a =e a February 19, 2003 Taking on the Anti-War Movement J.J. McCullough OP Contributor These days it seems like it’s getting increasingly hard to ignore them. Their posters are plastered on the walls, their rallies fill the streets, and their articles dominate our newspapers. I speak, of course, of the so-called “anti-war” movement. With all the talk of Iraq in the news lately, these folks have been even more public than usual. “We want peace!” “No blood for oil!” they chant, as they wring their hands over the plight of the poor Iraqi peo- ple. Anti-war protestors are always annoying, but this new breed is more dangerous than ever. Though on the surface they may seem to be motivated by genuine good- will and a desire for peace, once we investigate their actions a bit closer, a series of disturbing hidden agendas quickly becomes apparent. The first hidden agenda of the so-called “anti-war” movement is their fanatical opposition to the United States of America. They seriously believe that all the world’s problems are caused by the United States, and that the American government is a vicious, bloodthirsty regime bent on war, imperialism, and genocide. This argument is so blatantly false it is barely worth discussing further. Everyone already knows that the United States is one of the world’s most sta- ble democracies. The US donates billions of dollars a year to eradicating disease, hunger, and war, and has a long history of fighting to pre- serve the freedom of people all over the world. On a planet plagued by madmen like Anwar Quaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and Kim Jong Il, the “anti-war” left still prefers to focus on the non-existent evils of the United States, rather than discuss the very real evils of the world’s most vicious dictators. Marxist dictatorships continue to starve and slaughter their people on a daily basis, while the corrupt Islamic regimes of the Middle East torture and oppress women and children without batting an eye. These facts mean little to the “anti-war” leftists, because to them, America represents something more sinister than all the dictatorships of the world combined: Capitalism. In the last 20 years we have seen the idiotic lies and false solutions of communism and socialism collapse under the universal truths of capitalism and democracy, led by the strong efforts of NATO and the United States. Socialist dictators like the ones in the former Soviet Union, Asia, and Latin America have disappeared one by one, and been replaced with healthy democracies where the populace are finally able to live lives of freedom and peace. The realities of the post-Cold War world angers the leftists to no end. “How could an evil capitalist coun- try like America defeat the superior principles of com- munism?” they ask, genuinely perplexed. America’s victo- ry was their defeat, and they have since vowed to attack America at all available opportunities. It doesn’t matter if America is fighting a just war, as she did in fighting Milosevic’s genocidal regime in 1996, or fighting for her own safety as she did in Afghanistan after the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Using their warped logic, America is always wrong, because America is on the side of capitalism, and no one on the side of capitalism can ever be right. Now that we know why the “anti-war” left hates America, it is worth exploring the realities of the coming conflict in Iraq. Since leftists hate capitalism, it only log- ically follows that they believe capitalism must be the © page 18 me 0 a ne Features http://otherpress.douglas.bc.ca motivation for this war. Without citing any sort of evi- dence or statistics, the “anti-war” folks claim the coming Iraqi conflict is little more than America’s desire to con- trol the Middle East’s vast oil supply. The left is fond of conspiracy theories, but the “it’s all about oil” theory has remained one of their all-time favourites. Of course, like most conspiracy theories this one is simply not true. America already imports thousands of barrels of Iraqi oil every day, and shipments to the US have reached an all- time high during Saddam Hussein's thirty-year regime. Despite Iraq’s openly hostile regime, America’s oil trade with Iraq has remained stable, and is unlikely to signifi- cantly benefit from any future war. If anything, war with Iraq will probably cause great instability within the oil markets, especially considering Saddam's well-known panache for setting reserve fires. If oil was the only thing America was after, instead of waging war you would see the Bush administration lifting sanctions, and struggling to normalize relations with Baghdad. After all, I don’t see Saudi Arabia being invaded, and they control a far greater percentage of the world’s oil than Saddam. So if oil is not the motivation, then what is? As anyone who reads a newspaper other than the Vancouver Marxist Times will know, Iraq possesses numerous chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. “But so what?” the leftists cry, “So do lots of other countries!” True as that is, the fact to remember is that Iraq lost a war, and under United Nations’ supervision vowed to destroy all their “weapons of mass destruction” as part of the sur- render agreement. But as we all know, a promise from Saddam Hussein is worth very little, and the Iraqi regime has spent the last 12 years busily re-building their weapons in an attempt to bring themselves back to their pre-Gulf War levels of military might and influence. Even if Saddam was not blatantly violating the terms of his own surrender, there would still be more than enough reason to attack him. By claiming that “lots of nations have WMDs” leftists are trying to act as if Britain, France, and America pose as great a threat to world peace as the armed “rouge” nations such as Iraq and North Korea. Any sane person knows this is clearly not the case. Another favorite false argument of the “anti-war” left- ists is that America (or in some cases the CIA) either directly “armed” or “created” Saddam Hussein’s violent regime. This argument displays a shocking ignorance of Middle Eastern history. Firstly, contrary to popular belief, Saddam Hussein did not come to power in a mil- the other press itary coup. As the former Vice-President of Iraq he mere ly inherited his current office by manipulating Iraq’s rul ing Ba’ath party structure, and forcing elderly Presiden Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr into premature resignation Saddam Hussein has always been a strong supporter o socialism, and he has even admitted that former Sovie dictator Joseph Stalin is one of his role models. Th Soviets seized on Saddam's feelings, and eagerly provide him with a variety of dangerous weaponry as a way o securing Soviet influence in the region. The idea tha America would have supported the rise of a dictator wit such blatant communist sympathies is laughable. However, there is no denying there nevertheless existed very brief period of cool relations with the United States during the initial period of the ten-year Iran-Iraq war. After the fanatical Muslim leader Ayatolya Khomeni seized control of Iran in 1979, Saddam Hussein waged a pre-emptive war on Iran as a way of preventing a similar Muslim revolution from spreading into Iraq. It was dur- ing this period that the United States, though remaining nominally neutral, supplied Iraq with some key intelligence information that could help Iraq curb the threat of Islamic fundamentalism. The United States was no fan of Saddam Hussein, to be sure, but under the concept of “the lesser o two evils” he was a far less dangerous threat than radical, militant Islam. Left-wing folks believe America has always been wrong, and always will be wrong. No logic can convince them, even when we use their own argu- ments. Let’s assume for a second that their illogi- cal claim that “America created Saddam” is true. If anything, this should further prove the necessi- ty of war. If America has “created” one of the world’s worst regimes, should she not bear some of the responsibility for removing it? Such logic is lost on the left-wing mind. Here’s another point—despite their frequent denunciations of war, how often do you hear them denounce the many wars that Saddam himself started? Where is the condem- nation of Iraq’s rape of Kuwait that killed thousands of innocent women and children? Or his war against that great hero of the left, Khomeni? Or how about Saddam’s use of chemical weaponry to kill over a million of his own Kurdish citizens? Surely any organization that favours peace should be welcoming the overthrow of Saddam Hussein with open arms. However, as I have explained the so-called “anti-war” movement is not anti-war, anti- violence, or anything of the sort. It is a fringe group of left-wing extremists, dominated by Marxists, Anarchists, and other radicals. What exactly they hope to achieve is unclear, but it certainly is not the spread of peace and democracy. So next time you see one of their posters, watch one of their protests, or read one of their articles, remember they're what their true agenda is, and don't be afraid to voice your opposition. The left has long tried to marginalize the opinions of common-sense conservatives, and uses a wide variety of fear and intimidation tactics to censor the views of the majority. Favouring a war in Iraq does not make you a criminal or a bad person. On the contrary, it proves you have an understanding of an issue that goes beyond a bumper-sticker slogan. In a contest between style and substance, substance will always pre- vail.