For the last hundred years the best and brightest of the civilized world have been engaged in the business of peace. In the days before the Nobel Peace Prize became a joke, it was expected that scientific progress would lead to moral progress. (Snip) Since the League of Nations folded, the warring peoples of the world have added the atom bomb, the suicide bomber, the jet plane, the remotely guided missile, the rape squad, the IED, the child soldier and the stealth fighter to their arsenals.
The fallacies of modern liberalism are based upon a willful misunderstanding of human beings, beginning with themselves. Their basic assumptions are false and obstinately unexamined. Leftist schemes can never succeed because people do not think and act the way they would have to in order for such fantasies to become real. Leftism represents a rejection of reality and a refusal to learn from experience.
It is not always a matter of simple ignorance. Most Americans, as we know from studies, are almost unbelievably ignorant of history. That might seem to explain their lack of understanding of present events, but it is not that simple. For many who are thus ignorant of history are wise to the ways of human beings; while many, perhaps most with graduate and post-graduate training in history still manage to delude themselves about the documented behavior and nature of human beings, even though there are thousands of years of data to make plain what is plain to most people from introspection and daily experience.
War is not an unfortunate, unnecessary, always undesirable and avoidable misunderstanding and misfortune. War is what we, i.e. human beings, do. It is an essential part of who and what we are. Pretending otherwise puts us at the greatest possible peril from enemies who do not, like us, indulge in the luxury of wishful thinking.
Liberals don´t think beyond the obvious, you want peace, forbid war, too much poverty, everyone must share. They cannot comprehend the sense of ´if you want peace practice for war´ or ´if you want less poverty in society individuals have to first help themselves.´ That those ways work to bring peace and prosperity is just history and yet liberals never learn them.
This is sick and this guy is, himself, immoral. How sad that he has a following.
Peace *is* better than war. And those who cannot see that live in darkness. The utter lack of imagination, the lack of wisdom, the lack of understanding is stunning. War is hell and those who celebrate it and advocate for it and desire it have lost touch with their humanity. It is better to reach for an impossible goal - an ideal like peace - than it is to sink to the level of evil itself.
Since the doves forced the U.S. to lose the Vietnam War it seems nations including the U.S. merely "play war." There are rules, civilians have to be protected, captives have to be treated humanely and sent back home, you don´t bomb haphazardly, etc. War used to be war, you fought until one side surrendered and you brought that surrender about as fast as possible. Sometimes war was for conquest, conversely sometimes to prevent the conquest of your own country, sometimes to save people from dictatorships, sometimes like the American Civil War to free a group of people from slavery (but give the freed people something to do next time, Lincoln). Hamas isn´t going to give up, the Taliban aren´t going to give up, Al Quaeda isn´t going to give up, China won´t give up nor will Russia. It´s either kill or be killed, no holds barred and to the victor belongs the spoils. The U.S. won´t be the victor in the next real war, Israel will be.
If peace is the absence of war, it must also be the absence of evil, and that will never be. So, if evil will always be, then peace must be the containment of evil. Unless technology reveals a way to contain evil without violence, we’re resigned to living with war.
Sorry, Libs and Peaceniks, get used to it. As George Will put it, paraphrased, perhaps, “For us to enjoy peace, there must be hard men on the wall, ready to visit violence upon those who would harm us.”
It is by no means obvious that peace is always better than war. Subtract the great wars of history and the world would at the very least look very different. Suppose, for example, the Persians and not the Greeks had won the Persian War(s)? Suppose Hitler and the Axis had won World War II?
If peace is always and without exception better than war, then it follows that slavery is at least some of the time better than freedom. Other things follow, too, e.g. genocide.
It is a Straw Man fallacy to argue that peace is better than war. It also contains the elements of petitio principii, or begging the question, which presumes that war is always avoidable and that the avoidance of war is always good.
But the questions, the answers to which are obvious to most but not all, are these: Is war always avoidable? Is the avoidance of war always good?
There is a third question, the most important of all: what is the best way to minimize the risk of war? About this, wise men and those who have studied the matter are in near universal agreement: the best way to minimize the risk of war is to be prepared to fight and win. Strength deters, while weakness invites aggression.
And aggression is a permanent and inextricable element of human nature. Even those who profess to be in favor of peace manifest their own aggression to those who remind others of the persistence and ubiquity of war!
The left, I submit, knows the essence of this article extremely well. They are not simply naive to push their ´peace at any cost´ ideology. It is a deliberate attempt to force unilateral dis-armament by the Democratic West. Just watch Zippy´s ´defense´ policy for these eight years.
It´s unfortunate that those who advocate the loudest for peace seldom create it. Instead they brutally crush the realists in their midst in the name of a utopian idea, and seldom, if ever, recognize the irony or evil of their methodology. Peaceniks lie to themselves and others and then proceed to make war on reality. What a mess!
The GOP isn´t known as the stupid party for nothing. They are against women, against gays, against Latinos, against the poor and the needy, against anything other than what they believe
but hey! they are *for* war - lol absolutely - go out and sell that - lol
At some point you have to realize that you must stand for something that is true - peace *is* better tha war - something that is beautiful and war *is* ugly - and something that is good. Peace is filled with goodness.
Because something is hard is a stupid reason to give up on it.
Methinks # 6 is still self medicating with the rest of the left over losers of the ´60´s generation.....
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stewart Mills
Si vis pacem, para bellum. If you seek peace, prepare for war. This is a principle which has kept our nation safe for over two hundred years. Those times we have been least prepared for war, we have come closest to destruction.
FTA ~ "The business of peace is the industry of death. Behind the peace sign is a field of flowers with a grave for every one. Behind the peace agreement and the ceasefire is another war that will be worse than the last."
Almost 14 years ago, the inaugural issue of Policy Review under newly appointed editor Tod Lindberg ran an essay of mine called “Why Ritalin Rules.” It observed that American children were taking psychotropic drugs at (then-) record rates; that some doctors and other experts believed methylphenidate (the generic name for Ritalin) was being over-prescribed; that the disorder for which it and related stimulants were given — Attention Deficit Disorder/Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder — included a uniquely protean symptoms checklist; and that the line between science and advocacy was hard to find in the bustling pediatric zone of the psychotropic universe. Alongside
ABC-Disney’s Barbara Walters discusses the legacy media’s initial take on Barack Obama with Time-Warner-CNN-HBO spokesman Piers Morgan: “We thought that he was going to be — I shouldn’t say this at Christmastime — but the next messiah,” as spotted by Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters: PIERS MORGAN, HOST: You have interviewed every president of my lifetime. Why is Obama facing so much opposition now? Why is he struggling so much to really fulfill the great flame of ambition and excitement that he was elected on originally in 2009? BARBARA WALTERS: Well, you’ve touched on it to a degree. He made so many promises.
Since taking office, Barack Obama has run the table on congressional Republicans, racking up one government-expanding victory after another — from the stimulus to Dodd-Frank, Obamacare and the $620 billion in fiscal-cliff tax increases. The GOP’s sole victory — its one, lonely government-reducing achievement — was the passage of the Budget Control Act in 2011. Now, House Republicans are retroactively conceding that fight, too. Thanks to the Budget Control Act, the status quo for the first time favors fiscal responsibility. If Congress does nothing, government spending is set to go down automatically next year. For years, the default position in Washington has
TMI, Barbara, TMI; “Barbara Walters Warmly Recalls Holding Fidel Castro’s Gun In Her Lap,” as spotted by Newsbusters: The December 23 edition of People magazine looks through old pictures with Barbara Walters as she “looks back on her most memorable moments” in five decades of television interviews. During her 1977 interview with Fidel Castro “I spent 10 days with him, traveled through the mountains and held his gun in my lap,” she said. “People thought we had a romance, but we never did.” Makes you wonder whether she was there for more than the Roquefort cheese morsels rolled in crushed nuts when she
2014 will be the year Republicans are forced to deal with the Obamacare Trap, helpfully set for them by the Democratic authors of the Affordable Care Act. In 2009 and 2010, President Obama and his party took a health care system in which 85 percent had insurance coverage, and blew it up. Now, with Obamacare causing misery right and left, those same Democrats are screaming, "You can´t go back!" The national health care scheme they designed is so complex and has already embedded itself so deeply in the health care system, they argue, that it can never be repealed. The only course
Terry Lee Loewen was just a laid-back, warmhearted avionics technician—or so his family thought. But in a farewell letter, he said he wanted to inflict ‘maximum carnage’ in Wichita. The supposed truck bomb contained no explosives, but the 58-year-old Kansas man arrested in an FBI sting at the Wichita airport on Friday was potentially the most dangerous kind of homegrown terrorist. Others such as the alleged Boston Marathon bombers and the would-be Times Square bomber tailored their attacks to allow them to avoid capture. The Kansas man, Terry Lee Loewen, allegedly was not simply willing but anxious to take his own life in
It was only five years ago in December that Al Gore claimed that the polar ice caps would be completely melted by now. But he might be surprised to find out that Arctic ice coverage is up 50 percent this year from 2012 levels. “Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore said in 2008. The North Pole is still there, and growing. BBC News reports that data from Europe’s Cryosat spacecraft shows
A&E broke its silence on Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson’s anti-gay comments late Wednesday. The cable network announced Robertson is off the hit show for the time being. The network issued the following statement to EW: “We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”
President Barack Obama sent Russia a clear message about its treatment of gays and lesbians with who he is — and isn’t — sending to represent the United States at the Sochi Olympics. Billie Jean King will be one of two openly gay athletes in the U.S. delegation for the opening and closing ceremonies, Obama announced Tuesday. For the first time since 2000, however, the U.S. will not send a president, former president, first lady or vice president to the Games. Russia has come under fierce criticism for passing national laws banning “gay propaganda.” Though the White House did not specifically address
Is this man simply expressing his beliefs or spewing bigotry?Either way, Phil Robertson, the patriarch in A&E´s "Duck Dynasty," won´t be duck calling on air anytime soon. The network suspended him after slamming gays in a magazine interview. In the January issue of GQ, Robertson said homosexuality is a sin and puts it in the same category as bestiality and promiscuity. "It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man´s anus. That´s just me. I´m just thinking: There´s more there! She´s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know
The gay and lesbian rights group GLAAD is slamming ´Duck Dynasty´ patriarch Phil Robertson for comments he made about homosexuality to GQ magazine, and challenging the show´s network, A&E, to take action against its most popular star. In a wide-ranging interview, Robertson shared his thoughts on homosexuality and religion. After stating in very graphic terms his preference for heterosexual sex over homosexual sex, Robertson launched into more thoughts about homosexuality and sinning. “Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong... Sin becomes fine,” he said.
Yes, she really said it. On CNN’s Piers Morgan Live Tuesday, in a brief discussion about President Obama, Barbara Walters actually said, “We thought that he was going to be - I shouldn´t say this at Christmastime, but - the next messiah” (video follows with transcript and commentary): PIERS MORGAN, HOST: You have interviewed every president of my lifetime. Why is Obama facing so much opposition now? Why is he struggling so much to really fulfill the great flame of ambition and excitement that he was elected on originally in 2009?
Everyone is doing thoughtful year-end pieces on President Obama. Writers and reporters agree he’s had his worst year ever. I infer from most of their essays an unstated but broadly held sense of foreboding: There’s no particular reason to believe next year will be better, and in fact signs and indications point to continued trouble. I would add that in recent weeks I have begun to worry about the basic competency of the administration, its ability to perform the most fundamental duties of executive management. One reason I worry is that I frequently speak with people who interact with the White
London – Large tapestry portraits of President Barack Obama were unveiled for guests at the U.S. Embassy in London over the weekend. The recently-installed, large-scale tapestry portraits were created by National Medal of Arts winner and renowned American painter, photographer Chuck Close. Close created the portraits by compiling and interweaving Polaroids of the president from an hour-long photo shoot done the summer before, the Washington Post reports. The portraits are nearly 8 feet tall and more than 6 feet wide, with the final piece looking like photos but feeling like textiles. Close used one photo of Obama smiling and another