You People Just...Don't Get It, Do You?

As long as I'm severely warping my sleep schedule, I might as well blog. You see, a few of the New York Times letters for today are very, very fiskable. They're responding to a couple columns about the war. Let's check 'em out.

Letter Number One:

Thomas L. Friedman ("Worth a Thousand Words," column, Dec. 23) forcefully expresses his anger at the brutality of the insurgents in Iraq. He is right to do so, and we should be on the side of those supporting democracy in Iraq.

Someone should let Michael Moore know that.

That still does not mean that the United States will in the long run be able to create a democracy in Iraq.

Does the phrase "elections in January" mean nothing to you?

We are only delaying the inevitable struggle that will have to go on among the Iraqis themselves that will determine how Iraq is structured and governed in the future.

Better to leave them to get to this struggle now and stop the slaughter of America's brave young soldiers.

Uh...yeah...I think it would be better to kill the people who would add violence to that struggle, rather than leaving them there for the Iraqis to deal with. That's kind of the point of doing this by force instead of asking them nicely to stop.

Don't worry; It gets better. Check out Letter Number Two:

Thomas L. Friedman can say what he wants about the "insurgents." He must still defend his defense of the invasion of Iraq.

The point, however, is that it was our invasion that released the enmity that Mr. Friedman excoriates.

Yep. It's always the fault of the U.S. It couldn't be that whole culture that makes people believe blowing yourself up is the only way to please God. No, it's America's fault.

Until we admit that the initial decision to invade was wrong, no exit from this terrible and engulfing mess is even remotely possible.

I love the self-righteousness here. Apparently, it's more important for leftists to have their moral victory ("The war was wrong! They admitted it!") than for the troops to finish the job they started. And I bet they were thinking of Vietnam when they wrote that "terrible and engulfing mess" line. Speaking of which, pulling out and leaving people to fend for themselves sure worked well in 'Nam, right? RIGHT?

Letter Number Three:

Thomas L. Friedman writes that this is what the war in Iraq is about: "People who want to hold a free and fair election to determine their own future, opposed by a virulent nihilistic minority that wants to prevent that. That is all that the insurgents stand for."

This strikes me as a narrow view of what the violence in Iraq is about.

Based on that statement, I'm guessing it makes a rather hollow sound as it strikes you.

Let's say Iraq has its free and fair election on Jan. 30. Once the first insurgent attack takes place on Jan. 31, what will the war be about then?

Obviously, it will be about people who want to live in a free and democratic country, opposed by a virulent nihilistic minority that wants to prevent that. It's not like an election is a magical event that makes the opposition disappear. After all, you're still here.

Letter Number Four:

In "Worth a Thousand Words," Thomas L. Friedman does not make a crucial distinction between the Iraqi "right of self-determination," which he believes is at the heart of the titanic pre-election struggle racking the country, and the Palestinian "right of self-determination."

This should be good. Relativism ahoy!

The Iraqis have not chosen to exercise their right of self-determination; the choice was made for them by the United States when it invaded and occupied Iraq.

And I'm sure they would've preferred being raped, tortured, starved, etc. Plenty of them would've asked for this if it hadn't been for that whole "speaking out against Saddam = death" policy.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, want to exercise their right of self-determination and have been struggling for it alone for decades.

NOTE: "Struggling for it alone" is a nice way of saying "murdering Israelis."

Should we ask why the United States is willing to help one but not the other achieve this basic goal?

I really shouldn't have to answer that question. Really. But again, I don't remember the Iraqis blowing up busloads of innocent people. That might have something to do with it.

Letter Number Five:

William Safire concludes that the Iraq war is just and "freedom is the wave of the future."

But what kind of example is the United States setting by holding enemy combatants secretly and indefinitely at Guantánamo in defiance and disregard of the Geneva Conventions?

Excuse me for a second...

*Bashes head against wall*

...Okay. Now, let me get this straight...you think that we would set a good example...by giving terrorists...TERRORISTS...the same rights we give uniformed combatants? You know, the people who don't purposely kill civilians?

ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR F**KING MIND?

Holy crap, what is wrong with these people? Honestly. You'd think they'd be sucked into a black hole of stupidity or something.

Posted by CD on December 24, 2004 03:40 AM
Category: Fiskings