I remember during my leftist days, "peace" was a means to itself. Yet I notice now that all the anti-US peaceniks don't require "peace" for everybody. They admire Hezbollah, Hamas, and the various anti-democrats in Iraq; those people are "freedom fighters" seeking "independance." The peaceniks do not demand that those anti-democrats practice "peace", only those whom they fire upon. But is "peace" always the best route forward?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Paul, your nonsense about "anti-democrats" is just that: nonsense.
Hamas was democratically elected, but that didn't stop the Bush Administration from rejecting talks with them.
Anyway, self-defense is an acceptable precept for fighting. I am a pacifist by nature. I hate to fight, and will go out of my way to avoid fighting. But self-defense is often necessary. I say this as a disciple of Malcolm X who taught us that we should be peaceful, but if someone is violent with us, we should defend ourselves.
The actions of Hezbollah, Hamas and the insurgents in Iraq would be classified under self-defense as they are responding to the aggressive actions of Israel and the US.
Paul, on the other hand, believes that a people should be passive and allow tanks to murder their children if the politicians ordering the tanks claim they are bringing democracy to those murdered children. I wonder if he would stand by and allow his daughters to die if they were attacked by Canadians promising health care for all and a social safety net for poor people.
Post a Comment