Sunday, September 18, 2005

Last night I caught a debate on CSPAN. George Galloway against Christopher Hitchens over the war in Iraq.

The arguments:

Hitchens to Galloway: The US war on terror has liberated 50+ million people. If the anti-war left had had its way, Iraq would still be a concentration camp sitting on top of a mass grave. Galloway has taken bribes from Saddam, and now he's slobbering on Boy Assad's hand. Freedom is breaking out because of George Bush and Tony Blair. (Boos form the audience.)

Galloway to Hitchens: You're a pooh-head. (Cheers from the audience.)

The left did not cover itself in glory.


26 million and not without a cost:


and by liberated, do you mean living in a now terrorist-infused wasteland?
You total ass-waste. I mean tha they were liberated from a concentration camp above and a mass graveyard below. What's your issue, asshole?
What's with the personal attacks? There are many people out there who have differing political views that aren't assholes or even ass-wastes. I'm simply have chosen to respectfully disagree with this post.

The issue is that terms like "Liberated" are thrown around like propaganda. It pops up a dozen times per pro-Iraq speech but is ambiguous and cliche like "soldiers of liberation" and "armies of compassion". It's an attempt to make something seem better than it really is.

My issue is with the very definition of "Liberated". If "Liberation" is the end product of 2000 American soldier deaths and 30,000+ Iraqi civilian deaths, while leaving the country in a much more terrorst-rich environment, then I'm not sure it's something to be proud of.
Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?