To: Victor Lazlo who wrote (154590 ) 3/22/2003 5:21:54 PM From: Oeconomicus Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 164684 Vic, did you see the pair Peter Jennings interviewed last night? They were a couple of protestors ABC had picked out from a NY protest (I think it was NY) to give them a chance to explain why they oppose the war. One of them (it may have been both - I lost interest after the first) was a recent college grad whose only job was as a professional protest organizer. He couldn't construct a coherent sentence, much less an argument against the war more persuasive than "we just think war isn't the solution." I don't think he really knows what it is he opposes, except that he opposes Bush. Others I've seen interviewed are ranting about the evils of capitalism or about "corrupt" and "imperialistic" intent to oppress and enslave the Islamic world and other such nonsense. Many of them are just overly idealistic peace-niks who may genuinely believe that if we simply refuse to fight wars, then everyone else will too - if we never threaten force, but instead just nicely reason with governments and leaders when issues arise, then everyone else will be reasonable too, as if being nice to Saddam Hussein will make him a benevolent leader instead of a murderous tyrant. If any of them have studied history, it didn't take. Wishing for an end to evil and tyranny has never worked. PS: Jimmy Carter is another idealist who thinks you can settle anything just by being reasonable. He even got a Nobel Prize for his one successful effort at "peace through reasoning nicely," but the key difference then was that the leaders of both Israel and Egypt wanted peace between their nations - both sides were willing to be reasonable and then abide by their agreement. That doesn't work when one side is not reasonable, is not interested in peace, and has no intention of abiding by any agreement.