Sunday, July 15, 2007

Peace, according to Anti-war Democrats, to the World

Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Everyone in the world wants Peace. From the Pope in Vatican City, to the lowliest peasant in Zimbabwe, who doesn't want it? The world hears from the Anti-war crowd on how important Peace is. What type of Peace are the Anti-war Democrats and Liberals offering?

1) The first rule of the Anti-war crowd is "As long as a Nation-State does not invade another Nation-state, America should not get involved," Using this rule, that means, Saddam Hussein can gas the Kurds, Hitler can massacre the Jews in Germany, because after all, America should not use her troops to invade another Nation State.

2) The next rule is, "End American Military Recruitment" As the only Nation State with 6 million citizens, would these groups allow New York City to be protected? How about San Francisco? The years when Kaiser Wilhelm compared the British military to a police battalion are long gone. The Police Departments around the country do great work, should we post them overseas too?

3) "Americans should not engage in other's Civil Wars," That lesson was taken from the Vietnam war (even though it was a war for Colonial powers that went awry). Let that rule stand, and understand that there is no reason to go to Darfur .

3a) "America should not expand it's 'Empire' under any circumstances" Let's bring the troops home from South Korea, Germany and Japan. Who cares that we protected the world from Communism during the Cold War? Kim Jong-Il and Vladimir Putin are not expanding threats according to the Left.

3b) "Dictatorships are fine as long as they don't invade anyone else," Accordingly, Robert Mugabe is fine under this rule, as well as Putin. Why should the Anti-war crowd care about people living under dictators? Wasn't the whole Iraq war about ridding the Middle East of a dictator and bringing democracy? Even if it was not, if you can speak freely in a society, why shouldn't someone else halfway across the world? But if you're a Leftist, not speaking truth to power in Venezuela and Cuba is fine.

A Peaceful world using the Anti-war groups rules means poeple still die by unnatural causes because of the power of the State. As long as the State doesn't invade anyone else, a dictator can rule with impunity. And if the Dictator hates Republicans and Israel (Read: Hugo Chavez), why should the Anti-war Leftists do anything to bring peace to the world?

Robert Mugabe and Hamas have nothing to fear from a Democratic administration should one be elected in 2009.

8 comments:

  1. Oh JSF, why must you constantly wield such a wide brush over such complex issues? What do you hope to achieve with such generalizations and simplifications?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jason,

    All I'm doing is repeating the Anti-war rhetoric and bringing it to real world foreign policy issues. As you notice, they don't work together. Wilsonianism is dead among the anti-war protesters. If a Democratic President is elected in 2008, these are the rhetorical issues that wil follow into the world of foreign policy.

    Can you say that the words of the anti-war crowd doesn't mean anything in a Democratic primary?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm not denying the fact that there are those who don't necessarily think their arguments through or are highly inconsistent. Every side has their share of that sort of knee jerkiness. And I understand that it would definitely benefit your side if you were effectively able to paint the entirety of your opposition with examples of their most poorly spoken constituents. That's called Cherry Picking and that makes for an argument full of holes. I keep telling you that you'll have much more solid arguments if you try to adhere to some basic fundamentals of logic. But let's discuss much more important things, like did you catch the new Harry Potter flick yet? I think I'm going to catch it some night this week.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jason,

    I keep on hearing about how the Anti-war side is more important than General Petreaus' views. I went to the Anti-war orginizations own websites and read what they had to say.

    Again, the anti-war cabal is important to the Democratic primary -- I haven't heard CNN or the Nets (ABC, CBS, NBC) ever breakdown what the real world effects of the rhetoric will have on American foreign policy.

    As long as Democrats support the anti-war groups, shouldn't they be held accountable for what these groups profess to believe in foreign policy?

    As far as Harry Potter, I haven't read or seen any of the series. I plan on doing it after November.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Which is "The anti-war group?" That's the thing, there are lots of different anti-war groups out there, some better thought and better spoken than others. Look, republicans support the religious right. Would it be fair of me to take the wingnuttiest shit that comes from the mouths of some nutjob preacher and say that the Republicans should be held accountable for that? As I've said before, political parties have a very diverse base of members and allies and if they started discussing each and every point made by all of them, they'd not only never get anything done but they'd lose votes. As a pragmatist you know that. I appreciate your desire to score points for your side and all, but come on!

    As for the Potter movies, you can pretty much skip the first two. I'll post a review of the new one later this week.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Peace is more than merely the absence of war, sometimes one has to go through war to get to peace.

    Read me something from Harry Potter sometime ;)

    ReplyDelete
  7. In order to truly understand what peace is, an individual must experience war as well because, one cannot exist without the other. Just as love and hate coexist so to do war and peeace, or good and evil.

    In regards to the Potter movies I diasgree with Jason although they have a Disney like quality to them, not seeing detracts from the overall experience.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hitler can massacre the Jews in Germany, because after all, America should not use her troops to invade another Nation State.

    You should read history or do you just not understand it? Hitler invaded Poland. If the German people wanted Hitler and he stayed within his borders we have no right to invade anymore than if some nation doesn't like the way we treat Native Americans have no right to invade our country or do you think Native Americans can ask some other nation to invade the USA to help return Native land to Native Americans? After all, we broke treaty after treaty we made with Native Americans. So I guess according to you the United States of America can legally be invaded when Native Americans ask for help.
    Or does your world view just allow you and yours to pick which countries get invaded??

    ReplyDelete

Welcome to the Valley! Please comment about the post and keep to the subject.

There is only one person (JSF) keeping track of comments, so as long as what you write is civil and close to the purpose of the post, you will see it.

Keep this in mind: Politics should not be Personal; then you have a place here.

Write! History will remember your words!

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...