Thursday, May 18, 2006

Darfur and Iraq. An Interesting parallel.

A conversation I had at work yesterday

Picture a crowded mess/cafeteria at around noon in a large office building. There I was enjoying my 12 inch Turkey Sandwich from Subway while reading the sports section of the Montreal Gazette.

Out of the blue, a co-worker(we'll call her Kim) barges in and takes a seat right next to me.

Kim: Hey Kareem (not my real name), you voted Conservative in the last election.
Me: Yeah…
Kim: Tell me something, why isn't Harper sending troops to Darfur?
Me: Well, the military is stretched pretty thin; recruitment is pretty low nowadays and with us being in Afghanistan and all…
Kim: Well I think its time that we got away from George W. Bush's crusade against the Muslims, and get back to peacekeeping!
Me: Crusade against the Muslims? They were harboring Al Qaeda-
Kim: Not our problem! Were not war makers (her word) were peacekeepers, and I think its high time Harper remembers that. We should pull out of Afghanistan and send them to Darfur for peacekeeping.
Me: Well Kim, Peacekeeping automatically assumes that there's you know…peace going on, or any kind of cease fire in place. What's happening in Darfur can be charitably labeled as ethnic cleansing. If any troops were to go into that region it would make their combat missions in Afghanistan look like Spring break in Daytona. Now generally speaking I'm for-
Kim: I don't care. It’s a humanitarian mission; we should help those people, unless of course Stephen Harper has a problem helping black people!

Timeout: Just for the record dear reader, this is a woman who clutches her purse whenever she passes by a young Haitian male in the Metro.

Long Silence.

Me: You really wanna play that game Kim? You wanna walk down that aisle. Fine Hey, two can play that game. Now let me just know where exactly do you stand on this. You're for Humanitarian missions' right?
Kim: Yes!
Me: Ok, now let me just get your point of view on certain things. You believe that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who terrorized his people right?
Kim: Well…of course but-
Me: Hold on, I just want to know where exactly do you stand on this…Now you believe that he was indeed a brutal murderer, the mass graves don't lie he has killed thousands of innocent men, women and children, he crushed dissent, and starved his own people-
Kim: Yeah yeah I heard it all…What does this have to do with Darfur?!
Me: I'm getting there. So we have it established that your for humanitarian mission which would free people of mass murder and genocide, and that you believe that Saddam was indeed a brutal dictator that did in fact slaughter his people left, right and center. So, let me ask you something, why exactly were you opposed to the Iraq war 3 years ago?
Kim: (She goes on and on, I can't remember the precise words, but I did hear, imperialism, oil, Halliburton and other worn out leftist clichés.).
Me: Be that as it may, the Iraqi people were liberated from a monstrous leader. There's no doubt that they're better off without him don't you think?
Kim: I suppose. What the hell does that have to do with Darfur?
Me: I just find it weird, you advocate one military intervention based on humanitarian grounds, but oppose another.
Kim: The Iraq war was no based on humanitarian grounds, it was all for-
Me: Over 20 million have been liberated from a mass killer Kim, that's not a humanitarian feat?
Kim: That's not why Bush went into Iraq. He said it was about Weapons of Mass destruction and all that shit…
Me: Hold on! You mean to tell me that you simply oppose the Iraq war based on a technicality? That had Bush just went out and stated that this was for the well-being of the Iraqi people, you would be all for it?
Kim: (after a 20 second silence)…no.
Me: Then you're not really for Humanitarian missions are you?
Kim: I am!
Me: No your not, you wouldn't exactly be opposed to one so vigorously while advocating another with passion.
Kim: Iraq was not a humanitarian mission…
Me: *sigh*...true or false, a brutal dictator was overthrown and Iraqis now have an elected parliament and a constitution?
Kim: True.
Me: Then, there was a humanitarian factor attached to the Iraq war.
Kim: (silence)

(An awkward 2 minutes of complete silence).
I knew I had her in a corner at this point, so I decided to turn the tables and for once, play the race card against a leftie.

Me: Kim do you have anything against Arabs or Muslims by any chance?
Kim: WHAT!! No!!
Me: I just find it odd, that you were opposed to the well being of the Iraqi people from being slaughtered daily, or the brutal conditions the Afghans were under. Both factors which would resume should the US withdraw from Iraq and NATO withdraws from Afghanistan. BUT you have no problem whatsoever helping the people in Darfur. So what is it Hate the culture? Hate the language?
Kim: I have nothing against Arabs or Muslims!
Me: Funny you oppose to all measures of ending their suffering fro their leaders…
Kim: I'm not!!!
Me: Really then why are you calling for withdrawal? Your opposition to the Iraq war is based on a stupid technicality which shouldn't really matter if you consider the ends and means, and want to withdraw forces from Afghanistan which would help the Taliban get back in power.
Kim: (silence)
Me: Just what I (censored) thought! You guys don't give a dam about third world suffering; the only thing these people are to you is a cheap political stump speech and some photo ops. Calling for military action on humanitarian grounds in one area, while opposing it in another is very freaking hypocritical. This, like all other matters relating to the third world is just a reason for your kind to stump on your political enemies, be it Bush or Harper. Do me a favour and stop claiming to give a damn what's occurring in the third world.

For the Record: I don't think Kim has anything against "Arabs or Muslims". I just wanted to know what it feels like to play the race card from a right-wing point of view. Feels odd, but I got my message through, and revealed her own hypocrisy to her.


At Thursday, 18 May, 2006, Blogger Louise said...

Well my Knight in Shining Armour, that's the best damned rout of a stupid leftie I've ever read. Congratulations!!!!

At Thursday, 18 May, 2006, Blogger Mark said...

AD, man, if you're ever in Halifax be sure to send me an email. I figure we can have a good chat over lunch.

Good on ya for challenging the rote hypocrisy of the Left on the matter of "humanitarian" intervention.

At Thursday, 18 May, 2006, Anonymous Jack said...

Thanks for putting this up. Best putdown I've seen in a long time and right on the money. You're my Daily Blogger today.

Take care...

At Thursday, 18 May, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well said!

Best blog I have read all day!

At Thursday, 18 May, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, that was awesome. You took that lady apart. You should go into politics.


At Thursday, 18 May, 2006, Blogger PGP said...

Good for you!

I hope you'll never have to suffer the fool again.

At Thursday, 18 May, 2006, Blogger Steve said...

Thanks bud, wish I could have said that, to the foolish lefties around me here in Toronto.

At Thursday, 18 May, 2006, Blogger ndp nadine said...

"fat ass co-worker?" Is that really necessary or do you direct such venom at anyone that disagrees with you? Typical conservative!

At Friday, 19 May, 2006, Anonymous arctic_front said...

Hey NDP Nadine, Maybe she WAS a fat-ass? Or maybe that label somehow dimminished the facts somehow?.....what if he called Stupid-moron NDP'er?....or Left-wing twit?....the basis of his argument hasn't changed, and your silly-assed comment hasn't gained one iota of credibility either.....

crawl back under your left/commie rock and give yourself a nice big hug for being so 'asstute' and clever. You earned it. Oh, by the way, say good by to the NDP as a party in the next election, and good riddance!

At Friday, 19 May, 2006, Blogger The Arabian Knight said...

NDP Nadine:

I admit, that was uncalled for.I'll remove it.

At Friday, 19 May, 2006, Blogger Jarrett said...

Iraq was an oil war and it's therefore illegitimate, eh? Cite some Marxist sources for her. Just google any combination of "marxist" "war" "oil" "sudan" "imperialism" and so-forth. According to our omniscient socialist onlookers, Darfur's an "oil war" too. It's amazing the left's become so interventionist.

Let's not forget, even if we did have the soldiers for a mission in Darfur, years of neglect for the military means that we can't even get the guys there if we did. Ask this nutter whether or not she expects the French to contribute, or whether or not it's all America's duty. (Who else has heavy lift aircraft?)

Of course, given their record "peacekeeping" in other African countries, that might not be such a good idea.

At Friday, 19 May, 2006, Blogger S.M.K said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At Friday, 19 May, 2006, Blogger D.C. said...

So good!!

I don't know how many times I had a similar conservation with family members and friends.
Darfur, there is no peace to keep, the UN is in charge... anyway and they want African troups. As Jarret points it out, the UN record in Africa is frightening. Ethnic cleanising yes, and apparently, the Chirstians are being attacked by the Islamists, so it seems like what has become the familar bloody struggle between jihadists and the others is taking place in Sudan, but African style.
We will see more and more Islam spreading its arms and legs in this continent. The map is getting greener.

At Saturday, 20 May, 2006, Blogger KNL said...

I've said this to American liberals before. I love their reaction. Usually these sorts are the kind of people who will say "nobody does anything because the people in Darfur are black," yet would not date a white woman that had dated a black man or would not (and usually do not) associate with blacks at all. When they start to talk about Iraq you really can see that most of them harbor great hatred and/or condescention towards Arabs and Muslims. Because every one but Muslims should have their human rights protected. Everything evil in the world stems from an Arab (Michael Moore's film for instance), or Arabs "don't want" human rights and such lofty things. There are these huge racist generalizations about Arabs and Muslims made by many liberals, basically so that they can avoid having to stand up for the ideals that the proport to belive in. That's just my opinion.


At Sunday, 21 May, 2006, Anonymous ratedrsuperstar said...

I've been to your blog a time or two and have to concede that you were spot on right in that comment.

At Tuesday, 23 May, 2006, Blogger Mark said...

The argument is fundamentally flawed.

The last of Saddam Hussein's genocides occurred in 1991. He was hemmed in by no-fly zones and sanctions and there was little immediate probability of a repeat genocide.

He was a brutal ruler, certainly, but no longer had the ability to be any worse than dozens of tin-pot dictators around the world.

In contrast, in Darfur, active genocide is going on *right now*. Not just a history of past genocides (though there's that too), but real, live killings going on as we speak.

The US invaded the wrong country in 2003. It should have invaded Sudan, and Canadian troops should have joined in that fight.

At Tuesday, 23 May, 2006, Anonymous ratedr said...

It wouldn't have mattered. Any invasion by the west for whatever reason of any Islamic country(including Sudan) would have been regarded as a 'crusade against Islam' by at least half the world's islamic population. That simple. In the first Gulf war--about 20% of muslims saw the invasion of Iraq as a War on Islam and since then Fundamentalism has grown by leaps and bounds.

At Friday, 16 July, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

借錢 借貸 票貼


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home