BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Wall Street Journal asks: What's your opinion of the peace movement?

  
 
grant
11:52 / 01.10.01
They're running an informal poll, and this is today's question.

Thus far, 20% support it. 65% oppose it but respect it. 16% believe it should be shut down by the government.

There's also a space for text replies/message board as well as votes.

The highest message in the queue thus far:
quote:We should name the Death Camps of Russia and Nazi Germany after the peace movement and its leaders. Adolph Hitler and his top lieutenants bragged repeatedly to all that the presence of large numbers of pacifists in England, France, etc, guaranteed that none would oppose him. Pacifists bear the responsibility for the obscene wars that have been fought in the 20th century. The fool’s gold of pacifism, though sounding like good intentions are the paving stones for the road to Hell. There is nothing new about their wrong headed, wishful thinking. In the earliest colonial days when Indians were scalping the immigrants in the fields right sight of the settler’s village (sometimes with the encouragement of the British or French Army) some people wouldn’t arm themselves and the sane Colonists had to pass laws requiring every able bodied male settler to own a rifle, powder, shot and fuse or flint and to bring it to church every Sunday to prove he still had it. So great was the problem in some places that some Colonies enacted laws fining resident citizens who gave comfort or shelter to Quakers. What price must be paid to stamp out the pacifists? Probably up to half the graves in our Military cemeteries around the world are there because after providing the fertile fields in which to start a war, the citizens, whose development the pacifists influenced, answered the call and were ill prepared to fight successfully until better trained by contact with the enemy. Imagine! Even after all these years I am still thunderstruck by the knowledge that millions of people let the Communists and Nazis force them out of their homes, strip their babies and wives from their arms and they and their families, separately, went peacefully to death camps or slave labor camps where they simply worked or did as they were told until they died. Truth is indeed stranger than fiction. If you love your children you cannot just feed and shelter them until they grow up. A parent who truly loves his child will teach the child to be strong and teach those who can be strong to protect the weak.

Perhaps this is why, until the human race can be made more perfect by elimination of all pacifists, the Bible tells us: “There will be wars”.
Nelson G Chenaur
 
 
Ethan Hawke
12:11 / 01.10.01
This is one of the most insane things I have ever read. Nothing else to say.
 
 
grant
12:30 / 01.10.01
Go, ye, and respond.

I did. Can't wait to see what pops up in response to mine....
 
 
gentleman loser
12:57 / 01.10.01
This is exactly what I'd expect from people who read a right wing rag like the Wall Street Journal.

Oh yeah, like the U.S. never backed up genocidal madmen before. Guess who trained Bin Laden? That's right, the CIA did!
 
 
sleazenation
13:03 / 01.10.01
hmm there is of course the alternative view that the warmongers will kill each other while the pacifists will be the only ones left to inherit the earth...
 
 
Eloi Tsabaoth
16:42 / 01.10.01
Nah, they'll all be dead too. Nuclear Weaponry and all that.
 
 
FinderWolf
17:23 / 01.10.01
My response is that in certain extreme circumstances, peace is not an option. I think the whoever wrote that repsonse listed above (the big one from the WSJ website) is correct in that in some cases, an aggressor will hope no resistance will be offered, and if no resistance is offered, it makes the aggressor's life much easier, to continue his aggression. There is the bully analogy which does bear some relevance here: some bullies won't stop until you stand up to them. The same goes for many situations in life. "turn the other cheek" is great, something to aspire to, but in everyday life it's not always the best solution. (and I say this is a Catholic, albeit a very liberal Catholic - after all, I do magick)

I do realize the US has blood on its hands, but I also believe that the US has tried to conduct itself with some moral compass. Of the things we've done that have been questionable or violent, I think that 55% were done with some moral justification, and 45% with totally selfish economic motivates in mind.

Point being it's not as simple as "The US is horrible and corrupt and a horrible bully who keeps everyone down and is totally only out for itself and just as horrible as those who took 6,000 lives two weeks ago."

But it's also not as simple as "America, love it or leave it, pinkie liberals! We're perfect and they're all evil, evil, evil!!"

I'm aware that of all the things we've done, the sanctions on Iraq are the worst and should be stopped, since they are just starving the people and not hurting Hussein. But then again, Hussein and the gov't, corruption, etc. there doesn't let all the supplies that ARE given get to the people.

I'm just saying sometimes violence is necessary to stop worse violence being committed (moving to stop Hitler being the famous example). And from what I've been reading about the Taliban over the past 8 months, waay before these attacks, the Taliban seems to be the closest thing to Nazi Germany we've got today. I was reading stories about them in the newspapers, and on CNN, for months.....they were always B or C level stories.

This is also part of the famous quandary, when does America try to 'police the world,' and when do we just sit by? As much criticism as I've heard for the USA interfering too much in the world, when we provided relief in Somalia (which led to Bin Laden and his groups killed marines and dragging one US serviceman's body through the streets, bragging about it, only because we had US military on their soil, which they felt defiled their sacred land), I read articles saying "Gee, why don't you stop these 5 other genocides currently happening in the world?"

I'm getting to the point where I feel like no matter what the US does, it gets relentless criticized; either we help too little, or we help too much.

In this instance, with this "War On Terrorism", I don't think "give peace a chance" is the answer here. But I also respect the fact that this administration is trying to use diplomatic, financial, and intelligence means and not just lashing out like crazy with a mindless thirst for revenge.

Many people have pointed out the fact that since no one has taken responsibility for these attacks (as sure an act of cowardice as writing an angry letter to the New York Times and wanting it signed Name Withheld or Anonymous), there's no one to negotiate WITH even if they HAD demands. And if they did have demands, do you really want to give in to them and show the world that you cave in to terrorist demands??

Much has also been made of the idea that these terrorist groups don't even have a particular goal in mind.....at this point, it's just about killing Jews and Americans, as many as possible, as Bin Laden literally said himself in his fax recently. How different does "kill all Jews and Americans" sound than "kill all Jews"?

Also, peace activists, I notice, don't have a concrete idea of HOW this can be solved peacefully.......in fact, I haven't heard a single proposal of how you're supposed to handle this with total peace.

It seems they just say 'no violence,' 'no war,' and when asked, "well, how would you handle this peacefully?" EVERY SINGLE PERSON I've asked has said "I have no idea, but no war!"

Food for thought......
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
17:36 / 01.10.01
Tried to post. Twice. For some reason, can't get to do it. BUT I will say, for the benefit of Barbelith, even though those wise luminaries that purchase the WSJ each and every day will miss out on this particular piece of sage advice...
THAT SUCKS SHIT.
(Believe me, I had a well-reasoned, impassioned, 4-500 word piece perfectly concocted in my head, all set to go... damn these computer problems...)
But I repeat- that SUCKS SHIT. And not in a good way.
 
 
FinderWolf
17:52 / 01.10.01
uh....what "sucks shit">? Your message doesn't even make clear what you feel "sucks shit."
 
 
grant
19:23 / 01.10.01
I simply posted (I did it by "replying" to one of the prior messages) that war isn't the answer, it's not even logical given the circumstances. A precise, no-collateral-damage police action is what's called for.
There's a difference between "peace" and "appeasement."
 
 
FinderWolf
16:43 / 02.10.01
I think almost everyone with any intelligence agrees that a precise, no-collateral damage police action is what's called for. And that's what our government is doing. Except there's no way in heaven or hell you can launch that kind of police action and guarantee absolutely NO collateral damage. But at least I take some heart in the fact that the US and Britain have made repeated statements that they are trying to be as precise and specific as possible and trying to minimize collateral damage (let's just call a spade a spade, "civilian casualties") as much as possible.

I think the word war is being lobbied around in the sense of the War On Drugs......everyone knows it's going to be an extended, long term police action campaign. I think the word war is also being used because this attack was the worst ever on US soil, staggering in its scope, losses, and economic toll. Basically, it was a clear act of war if there ever was one. If that wasn't an act of war, what is?
 
 
Frances Farmer
17:12 / 02.10.01
I attempted to post there, but in both cases my post was censored. At least, I assume so, based on the fact that other, more recent posts have appeared in the dozens since last I attempted to post. Assuming they're dated by when they're submitted as opposed to when they're put up, and noting the fact the my posts contained no profanity... It's pretty clear.

I'm telling you, we're all fucked.
 
 
Frances Farmer
20:17 / 02.10.01
And before I make myself out to be any more of a freak (and believe me, I am), the WSJ discussion system forces a post to be approved by a moderator before it appears, so they're all filtered - so this isn't unfounded paranoia.

[ 03-10-2001: Message edited by: Frances ]
 
  
Add Your Reply