Home / We didn’t fight World War II because of the Holocaust, but …

We didn’t fight World War II because of the Holocaust, but …

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

On Wednesday, October 13, the news broke that a mass grave of men, women and children had been unearthed in Hatra, which had a large Kurdish population. A baby had been shot in the head and foetuses were found among the gore in the mass grave.

News of these gruesome discoveries isn’t exactly new. We started finding them almost from the moment Saddam had been dispatched from power.

The brutal legacy of Saddam’s butchery that we keep finding, however, have no bearing on anti-war arguments. The anti-wars pretend that they were happy to see Iraqis celebrating around the fallen statues of Saddam. They say as convincingly as they can that the capture of Saddam brought them a sigh of relief. They say that these graves – entire killing fields – cause them grief.

But still, they always add, we shouldn’t have gone in. We should have continued sanctions. We should have awaited U.N. approval, and for the big man, Mr. Annan himself, to declare the legality of any war against Iraq. Most of all, France, Germany and Russia had great ideas on how to appease Iraq (especially if it didn’t endanger their precious food-for-oil programs). Even the lunatics screaming about government “oppression” don’t even care about this. The fact is that through the last few years, it’s proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the “caring and compassionate” Left is a bunch of BS. (Worse still, I’ve given it nearly a week before I decided to write about this subject, and I haven’t found one, even one, entry that discussed the Hatra killing field here on Blogcritics – correct me if I’m wrong, Eric.)

The Left still pretends that they are concerned about human rights and dignity, but they are happy to follow in the footsteps of the isolationist Old Right. If Pat Buchanan and the rest of that lot had their way, we’d never have fought World War II. And isn’t it ironic that for all the marvellous talk of stopping the Holocaust, nobody would dare to interrupt a discussion about the Second World War and say, “But it was not about stopping the Holocaust; it was because we were attacked by the Japanese.” We pat ourselves on the back for getting involved in the conflict, but it was Pearl Harbor, not the mass genocide unravelling in Europe, which provided the motive for us to enter the war. In retrospect, we can say, “We helped to end the Holocaust.” And what a truly good thing it was too.

And so, someone please inform me, how is the situation in Iraq any different? We know the horrors that went on under Saddam’s regime – the Iraqi holocaust – and we’ve known about it for quite a while. And yet, the anti-wars still shake their heads, mumble that this is not the reason why we invaded Iraq. No matter how many skeletons of babies you hold up that show bullet holes in their skulls, your average anti-war agitator will still say, “That’s very sad. But we were supposed to be looking for WMDs! Where are they? We were lied into war!” In other words, the killing fields of Iraq make no impact at all upon these people.

We hear all the time from the anti-war faction how bad we are to pretend that this was a humanitarian mission. Well, how bad is it that this crowd ignores the humanitarian aspect of the war?

We could use a little retrospect with regard to the War in Iraq, just as we’ve seen fit to do with World War II.

Powered by

About Nightdragon

  • Claire Robinson

    Mark…VERY well written, cognitive piece. I couldn’t agree with it more. We did get into WWII because of Pearl Harbor, and were it not for that, we wouldn’t have. Once we were in it, we had the humanitarian concerns any human being would have.

    The left does not wish to accept that going into Iraq was right and humane, and very, very necessary. All they want to do is point a finger at the issue of wmd’s and say…we were lied to. The bottom line is, our leaders used the best intelligence they had at the time. But that notwithstanding, it was our duty (for no one else was going to do it) to relieve the oppression of Saddam’s regime, his heinous murder of the Kurds, his withholding food and medical supplies from his people even when he was getting them….just as we needed to go in and wipe out the Taliban, REGARDLESS of Bin Laden and his cronies, because they were repressing an entire nation. And I dare anyone to argue with that, for I have seen the gratitude of the people with my own eyes.

    No matter what the hardships, no matter what the problems which follow the upheaval of an oppressive regime, its STILL better than what they lived under….

    Well done, my friend!


  • boomcrashbaby

    The left does not wish to accept that going into Iraq was right and humane, and very, very necessary.

    The left is glad Saddam is out of power, however the left believes that Bush did it wrong, diverting much needed resources from the fight against Al Queda.

    But that notwithstanding, it was our duty (for no one else was going to do it) to relieve the oppression of Saddam’s regime,

    It’s interesting how so many people on the right justify the war in Iraq as our ‘moral duty to free a terrorized people’, while at the same time we sit back and congratulate ourselves for it, and say nothing as mass genocide and/or terrorism of the people is occurring in Sudan and other parts of Africa, heck, even Tibet. The point being, justifying our diversion from the war on terror to free an oppressed people sounds awful silly since we are apparently really only free oppressed people if we can conclude that their continued oppression poses a threat to our own security.

    his heinous murder of the Kurds, his withholding food and medical supplies from his people even when he was getting them….just as we needed to go in and wipe out the Taliban, REGARDLESS of Bin Laden and his cronies, because they were repressing an entire nation. And I dare anyone to argue with that, for I have seen the gratitude of the people with my own eyes.

    Claire, the left has no problem with freeing an oppressed people but the right is so hypocritical and selective in justifying it. It makes a nice ‘fallback’ reason because the actual first 3 reasons for the invasion turned out to be invalid.

  • No, MEM, it’s the Right that “still pretends that they are concerned about human rights and dignity.”

    That was only one of at least 27 excuses used to justify the unilateralist invasion of Iraq after the fact, without telling the American public the truth even once.

    George Orwell notwithstanding, you cannot rewrite history.

  • Back when I was in college, the first Persian Gulf War happened. I opened Newsweek and saw a picture of a bloodied, broken child, crying. He was Kurdish. I remember crying, wondering who could do such a thing to a child. Saddam Hussein could, that’s who. I’m glad you drew this parallel. This was a good piece.

  • Maybe if Cheney and other House Republicans hadn’t blocked the Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988 – back when Saddam actually had chemical weapons and was using them against his people – I would take them seriously when they try to make a humanitarian argument for their invasion 15 years later.

  • andy marsh

    so…because I didn’t take the matches away from him before…it’s ok that he burned the house down…that’s good logic!!!

  • The Dude

    It’s funny, Mark and Claire, that the right-offs call themselves compassionate because they were concerned with the human rights of those under Saddam Hussain’s rule, yet they don’t care about those who have been screwed over in Africa and Tibet, among other countries. Sure, that dick Saddam did some awful things to his own citizens, but then again, we don’t care about the thousands of innocent men, women and children whom we bombed in Iraq (well, I guess they were in the way). Sure, Saddam tortured and killed those who spoke against his rule, still we think the death penalty is still a good thing.
    So pat yourself on the back, you two, hypocrisy is a good answer to America’s problems: It’s all in the way you look at it (or at least which at least which side you are on).

  • Forrest

    …so the liberal view of FDR’s actions in 1941…

    The war in Europe was a “diversion” of resources we should have used against Japan….. “Hey you brain-washed NeoCons, Hitler did not attack us!…Tojo did!”…

    By the way, I see no proof that they ever found Hitler’s body either.

  • SFC Ski

    “Maybe if Cheney and other House Republicans hadn’t blocked the Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988 ”

    Yep, we should have passed a lot more Acts and Resolutions, but taken no action, that way we’d be right in line with the UN’s plan of action.

    As for Africa, Tibet, etc, when the US does not get involved, some people say it’s because these countries ave no oil, let us get involved, we are imperialist, and let some Soldier die whle being involved, all of the sudden he is cannon fodder for a useless war.

  • Debbie

    “Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

    Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

    Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

    I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

    Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq’s capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. The inspectors undertook this mission first 7 1/2 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

    The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

    The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

    The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we’ve had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

    Faced with Saddam’s latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam’s actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

    Eight Arab nations — Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman — warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

    When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

    I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

    I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq’s own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

    Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq’s cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM’s chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

    The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

    Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party’s other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past. Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM’s ability to obtain necessary evidence.

    For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM’s effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program. It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM’s questions. Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment. Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

    So Iraq has abused its final chance. As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, “Iraq’s conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament. In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq’s prohibited weapons program.” In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.Saddam’s deception has defeated their effectiveness.

    Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors. This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act and act now.

    Let me explain why.

    First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

    Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community — led by the United States — has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday — make no mistake — he will use it again as he has in the past.

    Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

    That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team — including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser — I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam’s capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

    At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare. If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler’s report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

    Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East. That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq a month’s head start to prepare for potential action against it.

    Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

    So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

    First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

    Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion — resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq’s neighbors and less food for its people.

    The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government — a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

    The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm’s way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq’s military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm’s way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction.

    If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we’re acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

    Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

    But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America’s vital interests, we will do so. In the century we’re leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we’ll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

    Tonight, the United States is doing just that.

    May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America. ”

    President Clinton’s address in 1998

    Lying Bastard!! Oh, wait, he is a Democrat so he is the all wise imperial wizard….. yeah right.

    Even the Duefar report mentions that there was a lot of activity at the Syrian border right before the war started, in which the WMD’s could have been passed off to them. Just because we haven’t found any WMD’s as of yet does not mean that none existed. You can’t prove a negative.

    It never ceases to amaze me to see the way that the left can see proof that the intelligence showed that Saddam had WMD’s and still chant the mindless ‘Bush Lied’ with a straight face.