with Gustaf that it would have been far better to take Baghdad after the first Gulf War. Bush 41 decided against going all the way since the "international community" would object. So he told the Iraqis to rise up and that the US would support them, then he let Saddam slaughter Kurds and Shi'a.
Kosovo/a right now is occupied territory, divided into five military districts. Giving it back to Serbia would probably reignite the war and recognizing it as a nation would be a blow to newly democratic Serbia (and spark demands by Serb regions to secede from Kosova), occupation is the least bad option.
"And for Saddam, even dictators are kept by their people. With the right support on the right people the support for Saddam would dramatically declined."
It's not that easy. What support from outside would have kept Hitler from throwing Germany into war and throwing twelve million people into death camps? Stalin was loved by his people even as he slaughtered millions of them and sent millions more to the gulag.
I'd argue that world opinion outside France and Germany did not change much. While majority opinion in most of Europe was against the Iraq war, it appears that the Dutch, Poles, Italians and Spaniards feared that angering us would leave them to the tender mercies of France and Germany in EU politics...we do make an excellent counterweight. Mexico is proudly pacifist and Canada allies itself with the UN at every opportunity. France's African colonies don't like going against the Mother Country lest the Foreign Legion pay them a visit.
Off course you could call Kosovo occupied as far as foregn troops are securing peace.
But as you know, it's not in U.N defenition, and as that is the only international standard to follow in this cases I guess that stands. Am I right or not?
Curiosity, what does Bush 41 mean?
Well as i se iit the world opinion how changed a lot, mainly because of Bush's weak on diplomacy and manners. 80% of the spannish population is against the war, and the Italiens, you know who is the leader of the pack there. You could just guess there public opinion on the war nowdays.
I'm sorry for my bad spelling.
But you asked about Hitler and ww 2.
In my opinion, the problem was that a whole lot of countrys other than Germany was antisemite at the time.
Including the US. Wasn't it so that Jewes couldn't serve as policemen for instans?
Not to talk about the rest of Europe.
There were warnings given, and some spoke out and told so, but nobody listend until it was to late.
Main kampf was written long before the war.
bush 41 = george h. w. bush (41st president) instead of george w. bush (43rd president)
I'm sorry for my bad spelling.
But you asked about Hitler and ww 2.
In my opinion, the problem was that a whole lot of countrys other than Germany was antisemite at the time.
Including the US. Wasn't it so that Jewes couldn't serve as policemen for instans?
Not to talk about the rest of Europe.
There were warnings given, and some spoke out and told so, but nobody listend until it was to late.
Main kampf was written long before the war.
Gustaf -
Well, to take both barrels (as in from a shotgun) from Dean and come back in here, I grant you respect that you deserve.
A lot's been said, so I'll try to be short. I, and a number of my countrymen, are simply horrified by the number of free Westerners who are willing to stand with the most horrible of tyrannies for the most unfathomable of reasons. Would that Hussein was the only one.
We all know what horrors the Kim Jong Il regime has inflicted upon it's people. North Koreans are on the average three inches shorter than their Southern countrymen because of deliberate starvation over generations. Kim Jong Il must be worshiped as God upon pain of death.
Do you realize that if North Korea invaded the South (AGAIN), I am convinced MILLIONS on the European Left would actively support the North? I, and a great many others, are convinced of this, utterly convinced. Why? Not despite that they are a tyranny, but BECAUSE of it. It can't be "the glorious future of communism", Hussein offered nothing even close, yet they ardently marched for him. If ANY free democracy goes up against a tyranny, the Euro-Left will choose the tyranny, again and again and again. (North American left as well, but not as blatantly).
I've studied such ideas for twenty years. I have not even begun to glimpse an understanding as to why. It cannot by equalizing wealth, the environment, offering individual rights, or the like, because their pet governments laugh at such concepts, and do so triumphantly. So what the hell is it.
What has happened is that Americans toleration for such people has shrunk radically. And therein lies the bitterness of our differences.
Gustaf -
Well, to take both barrels (as in from a shotgun) from Dean and come back in here, I grant you respect that you deserve.
A lot's been said, so I'll try to be short. I, and a number of my countrymen, are simply horrified by the number of free Westerners who are willing to stand with the most horrible of tyrannies for the most unfathomable of reasons. Would that Hussein was the only one.
We all know what horrors the Kim Jong Il regime has inflicted upon it's people. North Koreans are on the average three inches shorter than their Southern countrymen because of deliberate starvation over generations. Kim Jong Il must be worshiped as God upon pain of death.
Do you realize that if North Korea invaded the South (AGAIN), I am convinced MILLIONS on the European Left would actively support the North? I, and a great many others, are convinced of this, utterly convinced. Why? Not despite that they are a tyranny, but BECAUSE of it. It can't be "the glorious future of communism", Hussein offered nothing even close, yet they ardently marched for him. If ANY free democracy goes up against a tyranny, the Euro-Left will choose the tyranny, again and again and again. (North American left as well, but not as blatantly).
I've studied such ideas for twenty years. I have not even begun to glimpse an understanding as to why. It cannot by equalizing wealth, the environment, offering individual rights, or the like, because their pet governments laugh at such concepts, and do so triumphantly. So what the hell is it.
What has happened is that Americans toleration for such people has shrunk radically. And therein lies the bitterness of our differences.
Oops.
Oops.
Andrew X:
It was worth saying twice, even by mistake. You are right. The collectivist Left has collapsed into sheer nihilism. The ideology of the Suicide of the West is committing suicide.