all very true, and as a jew whose family escaped WW2 scary, but wouldnt you agree that the public needs some way to question any policy, but especially war. i mean if every anti-Iraq war protestor is equivelent to an anti WW2 protestor arnt we saying that all war is the same and unquestionalbe, i mean isnt that illogical, WW2 and Iraq are far different, and the right to prostest and attack those wars is imperitive to the freedom we are fighting for and spreading. So essentially i pose this question on this post, is this a simple fun fact that intrests you, or is it an attack on the anti war movement as a whole, and if its the latter, then where do you find that balance beetween the questioning government and war-time protests.
Wow! Someone who seems anti-war and who, instead of responding in hysterics, actually presents an intellectual and reasoned point in a mature and civil manner. I commend you!
And I'll give your questions the time and consideration they deserve, rather than just posting what's on the top of my head on a Friday night :-)
I could respect a principled anti-war movement, one that is against wars of all kind. I wouldn't agree with them, but I could respect them for following their convictions.
I've seen no semblance of such a principled movement during the Iraq War. I've heard "no blood for oil"--just how much oil have we gotten out of this war? It's a saying without meaning and without merit. I've heard this war is "illegal", whatever that means in an international context. But it is specifically allowed under UN Resolution 1441, which authorized Gulf War I, because Saddam violated the truce in that war by kicking weapons inspectors out of his country, firing at our patrol aircraft in the ally-imposed "no fly zone", etc. Saddam violated that truce with these actions, with allows reinstatement of hostilities. This war was also authorized by Congress in the days after September 11th, when the President was authorized broad discretion in this new battle. This is one of the most legal wars in US history!
Immoral? 25 million people who used to live in totalitarian regimes now live in embryonic democracies! Women's rights are being advanced in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Michael Walzer, in his book Just and Unjust Wars, claims that one type of just war is one that stops human calamity (a la Darfur, should we go there). I think it would be a hard argument to make that Iraq's torture chambers and Afghanistan's aggressive sharia law were not human calamities in those two countries. And while you can find individual acts in the war that might be immoral, the war itself is not. Sneak attacks on a non-aggressor are immoral. Attacking a country that harbored and supported the murderers of over 3000 Americans, and did untold damage to our country's well-being, and attacking one that every intelligence agency in the West believed had the potential to build weapons of mass destruction and which had actually used them in the recent past--that's not immoral. In fact, I would say that it would be a moral imperative to remove these governments.
So we don't have a principled anti-war movement. Were there marches in the streets when US Marines came ashore in Somalia? or when the US Air Force was bombing Serbia? No, not at all. Were those "legal"? I don't know. But no one on the left, our friends in today's anti-war movement, were protesting then. And the reason was because there was Democrat President behind Somalia and Serbia.
No, today's anti-war left isn't anti-war as much as it is anti-Bush. Let's remember that it was Clinton who signed the law in 1998 making "regime change" in Iraq the goal of American foreign policy towards that country. Were our friends on the left screaching then? Of course not. George Bush carries out that policy and he's the devil incarnate.
Those who are against this war are not against it on any principle, they're against it because they view it as a weapon against a Republican President they don't like.
So now let's respond to your particular points. The purpose of this post was to mock today's anti-war crowd using what I thought to be a plausible parallel from WWII (the Big One). Wars are an ugly business, and once begun, the best thing to do is to WIN THEM so that they can be over and done with. It would be immoral to start a war, then cut and run.
Questioning government is an important freedom we have, but with freedom comes responsibility. Marching in the streets, calling our President a Nazi, is one step from giving material aid and comfort to our enemies--you know the ones, those cheerful guys who cut off heads and videotape it for the world to see. It is immoral to give succor to such people. Today's anti-war left isn't questioning policy--they're trying to destroy policy by causing us to lose this war. They are not a "loyal opposition", merely an opposition.
If they were principled, International A.N.S.W.E.R., which I've previously identified on this blog as a Marxist organization, and MoveOn.Org (wish they'd follow their own advice), would not be the lead organizations in the fight. Mama Moonbat Sheehan of "occupied New Orleans" fame would not be a spokesperson. These are fringe organizations and people, and Americans should truly be ashamed to associate with them.
It's one thing to question policy, to participate in even vigorous debate about policy, to campaign to elect officials of your liking, to sway the opinions of others. It's another to do so in a way that's injurious to our war effort (our soldiers see and hear what our press reports) and borderline treasonous by the definition given in the Constitution.
I hope I've responded in an adequate manner. Again, thank you for reading my blog and for challenging me in the manner you did. Made my day!
Thank you for taking the time to consider my arguments. Anyway, I think your right on in your assessment of today's Cindy Sheehan "anti war" movement. Personally I think they are frauds of a movement because if they were truly anti-war then they would have spoken out before the invasion. They didn’t. Furthermore I think you are right in saying that this is not even an anti-war movement but an anti-bush movement. That being said I think the reason we have no loyal opposition, or reasonable anti-war movement is that everything has been patisin-ized in today’s modern politics. Just like you don’t see any democratic anti-war movement when Clinton starts a war, you don’t see massive republican outcry when there is violent protest at abortion clinics, and I think that is the problem with the politics of today that in turn prevent reasonable opposition, especially considering that the fringe movements receive all the press attention necessary for a movement to be successful, and then once the fringe movements get the attention reasonable moderates have to join on to convey there message. So, the only movements we ever see are radical fringe movements that are purely partisan in nature.
P.S. to clarify my comment on massive outcrys after violent protests at abortion clinincs, im not saying that there are no outcry's i judt think (and this may only be me) that there would be a stronger outcry if abortion was not such a partisan issue.
I haven't even heard about a violent protest at an abortion clinic in quite some time. As I recall, murdering abortionists and bombing abortion clinics were roundly criticized by all but the most zealous anti-abortionists.
But in general, I agree with your comments. Thanks again for commenting.
6 comments:
all very true, and as a jew whose family escaped WW2 scary, but wouldnt you agree that the public needs some way to question any policy, but especially war. i mean if every anti-Iraq war protestor is equivelent to an anti WW2 protestor arnt we saying that all war is the same and unquestionalbe, i mean isnt that illogical, WW2 and Iraq are far different, and the right to prostest and attack those wars is imperitive to the freedom we are fighting for and spreading. So essentially i pose this question on this post, is this a simple fun fact that intrests you, or is it an attack on the anti war movement as a whole, and if its the latter, then where do you find that balance beetween the questioning government and war-time protests.
Wow! Someone who seems anti-war and who, instead of responding in hysterics, actually presents an intellectual and reasoned point in a mature and civil manner. I commend you!
And I'll give your questions the time and consideration they deserve, rather than just posting what's on the top of my head on a Friday night :-)
Whoever you are, thank you for posting.
Ok, I'm back. Here's my response.
I could respect a principled anti-war movement, one that is against wars of all kind. I wouldn't agree with them, but I could respect them for following their convictions.
I've seen no semblance of such a principled movement during the Iraq War. I've heard "no blood for oil"--just how much oil have we gotten out of this war? It's a saying without meaning and without merit. I've heard this war is "illegal", whatever that means in an international context. But it is specifically allowed under UN Resolution 1441, which authorized Gulf War I, because Saddam violated the truce in that war by kicking weapons inspectors out of his country, firing at our patrol aircraft in the ally-imposed "no fly zone", etc. Saddam violated that truce with these actions, with allows reinstatement of hostilities. This war was also authorized by Congress in the days after September 11th, when the President was authorized broad discretion in this new battle. This is one of the most legal wars in US history!
Immoral? 25 million people who used to live in totalitarian regimes now live in embryonic democracies! Women's rights are being advanced in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Michael Walzer, in his book Just and Unjust Wars, claims that one type of just war is one that stops human calamity (a la Darfur, should we go there). I think it would be a hard argument to make that Iraq's torture chambers and Afghanistan's aggressive sharia law were not human calamities in those two countries. And while you can find individual acts in the war that might be immoral, the war itself is not. Sneak attacks on a non-aggressor are immoral. Attacking a country that harbored and supported the murderers of over 3000 Americans, and did untold damage to our country's well-being, and attacking one that every intelligence agency in the West believed had the potential to build weapons of mass destruction and which had actually used them in the recent past--that's not immoral. In fact, I would say that it would be a moral imperative to remove these governments.
So we don't have a principled anti-war movement. Were there marches in the streets when US Marines came ashore in Somalia? or when the US Air Force was bombing Serbia? No, not at all. Were those "legal"? I don't know. But no one on the left, our friends in today's anti-war movement, were protesting then. And the reason was because there was Democrat President behind Somalia and Serbia.
No, today's anti-war left isn't anti-war as much as it is anti-Bush. Let's remember that it was Clinton who signed the law in 1998 making "regime change" in Iraq the goal of American foreign policy towards that country. Were our friends on the left screaching then? Of course not. George Bush carries out that policy and he's the devil incarnate.
Those who are against this war are not against it on any principle, they're against it because they view it as a weapon against a Republican President they don't like.
So now let's respond to your particular points. The purpose of this post was to mock today's anti-war crowd using what I thought to be a plausible parallel from WWII (the Big One). Wars are an ugly business, and once begun, the best thing to do is to WIN THEM so that they can be over and done with. It would be immoral to start a war, then cut and run.
Questioning government is an important freedom we have, but with freedom comes responsibility. Marching in the streets, calling our President a Nazi, is one step from giving material aid and comfort to our enemies--you know the ones, those cheerful guys who cut off heads and videotape it for the world to see. It is immoral to give succor to such people. Today's anti-war left isn't questioning policy--they're trying to destroy policy by causing us to lose this war. They are not a "loyal opposition", merely an opposition.
If they were principled, International A.N.S.W.E.R., which I've previously identified on this blog as a Marxist organization, and MoveOn.Org (wish they'd follow their own advice), would not be the lead organizations in the fight. Mama Moonbat Sheehan of "occupied New Orleans" fame would not be a spokesperson. These are fringe organizations and people, and Americans should truly be ashamed to associate with them.
It's one thing to question policy, to participate in even vigorous debate about policy, to campaign to elect officials of your liking, to sway the opinions of others. It's another to do so in a way that's injurious to our war effort (our soldiers see and hear what our press reports) and borderline treasonous by the definition given in the Constitution.
I hope I've responded in an adequate manner. Again, thank you for reading my blog and for challenging me in the manner you did. Made my day!
Thank you for taking the time to consider my arguments. Anyway, I think your right on in your assessment of today's Cindy Sheehan "anti war" movement. Personally I think they are frauds of a movement because if they were truly anti-war then they would have spoken out before the invasion. They didn’t. Furthermore I think you are right in saying that this is not even an anti-war movement but an anti-bush movement. That being said I think the reason we have no loyal opposition, or reasonable anti-war movement is that everything has been patisin-ized in today’s modern politics. Just like you don’t see any democratic anti-war movement when Clinton starts a war, you don’t see massive republican outcry when there is violent protest at abortion clinics, and I think that is the problem with the politics of today that in turn prevent reasonable opposition, especially considering that the fringe movements receive all the press attention necessary for a movement to be successful, and then once the fringe movements get the attention reasonable moderates have to join on to convey there message. So, the only movements we ever see are radical fringe movements that are purely partisan in nature.
Evan
P.S. to clarify my comment on massive outcrys after violent protests at abortion clinincs, im not saying that there are no outcry's i judt think (and this may only be me) that there would be a stronger outcry if abortion was not such a partisan issue.
I haven't even heard about a violent protest at an abortion clinic in quite some time. As I recall, murdering abortionists and bombing abortion clinics were roundly criticized by all but the most zealous anti-abortionists.
But in general, I agree with your comments. Thanks again for commenting.
Post a Comment