Pro-Dictatorship
As protest season starts up, and the Twin Cities' streets fill with the aroma of patchouli oil, and the clattering of angry baby-boomers' walkers, and the adenoidal shrieks of Macalester students chanting, it's worth going over one of the key definitions in my personal lexicon.
In recent weeks, I've gotten comments and emails in this and other fora criticizing me for referring to anti-war protesters as "pro-dictatorship" or "pro-Hussein". That is, say the critics, not their motivation.
My answer: perhaps it's not what drives them as individuals.
But if I were to launch a protest against, say, traffic signs and stoplights - say, for purelky aesthetic reasons - it may be true that my motivations might not be to cause more traffic deaths. But more traffic deaths would be the inevitable result of my crusade, whatever my motivations.
Fact: Saddam Hussein murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people (many times the number killed in the current war - perhaps an order of magnitude more).
Fact: There was no chance to remove this murderous dictator from power by peaceful means. The UN was impotent (as they are in any crisis), and the sanctions were serving in many ways (as the Oil For Food Scandal investigation has shown) to reinforce Hussein's political (if not military) power. Not only was was Hussein's power secure (thanks to George W. Bush's United-Nations-backed betrayal of the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs in 1991-1992), but even Hussein's eventual passing from the scene offered no known, plausible chance of relief; his sons' positions were fairly secure, and in any event that of the Ba'ath Party was completely so.
Fact: The only thing that cut Hussein/Ba'ath party rule short was the invasion.
The protesters oppose the war. The war removed the dictator. Ergo, intentionally or not, the protestors oppose the removal of the dictator, by accident if not by design.
(Leave aside the protesters who mindlessly intone "at least Hussein was elected" - and while they might be a minority, maybe, they are most certainly out there).
This is not to impugn the morality of most of the protesters in any way (that can only be assessed on an individual basis - and yes, I will do the assessing); it is, however, intended to show the unintended (?) logical result of their beliefs.
No war? Happy dictator.
There's really no way around it.
Posted by Mitch at
May 1, 2006 05:33 AM
| TrackBack
Exactly.
Posted by: chriss at May 1, 2006 05:32 AMCue AC accusing us of being 'pro Kim Jung Il' for not favoring regime change in NK by military means in 3...2...1...
Never mind the Kim is exhibit A in the argument for regime change BEFORE they go nuclear, and that forcibly removing Kim threatens Seoul.
The US is responsible for the removal of more dictators than all other countries put together. Sorry we didn't do it all at once. Guess that makes us hypocrites.
Mitch's point holds. No war = stronger Saddam. Anti war = pro Saddam. Now, you could argue that the world would be better off with a 'contained' Saddam still in power and that you'd feel really bad for all the Iraqis he kills on a weekly basis, but you would still be, effectively, pro Saddam. And you'd be wrong.
Unless, of course, you can come up with a way that Saddam might have been deposed by peaceful means. I'm not holding my breath.
I do favor regime change in NK by military force. The sooner President Hu invades, the better.
Posted by: Kermit at May 1, 2006 07:48 AMGee, Chriss, you've made several excellent points! Let me address them one at a time:
Good point on North Korea. The U.S. would never attack a country that actually *had* WMD's.
And maybe all of you are right about antiwar protesters supporting Saddam. I remember reading somewhere that he got pulled out of a spider-hole and put on trial, but I'm sure you guys know better. No doubt we're still trying to bring down Saddam, find his WMDs and prevent him from supporting al Qaeda. Anyone who opposes the war in 2006 must certainly be pro-Saddam, pro-WMDs and pro-al Qaeda.
Also, I can agree that the U.S. has deposed more dictators than any other country. We've also installed more. Sometimes both in a single country!
Posted by: angryclown at May 1, 2006 08:09 AMMitch, I'll address your point directly: Saddam was deposed in 2003 and is in custody. The war obviously has nothing to do with Saddam in 2006. If you find war protestors who favor restoring him as Iraq's leaders, call the pro-Hussein, with Angryclown's blessing. Applied to anyone else, however, it is nothing but a cheap, stupid slur.
Posted by: angryclown at May 1, 2006 08:15 AMGee, Clown, you bring up some good points.
Posted by: chriss at May 1, 2006 10:11 AMWhile there are some who were in favor of the war to begin with and are now against it (or at least our handling of it), the vast majority of the anti-war crowd was anti-war from the beginning. So maybe there are two camps:
1) Those who supported military action to depose Saddam, but now want us out of Iraq. For these people you are correct: technically they are not pro-Saddam.
2) Those who have been against the war from its inception. This is the vast majority of the anti-war crowd. And since the logical result of their actions would be Saddam remaining in power, they are, in fact, pro-Saddam
For group #1 the next logical question is: what did you expect would happen? We depose Saddam and turn the keys to the country over to the Zarkman?
For a country that "installs dictators" we sure don't get much credit for democracy building.
Maybe they're just anti-nation-building, Chriss. You know, like you wingnuts used to be back when you were criticizing Clinton for much more modest commitments of U.S. forces.
Posted by: angryclown at May 1, 2006 10:18 AMAC: You say cheap and stupid, I say economical and deserved. Shall we all agree to divide one war into two? Shall we all seek after AC's blessing? I do not.
Posted by: Troy at May 1, 2006 10:56 AM"the protestors oppose the removal of the dictator, by accident if not by design..."
The prefixes "pro" and "con" denote what somebody actually wants, not the tertiary consequences of their positions. If one opposed the war because he specifically wanted Hussein to remain, then yes he would be pro-dictator. If however he opposed the war because he thought it was strategically a bad idea then he is definitely not pro-dictator. If you support the war, are you "pro-American soldier killing"? Of course not; to argue in the opposite direction is just as silly.
Posted by: Tim at May 1, 2006 11:45 AMWho needs to divide one war into two, Trojan? "The tyrant has fallen and Iraq is free," is what Bush said three years ago, dressed in a super-nifty jumpsuit.
Posted by: angryclown at May 1, 2006 12:00 PMIraq is free. Golly, they got a constitution and everything. Foriegn terrorists? And wingnuts are only anti-nation building when Democrats are the architects. We know you all love Castro and mourn the passing of the Sandanistas, but as an aggregate far fewer people die under democracy than under communism.
Posted by: Kermit at May 1, 2006 12:11 PMI think Tim makes an excellent point about "pro-" prefix usage.
I also take some issue with Mitch's "facts". Colin Powell, for one, believed Hussein was effectively contained by sanctions etc. There is a reason we don't invade and overthrow every country/leader that crosses us or committed atrocities in the past. As much as we'd like to be world police, we just don't have the resources to do that, and oftentimes an invasion can cause more problems than containment.
Posted by: spycake at May 1, 2006 05:14 PMThanks!!! furniture Very nice site.I enjoy being here.
Posted by: furniture at July 7, 2006 09:35 AMThanks!!! furniture Very nice site.I enjoy being here.
Posted by: furniture at July 7, 2006 09:42 AMThanks!!! furniture Very nice site.I enjoy being here.
Posted by: furniture at July 7, 2006 09:42 AMteen breast teen hitchhikers
Posted by: Xecrau at October 10, 2006 12:46 PMgay rubber fetish fetish fucking
Posted by: Xaphew at October 28, 2006 09:29 PM