Who is Pro War?

[spozzy]

I'm not one who likes simply posting other people's opinions...but I thought this was interesting, to say the least.
________________________________________________

Thomas Sowell

March 25, 2003

Who is pro-war?


We have heard a lot about anti-war demonstrators. Indeed, we have heard a lot from anti-war spokesmen, as the media continue their corrupt practice of providing free air time to those whose antics provide them with footage for their news broadcasts. But what about those who are pro-war?

Who said, "At last the war has begun"? Certainly no one in the Bush administration, nor in the military, nor anyone among the conservative or neo-conservative publications supporting the president's military actions. That headline appeared in bold letters across the front page of a newspaper in Kuwait.

Kuwaitis are not the only victims of Saddam Hussein who have been wanting this war to get underway, so that they can be rid of that murderous threat hanging over their heads. Arnaud de Borchgrave of United Press International reports that a group of American anti-war demonstrators who had gone to Iraq were shocked to encounter Iraqi civilians who were pro-war.

A young American clergyman with an anti-war group in Iraq said that some of the things the Iraqis said to him "had shocked me back to reality." Some of these Iraqis "told me that they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start." Then they told him of sadistic tortures "that made me ill" just to hear about.

Too many Americans have been too sheltered for too long to have any conception of what it is like to live under horrifying threats. The bargain-basement martyrs of the "peace" movement who disrupt their fellow Americans' lives with their moral exhibitionism in the streets know that the worst that will happen to them is wrist-slap punishment -- and that most will not get even that.

The blessings we have in this country have been so taken for granted for so long by such people -- and by many in the media and in academia -- that they have no sense of what past sacrifices created these blessings, what present-day sacrifices are necessary to sustain them, much less what are the prerequisites for continuing to live as a free people.

More than ingratitude is involved. Those who do not understand what an on-going price has to be paid continuously to remain free are not only quick to balk at any costs that they have to pay or any restrictions they have to endure, they are also quick to attribute cheap motives to those who have the responsibility to make the hard decisions required to protect us from the dangers that the blind refuse to acknowledge.

Some of these who blindly lash out at America say that the real reason American troops are going into Iraq is to get control of that country's oil. Do they realize that we had control of Kuwait's oil during the previous Gulf war -- and gave it back to the Kuwaitis? Do facts matter at all to those who are on a binge of self-righteousness?

Does it matter to them that we live in an age where "giving peace a chance" means
giving people like Saddam Hussein time to develop nuclear weapons? Does it matter to them that the doctrine of "pre-emption" is not just an abstract issue but, in a nuclear age, can be the difference between life and death for millions of Americans?

Surely the time is long overdue to understand that Israel did an enormous favor to the world when its bombers made a pre-emptive strike against Saddam Hussein's nuclear facility -- built by France, by the way. Can you imagine where we would be today if Saddam Hussein had been given two decades in which to develop nuclear weapons?

Sheltered people with no sense of the enormous new dangers that the proliferation of nuclear weapons have created still talk in terms of old shibboleths and discuss issues in the abstract, instead of in terms of the concrete and bitter realities confronted by those with responsibility for the fate of this country.

Since we have nuclear weapons, those who think in the abstract ask, why don't others have a right to have them? It never seems to occur to them that, in the real world as it exists, we are not worried because Britain or Israel have nuclear weapons. But anyone with a brain in his head should be worried that North Korea has them and that Saddam Hussein has been trying to get them.

source: www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20030325.shtml

[Cranky]

Bah, it's about oil................

I wish I could send all the anti war demonstrators to Iraq to feel and see what happens when a Fedayeen points a gun at a men's children and tell that that he will kill them if he does not fight.

We will never understand that moment. Never.

[PTH]

spozzy said:

We have heard a lot about anti-war demonstrators. Indeed, we have heard a lot from anti-war spokesmen, as the media continue their corrupt practice of providing free air time to those whose antics provide them with footage for their news broadcasts. But what about those who are pro-war?

Who said, "At last the war has begun"? Certainly no one in the Bush administration, nor in the military, nor anyone among the conservative or neo-conservative publications supporting the president's military actions. That headline appeared in bold letters across the front page of a newspaper in Kuwait.

Of course. There hasn't been a publicly recognized movement in the US right to invade Iraq for the last 10 years or so. There wasn't an ultimatum set when UN inspectors were getting things done. No one wanted war...

Kuwaitis are not the only victims of Saddam Hussein who have been wanting this war to get underway, so that they can be rid of that murderous threat hanging over their heads.

Maybe the US could take out the Israeli right wing too, since they pose such a threat to the Palestinians.

Arnaud de Borchgrave of United Press International reports that a group of American anti-war demonstrators who had gone to Iraq were shocked to encounter Iraqi civilians who were pro-war.

A young American clergyman with an anti-war group in Iraq said that some of the things the Iraqis said to him "had shocked me back to reality." Some of these Iraqis "told me that they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start." Then they told him of sadistic tortures "that made me ill" just to hear about.

Too many Americans have been too sheltered for too long to have any conception of what it is like to live under horrifying threats. The bargain-basement martyrs of the "peace" movement who disrupt their fellow Americans' lives with their moral exhibitionism in the streets know that the worst that will happen to them is wrist-slap punishment -- and that most will not get even that.

Yup, we are insulated from a lot of harm, and don't have to suffer like a lot of people in a lot of countries do. Of course, many if not most of those oppressive governments were put in place, or at the very least supported, by the US. But that's beside the point....

The blessings we have in this country have been so taken for granted for so long by such people -- and by many in the media and in academia -- that they have no sense of what past sacrifices created these blessings, what present-day sacrifices are necessary to sustain them, much less what are the prerequisites for continuing to live as a free people.

More than ingratitude is involved. Those who do not understand what an on-going price has to be paid continuously to remain free are not only quick to balk at any costs that they have to pay or any restrictions they have to endure, they are also quick to attribute cheap motives to those who have the responsibility to make the hard decisions required to protect us from the dangers that the blind refuse to acknowledge.

You're right, a lot of sacrifices are needed. How many 3d world countries are being exploited to maintain our current standard of living ? How many have had their traditionnal economies torn apart by short-sighted IMF policies ? That's a huge price to pay.

Some of these who blindly lash out at America say that the real reason American troops are going into Iraq is to get control of that country's oil. Do they realize that we had control of Kuwait's oil during the previous Gulf war -- and gave it back to the Kuwaitis? Do facts matter at all to those who are on a binge of self-righteousness?

Well, anyone who thinks "control" means having your own companies pumping out the oil doesn't understand how commerce tends to work. You can let Kuwaitis pump and sell the oil as they wish, but the US having bases in the area, can essentially make sure Kuwaitis never decide to raise or lower their prices too far from what the US wants.

Does it matter to them that we live in an age where "giving peace a chance" means
giving people like Saddam Hussein time to develop nuclear weapons?

It's not as if all the protesters were peaceloving hippies. The US did well to pressure Saddam into taking in UN inspectors. Of course, the whole situation might have been easier if the US hadn't bombed Iraq in 98 in the first place, which is why the inspectors were taken out, and if there hadn't been CIA operatives in there maybe Iraq would have cooperated a bit more.

Does it matter to them that the doctrine of "pre-emption" is not just an abstract issue but, in a nuclear age, can be the difference between life and death for millions of Americans?

Pre-emption is one thing, blind pre-emption because someone "tried to kill my daddy" will likely lead to move terrorism and more loss of life than responsible statesmanship would have done.

Surely the time is long overdue to understand that Israel did an enormous favor to the world when its bombers made a pre-emptive strike against Saddam Hussein's nuclear facility -- built by France, by the way. Can you imagine where we would be today if Saddam Hussein had been given two decades in which to develop nuclear weapons?

Things wouldn't be much worse than if, say, Pakistan or North Korea had the bomb. Heck, if Saddam had the bomb, Israel might just start listening to those UN directives rather than not give a damn.

Sheltered people with no sense of the enormous new dangers that the proliferation of nuclear weapons have created still talk in terms of old shibboleths and discuss issues in the abstract, instead of in terms of the concrete and bitter realities confronted by those with responsibility for the fate of this country.

You mean talk about concrete things, like the fates of people suffering from oppresive regimes all over the world ? Like the Taliban which are back in Afghanistan ? Like the East Timorese who suffered a 25 year holocaust from an American-friendly regime ? Or the hundreds of thousands who disappeared under Pinochet ? Or maybe we could discuss how a CIA supported, expansion-seeking leader was allowed to invade a neighbor and gas his own people and still get support from the US - until he invaded Kuwait that is.

Given that type of foreign policy, I wonder if the US should be trusted with Nuclear weapons...

Since we have nuclear weapons, those who think in the abstract ask, why don't others have a right to have them? It never seems to occur to them that, in the real world as it exists, we are not worried because Britain or Israel have nuclear weapons. But anyone with a brain in his head should be worried that North Korea has them and that Saddam Hussein has been trying to get them.

Nuclear weapons are a worry for everyone, but you can readily exterminate people without them.
Just look at the million (rough figure) who died as a result of anglo-American sanctions. In Iraq. Genocide can take many forms.

[PTH]

HabsAddict said:

Bah, it's about oil................

I wish I could send all the anti war demonstrators to Iraq to feel and see what happens when a Fedayeen points a gun at a men's children and tell that that he will kill them if he does not fight.

We will never understand that moment. Never.

I wish we could take all the pro-war people and let them see equivalent scenes in East Timor, Venezuela, Chile, Saoudi Arabia or Chechnya, and then see what the answer to "why Iraq, why now" would be.

[Cranky]

PTH said:

I wish we could take all the pro-war people and let them see equivalent scenes in East Timor, Venezuela, Chile, Saoudi Arabia or Chechnya, and then see what the answer to "why Iraq, why now" would be.

It will take time to straighten the whole world.

[PTH]

HabsAddict said:

It will take time to straighten the whole world.

First we need to stop making it more and more bent.

A UN-backed intervention in Iraq, and respect Venezuelan elections would be a start.

I wonder if Lula, in Brazil, is starting to worry. The CIA might have been caught off-guard there, but they'll be ready if they try anything "funny" in Brazil.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

HabsAddict said:

It will take time to straighten the whole world.

I guess it might depend on how other countries take being "straightened out." I mean, as soon as they get the impression that "our way is the better way ... do this," the conflict starts.

However, I think we have a good start here in Canada. When I was younger I really didn't understand this Trudeau-initiated, multi-culturalism. Yet, today I see Canada as a model country for multi-culturalism. There are very few countries that have as many different nationalities all living within it's boarders.

I also feel that we, as a country, are advanced as far as inter-racial tollerence goes as well. Sure, we still have our problems, but they aren't anywhere near the problems other countries have.

I remember recently seeing a replay of an interview with Muhammad Ali when he flew into Vancouver to fight George Chevalo. It was in black and white. As he was signing autographs, Ali was quoted as saying, "... I can't believe how nice everyone is up here. The policeman is nice, the hotel manager is nice; it's not like anything where I come from."

Wow.

How does this tie in? Well, no one should judge another either religiously, or otherwise. After all religion is a form of freedom of choice as well. However, until some of the more extremist countires realize that individual growth and progression is a good thing, and that initiative and freedom of speach aren't bad, those countries who practice those beliefs and values will contiue to be a threat. Especially if those countries dictate to them that their way is the better way by ramming it down their throats.

The best way to introduce this would be for them to find out for themselves. However, this will no doubt take a long time.

Cheers.

[PTH]

Disgruntled70sHab said:

However, I think we have a good start here in Canada. When I was younger I really didn't understand this Trudeau-initiated, multi-culturalism. Yet, today I see Canada as a model country for multi-culturalism. There are very few countries that have as many different nationalities all living within it's boarders.

I actually dislike Canada's multi-culturalism policy - in the run it'll destroy the country. Being Canadian means nothing, and people come here yet keep their former culture, with all the inherent problems that culture might have. I've long thought anyone who comes here should realise that you eventually have to integrate the French or English community, along with its values and beliefs.

I also feel that we, as a country, are advanced as far as inter-racial tollerence goes as well. Sure, we still have our problems, but they aren't anywhere near the problems other countries have.

Agreed.

How does this tie in? Well, no one should judge another either religiously, or otherwise. After all religion is a form of freedom of choice as well. However, until some of the more extremist countires realize that individual growth and progression is a good thing, and that initiative and freedom of speach aren't bad, those countries who practice those beliefs and values will contiue to be a threat. Especially if those countries dictate to them that their way is the better way by ramming it down their throats.

That's where it gets rough.... our thinking is that everyone should be informed and get to make their own decisions, other cultures sometimes dictate a line of action, and getting to make up your mind or decide on your own simply isn't accepted. How do you reconciliate those views ?

The best way to introduce this would be for them to find out for themselves. However, this will no doubt take a long time.

I think it has to take a long time. If you try and rush the process, it'll backfire on you. Just look at how long it's taken rural Quebec to turn into a modern province, open on the rest of the world ? A full generation, and that was a society that was really ready to take that next step.
IMO, living in the 1800s in Canada would in many ways have been like some Middle Eastern countries - you did as religion dictated, period.