The Peace Movement: Hear Their Insight's

Thank you neph, that was a pleasant surprise.

I suspect we'll be clashing again in the future, but I find your last post quite reasonable. The disruptive behavior is not helping at all, and it certainly merits condemnation, even civil and misdemeanor penalties in some cases (though not banishment, life imprisonment, or physical assault - all suggestions recently made on this board). What I am reading in the news services about the protesters is very depressing. I wish more of them carried themselves with more dignity.

Where you and I still disagree is the notion that to oppose the war is to oppose the United States. These are related, but not identical issues. I do think that oposition to the war can be constructive rather than destructive to the U.S. Part of this does depend on the way the protests re carried out. But I still reject any categorical equasion between oposition to the ar and opposition to the U.S.

One of the saddest things with this whole controversy is how it not only has affected international relations but how it has also created a major divide in Christianity. I have also noted that many black Americans that I have corresponded with (not that this representative of all) are very dubious(sp?) and reluctant to support this war, so once again there may also be a racial split on this.

I have despaired at those anarchists who have not been representative of those who want peace, just as much as Osama Bin Liner and Saddam do not represent all those in the Arabic peninsula, being seen as the standard by which all those who are pursuing peace.

One of the things that has frightened me is that by being Black British many of my fellow Christians (both in the UK and USA) have pilloried me because of my voice of concern on this issue. I stated in another thread that all those who claim about liberating Iraqi's have never really considered the less reported fear of those Christians in Iraq who are more protected in such a country than most of the fundamental and even so called liberal Islamic countries in the area, where worship or even trying to establish a recognised church is punsihable very often by death (Saudi, Yemen, Kuwait,etc, etc.)

From a Christian point of view it really saddens me to hear the jingoist rhetoric about bombing the "scum out of Iraq" both here in the UK and in the US. Is he not still a child of God, who can have access to the freely available grace God gives to all men or is he beyond salvation? It makes me wonder what would happen if God had the same approach to those who have done/thought just as sinful thoughts as him? And if we are going to speak about our Christian duty should we not also be cautious of people like Tari Aziz the vice president and an Assyrian Christian? Or does being a member of the Bah't party exclude him from having a chance also?

Peaceniks may be demonised but in all honesty we have also vocalised our outrage at the despotic regimes in Zimbabwe, the persecutions of our fellow for their faith in Christians in Saudi Arabia, China and various other countries, and have mysteriously not heard the same kinda support of those who are demonising us.

Nothing wrong in opposing our respective governments, indeed for those of use who can remember far back enough were quite upset about the fact that our governments were selling arms in various capacities to different dictatorships including the incumbent Iraqi regime, the prior Taliban in Afghanistan, armed groups in Sierra Leonne, and the beat goes on. Some of us oppose the fact that many groups are trying to remove the influence of Christian morality and standards within our legal and schooling systems. Does this make us anti-American or anti-British?? no!! Rather that we voice our opinion that we are not happy with the system of governance for which we voted for. The same principle applies for this war.

I pray that a lot of the internal damage that has been caused by this conflict will be addressed. Some of the thoughts that I have heard expressed have made me question whether our first loyalty is to our God and Saviour and heavenly kingdom or the various flag of the coalition.

stay blessed
Dave

p.s. Pleace note peaceniks/anti-war protstors have family and friends fighting in the gulf, and also members of their church in the Middle East who have had to go underground in many of the surrounding countries

Dr. Helen Caldecott Spits on My Grandfather




By Glenn Sacks

I have my grandfather's war medals in a small wooden chest, along with two pictures--one of him as a young man in military uniform, and another of him as a grandfather. Also in the box is a poem about the war which he wrote to the woman who would become my grandmother. The poem is simple and about as good as one can expect from an immigrant with an elementary school education and a future as a milkman.

When the United States entered World War I my grandfather lied about his age so he could join the army, wanting to show his gratitude to the country which had allowed him to escape foreign tyranny. Wounded in the decisive Battle of the Argonne Forest in 1918, he was awarded the Purple Heart and the French Croix de Guerre.

Last week Dr. Helen Caldecott, renowned feminist and antiwar activist, spat on him.

In a speech released under the title "Men: Natural Born Killers" Caldecott told feminist antiwar demonstrators that the male of the human species has unbridled bloodlust, explaining that "young men rushed off to battle in the first World War. So eager were they to participate in the noble act of killing that they lied about their age."

In other words, grandpa didn't enlist out of duty, loyalty or honor, but instead because he wanted the chance to kill.

Welcome to the world of modern feminism, where everything men do is either privilege or pathology and all events and actions are seen through a sharply focused, anti-male lens. Caldecott also told the audience that the "killing reflex" came to be "located in the human (male's) brain" back when the "world was hostile" and "full of saber-tooth tigers, mammoth elephants and roaring tribes. While women sat in caves breastfeeding and nurturing their young, the males quickly learned to protect their genes by aggression and killing."

"Protect their genes," Ms. Caldecott? No, they were protecting the women and children they loved. They risked their lives and sacrificed themselves to protect them, as men have done to varying degrees in all human societies from the beginning of time right up to the present.

Caldecott told a story of an upscale social gathering where she described the tremendous destructive capabilities of modern weapons in gruesome detail. The crowd quickly divided along gender lines, she says, and the men (who Caldecott asserts are "almost clinically and psychologically dead") listened intently to her descriptions. The women "sat on the periphery watching my interrogation and silently agreeing with me" but "had no courage to publicly take on their men for fear of later rejection and retribution." Retribution? I suppose Caldecott thinks that on the drive home the husbands of wives who expressed disagreement over the war would take them off to the side of the road for a beating. This would fit perfectly with men's nature, of course.

According to Caldecott, societies dominated by "male values" approve of violence and killing, and she criticizes women for being "absolute wimps" who "condone [male] psychotic behavior by their silence." She ignores the fact that American women support America's wars as much or nearly as much as men do. According to a Washington Post/ABC poll conducted on Sunday, March 23, 78 percent of men and 66 percent of women support the current war. When the United States went to war against Iraq in 1991, 87 percent of men and 78 percent of women approved.

When my grandfather returned from World War I he started a family. Seventy years later my mother can still remember her tender father staying up half the night stroking the fevered brow of his sickly youngest daughter before going to work at three in the morning. As a boy I loved and revered my grandfather and I can still remember the pain I felt almost three decades ago when my mother came into my room sobbing and told me that grandpa was dead.

This magnificent man (and the millions like him) is not your punching bag, Ms. Caldecott. He's not a bloodthirsty warmonger, or an oppressor, or a patriarch, or an abuser, or any other of the dozens of repulsive canards which feminists have used to vilify men over the past three decades. He was instead a kind and decent human being whose masculinity was in no way inferior to the femininity whose virtues you extol.

Immovable Objects and Irresistible Forces
By Paul Walfield



Left, or rather "progressive" thinking tends to shy away from absolutes and deal in relative positions. Right and wrong is a matter of whose shoes you happen to be standing in, and good and evil is simply too vague a concept to be taken seriously.

In recent times it has become more and more evident that those on the Left and those on the Right have become the proverbial immovable object and irresistible force.

Many commentators and pundits who have attempted to resolve the matter have fallen into two camps. Those that see the differences as merely ideological and those who view the differences as a sophisticate/naiveté matter. The ideological differences are obvious if you subscribe to the machinations of one over the other, e.g., the Left seeks to achieve harmony between all peoples, and the Right seeks to dominate the less fortunate. Of course, the opposite portrayal can be argued and on equally plausible footing.

To a lesser extent the explanation by some on the Right; that the Left is so immersed in their own doctrines, that they are unwilling to see the short term consequences of their preaching, let alone the long term outcome, speaks of the naiveté of those so entrenched. But, that misses the point.

It may well be that the hard Left does in fact see the short term and long term consequences of their preaching as desirable, yet unmentionable. The hard Left may simply enjoy the label of naiveté, believing they are far more clever then their critics. Yet, that does not explain how, when confronted with facts and a picture, the Left simply chooses to trudge ahead with a seeming purposeful abandon of reality and truth. At first glance it may be that the idea of "truth," being in the eye of the beholder, is not sufficient or sought-after. However, when one reviews a typical encounter between the Left and reality, instead of a confrontation, there is a sidestep and a diversion by those on the Left.

The question then is, why? If their doctrines and ideology were able to withstand scrutiny, there would be no need for diversion. If not, why do they hold that ideology with such tenacity? The answer seems clear. They do not know, regardless of the facts presented, that the foundation they stand on is defective.

An effective argument can be made showing that a lack of intelligence may be the root cause of the Left's inability to assimilate reality or pragmatism into their consciousness. However, that would be politically incorrect and too general. A better argument can be made regarding the thought processes of the two sides.

First, we need to exclude the hard-core communists and anarchists, as well as those with ulterior motives, from the explanation. Their motives are transparent to all, except the Left.

Nowadays, virtually everyone is aware of the concept of right/left brain thinking. The "left brain" concerns itself with logical, sequential and rational analysis, and views events and people from an objective stance, and as a conglomeration of distinct parts.

The "right brain" concerns itself with a random, intuitive and holistic analysis of events and people. The "right brain" tends to synthesize rather than analyze from a subjective point of view, and sees the "whole," rather than its parts.

Virtually no one is completely right or left brain; but nearly everyone subscribes to the influence of one over the other. If we are to accept the concept of right and left brain, which most scholars on the subject do, the rest is obvious.

The Right debating the Left with any hope of reconciling differences is unattainable. While the Right (left brain) thinker focuses on logical analysis and truth, The Left (right brain) concentrates on aesthetics, feelings and imagination. No amount of reason, even if it is overwhelming can penetrate the right brain. While it is a bit sardonic to dwell on the reality that the left brain is primarily the Right's raison d'etre, and vice versa, only the Left will so settle without further examination.

While it is a bit more complicated to explain how so many can rest their vision of the world on concepts that are easily debunked; it is a starting point.

Anyone with even a modicum of reality can see the difference between defensive actions against terrorism as qualitatively different from the initial act of terrorism. Yet, many on the Left will equate the American action in Afghanistan on a par with terrorist acts. The Left will argue that dead innocents really don't see a difference; they are just as dead whether by the Taliban or by American warplanes. The holistic view of dead is dead; it cannot see its parts and/or its proximate cause. Regardless of any professed common ground, there is no possible meeting of the minds on any ultimate issue.

Another example would be the common arguments made by the Left's Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Maureen Dowd against the war in Iraq. Ms. Dowd in her New York Times column on March 10, 2003 admitted: "Saddam Hussein is a murderous dictator. Check. Saddam has made a mockery of the inspections process. Check. He either has developed or is inclined to develop weapons of mass destruction. Check. No world leader has ever so clearly asked to be punished by the world community."

In other words, Ms. Dowd, as being representative of the Left and right brain thinking, can ostensibly accept the reasons given by the Right for wanting to rid the world of a brutal tyrant. Yet, she and her brethren refuse to accept actual action taken to do what they say they see a need for. Why? Well, it appears that the reasons to not take action are all over the spectrum. Generally however, they appear to all manifest the same theme that action will lead to violence which will lead to injury and death, but they also seem to abhor America benefiting from such action.

The bottom line appears to be a kind of equitable estoppel. America, as led by President Bush and his Republican administration has not been nice. Because they have not been nice, they (as opposed to an acceptable administration) do not have the right to wage war against tyrannical regimes. Or, if there is a right, who are "we" (regardless of administration) to impose our morality or way of life (democracy) on others.

The right brain cannot separate end results from the means to get there. If the means in any way lead to a result that causes a similar result sought from others, it in effect nullifies any good that might in the long run result from that endeavor, no matter how inconsequential to the whole and end. If you hurt someone who is hurting others, even large numbers of others, it is wrong and there is no distinction because of overall numbers.

On the other hand, or rather in addition, morality, good and evil are mere words and have no meaning as they are subjective, open to interpretation and absolutes that have no place in a world or nation that is diversified, at least according to the Left's right brain thinking. As such, freedom, democracy and equality, cannot be "imposed," on peoples that have none.

While it may be argued that a lack of self-esteem, or a false sense of elitism on the part of those unwilling to view human rights granted to those in the West, as not necessarily being a good idea for those in the world that find themselves outside established democracies, it is more easily explained as simply a matter of Right brain thinking not allowing absolutes, or details.

Even during the current war, even when pictures and videos are shown, the Left thinking right brain, cannot accept certain realities. While America fights on the battlefield in the deserts of Iraq, the Left cannot accept the truths exposed. The people of certain Iraqi towns have welcomed Americans and coalition forces as liberators. There are quotes repeated by imbedded journalists asking "what took you so long?" The Left does not accept that fact. Iraqi citizens of the town of Basra have risen up and are fighting alongside coalition forces against Saddam Hussein's military. That doesn't sway the Left.

The epitome of the Left's right brain thinking can be gleaned from the words and thoughts of documentary filmmaker Michael Moore at the Academy Award ceremonies. Mr. Moore while espousing, demanding that his First Amendment right to free speech also contains the right not to be criticized by others, which in effect is denying others of their right to free speech and adding a non-existent right to the Constitution.

Mr. Moore also does not accept the election of George Bush as president of the United States. He will not allow a "false election" to be seen as anything else but false, regardless of the factual and Constitutional validity of the 2000 presidential election. While espousing the Constitution protecting his own rights, Mr. Moore will in the same sentence deny others their Constitutional rights. It is simply a matter of the Left brain looking at the whole "idea" of what they see as constitutionally protected rights while they cannot see the actual details of what is actually protected by the Constitution. The Left's right brain thinking, envisions what should be rather than what is.

Then there is Susan Sarandon. She, in a television commercial wants to know "what did Iraq ever do to us." She of course does not mean "us," she means herself. Obviously, Iraq tried to assassinate an American president, probably had a hand in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and fought a war against America in 1991, and uses rape, torture, murder and intimidation to his citizens and neighbors.

But, that did not directly affect, or more to the point, hurt Ms. Sarandon or her ilk. The Left's right brain thinking will not allow details or individual effects, affect their notions of global good, which to all intents and purposes, is a direct threat to their individual well being. This, in spite of appearances is not merely a detail, but rather an expansion of them as individuals to mean the world as a whole. While it may appear narcissistic, it is in reality merely the Left's right brain thinking being unable to accept details.

Simple naiveté, intransigent ideologies or even plain stubbornness will never explain a group's inability to articulate the other sides' arguments, and then systematically discredit those arguments, yet that is what the Right in America faces when it confronts the Left. A new tactic must be developed in order to expose the weaknesses and lack of plausibility of the Left's rants and diatribes.

This may simply consist of short, single notions of doctrine in the form of a single question, which directly contradicts the left's counterpart. By remaining with individual parts of an idea, rather than the whole idea, the option to resort to a holistic view can be dashed. And like a house of cards, the Left's concepts will fall, and perhaps even they will see the ineffectiveness of their own arguments. Of course, this may be naïve.

Wolseley,

Excellent post!

IMO 75% (up from 70% a couple of days ago) of the anti-war people are actually anti-Bush. It seems that the Anti-Bush, anti-American, Marxist, anarchy crowd are tainting the true pacifist anti-war movement. I can admire a pacifist (though perhaps a bit misguided) but in the others I see hatred of anything conservative, Republican, or Christian.

On another thread I posted an article that describes the finacial backers of the peace movement. The pacifists I believe are totally ignorant of those behind the movement being anti-American. They shouldn't be, because the information is available to all. I am afraid I am of the opinion the time to protest is over, we need to get together behind our President, and unify for the purpose of winning this war. Once the war is over, we need to support our troops, like at no other time.

I support our troops. I oppose this war. I am not a pacifist. Nor am I doing so out of being "anti-Bush". Nor am I backed by some nefarious concern.

I oppose this war, as I have all along, because it is a war that destabilizes the war and makes life more dangerous, not less.

Once I saw Rumsfield's battleplan, I began to oppose it even more, because his plan risked our troops unnecessarily.

So, basically, I oppose the political aims of the war because I think they are wrong and doomed to fail. Doomed to fail in such a way that the result is a darker and more dangerous world than before.

I oppose the actual prosecution of this war because it has been prosecuted more to prove a point than to keep our troops alive. Had minimizing American casualties been the preeiminant concern (as it should have been), we would not have kicked off this war without the 4ID, and we should have had at least one more division on the ground.

So, yes, I oppose this war. American soldiers are being wounded and dying for a doomed cause, and they are being sent into battle underequipped and poorly supported by their civilian leaders.

Just as an example :The 3ID shouldn't be sitting outside Baghdad with only 20% of their MLRS systems.

Morat,

You oppose the battleplan? What do you know about battleplans? What do you know about combat maneuvers? Have you ever been in the military?

Minimizing casualties isnt a concern? How many have died? Yes some have, but less than 50....what are you looking for.....0?

What is this mess about being underequipped....maybe you meant the Iraqi side. We have complete air superiority and have pushed to right outside Bagdad in about a week. Underequipped?? Give me a break.

The war did not start with massive bombing because of the US desire to minimize civilian deaths. And the war is going VERY well. Never in the history of warfare has such a large advance been made in such a short time. Look at the initial bombing of Baghdad. It is amazing that this could be done with only 20 civilian deaths.

Europe appeased Hitler and look what happened.

On another thread I posted an article that describes the finacial backers of the peace movement.

Click to expand...

This confuses me... because it implies that the "peace movement" is some organized corporate entity. How do you fund a protest? What's the budget for getting a lot of people who're mad about the same thing together at the same time to make some noise? There may be some people helping this stuff along who're pretty nasty and unscrupulous, but they're not funding "the peace movement".

I am afraid I am of the opinion the time to protest is over, we need to get together behind our President, and unify for the purpose of winning this war. Once the war is over, we need to support our troops, like at no other time. 

Click to expand...

Okay..... but consider that there are people who believe this war comes down to people being killed who shouldn't be. Would what you just said not sound, to them, like saying "now that abortion is legal, I think the time for protesting it is over. We need to support our government in it's decision"?

This is the article. Marches cost alot of money, time and organization.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Content/read.asp?ID=31

Hi all!

Here's what the New York Daily News's John Leo had to say in today's paper about the "useful idiots"*:

Anti-war tactics
missing the mark

President Bush is Ahab, the mad captain in "Moby Dick," according to Richard
Gere of the Hollywood left's foreign desk. New York Times columnist Paul
Krugman thinks Bush is Queeg, the mad captain of "The Caine Mutiny." What's
next, Captain Hook?

Then we have the Nazi references. Bush with a Hitler mustache. The Pentagon
cliche "shock and awe" becomes the Nazi word "blitzkrieg."

"Peace" marches are even stronger on Nazi references. "Stop the Fourth Reich -
Visualize Nuremberg" said one banner. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer is
compared with Joseph Goebbels, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with German
Field Marshal Erwin Rommel.

A big problem with all the Hitler-Ahab rhetoric is that it is high on contempt and
rage, with no attempt to engage or persuade. Note that the depiction of the
President as a Nazi paranoid is coming mostly from people who constantly tell us
how passionately they oppose hate speech. Also, the denunciation of Bush as
Hitler is a favorite of people who shout "McCarthyism!" when anyone points out,
accurately, that the anti-war movement has been organized by far-left activists
who defend Mao, Castro, the mullahs of Iran and the Stalinists of North Korea.

The Hitlerization of Bush is particularly outlandish because there already is a
rather obvious Hitler figure in this drama. Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein cuts out
the tongues of resisters and gouges out the eyes of children. He drills holes in
people's hands and pours acid into the holes. Yet the "peace" and the human
rights movements are reluctant to notice.

Sarah Baxter of Amnesty International points out that her group issued a
"harrowing" indictment of Saddam's regime just before 9/11, then instantly
switched gears, deploring Western leaders who mentioned the Saddam terror
Amnesty had laboriously documented.

Like Amnesty International's downplaying of Saddam's terror, the peace movement
was a direct and abrupt result of 9/11. A month ago, a Washington Post report
said February's peace rallies were agreed upon at an international meeting two
months earlier in Italy, "but their roots go back to the days just after Sept. 11, 2001,
when activists say they began meeting to map out opposition to what they
anticipated would be the U.S. military response to the terrorist attacks on New
York and the Pentagon."

In other words, the "peace" organizers were not responding to any Hitler-like
actions by Bush. They just didn't want the U.S. to defend itself. Many "peace"
marchers, of course, are not anti-American, just anti-war. However, we should all
take some responsibility for the people we hang out with. Tom Bevan of
RealClearPolitics.com put it nicely: "I don't absolve the 'true' anti-war protesters for
taking part in a march organized by American-hating groups any more than I'd
absolve someone who marched in a legitimate protest of immigration laws if it was
sponsored by the KKK."

The movement seems lame and grimly determined to marginalize itself. Even when
Michael Moore called Bush a "fictitious President" at the Oscars, he was saying in
effect that he would rather keep the anti-war movement small and enraged than
welcome any Bush voters. He's got a strategy. It just isn't a very bright one.

Originally published on April 1, 2003

Click to expand...

Link: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/71680p-66514c.html


Be well!

ssv

* Everybody knows who coined the phrase "useful idiots" & in what context, right?

Up is Down
By Paul Walfield



Every now and then things happen which tend to cause people to reassess their notions of which way up is. Sometimes it takes a big thing like airliners crashing into buildings and killing thousands of people, sometimes it doesn’t take much of anything at all.

It used to be thought by many that we are all Americans; Left, Right, Democrat, Republican, Conservative or Liberal. When trouble came America’s way, when our national security was threatened, when there was war, we all rallied around the flag, politicians shut up, differences ended at the waters edge.

Lately, just the opposite has been happening.

Protesters of the war in Iraq clearly make no sense in their arguments. They dismiss a brutal dictator’s murder and torture of thousands to perhaps hundreds of thousands of men, women and children as being the Iraqi’s problem, not anyone else’s. So much for the notion that the Left is a champion of human rights.

The Left claims that Saddam is no imminent threat to America and should not be confronted because that will only make him angry and then he would become a threat and use the weapons of mass destruction they say he doesn’t have. The Left claims that Saddam has no ties to terrorists; however, the Left also claims that if provoked, Saddam would use the wmd’s here in America in terrorist acts to murder thousands of Americans. So much for the notion of the intellectual Left.

Still, there is something that is even more disturbing than finding out that the Left has no real concern for the human rights of human beings or hasn’t the foggiest idea how to make a coherent argument. It is the simple fact that the Left has no idea of what it means to be an American.

We have all heard stories of people on the Left being “offended” by the wearing of American flags as lapel pins or of even seeing the American flag on a post. How some on the Left will turn their backs on the American flag when the national anthem is played. All claimed in the name of diversity, sensitivity, inclusion and freedom of speech. All in fact, in direct contradiction of American nationalism.

Protesters carry placards calling the American action in the fight against terrorism, terrorism itself. Celebrities, from Hollywood to Nashville trash the country and criticize the President, claiming it as their patriotic duty to dissent and utilize their constitutional right to freedom of speech. Yet, in the same breath they claim that criticizing them, is un-American.

The Left wants you to believe that trashing America and criticizing our government is patriotic, but criticizing them for doing that, is unpatriotic. For the Left, up is down.

It’s not just the blatantly anti-American protesters turning things upside down. True, they too are claiming they are patriotic when they praise America’s enemies, as they slander American history, all the while calling anyone who points out their rhetoric as being vile, as being either against the Constitution, or worse.

Former Vice President Al Gore has gotten into the act.

Mr. Gore wishes that people who trash the American Administration go unchallenged. For the former vice president, trashing America is freedom of speech, it is democracy at work. However, exercising your freedom of speech to show your disagreement with someone who trashes America is, according to Mr. Gore, a blow to American democracy.

Mr. Gore chose to attack talk radio because it was not following the party line, and that while there has never been as much access by the media to the military in a time of war, "I admire these journalists who are covering this war who are embedded, but I don't want the owners of the companies they work for to be in bed with the government," Gore said. In other words, there is nothing that the present Administration can do, that isn’t fair game to the Left, even when the present Administration opens up to journalists, Mr. Gore still has the need to cast a dispersion on the motives of our government.

And then he chose to defend the Dixie Chicks.

Trying to understand why a former vice-president of the United States during a time of war would prefer to defend a singing group’s “right” not to be criticized for trashing America’s president rather than defending our president or Americans expressing their right to criticize the singing group is a little more than just interesting.

Actually, based on what we know about Mr. Gore and his claim that he invented the Internet, perhaps reinventing what it means to be an American is just as plausible to him. Fortunately, it is just as implausible to the rest of us.

A few weeks ago the sort of country group was in Germany when the lead singer decided to tell the Germans how ashamed she was of the American president. Since that story came out, Americans have been exercising their freedom of speech by boycotting the group, not buying their albums etc. Mr. Gore believes it is the right of a true American to be in a foreign land and trash America to a bunch of Europeans, but it is unpatriotic to voice your disapproval of such action here in the US.

Speaking in Murfreesboro, Tennessee to a group of college students: "They were made to feel un-American and risked economic retaliation because of what was said. Our democracy has taken a hit," Gore said. "Our best protection is free and open debate."

Mr. Gore is upset because the Dixie Chicks’ album sales have dropped 42% since the boycott began.

Of course that is probably not the reason for Mr. Gore’s dismay; it is more likely it is because unlike what he says he wants, “open debate,” he would rather it not happen.

That is the crux of the Left’s dilemma, how to be particularly un-American in your voice and actions, while at the same time making Americans feel un-American because they oppose you.

During World War II, Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s chief propagandist was fond of saying that if you tell a lie often enough, it soon becomes perceived as true, in fact, the bigger the lie, the more likely that would happen.

One notion that does need to be turned upside down is the Left’s perception of who we are in America and just how much we will accept as Leftist dogma.

Patriots vs. Saddam Hussein and the Left



I am glad I am living here in the United States, where we are free from government oppression, imprisonment, torture and murder. It is nice to be living in a country where we can say whatever is on our minds, without the fear of having our tongues cut out and being hung up in the public square to bleed to death. And it is nice that we do not have to worry about our women and toddlers being sent to the front lines by our government to serve as human shields.

I was recently asked by an individual on the left the following question: 'How exactly does obliterating Baghdad "preserve our freedoms"?' I responded as follows:

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PRESERVE FREEDOM, IF WE ARE UNWILLING TO DEFEND IT.

I would ask, "How exactly does taking a serial murderer off the streets, and putting him in jail, help protect one’s family from involuntary early departure?"

Before I continue answering the “obliterating Baghdad” question, I must first point out that this, "obliterating Baghdad" is very catchy, but it would not be prudent to attempt a response on such a false premise. The question must first be corrected before responding further.

"Obliterating Baghdad" is not what this war is about. For those who have tuned their eyes and ears to a somewhat objective news source, they have heard again and again about how this war is not about "obliterating Baghdad". This war has basically one objective -- removing Saddam Hussein and his terrorist regime, thus liberating the Iraqi people. Forty-nine nations of the world, along with our own Commander and Chief and his advisors have agreed that this is necessary. Additionally, many more nations were on the record with a claim, in UN Resolution 1441, that some type of action along these lines would be necessary if Saddam Hussein did not cooperate.
Well, Saddam Hussein did not cooperate, but they were unwilling to back up their words or their beliefs. Those who have watched closely and objectively, have seen how carefully and precisely Coalition forces have targeted government and defense related structures in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, while schools, bridges, hospitals and shopping malls, etc., have generally been left untouched. And cars can be seen traveling the streets. I wonder if Saddam Hussein or the terrorists of 9-11 would be so kind to the United States, if they were in possession of firepower such as ours.

At this point we usually hear the typical response from the left, which goes something like this: “It has not been confirmed that Saddam was directly involved in the 9-11 attacks on the United States. So what has Saddam Hussein done to deserve being attacked by us?”

To this, let me first ask this question: If a person were aware that a neighbor was invading homes in the neighborhood and killing and torturing the people inside those homes, and this person was also aware that the neighbor was stockpiling additional resources for the sole purpose of invading and conquering more homes, would it not be wise for the person to take action to prevent attacks on his own home, before his own home is invaded, and/or before a member of his own family is murdered? Furthermore, does it not seem obvious that a good neighbor would be one that would do everything possible to help prevent such things from happening to other homes in the neighborhood, once he is aware of the fact?

Saddam Hussein is a man who publicly praised those of the 9-11 attacks.

In the Persian Gulf War, Saddam Hussein is the man who lost the war that he himself had initiated. He went into Kuwait killing and seizing for the purpose of conquering -- land, oil, money, weapons, power. What would have been next had he been allowed to go on conquering, unrestrained? Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel? Had we listened to those on the left, twelve years ago, crying “It is only about oil”, “It is only about oil”, where would Saddam Hussein be today? Nuclear weapons, maybe? Why not? What person on the left would have stopped him? The left shouts, “You’re just paranoid”. Then planes fly into a couple of buildings, killing thousands, and the same people on the left ask, “Why is it that “you” were unable to see it coming?” Or “Why is it that “you” were unable to stop it from happening?”

In the mind of a madman like Saddam Hussein, the goal is to gradually gain enough land, oil, money, weapons, and power for the purpose of conquering his ultimate foes, the United States and Israel. And right or wrong, those on the left adore the underdog and despise the mighty, no matter how righteous the cause of the mighty might be.

Imagine if Saddam Hussein were allowed to do as those on the left say we should have allowed him to do. They have no proposal to stop him otherwise. Such inaction and disregard would eventually result in a much greater loss of lives, not to mention freedoms. And without life, what good are liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Saddam Hussein lost the war. He should have never even been allowed to stay in power to begin with. What normally happens to a country and its leaders, when defeated in an unjust war that they themselves were known to initiate? Are they allowed to retain all their power and call most of the shots? What happened to Germany and Japan after WWII? What happened to the war criminals of these and other wars? Were they not exiled, forced to stand trial, and put in prison? Some of them committed suicide. Saddam Hussein lost the battle that he started. He surrendered. How can anyone begin to think that he should have been allowed to remain in power, and go on for another 12 years, ignoring, defying and manipulating the terms of his surrender?

If I throw a punch at a guy, and he catches it and makes me say uncle, who is in charge, him or me? Why is it that Saddam Hussein was ever allowed to have any say after his defeat in the Persian Gulf War? Why was he ever allowed to have any say in where, when, and how the weapons inspections would be handled, for example?

No offense intended, but my first suggestion to those on the left is to stop watching the Clinton News Network (CNN), and to stop listening to National "Politically-correct" Radio (NPR), and to stop reading Newspapers put out by The New York and The Los Angeles Slimes (or Times, if you prefer). Everything reasonable should be done to avoid exposure to these elitist, liberally biased sources. Seek out moderate news sources that do not have a radical social agenda. Only then will you get a somewhat realistic view of the True Big Picture.

It is well documented that the majority in the mainstream media stand to the left. About 85%, or nearly 9 out of 10, of those in the mainstream media vote consistently on the left. I believe that the primary reason that it is so difficult for these people to be objective is because they are generally idealistic and thus impractical, and their overwhelming interests lie in "How will it affect me?" AND NOT "How will it affect everyone else?" These people on the left spend very little time thinking or speaking about what is practical, or what has the best chance of working efficiently and effectively for the benefit of all. They spend most of their time focusing on specific groups of people. They do not think of this nation as one group, or one country.

They have a determination to divide us all up into some sort of special interest group. They think in terms of women vs. Christian conservatives, African Americans vs. White supremacists, homosexuals vs. homophobes, environmentalists vs. big oil, unions vs. business conservatives, and Republicans vs. Democrats, etc. They focus primarily on the effects a particular action will have only on the particular group in focus – often their own group. They continuously sympathize with the likes of atheists, drug pushers, inappropriate contentography pushers and murderous dictators, etc. --- civil liberties, you know.

Yet, they have little but disdain for conservatives, patriots, traditional families, Christians, Republicans, etc. At first glance, their ideas may sound plausible, but the real questions should be -- How does the particular action work when applied in real situations? What effect does the particular action have on all parties involved? And, are the results, short-term and long-term, reasonably fair for all?

If those on the left would look at the facts objectively, instead of subjectively, they would be asking themselves:

If I am so against “war”, then why was I so silent during the Clinton years?

Why did I not speak out against the Clinton administration for military action in Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, Somalia, etc.?

If this whole Iraq thing is "just about oil", then why did the first Bush Administration not take over the oil in the Iraq, after defeating Saddam Hussein in the Persian Gulf War?

If this war is "all about oil" or "all about Bush's cowboy mentality", then why did George W. Bush waste more than 6 months in diplomacy with the U.N.?

If this war is "only about oil", then why are we not going after Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Venezuela, etc.?

If Tom Daschle and Bill Clinton and numerous other partisan Democrats were so convinced that something needed to be done about Saddam Hussein roughly six years ago, then why are they not ten times more convinced of this reality today?

The answers to these questions lie in subjectivity. For many, many people on the left their views are formed subjectively, NOT objectively. For them it is not about what the facts, history and sound judgment dictate are necessary. For them it is about what the radical left, popular culture and/or personal fears or interests dictate are necessary. For them, it is not about which leader speaks the truth, it is about which leader is going to “give ME more of what I want?" And their opposition to war is miniscule in comparison to their opposition to a war led by a conservative Republican.

Jim Thelen

31st March 2003 at 11:47 AM Morat said this in Post #71  I oppose this war. 

Click to expand...

What war do you oppose? Do you oppose the war against terrorism? Do you oppose the war against terrorist school systems? Do you oppose the war against oppressive regimes?

Just what war is it that your against?