It's a little moot now, but still...

I just came across this article from February 1st by Julie Birchill in the left-leaning British paper, The Guardian. After establishing her past credentials as an anti-American, she argues in favor of the war in Iraq. Noting that "The new enemies of America, and of the west in general, believe that these countries promote too much autonomy, freedom and justice," she comments on "the sheer befuddled babyishness of the pro-Saddam apologists," responding to the most common arguments made against the war. In response to the fourth of the arguments she treats -- "Saddam Hussein may have killed hundreds of thousands of his own people - but he hasn't done anything to us! We shouldn't invade any country unless it attacks us!" -- she notes, "If you really think it's better for more people to die over decades under a tyrannical regime than for fewer people to die during a brief attack by an outside power, you're really weird and nationalistic and not any sort of socialist that I recognise."

Amen, sister.