Monday, January 21, 2008

Peace Niks and Ron Paulites

The reason I'm writing this is because under the peace movement, you are attempting to move me and our community to your ideals, and ultimately to sacrifice with you.  You'll understand my concern since I don't believe you comprehend at all, the sacrifice your ideal requires.  So, for the record, you should know why I object to your movement. 

First, appeasement is not equal to peace and the results of appeasement is the same whether you are dealing with an abusive father, mother, sibling, spouse, boss, friend, workmate, neighbor, school bully, evil dictator, or world terrorist.  The more you attempt to please them the more displeasure they show.  They are pleased only by your subservience.

Second, peace is not the absence of war or conflict.  If I'm doing everything I can to avoid violence, violent individuals pursue me.  This I know from personal experience.  This refers to social peace specifically.  Peace is achieved through reasoned agreement between all parties of interest.  If even one party remains or becomes unreasonable, peace is lost.  Until reason is restored to that party or that party's interest is removed or neutralized, peace cannot be restored.  We don't necessarily have to meet and negotiate an agreement to establish peace with each and every individual but a peaceful agreement is assumed in a law abiding society.  In the area of specific interests a meeting might be required to establish peaceful agreements.  It is in this vein that I am presently attempting to gain peace with you.

In a case where the abuser is unwilling or unable to reason or compromise only one course of action remains for the abused to obtain peace.  Confront with overwhelming force and establish appropriate boundaries.  The abuser will test the boundaries, which means it usually takes two or more serious confrontations before resolution can be sought again, then, and only then can peace ensue.  Us country fellers call 'at a attitude adjustment.


your movement is counter productive to this process and is ,in my view, socially irresponsible.  I would even go so far as to call it, "self destructive behavior."  Again, my concern is that your movement is attempting to involve me personally as well as my family, our community, our nation, and yes, our world and even if we weren't involved personally we are affected by the consequences.  Early aggression and healthy confrontation can resolve disputes far faster and with much less collateral damage than giving the aggressor whatever they want.  Giving the aggressor what he wants is rewarding his unwanted behavior.  There is no example in history that I know of which would indicate this is a wise strategy.  Ghandi, Jesus, Buddha all stood against the political machine with non-violence but none faced an ideology that could not be shamed for their bloodletting of innocents and all were martyred anyway. 

Applying this wisdom to today's international disputes we observe, we are late to the chore of confronting unreasonable and powerful entities fed by oil money.  It can be argued that we should never have offered support to such men as Osama, and Saddam and I see that you make some good points there, however, this cannot be laid at the feet of George Walker Bush.  The fact is, confrontation was put off until it could not be ignored any longer.  I believe we can no longer afford to wait until an issue won't be ignored.  The threat is too large and too imminent, and we are too vulnerable so that very few resources do massive amounts of damage and cost thousands of innocent lives.  It seems to me to be necessary to make decisions and to take actions that establish healthy boundaries for other leaders displaying erratic and threatening behavior patterns before they bring their aggressive nature to bear on U.S. interests and especially our homeland.  Our diplomats have been and are now attempting to resolve disputes using negotiations and compromises.  Obviously, they aren't always successful, but in a world where hundreds of nations are empowered to great ability to do harm to its neighbors and are vying for largely mutual interests, conflicts are bound to pop up. 


The two embassies that were bombed, the Marine barracks, the first World Trade Center attack, the USS Cole, and the German disco where American military spent their off time were all bombed on Clinton's watch.  These are evidence of the nature I have been describing of avoiding violence only to be pursued by violent people.  Those nations named as the 'axis of evil' escalated their erratic behavior and threatening postures until action was taken.  One was taken down and the other two huffed up.  However, neighboring nations with similar stances toward nuclear arms and terrorist ties began to take notice.  Moammar Khadafi turned his nuclear weapons program out to pasture.  Other leaders toned down their rhetoric considerably. 


Moreover, the evil that occurs under these dictators should be cause enough, under your own claims to civil rights progress,  for international action against them.  The goals you seek are in direct opposition to appeasing or pleasing evil men for the sake of peace and will not achieve it.  Sacrifices are necessary, but the sacrifice of millions of innocent lives by ignoring their plight for our own safety is shameful at best and self destructive at worst.  We are all familiar with the reports of rape rooms, murder, dismemberment, control of free speech, beheadings, electrification, and on, and on,.... under Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il.  Actual evil, not the smear tactics used for political clout against George Bush.  Men who thwart education for their own people, then use their ignorance and violence to subjugate them.  Men who redirect limited funds from feeding and health care of their people who are literally dying of starvation and easily curable diseases and then use those funds to achieve a greater threat against their neighbors and to reward and support threats or create their own threats against the U.S.  I am appalled at your refusal to acknowledge the necessity of action against men who display their willingness to perpetrate great evil on their own people and especially after they display willingness to perpetrate great evil upon our people.


I know from personal experience that "peace at all costs" as an ideal, is far more expensive than we want to think.  Jesus had this attitude and paid the ultimate price.  The difference is, He did it with foreknowledge.  He changed the world with His sacrifice, but you must realize He spent three years preparing the world to receive the truth of His sacrifice.  Yet, even He used force to drive out the money changers and dealers from the temple.  He restored appropriate boundaries and shamed the priests for allowing terrible things to go on there with their blessing. 

While you might be admired for your passion to protest and perhaps even experience real sacrifice, in comparison, your sacrifice isn't valued by your enemies or your brothers as was His for He literally was perfect and did not deserve the punishment He took.  The only reason He took it was because God directed Him to so that it would count as what all of humanity deserved.  Now if you want to argue that Jesus Christ taught us to love our enemies, I've a few questions for you.  1.  Are you ready to give up your life as a witness of Christ?  Because that was what He was saying, "In My Name"  2.  Where did Jesus teach the nation of Israel not to defend itself?  His teachings and speeches were never toward disarming a nation, but of personal responsibility to belief in God and to act in accordance with love toward family, friends and neighbors.  He taught foreigners to follow these same doctrines but He never demanded foreigners lay down there arms either.  3.  Did He ever admonish His disciples for carrying weapons?  He didn't and in fact instructed them to carry weapons. 


Your apparent ignorance on the dangers we face as a nation allows you to take a position that would ultimately lead to the destruction of this nation and indeed the free nations all around the world.  The extremists want to take us all back to the stone age.  In the world they envision, we would all be subject to their particular brand of Islam.  Namely, the Wahabist and the Shia and the Sunni, which would choke down the world economy by preventing all women from education, from even traveling without a male escort, from literally even showing their faces in public.  They would sink us into an eternal war between this and that brand of Islam.  They would demand all non-Muslims would have to pay a special tax, that all non-Muslims would have to give the right of way to Muslims.  That all non-Muslims would not be allowed to freely worship via their own faith or to even congregate together.  They would begin another holocaust on the Jews and don't think it would stop there.  If the moderate Muslims aren't prepared to stand up to these extremists, to reclaim or maintain control of their heritage, then it must be non-Muslims who hold the line of decency.



The Muslims here live better lives within their faith than do those who live in 90% of Muslim territories.  They are typically free to choose which faith they will follow and to what degree they will follow it.  They are vastly better off economically.  Yet, in the American Muslim culture, we see honor killings where self proclaimed 'Moderate Muslims' kill their own children for shaming the family by not wearing the head covering or taking boyfriends.  There is no Islamic country that we can point to and marvel at their industrial success.  Islamo-fascism is not a nation with borders defending their land, and a trained and uniform militia.  These are ideologues spouting hatred and murder and hatching plots against all non-Muslims from all over the globe including right here within our own borders.  They send their children to suicide attack other Muslims for non-compliance to their extremist views.  So, you say, "Bring our troops home!"  and "Stop interfering in other countries affairs!"  If you would bother to look at the history all western nations have with, not nations, but Islamic leaders, you'd know that these are not honorable people.  They had nothing to compete with other economies until members of our business world went over there to help them discover and use their own natural resources.  Yes for profit, profit is the motivation for most of the world economy's advancement.  Then the Muslims steal the technology and the equipment that blessed their economy from those who would do business with them.  Why would any investor want to do business with people like that?  If they were willing to work with the rest of the world with integrity, they would be competitive in the global economy.  Currently, the only way they have been able to influence their own economy is by the oil technology they stole back in the forty's.  With all their oil money they haven't progressed anywhere unless western companies are brought in to provide their services.  They have skills and abilities just like the rest of us, but they have concentrated their efforts toward wars.  Wars with one another, wars with the West, and top most among their efforts, war with Israel.  In every deal made with Israel that fell through, it was the Muslims who broke faith.  In every conflict within Israel, the first blood shed to break the agreement was Jewish and usually happened at a civilian market or on a public bus.  There is no comparison between the culture of Islam and the cultures of Democracy.



I'm not suggesting that all Muslims are crooks or immoral, but I am saying that there is no comparison between those who target innocent civilians and those who protect the civilians of their enemies or even those who will not stand and fight their extremist brothers to prevent these atrocities in the name of Islam.  I often hear your type comparing our military actions to that of Hitler or Stalin but I've got news for you.  Your politics are more closely aligned with fascism than are the militant west.  The idea that humans can create some sort of utopia is where Nazism, Fascism, and Communism was born.  Completely separate from your stance on the war, this philosophy is frightening to me.  Meanwhile, our military and Israel's military are answerable to civilian leadership who are elected by the people and that leadership has term limits to prevent attempts to create their own versions of utopia.

This is a Muslim leader in England refusing to condemn the bombings there last year.  He, in fact, states that he must stand with them in support.  He is an English citizen encouraging English citizens to make devastating attacks on England.  We have them here as well, the difference is they are lauded on our college campus' and among elite circles.  They have schools all over this country where they are reciting the same extreme fanatic doctrines taught in Iranian public schools.

Just a few resources to look at to see for yourselves what they are teaching in grade schools.  GRADE SCHOOLS!!!


1 comment:

Naunie said...

This is pure child abuse. You know I've heard the question. - When will jihadi's stop their love of death, and the answer given was..."when they start to love their children more than they hate us."

I find that answer to be so true.

This shows no love for their children.