Article

2003-03-21 Iraq

Harsh words from peace camp, muted praise from backers

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2003-03-21 08:19 am|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 -- "War will inevitably lead to humanitarian disasters," a foreign ministry statement said.--

50 years later they get it.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-03-21 01:37:56|| 2003-03-21 01:37:56|| Front Page Top

#2 I just heard Senator Mitchell (hmm..maybe it was Levin) on Fox still trying to call this a "unilateral" action. When the interviewer asked if we can still call it "unilateral" with 40+ countries helping us...he said it was because we didn't have UN approval. Then...he tried to worm around it saying that he didn't think so, of course, but "unfortunately" that will be the perception around the world (except I suppose the 40+ countries). And of course, he wanted to let us know that.

Ha ha, first it was just "unlilateral", then it was "unilateral" because no one else was giving "substantive support", now it's unilateral because not everyone is on board. Democrats keep retreating from their anti-American talking points faster than the Iraqi army does from Allied tanks.

Posted by becky 2003-03-21 08:40:07|| 2003-03-21 08:40:07|| Front Page Top

#3 i went down to those protests in Sydney today. A lot less people than yesterday, pretty much just a few socialists with a loudhailer and some banners.

I had a lot of fun asking them all: 'how would YOU advocate getting rid of saddam?'

The replies ranged from: 'through diplomacy' to 'but why should we do anything about him?' to 'lifting the UN sanctions'.

Most disturbing was a middle-aged man claiming to be an Iraqi. He was clearly an immigrant, but I doubt his story. He claimed Schwartzkopf resigned because the US gave Saddam tanks in 1991 while the people of Iraq were trying to rebel. I doubt this but don't know the facts: can anyone tell me?

Plus, he said that the Iraqi's would get rid of Saddam themselves 'if only the west would stop supporting him' to which i replied 'well the west hasn't supported him for hte last 12 years' to which he simply responded 'yes they have'.

How do you argue with that? He's obviously wrong.

Posted by anon1 2003-03-21 09:08:42|| 2003-03-21 09:08:42|| Front Page Top

#4 Russia? See Chechnya.
China? See Tibet. Or Taiwan.
France? See Ivory Coast. Or Robert Mugabe. Or Algeria. Or armpit hair.

Moral gravity? These guys have to be tethered to their desks.

Posted by matt 2003-03-21 09:18:00|| 2003-03-21 09:18:00|| Front Page Top

#5 No doubt the Chinese guy raised his objections to the US's "illegal actions" with a completely straight face.

That's why they call 'em "inscrutable", y'know.

Posted by mojo 2003-03-21 09:41:03|| 2003-03-21 09:41:03|| Front Page Top

#6 the Australian prime minister, John Howard, said that some of the 2,000 troops he deployed to the Gulf took part in the attacks.

Bless 'em all
Bless 'em all
The long and the short
and the Tall
Bless all the seargents and W-01s
Bless all the corporals and
their blinkin' sons

And we mean it! Thanks, Aussies!

Posted by Alaska Paul 2003-03-21 13:28:36|| 2003-03-21 13:28:36|| Front Page Top

11:43 Osay
23:36 carol
12:48 Darla
19:56 Leanne
09:19 raptor
06:28 RW
03:31 Peter
00:56 Anonymous
00:51 Anonymous
23:58 mojo
23:36 Anonon
23:28 Anonon
23:14 Tex
23:07 Tex
23:06 Don
22:44 tu3031
22:31 tu3031
22:28 someone
22:24 tu3031
22:37 Fred
22:36 tu3031
22:17 tu3031
22:17 Anonymous
22:16 Anonymous