Saturday, August 26, 2006

Proselytizing for the Peace Fascists

Just kiddin'! No malice intended...Just wanted an excuse to use the term, "peace fascist".

Michael Westmoreland-White left this in a comment section:
Mr. Wordsmith [Hehe..."Mr." polite and formal],

Forgive me for hi-jacking this discussion off topic (something, I hate), but I have no other way to contact you. I have written about alternatives to war here.

I invite you and others who believe in war-as-a-solution to comment there. Not the tired "you're a traitor and objectively pro-terrorist" bull, but comments that deal seriously with the topic. Intelligent feedback, please.

Thanks for listening.
Have fun folks (and be "peace fascist" insults, please). Dan Trabue has worn me out on the topic; but if I have the energy I'll try and engage on it, later, Michael. I know the subject matter is important to you and Dan; but I have other things I'd rather be blogging on. Still, I thought I'd do you the courtesy of bringing attention to your fine post. I can see you put a lot into it and hope some commenters on the right do engage you and Dan in a civil discussion and debate. Just don't hold your breath.

Labels: ,


Anonymous Anna said...

His solutions might work if you could negotiate with terrorists. But terrorists, especially those we face in the Middle East, have but one goal and it has been stated time and again by the Islamic leaders there: destroy Israel and destroy the United States. This mentality cannot be reasoned with, it is an impossibility.

Saturday, August 26, 2006 2:58:00 PM  
Anonymous skye said...

Rationalizing with the mentally broken is never a good plan.

Like a rabid dog, there is only one solution to help terrorists.

As for Dan Trabue: He know where he can shove his NVDA....I don't put up with nonsense.

Saturday, August 26, 2006 4:00:00 PM  
Blogger skye said...

Hey...where is this Coconuts and Puppies video I keep hearing about???

Saturday, August 26, 2006 4:04:00 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Uh oh, you've done it!

skye...for shame...that sort of rudeness won't be tolerated over there!

"Coconuts and Puppies"?!

Pay her no mind, folks.

Saturday, August 26, 2006 4:38:00 PM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

Very decent of you to put front and center information about a commenter's posting. I don't know if I'd be so gracious.

Saturday, August 26, 2006 4:52:00 PM  
Blogger skye said...

Ahem..Coconuts and Puppies can be found HERE

Saturday, August 26, 2006 5:42:00 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...


Saturday, August 26, 2006 5:54:00 PM  
Blogger Little Miss Chatterbox said...

I absolutely love that cartoon. Thats actually a Glenn McCoy one that I think I have yet to post. As for engaging with the peace fascists I have no desire to waste my time because I do think they are traitors and pro-terrorist so there would be nothing left for me to say :-))).

Saturday, August 26, 2006 7:31:00 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...


I don't think they are traitors or pro-terrorists at all! I know they frustrate a lot of us; but you, among all the people I blog with, I'm surprised by that statement.

Saturday, August 26, 2006 7:55:00 PM  
Blogger Mike's America said...

I like the "peace fascists" label and already stole it and used it in a comment at Anna's Clue Tank.

I think it's an apt description of those who continue to oppose the war, even though that issue was extensively debated in two national elections and the decision was made to go to war with strong support from both parties.

Yet, the "peace fascists" would continue to divide the country during a time of war. This cannot but prolong the conflict with the effect that more Americans and innocent civilians on both sides will die.

It's the very element of anti-democratic facism to seek to overturn the will of the people as expressed through their electoral process. And it borders on treasonous to do so at a time of war.

Saturday, August 26, 2006 10:00:00 PM  
Anonymous yankeemom said...

"Peace fascist" Exactly!
My husband and I were talking about this yesterday as I had a run in with a few "anti-you-name-it people. (I'm totally surrounded here). He summed it up quite nicely when he said, "they want "peace" at any cost, damn the consequences".
I know htee are people who kindly want the world to be at peace - who doesn't? But one must be pragmatic. It will only work if all sides agree on this. So far, I haven't seen many signs of this happening.

Sunday, August 27, 2006 8:28:00 AM  
Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Thank you, as always WS, for your graciousness with those with whom you disagree.

Skye said:
"As for Dan Trabue: He know where he can shove his NVDA....I don't put up with nonsense."

You don't have to put up with nonsense if you don't wish, Skye. It's a free country still.

I do have one question that I'd love a simple answer to: Have you yet to read anything about NVDA or are you just forming opinions without any information to back those opinions up?

Sunday, August 27, 2006 8:44:00 AM  
Blogger Dan Trabue said...

"And it borders on treasonous to do so at a time of war." -Mike

Would it be totally useless if I were to repeat the question that I always ask Mike when he makes statements such as this (which he always ignores):

IF we think Bush may be committing war crimes, what else CAN we do but stand opposed to his policies? Would we not be monsters if we thought our leaders were possibly committing war crimes and we did nothing about it?

Sunday, August 27, 2006 8:50:00 AM  
Blogger Michael Westmoreland-White said...

Thanks for the link and the advertisement, Mr. Wordsmith. This ex-soldier-turned-pacifist sure appreciates it.

I'll be posting on each practice separately in the days to come with plenty of time for interaction and disagreement. One point for Anna:

I certainly agree that it is DIFFICULT to negotiate with terrorists, but history proves otherwise. Many groups which used terror tactics at some point in their history went on to become political parties who disarmed including several of the groups which became the founding political parties of Israel (this is pointed out all the time in mainstream newspapers IN Israel--it's just America where one can never criticize without being accused of anti-Semitism; I regularly read the online edition of Ha'aretz, Israel's largest newspaper, btw); the ANC in South Africa; PLO/Fatah; the ruling party of our ally Egypt; Sinn Fein/IRA (well, it's still touch and go with the IRA disarmament, but the momentum is toward peace--I don't think even the Catholics who supported the IRA want any kind of return to "the troubles," and without popular support a guerilla army cannot last); some of Turkey's smaller parties, especially the Kurdish Nationalist Party.

It's like what Ronald Reagan (someone I seldome quote, I assure you!) said when asked if he could trust the USSR in the negotiations to get rid of the Euro-missiles: We can trust them always to act in their own best interest.

I think "always" is too strong. Ideology has overruled commensense plenty of times in history. But one can still work to build verification into treaties which gives you warning when they are broken.

However, there is another part to the answer for Anna: Not all of the 10 practices are appropriate for each context. I am not sure that negotiation with or without conflict resolution is the best bet with terror groups WHILE THEY ARE ACTIVELY SEEKING TO COMMIT TERRORIST ACTS. There are other actions appropriate then.

The most effective strategies, contrasting how Turkey has nearly eliminated terrorism with Russia's problem in Chechnya, for instance, show the SURROUNDING POPULATION that they can have their legitimate grievances (not all grievances are legit, but almost no one has zero legit grievances)addressed better through nonviolent action and politics than through terrorism. Then the support for the terror group disappears and they either dry up or bring their butts to the table.

We aren't winning hearts and minds, folks, and, as many a general will tell you, without that we can win every battle and lose the war.

Sunday, August 27, 2006 7:00:00 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...


Unfortunately, Most of my readers, who are far and between, just do drive-by commenting. Few come here expecting to return to a thread to debate; especially unlikely, once the post is old. I just don't post enough, nor built up enough of a diverse audience for vigorous debate. It's not like Mark's blog that has a good mixture of representatives. Even the occasional moonbat troll doesn't seem to linger around for very long.

Monday, August 28, 2006 9:49:00 PM  
Blogger Michael Westmoreland-White said...

Well, maybe you've sent a few my way, anyway. I haven't got a large regular readership, either, because I've been at this for only a year. Also, being far more used to writing for print magazines and journals, I tend to write too long for blogs. Working on it.

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 5:07:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Day By Day© by Chris Muir.

© Copyright, Sparks from the Anvil, All Rights Reserved