Moran On Iraq

Armed Liberal at Winds of Change is all hot and bothered about Rick Moran’s (they spelled his name wrong) suggestion that it was time to surrender to the Democrats and pull out of Iraq on the Democrat’s time table.
The Answer Man has an answer for Armed Liberal:

Might I suggest joining:
I Support Democracy In Iraq
or if you are interested in a more animated version:
I Support Democracy In Iraq – The Animation
I’d love to see the Democrats argue against democracy. If nothing else just for the entertainment value.

Then in comment #4 Glenn Wishard says that despite all Bush’s deficiencies including the House of Saud, he is holding firm.
My reply:

Totally with you on this one.
True, but the one thing Bush has not done is cave in to the defeatists like a rotten pumpkin, the very thing which Moran now advises him to find the “courage” to do..
As long as he doesn’t cave we have time to change the terms of the debate.
It is the old “maybe pigs will fly” strategem. If we help maybe pigs can fly.
==
It is time to stop focusing on the doctors and the hospital and take a look at the real patient. Iraqi Democracy.
This is not about the “Iraqi people” such as they are. It is about the Iraqi democrats. Who may even be a minority. Doesn’t matter.
It will be impossible for real Americans, even of the leftist variety, to repudiate democracy with any degree of conviction.
What will they say: Iraq is not ready? So what do we do, wait until they are ready and invade again?
Arabs can’t do democracy? That is racism.
Then hit them with a good old JFK right between the eyes:
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
John F. Kennedy

I’d love to hear the Democrats argue against Saint John.
Cross Posted at Power and Control and at The Astute Bloggers


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

3 responses to “Moran On Iraq”

  1. skh.pcola Avatar
    skh.pcola

    That “support any friend” bit is what cheeses off leftards the most. Their loyalty is so fickle that the concept is abhorent to them. Ex.: Lamont instead of Lieberman.

  2. tim maguire Avatar
    tim maguire

    Some leftists do indeed oppose spreading democracy. It’s a form of imperialism, don’t you know?
    Us spreading our freedom and participatory government at the tip of a bayonet to those poor brown people whose culture prefers tyranny.
    I’ve always found that the heart of liberalism is deeply racist. That’s what the paternalism is all about–government should do for the little people what they can’t possibly be expected to do for themselves–run their own lives. They struggle to impose it domestically, but often find that foreign policy is more fertile grounds because it is able to exploit America’s default position of isolationism.

  3. The Mechanical Eye Avatar

    “Some leftists do indeed oppose spreading democracy. It’s a form of imperialism, don’t you know?”
    Your post is a bit confusing. You say the left is deeply paternalistic to those “brown people,” yet you applaud spreading democracy “at the tip of a bayonet.”
    At first, “democracy” in Iraq was being done on our terms, not that of the Iraqis. Today, Iraq’s government is a medium through which that country’s strong factionalism (an evil to be striven against in our own Federalist Papers) is being furthered, usually violently.
    I don’t think its “racist” to point out that Iraq in 2003 didn’t have, pardon the expression, the classical values necessary for a well-functioning republic. It lacked the basic western sensibility like the former Nazi Germany did, or the basic civilizational flexibility that the former imperial Japan had in World War II.
    This is pure condescension, to think we can enforce democracy through brute force alone. Do not be surprised to find that “brown people” such as myself are not entirely impressed by such thinking.
    DU