Thursday, April 10, 2008

Free Iraq Now!

Tibet activists hang up banners on the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, California, April 7, 2008. Three pro-Tibet activists scaled the cables of San Francisco's famed Golden Gate Bridge and hung banners to protest the arrival of the Olympic torch in the city on Wednesday. REUTERS/Kimberly White

Free Iraq Now! From the violence of the insurgents and holy Islamic warriors bent on killing themselves and as many innocents as they can take with them.

How do those opposed to U.S. presence end the U.S. led occupation of Iraq? How do they send our troops packing? Not by committing more acts of aggression and terror, but by stopping the attacks against the people and institutions of Iraq. By allowing the fledgling government to survive through its growing pains in the absence of sabotage and insurrection.

So what does this post have to do with Tibet and the Olympic Torch protests? Not a heckuvalot.

But it gives me a springboard to remind folks that about 5 years ago, the Dali Lama also appeared to "get it", when it came to perceiving the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, in the broader context of history and "end justifies the means" rationale:

Dali Lama: Iraq War May Be Justified
Scott Lindlaw, AP, September 10, 2003 11:09 PM

The Dalai Lama said Wednesday that the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan may have been justified to win a larger peace, but that is it too soon to judge whether the Iraq war was warranted. "I think history will tell," he said in an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday, just after he met with President Bush.

"In principle, I always believe nonviolence is the right thing, and nonviolent method is in the long run more effective," said the Dalai Lama, who after the Sept. 11 attacks had implored Bush to avoid a violent response by the United States.

The exile Tibetan leader, awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989, said the Vietnam War increased suffering and was a "failure." But, he said, some wars, including the Korean War and World War II, helped "protect the rest of civilization, democracy." He said he saw a similar result in Afghanistan - "perhaps some kind of liberation."

"The people themselves, I think, suffer a lot under their previous regimes," he said. But he was adamant that the United States not lose sight of rebuilding Afghanistan.

The Dalai Lama urged Bush, in a letter on Sept. 12, 2001, to "think seriously whether a violent action is the right thing to do and in the greater interest of the nation and people in the long run." Asked whether the Iraq war was just, the Dalai Lama said the situation there is "more complicated" and will take more time before he can judge.

Labels: , ,


Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

You know how many nutballs post on my blog about thier causes and crap.

The last one that commented said "We have to do something about Darfur"!

Now I see it's Tibet.

I feel for those people in those other Countries of course, I am human (Although some would disagree) but my question keeps coming back to the same answer I gave the person who was so damn worried about Darfur.

I know it wasnt expecting the response it got but it got it anyway.

I said "Where the hell were all you people when Genocide was taking place in Iraq"? Never got an answer of course.

Why is it when it's a Liberal cause that would probably involve Troops, Bombs, Occupation, and War it's ok. But when it comes to taking out the madman of the Middle East, involving the same as I mentioned above, it was all NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!?

Now we should go to war with China over Tibet?

You are right on this Word, this was a perfect springboard to bring this subject up!

Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:40:00 AM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...


I'm not sure that using troops and violent means is what the humanitarian protesters are calling for when they drum up Darfur and Tibet, and a host of other human rights causes (including sanctions on Iraq).

What I smirk about, is the refusal to perceive and accept that there may be situations where the only way to bring about meaningful change is to use troops and warfare and violent means; yet the pacifists don't want to "go there". So meanwhile, suffering goes on in the world, and dictators are enabled to continue oppressing people, because pacifists refuse to do what it takes, sometimes, to employ violence as a tool to do good in the world. Violence should always be a last resort; but it should still be on the table, as a resort.

How many more years and decades of peaceful protests and pressuring, diplomacy, negotiations, appeasements, and non-violent means will it take to effect change? Meanwhile, during those years and decades, real suffering continues, unabashed, unopposed, and unabated.

Which avenue is the more humane one? Warfare or pacifism?

Thursday, April 10, 2008 11:03:00 AM  
Blogger SkyePuppy said...

Those protesters love to point at how Ghandi overthrew Great Britain's rule through the use of non-violence. They say it proves that non-violence really works.

But I heard someone point out that it only worked on the Brits because they are a decent society, and that's absolutely correct. If Ghandi had tried that against the Soviets or al Qaeda or the Communist Chinese (oh wait, they did that in China already), he would have been squashed like a bug and that would have been the end of it.

Silly pacifists can't see past the end of their noses...

Thursday, April 10, 2008 12:48:00 PM  
Blogger Amy Proctor said...

Wow, that's amazing. I had no idea the Dali Lama said that. Incredible.

I think I support the protests against China. This is a communist country with inhumane practices and if we don't stand up for Tibet, who will? Tibetians aren't able to. I just hate that there are so many ignorant freaks protesting, too. I think any sort of protest pulls these peaceniks from the woodwork.

Thursday, April 10, 2008 3:31:00 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