Anti-War is not Pro-Peace
Dennis Prager pointed out something I agreed with today: The anti-war crowd is not pro-peace. They are anti-victory, anti-Bush, anti-war. But don't tell me they are pro-peace. The idea that pulling our troops out now would bring peace and stability is a stupid, thoughtless notion. What has pacifism ever achieved? Victory in Iraq is what will bring peace and stability. And the anti-war movement threatens that victory. Do you think the insurgents today in Iraq, picking up any of the news headlines and reading the articles, feel like they will lose the propaganda war? Some days, I feel like the hearts and minds of the American people are being won over by the terrorists; based on poll numbers, they most certainly seem to be won over by MSM.
In regards to the "milestone" number of U.S. soldiers who have died in service to their country, CJ puts it all into perspective. And I'd like to paraphrase him on something else he had written, which I found eloquent: "Even one soldier's death is tragic because to that soldier's family, that one soldier was everything". 2000 of those deaths don't make me take a single one, lightly. But neither does it give me cause for hand-wringing over whether or not we are doing the right thing.
At the beginning of 2004, 500 deaths was a milestone. Then in July of 2004, the death toll of 1,000 Coalition soldiers were "celebrated"; and in September, a thousand U.S. soldiers and Pentagon civilians dead. They were holding anti-war vigils then as well.
I'd say today's news headlines and the anti-war noise-makers just add fuel to the insurgency, sending a message to our enemies to keep it up; what they cannot achieve on the battlefield, they will do through roadside bombs and civilian-targeting to win the hearts and minds of the American people; to sap our will and resolve for victory.
Update: Ex-Donkey makes an interesting observation.
10/29/05 UPDATE: Check out what Sister Toldjah has to report regarding why the NY Times continues to be stigmatized, an agenda-driven news rag.
In regards to the "milestone" number of U.S. soldiers who have died in service to their country, CJ puts it all into perspective. And I'd like to paraphrase him on something else he had written, which I found eloquent: "Even one soldier's death is tragic because to that soldier's family, that one soldier was everything". 2000 of those deaths don't make me take a single one, lightly. But neither does it give me cause for hand-wringing over whether or not we are doing the right thing.
At the beginning of 2004, 500 deaths was a milestone. Then in July of 2004, the death toll of 1,000 Coalition soldiers were "celebrated"; and in September, a thousand U.S. soldiers and Pentagon civilians dead. They were holding anti-war vigils then as well.
I'd say today's news headlines and the anti-war noise-makers just add fuel to the insurgency, sending a message to our enemies to keep it up; what they cannot achieve on the battlefield, they will do through roadside bombs and civilian-targeting to win the hearts and minds of the American people; to sap our will and resolve for victory.
Update: Ex-Donkey makes an interesting observation.
10/29/05 UPDATE: Check out what Sister Toldjah has to report regarding why the NY Times continues to be stigmatized, an agenda-driven news rag.
Labels: anti-war, peace-fascists, protestors
posted by The WordSmith from Nantucket at 10/26/2005 09:25:00 AM
6 Comments:
I am constantly being accused of being "pro-war" and, frankly, I'm fed up with it. There is a clear and distinct difference between being "pro-war" or "anti-peace" and "pro-victory" or "pro-military". I'm tired of having to defend myself on this. What really gets my goat is when anti-war liberals use my stance as a way to force me to defend the war. War is war. I believe in the global war on terrorism and I support our troops. This in no way equals being "anti-peace". What some fail to realize is that in order to bring peace, sometimes wars must be fought in order to achieve peace. Let us not forget the American Civil War. Fought in our country in order bring our nation together as United in democracy.
Once again, great post!
And many of these "anti-war" types are only too quick to support "freedom fighters" and wars conducted by the approved variety of anti-western socialist regime...
But of course our oh-so-nice can't we all get along politically correct crowd doesn't want to make waves by calling these people what they are...
What has Pacifism ever achieved? Peace for one. If you are so pro-war why aren't you waving the Sudan war flag? Oh they don't have oil and Bush hasn't told you we need to fight them yet.
Get your priorities straight. Look at the stock prices to Halliburton and all the major oil companies before the war. You were duped!
Welcome, toad! Pacifism does not stop violence; it just makes you so much lamb to the slaughter. Pacifism didn't stop Hitler...it didn't stop Pol Pot...whatever in the world are you talking about?! Moral violence stopped fascism, helped to end slavery, and genocide. Not being a passive pacifist sheep.
Halliburton is not an oil company. Neither is it making huge profits in Iraq. In fact, last I heard, they would very much like to get out of their pre-war contracts.
You really need to get your facts straight and quit drinking the DU koolaid.
To begin with ANSWER is affiliated with the workers party. They would love to disrupt our present system and follow Leninist principles, Code Pink contributed $70,000.00 plus to the "freedom fighters" in Fallujah.True pacfists would not do this. These Socialist organizations are the major sponser of all the major ralleies.
Actually, it was about $600,000 in cash and other aid, devildog. But that's quibbling.
Pamela - don't sweat the "pro-war" label. Take the offensive against the lefties, and don't allow them to set the terms of the debate.
Post a Comment
<< Home