• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Pacifists versus peace

RoperAB

Well-known member
By Thomas Sowell
One of the many failings of our educational system is that it sends out into the world people who cannot tell rhetoric from reality. They have learned no systematic way to analyze ideas, derive their implications and test those implications against hard facts.

"Peace" movements are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities. Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called "peace" movements -- that is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war.
Take the Middle East. People are calling for a cease-fire in the interests of peace. But there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else. If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent.

Was World War II ended by cease-fires or by annihilating much of Germany and Japan? Make no mistake about it, innocent civilians died in the process. Indeed, American prisoners of war died when we bombed Germany.
There is a reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" more than a century ago. But he helped end the Civil War with his devastating march through Georgia -- not by cease fires or bowing to "world opinion" and there were no corrupt busybodies like the United Nations to demand replacing military force with diplomacy.

There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated.

"World opinion," the U.N. and "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions.

That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel in the Middle East. The disastrous track record of that approach extends to other times and places -- but who looks at track records?

Remember the Falkland Islands war, when Argentina sent troops into the Falklands to capture this little British colony in the South Atlantic?

Argentina had been claiming to be the rightful owner of those islands for more than a century. Why didn't it attack these little islands before? At no time did the British have enough troops there to defend them.
Before there were "peace" movements and the U.N., sending troops into those islands could easily have meant finding British troops or bombs in Buenos Aires. Now "world opinion" condemned the British just for sending armed forces into the South Atlantic to take back their islands.

Shamefully, our own government was one of those that opposed the British use of force. But fortunately British prime minister Margaret Thatcher ignored "world opinion" and took back the Falklands.

The most catastrophic result of "peace" movements was World War II. While Hitler was arming Germany to the teeth, "peace" movements in Britain were advocating that their own country disarm "as an example to others."

British Labor Party Members of Parliament voted consistently against military spending and British college students publicly pledged never to fight for their country. If "peace" movements brought peace, there would never have been World War II.

Not only did that war lead to tens of millions of deaths, it came dangerously close to a crushing victory for the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese empire in Asia. And we now know that the United States was on Hitler's timetable after that.

For the first two years of that war, the Western democracies lost virtually every battle, all over the world, because pre-war "peace" movements had left them with inadequate military equipment and much of it obsolete. The Nazis and the Japanese knew that. That is why they launched the war.

"Peace" movements don't bring peace but war.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
If you are going to have a war, the next step is to have a peace. Not getting the two right at the same time means you are at perpetual war.

Nothing can be worse.

Pres. Reagan was judicious in his use of force and yet brought about the breakup of the Soviet Union.

The threat of punishment is often a better motivator than the punishment itself.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Econ101 said:
If you are going to have a war, the next step is to have a peace. Not getting the two right at the same time means you are at perpetual war.
.

I think I have to agree with Hannity and the talking head Generals on FOX news this time- the only way you can ever obtain a peace with these fanatic terrorists like Hezbollah and Hamas is to kill them all....

Then work on peace....
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
If you are going to have a war, the next step is to have a peace. Not getting the two right at the same time means you are at perpetual war.

Nothing can be worse.

Pres. Reagan was judicious in his use of force and yet brought about the breakup of the Soviet Union.

The threat of punishment is often a better motivator than the punishment itself.

But threatening Saddam didn't give Bush that satisfied feeling that he got by knocking him from power. Nor did it give his friends access to the oil he controlled. He has no personal animosity toward Bin Laden so he doesn't really care if he gets caught or not. He said "I truly am not that concerned about him." But Saddam was personal, like immigration and stem cell research.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Dis, do you ever think about anything else?

Do you think about some good productive thing you could do for
someone? All this stuff you post over and over has got to be bad
for you mentally, and I think we are seeing evidence of it right here.

Do you know the meaning of OBSESSION, or OBESSIVE BEHAVIOR?

I'm concerned about you, truly I am.
What you are doing just isn't normal, or even logical.
You need to find a good (mind) doctor.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Disagreeable said:
Econ101 said:
If you are going to have a war, the next step is to have a peace. Not getting the two right at the same time means you are at perpetual war.

Nothing can be worse.

Pres. Reagan was judicious in his use of force and yet brought about the breakup of the Soviet Union.

The threat of punishment is often a better motivator than the punishment itself.

But threatening Saddam didn't give Bush that satisfied feeling that he got by knocking him from power. Nor did it give his friends access to the oil he controlled. He has no personal animosity toward Bin Laden so he doesn't really care if he gets caught or not. He said "I truly am not that concerned about him." But Saddam was personal, like immigration and stem cell research.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html


Bush is starting to pay the price for his hubris as well he should.

I have found the best leaders to be the leaders who are actually honest instead of spin meisters.

In the end, the truth will win out over the illusion of truth. The question is at what cost.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Its this simple. Nobody F**ked with Reagan. They knew better.
To elect somebody like Jimmy Carter/John Kerry just invites attacks.
Disageeable
Whats your solution? I hear nothing coming from the left except for defeat.
You know I have never said that putting ground troups in Iraq was the right thing to do. However there over there now. So its no good to talk about what should have been done. Its time to talk about whats to be done next. Cutting and running would be the worst possible thing to do at this point.
The troops have to stay the course until the region can be stabilized. Its no good to leave if we are just going to have to send them back there in a few years to face a more powerful army.
You know you defeatests should study the Boar War. Look at how Kitchener turned that around.
You cant fight a war with one arm tied behind your back. If the muzzies dont want "so called civilian casualties" then stop fighting!
I can tell you one thing, you can post all the crap you want about the poor islamofachists, you can post dead body pictures of the muzzies all you want. Its not our problem and I dont care. They are doing it to themselves!
 

Latest posts

Top