So-called peace activists

[100LL... Again!]

Well-written article.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20030325.shtml

Given the state of the world right now, it is a shame that someone would die to defend a house, and be very soon forgotton.

 

[Iceman21]

Well-written article.

I can't help but agree. I cannot believe that she has been given the title of Martyr. Makes me wanna hurl.

 

[100LL... Again!]

Martyr is a fairly useless distinction, though.

We should gladly accomodate anyone who desires this status.

 

[CitationLover]

why is it when an abortion protestor blocks entrance to a clinic it is punishable via RICO (an organized crime statute), while the leftist-org's who block streets/bulldozers/etc are just "excercising their constitutional rights"?

 

[midlifeflyer]

why is it when an abortion protestor blocks entrance to a clinic it is punishable via RICO (an organized crime statute), while the leftist-org's who block streets/bulldozers/etc are just "excercising their constitutional rights"?

Probably for the same reason that when someone expresses an anti-war sentiment it's called "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" while when an anti-abortionist gets in a pregnant woman's face and hurls epithets at her it's called "educating."

 

[Iceman21]

anti-abortionist

I believe the term is "Pro-life"

 

[Flying Illini]

To take a term from the '80's...people need to take a "chill pill."
Seriously...all these protesters do is get people pissed off at them! They need to relax. It's great that they feel strongly about things but nobody else needs to hear them and have their daily lives disrupted by them. I am pro-war...am I out there in the streets blocking them off, screaming and yelling?! No! I DO want to get off of the couch however and go punch an anti-war protester. I just hope these people realize that their freedom of speech came about through a WAR! WITHOUT WAR THERE WOULD BE NO FREEDOM FOR THESE INGRATES TO PROTEST!!!!
Aaaaarrrrrgggghhhhh! These people frustrate me! Major world changes never come peacefully. God Bless our soldiers who are willing to lay their lives on the line so that the protesters can continue to be ingrates and live a life of free speech.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I believe the term is "Pro-life"

Problem is that too many (not all by any stretch) are also pro death penalty and pro-war. My personal definition of "pro-life" doesn't allow for exceptions.

 

[midlifeflyer]

To take a term from the '80's...

I don't know the general age of the people in this group, but I hope everyone realizes that most of the cross-labeling and the accusations (like your don't-they-realize-that-without-war-there- is-no-freedom) are old and tired.

I have no problem at all with sending a military expedition into a country if that country poses an international threat. Too bad that the US and Britain didn't do it in the 1930's when Churchill was showing photographs of aircraft factories in Germany and other very solid evidence of a military build-up that wasn't supposed to be there.

Bush tried to make that case about WMD in Iraq, but never produced any solid evidence. Nothing even close to Churchill's

So, we're left with a trust issue.

And I'm sorry. Rightly or wrongly, I do not trust the government to tell me the truth when it wants to go to war. In the Vietnam era, some elements of the anti-war movement said some incredibly terrible things about the US Government and military. Then the Pentagon Papers were published and proved them wrong — it was far worse. The protestors had no idea how bad it was, how regularly we were were lied to by 4 administrations - 2 Democratic; 2 Republican.

That's the bit of history that colors my views on the present situation. Sorry if it offends your sensibilities.

 

[Birdstrike]

Midlife's points are good ones but the media is part of this campaign in ways that would have been unthinkable during Vietnam. I don't have a trust issue with our government in this. The real time images and on-scene reporting appear to be bonding the media elite to its military hosts. Look at Diane Sawyer babbling all over herself this morning with praise for the way our military comports itself under fire and bears its losses. It's about sacrifice and duty and honor. That's a foreign concept to many of the political and media elite in this country.

But I think they're finally starting to get it; it's not a vast conspiracy of baby killers, it's decent normal Americans from all walks coming together to do a job. Most of the media have never left their Starbucks sofa long enough to see what a soldier actually does during operations lasting longer than 100 hours. Now they do and what they're seeing is heroic and they are impressed. It's why we're the greatest nation in the world; we have noble, moral convictions that are worth fighting for. It's only going to get better too as their understanding grows.

 

[pilotyip]

James Webb

James Webb, Viet Nam USMC, Navy Cross winner, former Sec of Navy, great writer. He really beat up the subject of freedom and the violence needed to secure freeedom and the on-going conflict between the two groups, in his book " A Country Such as This". His theme goes something like this, Those who deplore violence, can rest safely in their beds at night, because of those who willingly engage in violence on their behalf. The system that the protester deplores, is the system that allows the protester to deplore the system.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Midlife's points are good ones but the media is part of this campaign in ways that would have been unthinkable during Vietnam. I don't have a trust issue with our government in this. /QUOTE]

Don't mistake me. I try to avoid silly phrases like "I support the troops but not the war." But even in the Vietnam era, I was one of those who thought that our military men and women received the shortest end of the stick. Once the ant-war movement finally became the majority viewpoint, what this country did to our soldiers both during and after the war is a national disgrace.

I have no problem with the way our troops comport themselves in Iraq. Every man and woman among them (with some obvious exceptions) is doing the best job he or she can. I'm just as proud of every one of them who is willing to lay down her life for her beliefs as I am of those who are taking a personal moral stance and refusing to continue to serve
.

My trust issue is with the administration and the "reasons" it's giving us for making young Americans kill and die on foreign soil. Reporters in bed with military units doesn't do a thing to calm those concerns.

 

[100LL... Again!]

So if I follow your logic correctly midlifeflyer, you think that killing in a war is absolutely no different than an abortion. Leap of logic. And executing a rapist/murderer is no different either. So I can't be pro-life and in favor of the death penaty at the same time?
Go ahead and call me anti-abortion then.

Pro-choicers seem to be mostly anti-war. Maybe we should characterize this military action as 'aborting' an humanity-hating regime.

My planet, my choice.

 

[Snakum]

why is it when an abortion protestor blocks entrance to a clinic it is punishable via RICO

Shot down two weeks ago ... RICO no longer applies.

And on that subject ... why do Republicans scream for an end to abortion in all instances, yet scream for the blood of convicts despite many having been declared innocent via DNA while on death row, leading to the logical conclusion that many innocent human beings have been killed by the state.

And ..... why do the tree-huggers cry for convicted killers finally getting their just desserts while families of thier victims have been waiting years for justice and have never had a tear shed for them in TIME magazine ... yet they believe it is THEIR RIGHT to murder a human child rather than take common-sense precautions during sexual intercourse against a pregnancy.

See .... both positions are equally ignorant.

Minh
(Spreading good cheer and common sense to all.)

 

[Tim47SIP]

Mids conscept

Problem is that too many (not all by any stretch) are also pro death penalty and pro-war. My personal definition of "pro-life" doesn't allow for exceptions.

So your saying that the Dems concept of no Death penalty but allowing partial birth abortions is fine???????

 

[midlifeflyer]

So if I follow your logic correctly midlifeflyer, you think that killing in a war is absolutely no different than an abortion. Leap of logic.

The leap is yours, not mine. I don't equate them at all. I don't even equate all wars with each other.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Re: Mids conscept

So your saying that the Dems concept of no Death penalty but allowing partial birth abortions is fine???????

I don't think so.

Labels are all political. They are designed for "spin". Folks who believe abortion is morally wrong use the "Pro-Life" label because being in favor of something sound better than being "anti" something. "Pro-choice" people use that label for themselves in part because "Pro-abortion" in addition to not really being accurate, sounds terrible. Groups use different labels for their opponents for the same reason.

I choose "anti-abortion" to describe "pro-lifers" merely because I think that the former accurately describes their policy goals and the latter is inconsistent with other views taken by the same people.

 

[slapstick]

I don't trust our government or especially, our media. So much truth comes out 10-20 years after the fact. Why did it take years to find out about the highway out of Kuwait that was littered for miles with burnt corpses of the retreating Iraqi forces? It's a propaganda war.

Doesn't it make you nervous that violent demonstrations against US actions are occuring in countries throughout the world? Look away from U.S. protests and celebrity statements for a second. The world used to idolize our country. If you say you don't care what the voice of the world is saying, that only proves your ignorance. The line between a hyperpower and a rogue nation is growing thinner and thinner.

 

[Snakum]

The line between a hyperpower and a rogue nation is growing thinner and thinner.

Be careful .... you'll wind up being painted with the gigantic 'Unpatriotic Brush'.

Let's face it ... we are bullies gunning for oil, and my former comrades in the 3rd ID will soon be fighting house-to-house against soldiers and police that we helped train. Now ... I said it, and I feel MUCH better.

Minh

 

[Snakum]

Oh ... and let's not forget that we also fomented, and subsequently supported materially and with intel via the CIA/State Dept., the B'ath Party coup in the early 60s in Iraq. And who is head of the B'ath party now? Anyone? Anyone? Saddam.

Oh wait ... we're not thru yet. We also provided training, intel, and weapons components (not weapons) to Saddam during the war with Iran (remember ... we didn't like Iran then). He!! ... we even shot down an Iranian Airbus for Saddam. Nothing like a pause for the cause eh?

I love my country and I put my life on the line for it for five years. But sometimes I wonder about my government. Who the H@LL is running this GODD@MN rodeo? The clowns?

Chickens always come back in the evening, don't they? These latest chickens WILL probably come home to roost too. I hope I'm wrong about that ... but I doubt it.

Minh

 

[100LL... Again!]

Free ointment for lip-biters!

Free lotion for hand-wringers!

This will be a key element of my administration, if elected.

National Anthem: Kumbaya




---------------------------------------------
The UN is dead. Long live the UN.

 

[Ralph]

not really

Why are the protestors overlooking governments and groups that are 'really' evil?

Because they are not part of those groups.

I think our author here has a limited perspective and a simple understanding of the matter at hand.

MY tax dollars are funding the war in Iraq. So if I'm against the war I'm going to protest. Now if its the French that are paying for it (not likely!) then I'm not going to protest because its not my country, not my group, not my money and not my government.

Many of these people are not pro Sadam they are anti spending my money to go do this.

I'm not arguing for or against the war here, I'm just saying this is a lousy case against the protestors.

 

[Jeff G]

Problem is that too many (not all by any stretch) are also pro death penalty and pro-war. My personal definition of "pro-life" doesn't allow for exceptions.

Well put. Let's just say "pro-innocent-life". You correctly point out that determining exactly who the innocent parties are is sometimes difficult, but I think it's safe to say that the pre-born meet that definition. Enemy troops and convicted felons are usually not innocent. Especially in the case of the latter, there should be better ways of making sure, but trial by impartial jury is an imperfect, but not bad method.

 

[100LL... Again!]

People are slaughtered by the tousands in the Sudan regularly. Why don't they protest them?

Praeger is right: They are COWARDS. They know that the US won't shoot them dead for protesting. They would not last 10 seconds in these other countries. Cowardice masking as bravery.

 

[midlifeflyer]

100LL... Again! said:
People are slaughtered by the thousands in the Sudan regularly.

Excellent point. So why aren't we there liberating them from their evil government?

We could probably come up with a nice long list of monstrously oppressive governments. Unfortunately, it would also probably include some of our friends.

 

[Tim47SIP]

Slapman

Why did it take years to find out about the highway out of Kuwait that was littered for miles with burnt corpses of the retreating Iraqi forces?

Number one, it did not take 20 years to find this out. It was known the night we attacked them. The times reported as such as the rest of the world. I was there when that mass exodus happened. I saw it personally. The highway of death was never depicted as anything else but what it was.

He!! ... we even shot down an Iranian Airbus for Saddam. Nothing like a pause for the cause eh

OK, now you prove your mental prowess. Sir, get a grip! If you truly believe this, you need to see a shrink!

 

[slapstick]

I partially agree, Tim47, but don't think it got the attention it deserved. I don't think the average american fully understands what's at stake when going to war. (risks on both sides).

Where'd the Iranian airbus thing come from? maybe i'm missing something.

 

[slapstick]

How about CNN spends a litte more time on this story:



http://www.airliners.net/open.file/332874/L/

 

[Timebuilder]

Problem is that too many (not all by any stretch) are also pro death penalty and pro-war. My personal definition of "pro-life" doesn't allow for exceptions.

Let me step forward and try to help you with this confusion, midlifeflyer. There is no exception necessary if you are working from a basis of facts. In this case, the facts come from a long time ago.

Several people will very likely be offended by this post. ***WARNING*** Discussion of morality in this post.

Pro-Life is a specific position with the regard to the taking of innocent life. That does not simply mean that this life has not been found guilty of a crime, but that it has literally been murdered by the person who has been charged with its preservation, nurturing, and growth. In the words of Shakespeare, it is "murder most foul".

How can this position be aligned with a pro-war (I'll go along, and use your term here, to keep this short) and a pro-death penalty position?

Going to the lodestone of our moral compass, the Creator, we find his basic guide of ten items upon which our realtionship to Him and each other is based. One item is misunderstood. Over the years, it has come to be taken as (in 1611 English) "thou shalt not kill". That seems pretty clear until you go to the actual scriptual references, which is a quite different matter:"thou shalt not murder.

You might have read my previous post regarding the basis of our morality, and the proper place for the civil government of man. The civil government can take a life as punishment, as reaffirmed by the crucifixtion (there's your aprroval of the death penalty) and can prosecute war against another nation for cause. This is considered to be righteous and just. It is not murder, as was prohibited by the commandment. In murder, one human acts to take the life of another without just cause. If a robber pulls a gun on you and you can shoot him first, it is not a case of murder, but self defense. A war can also be undertaken for just cause under the rule of law. The most famous case of approved war is when Israel faced off against the Phillistines, and David slew a giant named Goliath. Even if you regard this story as a fairy tale, it still serves as a good illustration of an approved situation where a life is taken.

So you see, this is truly a harmonius position when you understand the difference between killing and murder. Even under modern law, they are not the same thing.

 

[Cardinal]

Many of these people are not pro Sadam they are anti spending my money to go do this.

Assuming $75-100 Billion is indeed the tab, that equates to $300-400 out of pocket for the "average" American. Considering the "progressive" nature of the tax system most of us common folk will be coughing-up around $200. If somebody offered me $200 to stand in the middle of a San Francisco freeway all day, I seriously doubt that I'd do it - and I'm furloughed!.

Today I spent $306.84 at the Ford dealership replacing a sensor that in no way affected the drivability of my vehicle, heck I didn't even know it existed.

$200 to invade a country, during which I and the majority of males my age won't have to get shot at, is quite a bargain. Or look at it this way, if the price of gasoline falls a mere 20 cents I'll be money ahead by the end of the year! I realize that this is very serious business, and blood is being shed. But the financial argument is not a valid one.