Sunday, March 18, 2007

March 17th was a Great Day for the Real Peace Activists: Those Who are Pro-Victory!

"Peace is not merely the absence of war, but the presence of justice, of law, of order- in short, of government."-Albert Einstein


Usually, something makes "news" because it is an event that is an uncommon occurrence. If it were common, it would be ordinary and not raise an eyebrow or be worthy of a second glance. That's in part, why tragedies and sensationalized stories occupy the headlines and frontpage news.

The anti-war demonstrations that took place all over the globe last Saturday to "commemorate" the 4th anniversary of the Iraq War and the 40th anniversary of a march against the Vietnam War, is certainly newsworthy. After all, it's not like they take place on a regular basis. But the frequency with which liberals and moonbat Democrats, "peaceful terrorists" and peace fascists, make spectacles of themselves is huge. In a sense, we are all a bit desensitized by their antics, because we've seen them all before: The outlandish costumes, the peripheral agendas and liberal causes that have nothing to do with the war, the over-the-top signs... These are commonplace. Therefore, what should have been the real story- the shock and awe of the March 17th protests- should have been, and should yet be, the sizeable turnout of those who vociferously opposed the moonbat brigade.

No one has the exact figures; perhaps 10,000?....and with pro-war and anti-war supporters mixing and mingling, no accurate estimates to distinguish the numbers on both sides will likely be possible.

I concede that it is probably the case that the anti-war contingent outnumbered the gathering of eagles, Patriot Riders, Rolling Thunder, Vets, and all those other pro-victory Americans who came from all across the country to make their presence felt. After all, this was an event organized by A.N.S.W.E.R., as highlighted by the numerous orange, black, and yellow carbon-copied cut-out signs. But as the NYTimes notes,
As they gathered before the march, the protesters met what several veterans of the antiwar movement described as an unusually large contingent of several hundred counterdemonstrators.
The Washington Post also doesn't dismiss the pro-war supporters, and calls their presence smaller than that of the anti-war crowd, but "sizeable":
Much of the passion yesterday was supplied by thousands of counter-demonstrators, many of them veterans who mobilized from across the country to gather around the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Some said they came in response to appeals on the Internet to protect the Wall against what they feared would be acts of vandalism; no such acts were reported.

Others said they were tired of war protesters claiming to speak for the country. "I'm here because I think we need to commit to our troops in the field," said Guy Rocca, 63, a veteran who drove nine hours from Detroit.
With C-SPAN refusing to televise any coverage at all of the counter-protesters, and much of the mainstream also seemingly silent in providing detailed coverage of the pro-war supporters and those who came to protect the Memorial Wall, the Washington Post apparently could not ignore the presence of those who support the troops, the war, and our President:
It was quickly apparent that the weather had not prevented counter-demonstrators, many in black leather motorcycle jackets, from showing up in force and surrounding all sides of the Wall.

At one point before the march started, counter-demonstrators formed a gauntlet along an asphalt walkway on Constitution Avenue and heaped verbal abuse at protesters who walked through on their way to the assembly area. One Vietnam veteran in a wheelchair yelled obscenities at demonstrators, including some with children.

Some demonstrators supporting the war effort engaged in good-natured banter with war protesters. But others blocked paths and prevented marchers from getting near the Wall, particularly anyone carrying a sign. District resident Eric Anderson, 47, had his sign ripped from his hands and thrown in the mud.
I'm glad that the Washington Post at least saw fit to provide an acknowledgment of the sizable presence of those who came to protest the protesters. Even if someone at the Post saw fit to describe the event in a headline caption that clearly slants the readers' impression:



The "heckling" label appears in quite a number of Reuters photos. Many of the photos seem eager to highlight any anti-war vet, giving the impression that the majority of those who have served or who currently serve are turning against our presence in Iraq (of course, not all of these vets might in fact be who they say they are); and curiously, none of the captions that accompanied the Reuters photos seemed to mention that many of the pro-war supporters were vets themselves, both former and current.

The Washington Post, to its credit, devoted a whole article to the counter-protestors:
Several thousand vets, some of whom came by bus from New Jersey, car caravans from California or flights from Seattle or Michigan, lined the route from the bridge and down 23rd Street, waving signs such as "War There Or War Here." Their lines snaked around the corner and down several blocks of Constitution Avenue in what organizers called the largest gathering of pro-administration counter-demonstrators since the war began four years ago.

The vets turned both sides of Constitution into a bitter, charged gantlet for the war protesters. "Jihadists!" some vets screamed. "You're brain-dead!" Others chanted, "Workers World traitors must hang!" -- a reference to the Communist newspaper. Some broke into "The Star-Spangled Banner" as war protesters sought to hand out pamphlets.

"Bunch of hooligans in motorcycle jackets!" one war protester shot back.

The large turnout surprised even some counter-demonstrators. Polls show public opinion turning against the war in Iraq, and the November election was widely seen as a repudiation of the administration's policy.

"I've never been to a war rally. I hoped I'd never have to," said Jim Wilson, 62, a Vietnam vet from New Hampshire. "We're like what they used to call the silent majority."

In some past antiwar rallies, the number of counter-demonstrators has ranged from a handful to a few hundred. "Our side got apathetic," said Debby Lee, whose son Marc, a Navy SEAL, was killed in Iraq and who came to the rally from Phoenix in a caravan organized by MoveAmericaForward.org.

But the war protesters have gone too far, Lee and others said. At a Jan. 27 antiwar rally, some protesters spray-painted the pavement on a Capitol terrace. Others crowned the Lone Sailor statue at the Navy Memorial on Pennsylvania Avenue with a pink tiara that had "Women for Peace" written across it.

Why is the counter-protest news-worthy? Why should it upstage the anti-war demonstrators, even if the ANSWER Coalition and its allies were able to rally a much larger turnout? Because conservatives and pro-war/pro-victory supporters are the silent majority that rarely chooses to make a spectacle of themselves the way liberal activists do. Usually, while the moonbats are out smoking weed and beating on their bongo "peace" drums (like those 21st century hippies are doing in the top photo), your ordinary, normal patriotic American is too busy at work, making an actual difference.

The anti-war movement of the 60's give themselves far too much credit for effectiveness; much of it, undeserved, not to mention shameful for what did result from our withdrawal of all support for our South Vietnamese allies. And now, Congressional career politicians, many of them from the 60's baby-boom generation, want to repeat that exit strategy?!
I haven’t spoken at an anti-war rally in 34 years, because I’ve been afraid that because of the lies that have, and continue to be spread about me and that war, that they would be used to hurt this new anti-war movement. But silence is no longer an option. I’m so sad that we still have to do this, that we did not learn the lessons from the Vietnam War.

That's what Jihad Jane said, for the previous anti-war rally from a month ago. It had a larger turnout than the March 17th rally, but not nearly so much as they conflated to have had. The biggest anti-war demonstrations in history, by the way, occurred just before the Iraq War. Jane Fonda, like so many anti-war liberals of her era, learned all the wrong lessons of Vietnam. To this day, they refuse to grasp the extent of suffering that resulted from their getting what they demonstrated for: a cut-and-run exit strategy out of Vietnam. And they cheer and applaud themselves for their sickening "victory".

Jonah Goldberg writes in USA Today,
"I heard the same kinds of suggestions at the time of the end of the Vietnam War," Kennedy told NBC's Tim Russert, mocking the notion that we'd have a "great bloodbath" with more than 100,000 dead. "And for those of us that were strongly opposed to the war, (we) heard those same kinds of arguments."

Yes, but those arguments were right. Our withdrawal from Vietnam did contribute to a great bloodbath. More than a half-million Vietnamese died at sea fleeing the grand peace Kennedy and his colleagues orchestrated. And more than 1.2 million Cambodians died at the hands of the Khmer Rouge, thanks to the power vacuum created by our "humanitarian" withdrawal. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., a presidential candidate, insists that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq can't make things any worse. In 1975 he took a similar line: "The greatest gift our country can give to the Cambodian people is peace, not guns. And the best way to accomplish that goal is by ending military aid now." Someone rent Dodd a DVD of The Killing Fields.
The "compassion" of anti-war "peace" movements is cruelty to the world. As I quoted in an earlier post from Dorothy Thompson,
"They have not wanted peace at all; they have wanted to be spared war- as though the absence of war was the same as peace."

Which is why the kumbaya lambs to the slaughter living amongst us will get us killed. In a world filled with wolves and sheep, thank God for the sheepdogs!

Going back to something I touched upon earlier in this post, I think it's important to observe that many of those who showed up for the anti-war protest come with a variety of liberal agendas to push; the facts of the war are peripheral and they only protest the war as a default. CJ observes this. The ANSWER Coalition organized the rally, and the NYTimes describes them as
Saturday’s march was organized by the Answer Coalition — named for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism — an organization that was initially associated with the Workers World Party and now affiliated with a breakaway faction of that party called the Party for Socialism and Liberation.
And
Judging by the speeches and placards, the marchers on Saturday set their sights on sweeping goals, including not only ending the war but also impeaching President Bush and ending the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Many carried Answer Coalition signs bearing the image of the Latin American revolutionary Che Guevara.

Brian Becker, the national coordinator of the Answer Coalition and a member of the Party of Socialism and Liberation, said the group held out little hope of influencing either the president or Congress. “It is about radicalizing people,” Mr. Becker said in an interview. “You hook into a movement that exists — in this case the antiwar movement — and channel people who care about that movement and bring them into political life, the life of political activism.”
The anti-war left will always be hamstrung by these fringe organizations, peripheral to the purposes of the anti-war movement. NYTimes again:
Many in the crowd said they were unfamiliar with the Answer Coalition and puzzled by the many signs about socialism. Several said they had come from across the country for a chance to voice their dismay at the war.
The anti-war left is populated and accompanied by 9/11 truthers, socialists and communists, pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel protesters piggying a ride, eco-terrorists, radical Islamic apologists, MeCHa and other ethnic activist groups, and countless other Leftist groups, each to promote its own agendas. And then of course, you have the ones who are related to the conspiracy nutjobs, in that they have a loose screw in their noggin. From the LA Times coverage of the Hollywood version of Saturday:
The protest had a Hollywood feel. Marchers snapped photos of a Glendale couple wearing grim reaper costumes—"I'm Bush, she's Cheney," said husband Norm Wheeler. Actress Athena Demos rose above the crowdon orange stilts, with 8-foot cloth wings. "I'm dressed like the dove of peace," she said.
Cuckoo! Cuckoo!



March 17th was a great day for pro-victory "peace" activists; that is, those who advocate for peace through military strength. The true peacekeepers are the brave men and women who serve and sacrifice for something greater than themselves. They are the ones who make peace and prosperity possible. What have pacifists ever done to end fascism? End totalitarian states? End Nazism? All they have done is to enable more of the same suffering and oppression. God bless the troops, and those who support them!

"I was once asked why I don't participate in anti-war demonstrations. I said that I would never do that. But as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, I'll be there." - Mother Theresa (1910-1997)



Also blogging:
A Soldier's Perspective
Gazing at the Flag (Who got interviewed in The Oregonian- Good piece!)
Media Lies
Michael Medved
Mike's America

Labels: , ,

19 Comments:

Blogger WomanHonorThyself said...

the Moonbats sure did look and sound like moonbats didnt they!..lol..what a great event! God bless.

Sunday, March 18, 2007 8:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Flag Gazer said...

It was a wonderful weekend for the Eagles - whereever we were and whatever we were doing!

Sunday, March 18, 2007 10:54:00 PM  
Blogger The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth said...

What really gets me is listening to the news coverage and nothing is mentioned about the Eagles rally. Additionally all TV coverage I saw except Fox showed the Eagles but never mentioned who they were or why they were there just clumped them in with the anti-war wheenies. So to the average American all of the flags waving from the Eagles looked like they were from the wheenies and not the true patriots!

Monday, March 19, 2007 8:54:00 AM  
Blogger Cajun Tiger said...

I can definitely say with all confidence that at the very least we matched their numbers. As far as how much we outnumbered them, that is hard to know due to us being spread out everywhere.

Monday, March 19, 2007 10:42:00 AM  
Blogger WomanHonorThyself said...

thanks for visitin my humble abode btw!.:)

Monday, March 19, 2007 12:41:00 PM  
Blogger Mike's America said...

"I concede that it is probably the case that the anti-war contingent outnumbered the gathering of eagles,"

I'm not sure on what basis you would make that concession.

The Eagles are saying that the National Park Service, who no longer make official crowd estimates (because the lefties complained they were being undercounted) told the Eagles they estimated their crowd at 30,000 which jives with what Cajun Tiger reported to me from the scene as a 3 to 1 advantage for our side.

But put all that aside.

What is clear is that a spontaneous movement of Americans fed up with the defeatist crap and Communists like Answer came forward, AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE, to show their support for our efforts to win the war.

I do hope that the success of the Gaterhing will lead to more and even better mass demonstrations by our side and take away the monopoly the lefties have exercised in this area. The media won't be able to ignore us forever.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:01:00 AM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

I'm not sure on what basis you would make that concession.

Why, the mainstream media, of course! (^_^)

Yes, I saw the figure of 30,000 suggested; but who knows?

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 10:10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i think the issues that were discussed in your post still just scratch the surface. the deeper issue is the question of security, not just of America, but of our neighbors and allies as well.

do we need a military force for security purposes? absolutely. do we need to go to war to preserve our security? i believe only if absolutely necessary. is the war in Iraq one of those situations? it wasn't to start, but it is now.

the problem with being pro or against war is that it doesn't seem to take into account the roots of the conflict. most anti-war protesters feel that the war we are in now is not justified because it was based on a couple of well documented lies about WMD and terrorist connections. pro-war people say that we support the troops and that we need to stay to create a stable environment in Iraq. the way i look at it is that we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but now that we've gone and stirred things up, we have to stay until things calm down. pulling out too soon might precipitate a civil war which could destabilize the entire middle east.

military force is broadsword. even when the action is 'justified' the sheer imprecision of it can create a backlash which becomes a justification unto itself for more military force. it has to be a "last resort" when all other avenues have failed. it needs to be an action taken based on justice and not some selfish agenda fronted by manipulation and lies.

but the thing is, we're in Iraq and it's a bloody mess. we need to do whatever we can to create security in that country, not only for the Iraqi people, but for ourselves and the other surrounding countries. If that means keeping a sizable military presence there for the next 10 years with the likely sacrifices that entails on our part, then so be it. we made our bed, and we should sleep in it.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 4:40:00 PM  
Blogger Mike's America said...

I wasn't going to comment here. I was merely going to complain AGAIN about the squiggly line word verfication thingee!!!!

BUT...I want to respond to part of what "anonymous" said.

I don't know anyone who is "pro war."

No one wants armed conflict and the death and carnage that go with it.

However, I'm reminded of this:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. "

John Stuart Mill

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 8:56:00 PM  
Blogger Little Miss Chatterbox said...

I snagged that cartoon and used at a post I did at The Astute Bloggers. Great find on the Washington Post article.

And from all legitimate sources on our side they agree with Shane that our side matched and probably exceeded the other side. Don't concede because of the Drive By Media :-).

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 8:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it is easy to say "war" when we are not the direct participant in that war with our lives on the line. it is easy to talk and say who has the biggest crowd. it is akin to a male measuring contest.

if you want to turn any statement on war around, just substitute the word 'jihad' for 'war' and then see how you feel about it.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:18:00 AM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

mike,

What squigly-line thingee?

chatterbox,

The cartoons aren't mine, so have at it.

anon,

You're well-reasoned, and it's nice to try and straddle the middle-road, and see both sides. But...

do we need a military force for security purposes? absolutely. do we need to go to war to preserve our security? i believe only if absolutely necessary. is the war in Iraq one of those situations? it wasn't to start, but it is now.

I think it's arguable whether Iraq was strategically the right move; but I disagree that it is an "absolute", as the wrong move.

the problem with being pro or against war is that it doesn't seem to take into account the roots of the conflict. most anti-war protesters feel that the war we are in now is not justified because it was based on a couple of well documented lies about WMD and terrorist connections. pro-war people say that we support the troops and that we need to stay to create a stable environment in Iraq.

But a number of us "pro-war" supporters will also disagree vociferously about "well-documented lies". There is a strong difference between "mistakes" and "lies"; and based upon what we knew at the time (and even what we know now, with the Saddam documents, Oil-for-Food scandal, to start), I think the irresponsible thing to do, was to maintain the status quo. Historically, intelligence has always underestimated the enemy's capabilities. Intelligence failed to foresee Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Intelligence agencies, both Democrat and Republican leaders, and Hans Blix himself pointed to Saddam as a danger.

the way i look at it is that we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but now that we've gone and stirred things up, we have to stay until things calm down.

That is well-reasoned. Right or wrong, we're there now. What got us there is irrelevant to dealing with the present, which is the war we are in now, not the one we entered into.

pulling out too soon might precipitate a civil war which could destabilize the entire middle east.

It would do more than that. It would seriously undermine America's security and credibility far more than should we "stay the course". If we broke it, we need to fix it.

military force is broadsword. even when the action is 'justified' the sheer imprecision of it can create a backlash which becomes a justification unto itself for more military force. it has to be a "last resort" when all other avenues have failed. it needs to be an action taken based on justice and not some selfish agenda fronted by manipulation and lies.

I agree that military force should be used as a last resort, and only for America's security. But I disagree that this was a war of "selfish agenda fronted by manipulation and lies".


but the thing is, we're in Iraq and it's a bloody mess.

This is part of what I don't get. It's war. Things go wrong. It's not realistic to assume that everything will go our way; and it is a spin to believe that everything has been all bad. There have been ups and there have been downs.

we need to do whatever we can to create security in that country, not only for the Iraqi people, but for ourselves and the other surrounding countries. If that means keeping a sizable military presence there for the next 10 years with the likely sacrifices that entails on our part, then so be it. we made our bed, and we should sleep in it.

Agreed. I never went into this believing that this would be a cakewalk. So perhaps my expectations were never really "deflated".

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:22:00 AM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

it is easy to say "war" when we are not the direct participant in that war with our lives on the line. it is easy to talk and say who has the biggest crowd. it is akin to a male measuring contest.

That's true; if you are going about sipping your lattes and enjoying the luxuries of our society without feeling deep appreciation for the service and sacrifices of those who wear the uniform. I don't take this war lightly. Don't assume...

if you want to turn any statement on war around, just substitute the word 'jihad' for 'war' and then see how you feel about it.

Moral relativity won't fly with me. Sorry. This is wrong. No "if's", "ands", or "buts".

Terrorists are not freedom fighters.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:29:00 AM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

I think Michael Medved's Post is related to the topic of this post. Since I'm too lazy to thread it in, I'll just reprint it here:

Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Press Ignores Fringe Nature of Demonstrations
Posted by: Michael Medved at 12:03 AM



In the last few days, demonstrators have marched across the country to mark the fourth anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War. These protests actually deserve far more serious media coverage than they’ve received not because they carry some powerful message about public opinion, but rather because they expose the true nature of America’s so-called “Peace Movement.”



I happened to witness the demonstrations in mid-town Manhattan, since I flew with my whole family to New York City to see our oldest daughter, Sarah, starring in the world premiere of a challenging and intriguing new play (more about that subject as the week unfolds). Most press coverage noted the shockingly small turnout for Sunday’s big march (USA TODAY reported just 1,000 people, led by actor Tim Robbins, on a sunny, cold day in a city of 8 million) but very few reporters made any honest attempt to portray the radicalism, the angry insanity, expressed by the demonstrators. For instance, as we approached the edge of the crowd, we took a bright red leaflet from one of the eager, bearded activists who handed them out to all the assembled multitudes. Signed by “The Progressive Labor Party,” one of the sponsoring organizations of the demonstration, this inspiring manifesto declared: “Passive disagreement is not enough. What remains is to build a mass movement with the only workable solution for a profit driven wars- revolutionary communism, Join PLP as we continue to celebrate May Day commemorating the fight for the international working class and struggle for a communist revolution.” To show their enthusiasm for that revolution, demonstrators brandished images of Che Guevarra and Hugo Chavez, red communist flags, black anarchist flags, red-black-green-and white Palestinian flags, signs proclaiming “Smash Capitalism” and “The Only Solution: Revolution!” along with the usual smattering of “Impeach Bush” and “Liberate Jerusalem!” and “Kill the Ruling Class so Mother Earth Can Live.”

The chief sponsor for all the demonstrations across the country, the ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) coalition was formally associated with the unapologetically Stalinist Workers World Party, and no identifies with a new splinter group called “The Party for Socialism and Liberation.” The group supports North Korea, Iran, Hezbollah, Cuba, Venezuela and virtually any other nation (no matter how thuggish) identified as anti-American.

The New York Times, to its great credit, at lest featured an interview with Brian Becker, national coordinator of the ANSWER Coalition and a former guest on my radio show. He unequivocally explained that the real purpose of the demonstrations had little to do with influencing the president or Congress. “It is about radicalizing people,” he proudly declared. “You hook into a movement that exists- in this case the antiwar movement- and channel people who care about that movement and bring them into political life, the life of political activism.”

Outrageously, the Associated Press, Newsday, and most other news outlets said nothing about the true radical agenda of the sponsoring organization and most of the marchers. For instance, USA Today described the demonstration in New York City without the slightest reference to ANSWER, the Progressive Labor Party, of the frequent and unmistakable displays of Communist iconography and revolutionary symbolism. Instead, they wrote: “In New York City, hundreds of protestors marched in Manhattan, some carrying signs that said, ‘Stop the War,’ some pleading special cases with signs such as ‘Money for Education, Not War’…. Sunday’s demonstrations came a day after thousands marched at the nation’s capital, waving banners that said ‘US Out of Iraq Now’ and ‘Impeach Bush.’ Some also carried American flags.”

Actually, as an eye witness I can certify and almost total absence of American flags in New York—and photos of the similarly feeble march on the Pentagon hardly featured any prominent display of Old Glory.

Sure, dissent can be patriotic, and dignified, and substantive, but these demonstrations looked and sounded pathetic and angry and fringy and, yes, anti-American. It’s the job of a responsible press to try to note the difference among protests and to note that the bearded guy whose image the activists held aloft was Che Guevarra, not Abe Lincoln.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:35:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wordsmith, thank you for taking the time to address the points i made.

war is messy. in my opinion it is not the best tool to 'win the hearts and minds of the people in Iraq.' nor does it necessarily improve the relations between the US and other countries, even our allies. economically it is also a burden on us, not to mention the human cost. war is costly and destructive, that's its nature. to me that's why it is only used as a last resort.

would you be sympathetic to a occupational force from another country in America who is waging war here? i wouldn't, and i can't imagine that you would be either

my comment about substituting the word 'jihad' for 'war' was not about calling terrorists freedom fighters. it was about examining mindsets. what we think is just and right can easily be perceived as unjust by another person and vice versa. we make take a hardliner stance and so might they. we make take up arms to fight because we feel we are justified, and so might they. we provide arguments and absolutes and so do they. if we go to war and kill each other, who was right? each side would have its opinion. i'm not saying terrorists are justified. i'm saying they feel justified. i don't think killing and destruction is right no matter who does it. only under special circumstances should it be sanctioned.

so to war or not to war, that is the question? if so, what is the victory and what is the cost? it is no coincidence that justice is represented by a set of scales.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:47:00 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

It was totally awesome, just wonderful.

I will never forget this event, and I dont even have the words to describe my feelings when I was at "The Wall". Indescribable I guess. Filled with Pride and also Tears.

I intend to do alot more to Support Our Troops, I have been, but after this experience I intend to do alot more.

Something happened to me at "The Wall" that I just cant explain. And I have no way to describe it. But it changed me forever.

I'm glad none of the Moonbats ever got to Deface any of our Memorials.

I'm just proud to have been a part of this whole event and I intend to do this alot more :-)

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:54:00 PM  
Blogger Mike's America said...

I'm confused. Does anon think there is anything worth figthing for?

Is freedom worth defending?

Or do you just want to wait until the butchers in Iraq show up here?

Oh... and HAPPY DAY!!! I'm free of the squiggly line thingee... It's like a burden has been lifted!

All hail Wordsmith... He may feed moonbats, but he got rid of the squiggly line thingee...

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:17:00 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

wordsmith, thank you for taking the time to address the points i made.

Oh, stop it...kep being courteous like that, and I won't be able to simply dismiss you as a troll.

I almost didn't respond, due to wanting to spend my time, doing other things. You said your piece, and I thought I'd leave it at that; but then, I thought you deserved a response.

war is messy. in my opinion it is not the best tool to 'win the hearts and minds of the people in Iraq.'

War is indeed messy. People die. The wrong people often die, like a mass-scale drive-by shooting where innocent bystanders are the ones affected.

But something in the world has changed, where we engaged in the most humane, surgically precise war in the history of the world (that is, during "major operations"). And the perception of many in the world sees this as imperialistic aggression. We devastated Germany with the Dresden bombing and Japan with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And for the most part, we won their hearts and minds.

How many deaths of innocent Iraqis have we been directly responsible for?


nor does it necessarily improve the relations between the US and other countries, even our allies.

There is a book I read by Jean Francois Revell, a French intellectual, who made the case that America's seeming unilateralism is because the rest of the world has failed in our collective global security.

It wasn't just U.S. intell that suggested the dangers posed by Saddam; how many more useless UN Resolutions were we going to pass before the world's cancer metasticized? Saddam thumbed his nose at us, because he came to realize that those resolutions were a meaningless placebo; AND, he had allies in the UN and France, actively working against us, to lift sanctions, as well as stealing from us through the Food for Oil program.


economically it is also a burden on us, not to mention the human cost. war is costly and destructive, that's its nature. to me that's why it is only used as a last resort.

You don't think war was used as a last resort? 12 years later, and about 17 UN Resolutions?! At what point do you quit moving the line in the sand backward? At what point do you enforce the original cease-fire agreement? President Bush never said Saddam was an imminent threat; he said we must act before the threat became imminent. Perhaps we could have waited longer; but France would not have gone to war, under any circumstance, against Saddam.

Cancer caught early, might be dealt with effectively; left untreated until later, becomes more costly. Such is what happened with Hitler. How less costly economically and in human lives would it have been to the world, had we enforced the Treaty of Versailles as soon as Hitler put his armies in the demiliterized Rhineland? He was, after all, testing and probing, having told his men to withdraw if there were signs that the Treaty violation would see physical enforcement. Didn't happen. And so Hitler was emboldened.

would you be sympathetic to a occupational force from another country in America who is waging war here? i wouldn't, and i can't imagine that you would be either

If that occupational force was hostile to my interests, yes. But that is not what is going on.

If the insurgents wanted us to simply leave, all they'd have to do is stop the violence. They're not stupid; they know that we would love nothing better than to come home. But that is not their objective.

I don't put much stock into a lot of polls; but according to a recent one, consider the following:

DESPITE sectarian slaughter, ethnic cleansing and suicide bombs, an opinion poll conducted on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq has found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants.

The poll, the biggest since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003, shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services.

The survey, published today, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war.

Officials in Washington and London are likely to be buoyed by the poll conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB), a respected British market research company that funded its own survey of 5,019 Iraqis over the age of 18.

The 400 interviewers who fanned out across Iraq last month found that the sense of security felt by Baghdad residents had significantly improved since polling carried out before the US announced in January that it was sending in a “surge” of more than 20,000 extra troops.


In addition, 64% of those polled believe that the current government is the right one for their country; and only 1 in 5 Iraqis think the country should be divided up.



my comment about substituting the word 'jihad' for 'war' was not about calling terrorists freedom fighters. it was about examining mindsets. what we think is just and right can easily be perceived as unjust by another person and vice versa. we make take a hardliner stance and so might they. we make take up arms to fight because we feel we are justified, and so might they. we provide arguments and absolutes and so do they. if we go to war and kill each other, who was right? each side would have its opinion.

I understand what you are saying; but I still see it as a path that paves the way to moral relativity and moral equivalence. It freezes one into an inability to act- to recognize and acknowledge universal absolutes of right and wrong. Certainly, no side is absolutely right, 100% of the time in all things. There are some legitimate grievances to be made against us; but acting out at us in terrorist attacks is not the way to express yourself. I know you may say the same about our "lashing out" in kind. And I will, of course, disagree.

I'm just tired of typing.


i'm not saying terrorists are justified. i'm saying they feel justified. i don't think killing and destruction is right no matter who does it. only under special circumstances should it be sanctioned.

Again, I agree that violence and warfare are not to be entered into lightly; that all diplomatic channels should be exhausted, first. But one also needs the wisdom to know when talk-time is over; when the costs both financial and humanitarian will be far greater by our inability to recognize the threat. When we keep putting our hopes in negotiations with those who are beyond reasoning with.

We will never know how many lives we may have saved because we chose to act in removing a brutal dictator who made no secrets about his desire and his will to obtain and implement weapons of mass destruction upon the world. Even knowing today what we didn't know then, I think we did the right thing.

And even if we didn't, as you said earlier, what is important is that we focus on what to do now. A lot of people are "stuck on stupid", by still using yesterday's arguments on the run-up to war; we are in a different place now.

You might find Christopher Hitchen's recent piece in Slate to be of interest.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:17:00 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

marie,

I'd be curious to hear more about this "transformation". Thank you for making the journey and giving those of us who didn't, a voice, there.

mike,

No more word verification, just for you.

I better not get an influx of spambots.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:20:00 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