A question for the peaceniks

Discussion in 'Green Room' started by kitct, Mar 16, 2003.

  1. kitct

    kitct Guest

    Getting Serious
    Questions for the peaceniks.

    BY PETE DU PONT
    Friday, March 14, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

    Protests against war in Iraq have been raging all across America and England as well as Continental Europe. Passionate peace protests are nothing new; we saw them in 1933 when the British Oxford Union declared it would "in no circumstances fight for its King and country," against the Vietnam War in the 1970s, and in 1983 against NATO's proposal to install Pershing missiles to defend Western Europe against Soviet Russia.

    So the signs, slogans and emotions are familiar. And so are the questions we ought to be asking the peace protesters.

    Peace is important, but is peace without freedom acceptable?

    The Soviet Union was at peace between the two world wars and from 1945 until its collapse in 1989, and in those times managed to shoot, starve or kill in the gulag more than 20 million of its own people. In Chairman Mao's Cultural Revolution, China killed and starved many millions more. Pol Pot in a Cambodia at peace killed two million Cambodians. Zimbabwe is at peace, but dictator Robert Mugabe is starving his subjects. North Korea is at peace, and enslaving and starving its people. Iraq is, likewise, oppressing its people.

    To quote columnist Andrew Sullivan, "War is an awful thing. But it isn't the most awful thing." Enslaved peoples and peace without freedom are worse.

    If you believe peace is paramount, which of the following wars would you not have fought:

    • The Gulf War of 1991, which liberated Kuwait from Iraqi invasion and terrorism?
    • World War II against Nazi Germany?
    • The American Revolutionary War?
    • The Civil War?
    • The Korean War?
    • The war that freed Afghanistan from the Taliban?

    And if at the height of the Berlin blockade in 1948 the Soviet army had attacked West Germany, Belgium and France, would you have opposed an American military response?

    Why will appeasement succeed with Saddam Hussein when it has failed with so many other dictators?

    In the 1930s, European powers pursued collective security through the League of Nations, which they thought preferable to war. But when Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, the league did nothing. In 1938 Britain and France appeased Hitler by giving him most of Czechoslovakia, and Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich proclaiming to cheering crowds that Britain had achieved "peace for our time." Hitler had built a massive army and air force, but British policy was pacifist; the government assured its citizens that Hitler was a reasonable fellow and had given his word in Munich, so he wouldn't use his newly constructed, powerful military. The League of Nations failed, appeasement failed, and World War II followed.

    Collective security through the United Nations failed in Bosnia in the 1990s. For three years the U.N. sent food and passed resolution after resolution while the Serbs killed thousands of Bosnian Muslims. No air strikes were allowed against the Serbs since that would mean the U.N. "might be taking sides." Gen. Ratko Mladic then took 350 U.N. peacekeepers hostage and chained some to military targets to prevent attacks. NATO and the Clinton administration finally authorized air strikes in 1995, and the Bosnian terror ended in a few months. Appeasement failed while American-led military action succeeded. It ended ethic cleansing and freed people from systematic oppression and murder.

    Appeasement is failing in Iraq too, where Saddam Hussein has defied 17 U.N. resolutions over 12 years. Iraq is remains in material breach of Resolution 1441, and its dictatorial leader has not been disarmed.

    May the United States take action to prevent attacks--before they occur--on its territory or people?

    Two months before Pearl Harbor FDR ordered the Navy to aggressively patrol the North Atlantic to defend against German submarines. He said: "Do not let us split hairs. Let us not say, 'We will only defend ourselves if the torpedo succeeds in getting home, or if the crew and passengers are drowned.' This is the time for prevention of attack." He was right; prevention of attacks is a sound idea.

    If not America, who? If not now, when?

    The UN has not disarmed Saddam. Will France? Belgium? Saudi Arabia? Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Saddam possesses VX nerve agent and probably large quantities of smallpox and anthrax as well as the capability of making much more. He also has the missiles to use them against other nations. There is no question that Saddam would use these weapons. (Why else would he be holding onto them at risk of being removed from power by the United States?). He has used some of them before, in Iran and against other Iraqis. Saddam's leading enemy--the big target--is the United States of America. He won't attack France; he'll attack us. So the risk is ours, and the responsibility is ours.

    The objectives of America's security policy are first, to protect America and Americans; second, to prevent terrorist attacks against other democratic nations. Ending state sponsorship of terrorism--by Iraq, Iran, Syria or North Korea--goes a long way to meeting the first and second objectives. America's security objectives also call for changing the failed political culture of the Arab region.

    People in these nations hate America because they envy us. Their societies have failed while democratic capitalism has succeeded. Such societies have failed in the Middle East because of a restrictive religion, the lack of education, the subjugation of their population (especially women), socialist economies and government control over of information. In their rage, subjugated people strike back at Americans and Jews, who have done much better than they have. Have we not the right to protect ourselves against such attacks--and also to address the tyranny that is their root cause?

    Finally, Abraham Lincoln said there was no middle ground between freedom and slavery. Can there be a middle ground between freedom and terrorism?

    The link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110003194
     
  2. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,332
    Location:
    new york
    answer by a peacenik to the warniks

    1) we are free

    2) I, and no peacenik believe peace is paramont...this question is divisive and flawed, a posed question that supposes a false statement is a fact...hardly

    3) who says appeasement is the issue here?...or the solution?...nobody...another flawed divisive question that supposes a false statement is a fact

    4) no...preventing "supposed future attacks" would mean attacking the world, one country at a time...you know...like hittler tried to do

    5) if not now, when?...

    huh?..

    .when there is a new threat, of course..who doesn't know this?

    the answer is of course is, if not now, then hopefully their will never be war.

    anyone disagree?...sheesh

    6) another ridiculous supposition...Lincoln did not say this;

    "Finally, Abraham Lincoln said there was no middle ground between freedom and slavery. Can there be a middle ground between freedom and terrorism?"

    the last part of the question has nothing to do with Lincoln, and needs to be asked without invoking Lincolns name

    and the obvious answer to the flawed question is that there will always be degrees of terrorism, so, obviously there will always be a middle ground.

    Lincoln would surely agree

    pretty obvious answers

    to pretty divisive and very flawed questions
     
  3. Temperal

    Temperal Guest

    Hey look I have no problem with the idea of the world going to war with Iraq(The military, the Dictator). What I do have a problem with as an American in specific, is the fact that we have no international support. Even the UK is vacilating at this point. If all of the WMD issues are accurate and we have intel/spy photos/hard proof then lets get it on the table so we can get some backing. It will hurt vital intel assets? Then lets get the assets to safety. If this stuff is as bad as we think and we are going in there anyway then get the assets out. Better to loose a little intel then not have the worlds support. Am I a peace monger, sure as I think most people are. I would hate to think that people actually like the idea of war. Even military folks are innocent bystanders by nature. They can't really want to die but many are very brave folk willing to put their lives on the line, but I'll sure as hell bet they wish that they did not have to. I understand that there are no atheists in fox holes, and I'll bet there aren't many folks who love war either in those circumstances. God willing this will be solved from a diplomatic standpoint, if not then war is inevitable but I sure hope that the bulk of the rest of the world is in on it. I would love to buy into everything evil that the US media is printing but I know as well as everyone else does that governments every where have there "leaks" that serve as great propaganda. In the interim all I see is a country, the US, that to rest of the wrold is a bit of a rogue state. Not at all how I want to be perceived. Be well all and know that I love being American but even more a human being.

    Temperal
     
  4. Geffy

    Geffy Moderator Folding Team

    Messages:
    7,805
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    "Peace is not just the absence of conflict, but the presence of justice" - President Jim Marshall (Air Force One)

    I can agree with that idea, the principal is there, it is the US implementation of that idea that I dont agree with. America sees fit to pour millions into a defense budget no other country puts anywhere near that amount into defense, most of us care more about food for the poor, a good and respected police force and other things like that.

    America is one (imo) of the most hostile nations in the world, certainly at this moment, and not just because of its foreign policy, but there are various internal wars and killings within its boarders everyday, (to my understanding per area it is larger than most other countries) a lot of people (myself included) wonder how can a country be a "global policeman" if they are at war with themselves. Tidy up your back garden (back yard) first before tryin to do the same with others gardens (yards). Until you have cleaned yours, you will not know how others are supposed to look.
    Russia is almost a model America, rife with gangs and prostitution, albeit with a much more constricted cash flow.

    Finally, there is always an alternative to war, it takes the bigger person to find it. War is the easy way out.
     
  5. Geffy

    Geffy Moderator Folding Team

    Messages:
    7,805
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Oh yeah I was wonderin who has the moral high ground in this soon to occur war, I just read about that large super bomb thing, that they have to drop out of a Hercules Transport plane, its apparently the largest (conventional) weapon ever made.
    Quoted as the "Mother of all Bombs" it is 30ft long 21,500lb Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb
    It explodes just a few feet above the ground and devastates everything in a mile radius. The resulting impact will throw up a 10,000ft mushroom cloud, and will be felt up to 40 miles away.
    Seriously you need this thing for what exactly, so that you can get the "nuke" type of effect without pissin the whole world off for you using Nuclear Weapons. And who decided to call that a "Conventional" weapon. A conventional weapon would be a dead donkeys jaw bone or something.

    Big bomb = high casualty weapon (HC Weapon)

    nuke = massive attack/devastation weapon (MAD Weapon) ie you would be mad to use such a thing, you nutters.
     
  6. mbunny

    mbunny Guest

    How about the people who may not be peaceniks are more annoyed by the hypocritical and STUPID stance of America. I would prefer America to stop hiding all their evidence so that we can see the whole picture rather then them showing us what they want us to see.

    They know EXACTLY how many WMD they have. They gave it to them. Except they lose face when they admit this, so this little piece of evidence is not revealed.

    So America is more equal than every other country? They obviously are the only ones that know how to pick up a gun and shoot people with it.

    It takes more tact to diplomatically do things. Colin Powell is an intelligent person. Its just that he has a boss to answer to so he must say what he's been told rather than what he wants to say.
     
  7. Mubbers

    Mubbers Shoot! Political User

    Messages:
    1,087
    last poll I saw in UK was 50% in favour of action 42% against.

    Not exactly the "majority" of the country that the peace movement likes to quote all the time.

    Infact like most of their 'facts' it's wrong.

    Mubbers
     
  8. kitct

    kitct Guest

    Don't think it would be too wise to "expose" all of our souces and what we know concerning "evidence" unless we don't mind Saddam murderin all of our "souces".

    After we go in, I'm sure the atrocities will come to light.I believe the world will be shocked at the "evidence".And France and Germany will be shamed.

    Basically,same thing happened with Hitler.We didn't know the half of it till after the war.Even then it took years for it to all come out.And the same people we have today objecting to the war with Saddam are the same people then who objected to the war against Hitler.

    That will never, ever change, I'm afraid.These people will always be egged on by the press.Negative news is good news for the press. After all it's controvery that sells! :p
     
  9. Geffy

    Geffy Moderator Folding Team

    Messages:
    7,805
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    But they will be buried in the US equivalent of the Official Secrets Act for the next 50 years before we learn anything worth knowing. The US will only release information which supports the war, not stuff that condemns it