>>>Millions of people poured into the streets of cities from Melbourne to New York on Saturday February 15 to protect Saddam Hussein from an imminent American attempt to disarm and dethrone him and disable his arsenal of chemical, biological and proto-nuclear weapons.<<<
Amazing that people would do what's described above, don't you think? Would less than reasonable person say that what Horowitz sensationally wrote above is a bit, if not a lengthy one, of a reach? Fact is only a hardliner would disagree. And Howowitz is hardliner. So much for middle ground!
>>>They professed concern about Iraqi children (bearing mock bodies to symbolize their alarm) but marched in solidarity with Palestinians and Arabs who kill their own children by strapping bombs to them and telling them to blow up other children -- Jew children -- so that they will go to heaven and their families will receive a $25,000 reward.<<<
One might consider folks will go to great lengths to rid oppression. Does Howowitz at all think Palestians are repressed? Maybe he doesn't. If not, he certainly should consider the the true fact that they are. The Palestinian leader is treated like a child who can't leave the house, for example. Nice politics, huh?
>>>In politics intentions count for nothing; actions are what matter. If the marchers are successful, Saddam will survive to be stronger than ever. All over the Middle East and the Muslim world fanatical haters of Americans, Christians and Jews will take heart from Saddam's successful defiance, will draw the conclusion that the West is weak, and will be inspired to commit new atrocities against its most defenceless citizens.<<<
First, I suppose I should point out to Mr. Horowitz that Iraq's vice premier is a Christian. But the larger consideration is this: when and how often, in America, has a politicians' actions been on behalf of the people, instead of him or herself, the politician? I know there's a few. But not many! And can anyone, including Mr. Horowitz, name 'em?
And to think Mr. Howowitz so easily, now, would discount the future historian who'd write about martydom? And an even better question: Do people, in the present, think to act upon perceived martydom? Could such action make matters worse?
What's weak about the Western thought is, if anything, its mindset: "Why can't those people act like us!" Believe me, there's good reason why they don't. Maybe even better reason why the shouldn't. Anyway, at least we should consider that it might have something to do with who we are, how we think and what we Westerners wish to control.
As to Muslim hatred, has Horowitz even begun to consider the degree of determination that might ignite should a largely Muslim nation of 22 million, of which 42 percent are children under 15, get bombed into smithereens from America's weaponry? The deathcount sure has its effect on those who want for peace; but the deathcount can most assuredly have its affects on those who'd want revenge.
>>>All the marches were organized by supporters of Communist and other totalitarianisms, and by the fifth column agents of Islamo-fascism. All the demonstrations promoted Iraqi war propaganda -- myths about starving children and about alleged mercernary interests behind American policy; all of them had one purpose -- to disarm the American force already in the Middle East and allow Saddam to fight another day.<<<
I hate to say it, folks. But I think here Horowitz has lost it completely. Most who were demonstrating would prefer that Bush take his military to North Korea where there exists a real threat, a real need and this an issue that those marching in the streets could probably get behind.
>>>It is true that some of the marchers were well-intentioned or at least not so blind yet that they could look past the evil that is the regime in Iraq. What of it? What could be more irrelevant than splitting critical hairs when your country is under attack and your actions serve the aggressors?<<<
And I suppose, first, I should ask Mr. Horowitz, when did the Iraq ever attack the Americans?
Over the years, I've had lots of experience with protestors. More than not, there has been, is and likely always will be, some method to the madness, i.e., a true reason to march in protest. Some protests are sorta fake, like when Saddam puts people into the streets. Believe me, the protesters who marched this weekend, throughout the whole world, know the difference.
Hey, I got an idea. Mr. Howowitz, why don't you organize a demonstration of people who want this war. I sincerely doubt you'll come anywhere near the numbers we saw this weekend.
>>>During the Cold War there were many intelligent souls on the left who joined the "peace" demonstrations in the West organized by Communists and their supporters, but described themselves as "anti-anti-Communists." They meant by this that they knew that Communism was bad, but were against the cold warriors who were locked in mortal combat with the Soviet empire. The Gorbachev regime in their eyes was bad, but Ronald Reagan was a "warmonger" and therefore worse.<<<
People who march in the streets for peace are people who march in the streets for peace, then, today and, most likely, tomorrow. What kind of diversion is Mr. Howowitz attempting here?
>>>The anti-anti-Communists may have been good at stimulating critical discussion. A democracy can always benefit from dissenters because no faction has a monopoly on truth. But in practice the decent opponents of Cold War encouraged the Communists to hold onto their slave empire and resist the presures of the free world. In the end it was Ronald Reagan and the Cold Warriors he led who stymied the Communists' ambitions, brought down the Soviet empire and liberated more than a billion people. In the scales of that historic struggle, when it came to mobilizing the military resources that backed the enemy down, the anti-anti-Communists ultimately put their weight on the other side of the scale.<<<
I think any free-thinking economist in the world then, and today, would conclude that what brought the Cold War down was economics, not practical wisdom. A nation can only put so much of its money into war machinery, and not its people, before trouble arises. Fact is, the Soviet Union went bankrupt and could't afford war no more. Hey, maybe we should all be poor--lol! As to the scales of the "historic struggle?" We ain't cool yet, Mr. Horowitz? Indeed, America, because of the way it's going, still needs a dictator or few.
>>>During the Vietnam War -- the clearest parallel to the present events -- the anti-war movement was organized by Communists who wanted the other side to win. The non-Communists who joined their marches, whatever their intentions, served the same practical end. America was divided at home and these divisons evnetually forced its armies to retreat from the field of battle.<<<
Middle America marched then; Middle America marched this weekend. As to division? I think the middle roaders can be persuaded here or there and Bush is working very hard at this. But what do the very vast majority of people really think? And what would they think if all of the accurate information was before them? Indeed, the very best pr folk and the very best pollsters do know how to move the middle, a tilt here, a tilt there. And we're only talking about the folks who are known as "voters." I know the rest don't count. But I do know they have feelings. Maybe if things get bad enough that element will someday manifest itself. But when it does, I doubt they'll be agreeing with Mr. Horowitz.
>>>As a result, the Communists won and proceeded to slaughter two-and-a-half million peasants in Indo-China between 1975 and 1978. This is the scenario that the people (mostly the same people) who are leading Saturday's protests hope to accomplish: the defeat of the West and the triumph of Islamo-fascism and its friends.<<<
Well, read this first:
users.erols.com
I'll simply write the death toll would have been worst, had Nixon not, stubbornly, concluded the Vietnam War's end.
As to the folks who organized the peace rallies? There were four organizations, some more radical than others. What does Mr. Horowitz expect the radicals to do, sit on the sidelines and let other people organize and march? I wonder if Mr. Horowitz were to do a search on how coalitioin governments goven, whether or not he'd find everybody in tune? If this is so for coalition governments--including Israel--why can't it be so for peace marches?
>>>Today's "peace" movement -- the innocent-intentioned along with the malevolent rest -- is a fifth column army in our midst working for the other side. Already their leaders have warned that if the United States remains determined to oppose this totalitarian evil and stay its intended course, they will act within our borders to "disrupt the flow of normal life" and sabotage the war. This is ultimately the most ominous threat Americans face. Abroad we can conquer any foe. The real danger lies at home.
Perhaps this is an opening to ask: What is "normal life?" And does Horowitz really think there's only a "today's peace movement" and tomorrow's won't manifest? Please someone, somewhere, tickle Mr. Horowitz! Tickle him into giving up the bombs, at least.
Does Mr. Horowitz really think we should be concerned about a few radicals who helped organize a peace demonstration? Oh, well. Just for the sake of argument, let's ask: If the radicals had peace in the world, what would they do? March for nothing? If Horowitz had peace in the world--would we even know he exists?
One last question, Mr. Horowitz? Where can I go and march to protest this enormous snowstorm I'm now seeing in New England? Is your opinion actually more like a snowflake? Probably is. But I assure you, each person marching this weekend were like lots of snowflakes, a storm of them, wanting nothing more sunshine. Not what you suggest. |
