Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (136640)	6/14/2004 5:20:00 PM
From: exdaytrader76	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Like this guy: commonvoice.com Don't support your local pacifist Robert Meyer June 13, 2004 I read with interest the interviews that were printed in a locally circulating tabloid, that chronicled the opinions of leaders from some of the area’s pacifist organizations--a few of which picketed March 30th, when the president came to give a speech in my hometown. Certainly nobody should fault the idea of resolving conflicts by reaching out to their fellow human, rather than via bellicose engagements. And we should preface this discussion by acknowledging that all wars at their root derive from the evil tendencies in humanity. The problem is that the expectation that nations of diverse ideologies can always reconcile without armed conflict, parlays a flawed understanding of human nature. The result is often avoiding what is unpleasantly necessary, resulting in our greater long-term detriment. As contemplated from a Christian world and life view, I believe that humanity is plunged into a fallen state of depravity, thus humanity cannot create an eventual utopia by pulling itself up by its own bootstraps or wishing things could be as such. This is why I consider blank-check pacifism such a dangerous philosophy. One who defines peace as "absence of conflict", will capitulate to virtual slavery as the purchase price for his or her esteemed peace. There will always be wars and rumors of wars, because as humans, we are often led by the deceit of our hearts, not the purity of the highest reason. The late columnist Michael Kelly once alluded to George Orwell, who had observed that the pacifists in Britain before WWII, were functionally pro-fascist, because their protests delayed actions against Hitler until the cost of stopping him was greatest. The pacifists today have the same stifling affect on the war against terrorism. They make it possible for the enemies of this nation to hope that a "divide and conquer strategy will succeed. It amazes me that people who are otherwise theologically illiterate, will play the Sermon on the Mount card, thinking they can yoke the responsibilities of the State to commandments pertaining to interpersonal relationships and the body of believers. These people are apparently oblivious to the fact that orthodox Christianity teaches a "two kingdoms concept"; the duties of the church being the ministry of grace, while the civil government is charged with administering justice. So many of those individuals who cry about "separation of church and state", whenever they object to political policies emanating from religious convictions, suddenly what the state to behave like the church in prosecuting a war. An odd paradox indeed. I could put up a yard sign that says "War isn't the answer", but that would assume the question is always the same. Why not take the sign to Iraq? It takes two to Tango, and I think we would gain more ground convincing those who cut other people's heads off, rather than spewing hatred toward our leaders. Perhaps we presume rule number one: America is always wrong. Or rule number two: go back to rule number one. The pacifists seem to live in a fantasy world, where all we need to do is be nice to the terrorists, and they would stop doing the atrocities we dislike. They can’t seem to comprehend that radical Islam does not promote an ideology of "live and let live" or any form of peaceful coexistence without conversion or capitulation. Their desire for world domination is more closely characterized as "by conquest or by consent". I also find that these pacifists have caught themselves in an interesting "catch 22". They hate the impositions they claim this administration has placed on civil liberties. They want people to have the unfettered right to choose abortions, engage in sodomy, or view pornography, yet are these not some of the same reasons the terrorists of radical Islam have viewed America as "the great Satan"? Now the same group wants to make peace with these people without any moral reforms. The ultimate form of "having your cake, but eating it also". I heard stories of much belligerence directed toward supporters of the president downtown at the convection center on March 30th. This is only anecdotal evidence, but it seems that the pacifists can be robustly militant themselves. I want to see someone get along amiably with their dissenting neighbor before I trust them in the administration of world peace.