'Protests are the result of wounded egos'

[emad]

From:The Guardian

American papers' news roundup:
<snip>

Christian Science Monitor
Editorial, November 18

"The visit will serve to reinforce Mr Blair's conviction that Britain can't afford to damage its close alliance with the US, as France and Germany did by their actions before the war. Despite being snubbed by President George Bush on a few prewar and postwar tactics, Mr Blair hung in there.Mr Blair's pro-US policy reflects a historic need for Britain, as an island nation off Europe, to keep a balance of power with the continent. Only the US can help it deal with any rising power in Europe. So, beyond the protests or displays of disdain for Mr Bush, the visit acknowledges an alliance that can withstand the slings and arrows of temporary differences."



Ralph Peters
New York Post, November 18

"All we'll hear from the streets is that Bush is bad. No protesters will chant about the Iraqi families sundered, the fathers tortured and shot, the daughters and wives raped, the use of poison gas against the Kurds or the million- and-a-half Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis who died in Saddam Hussein's wars. American wars of liberation humiliate the complainers on the left. We've seized their professed ideals and made them a reality. Their protests are the result of wounded egos."



Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Editorial, November 18

"Today anti-American sentiment is stronger than at any time since the Vietnam war. If the new distrust of the US proves temporary, it may not have serious implications. But if it persists, the consequences could be important. Mr Blair cannot remain a close US ally if his own people will not support him ... Mr Bush has shown little regard for wooing international support. To the contrary, he has acted as though the unquestioned dominance of the US would force other countries to line up behind us like a parade. Right now, it's a parade with very few participants."

Story: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1088178,00.html

[Malva Zebrina]

1. Mr Peters

wrote a stupid paragraph with all the ditto marks firmly in place. The war was never about getting Saddam out o there because he entered into wars and "gassed his own people" the war was undertaken by a man itching to kill Iraqi people and grab their oil and was undertaken on the lies put out by George Bush, Condoleeza Rice, and Colin Powell, among others. Under these false pretenses, George invaded on a policy of pre-emption and the war is unfounded. In other words, Mr. Peters, George Bush is a war criminal, and continues to be one. There are no WMD, and I notice you did not mention that, as well as the fact that indeed, like Osama BinLaden, he has escaped George Bush's noose--and, given the propensity of an evil administration such as we have, there is a possiblity that this was done on purpose so as to keep people like you in a permanent revenge/fear state of mind until you are willing to support anything that Bush chooses to do--even if he chooses to kill his own people, lie to his own people and run his government in secret, directly in opposition to the people's Consitution of the United States. Oh wait--