Peace Protesters: Where were you?

[AvidReader]

*Originally posted by smiling bandit *
**Sentient There is more than mere national interest in the US as it is. Moreover, you still have not actually adressed my concerns. Merely brushing them off as a silly matter of that old nationalism is a rather unintellectual idea. Can you actually do so or are you simply working from axoim? **

Huh?

[Unix_Geek]

This has been all very interesting … But it doesn’t address the OP. I think that the debate should be this:

Given that the Peace Protesters (especially the ones who are being human shields within Iraq) are willing to risk their lives for a cause, shouldn’t they be defending a more worthy cause? Instead of defending a ruthless dictator shouldn’t they have been in Rwanda standing over a young child to protect it from being slashed to death by a machette? Shouldn’t they be trying to sneak into North Korea with sacks of grain tied to their backs? Shouldn’t they be holding hands through the middle of Sudan? Instead of spending money to take a trip to New York, Paris, London to hang out with your friends and march through the streets, wound not it have been better to spend that money and time helping a disadvantaged kid to learn to read?

If you are that dedicated to helping the world we need you to spend that energy in places other than helping a ruthless dictator to stay in power.

[Kimstu]

UG: Given that the Peace Protesters (especially the ones who are being human shields within Iraq) are willing to risk their lives for a cause, shouldn’t they be defending a more worthy cause?

Um, the human shields in Iraq are risking their lives at civilian/humanitarian sites in the hope of saving the lives of innocent civilians. I can’t really think of a worthier cause than that.

Instead of defending a ruthless dictator

Who’s defending Saddam Hussein, or claiming that he’s good for Iraq? Nobody I know in the peace movement, that’s for sure.

If you are that dedicated to helping the world we need you to spend that energy in places other than helping a ruthless dictator to stay in power.

Sorry, we’re not doing this to help a ruthless dictator to stay in power. We’re doing it to try to save the lives of at least tens of thousands of innocent civilians, as well as to avert probable catastrophes as a result of chaos and instability in wartime and post-war Iraq. Trying to smear these efforts as support for Saddam isn’t fooling anybody.

[december]

*Originally posted by Kimstu *
Sorry, we’re not doing this to help a ruthless dictator to stay in power. We’re doing it to try to save the lives of at least tens of thousands of innocent civilians, as well as to avert probable catastrophes as a result of chaos and instability in wartime and post-war Iraq. Trying to smear these efforts as support for Saddam isn’t fooling anybody.

I agree that the peace protestors’ motive is not to help Saddam stay in power. (Although I’m not so sure that the leaders from ANSWER feel this way.) Nevertheless, if the protestors are successful in preventing a US attack, the almost certain result is that Saddam will stay in power. Alistair Cooke has a marvelous essay drawing a parallel with the peace movement in the late 1930’s.

…and 10 million of 11 million British voters had signed a so-called peace ballot.

It stated no conditions, elaborated no terms, it simply counted the numbers of Britons who were “for peace”.

The slogan of this movement was “Against war and fascism” - chanted at the time by every Labour man and Liberal and many moderate Conservatives - a slogan that now sounds as imbecilic as “against hospitals and disease”.

In blunter words a majority of Britons would do anything, absolutely anything, to get rid of Hitler except fight him.