Thursday, July 20, 2006

I wish I had written this.

Dennis Kucinich, Kofi Annan and The Pope should all read this article found on

Pacifists versus Peace
By Thomas Sowell

One of the many failings of our educational system is that it sends out into the world people who cannot tell rhetoric from reality. They have learned no systematic way to analyze ideas, derive their implications and test those implications against hard facts.

"Peace" movements are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities. Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called "peace" movements -- that is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war.

Take the Middle East. People are calling for a cease-fire in the interests of peace. But there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else. If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent.

Was World War II ended by cease-fires or by annihilating much of Germany and Japan? Make no mistake about it, innocent civilians died in the process. Indeed, American prisoners of war died when we bombed Germany.

There is a reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" more than a century ago. But he helped end the Civil War with his devastating march through Georgia -- not by cease fires or bowing to "world opinion" and there were no corrupt busybodies like the United Nations to demand replacing military force with diplomacy.

There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated.

"World opinion," the U.N. and "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions.

That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel in the Middle East. The disastrous track record of that approach extends to other times and places -- but who looks at track records?

Remember the Falkland Islands war, when Argentina sent troops into the Falklands to capture this little British colony in the South Atlantic?

Argentina had been claiming to be the rightful owner of those islands for more than a century. Why didn't it attack these little islands before? At no time did the British have enough troops there to defend them.

Before there were "peace" movements and the U.N., sending troops into those islands could easily have meant finding British troops or bombs in Buenos Aires. Now "world opinion" condemned the British just for sending armed forces into the South Atlantic to take back their islands.

Shamefully, our own government was one of those that opposed the British use of force. But fortunately British prime minister Margaret Thatcher ignored "world opinion" and took back the Falklands.

The most catastrophic result of "peace" movements was World War II. While Hitler was arming Germany to the teeth, "peace" movements in Britain were advocating that their own country disarm "as an example to others."

British Labor Party Members of Parliament voted consistently against military spending and British college students publicly pledged never to fight for their country. If "peace" movements brought peace, there would never have been World War II.

Not only did that war lead to tens of millions of deaths, it came dangerously close to a crushing victory for the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese empire in Asia. And we now know that the United States was on Hitler's timetable after that.

For the first two years of that war, the Western democracies lost virtually every battle, all over the world, because pre-war "peace" movements had left them with inadequate military equipment and much of it obsolete. The Nazis and the Japanese knew that. That is why they launched the war.

"Peace" movements don't bring peace but war.

O'Reilly said it best this evening when talking about Hezbollah, Hamas and Al-Queda. And this is not a direct quote, but essentially what he said was that you can't have peace unless both sides want it. If Hezbollah threw all of their weapons into the sea today, there would be peace. Is Israel threw all of their weapons into the sea, there would be a holocaust.

Sphere: Related Content


Anonymous said...

I think it's pretty funny that he wants us to analyze statements and rhetoric and then compare them against hard facts. After saying that he turns around and states "But there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else."

Really, because looking at hard facts I believe there's been far more cease-fires between the French and the British in their close to millenium of strife. How about the several millenia (sp?) of conflict between Greece and Turkey. I mean if you stretch that back to include the conflicts of Athens vs. Troy then I'm pretty sure their cease-fires outnumber the Isreal vs The Rest Of Them conflicts.

Now if he has said "In the last fifty years there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else" he probably would be correct. I'm inclined to say that he is deffinitly correct but I don't have any data/hard facts to support that conclusion. But that's just my analysis of his rhetoric.

Falling Panda said...

But in the days of Troy, they didn't have guns, so how could it be a cease-"fire?"

A cease-blade perhaps.

Come to think of it I guess they had catapultes, with which they could fling large flaming objects at eachother so I guess the term could be considred appropriate.

Anonymous said...

Holy shnikes Batman, I actually agree with Pat Buchanon.

VE said...

To which I still say to this author - if you feel so strongly about it, stop with the rhetoric and the essay writing and go to your local recruitment office and go FIGHT!

Falling Panda said...

Ok. If you're going to make everyone who has an opinion supporting a war fight, perhaps we should only allow those who are in the armed forces vote. Hello GOP super majority.

VE said...

Why only? Where's the logic in that?

Anonymous said...

Everyone who supports the war doesn't have to enlist, but it is pretty amazing that most of the national figures calling for all out war on most of the Middle East and possibly North Korea have never served in the military.

It's also interesting that there's calls to support the troops on both sides of the aisles while the budgets for the VA and GI Bill of Rights are being drastically cut.

Personally I think it's a antional disgrace that we have homeless vets that can't get help and medical attention at a VA hospital. I'll gladly pay more in taxes if our vets can come back and get the free education they were promissed.

VE said...

All of what's said being said -

I do think that blind pacificism is pretty ridiculous. It's a form of delusion. Kind of like blind faith.

Can I go on record and say that al-Zawahri is a douchebag and needs to take a bullet? "All the world is a battlefield, Islam must reign from Spain to Iraq." OK, dude.

Anonymous said...

Maybe if more of us joined up we could understand statements like this better

""It sucks. Honestly, it just feels like we're driving around waiting to get blown up. That's the most honest answer I could give you," said Spec. Tim Ivey, 28, of San Antonio, a muscular former backup fullback for Baylor University...."