1  2  3  4  5 ... 7  Next

What purpose do peaceniks and their organizations serve? I can't think of one incident where they have made a difference globally, am I wrong?

The peaceniks scream leave Iraq and Afghanistan but I've yet to hear their international voice on renouncing the Radical Islamists from the Sudan. WHY the silence as hundreds of thousands are slaughtered and raped why don't they care about these people? Why do they only raise their voice when "OUR" side kills an innocent but they remain mute when terrorists kill by the hundreds daily? They accuse us "War Mongers" of having blood on our hands, but are their hands clean? NO, their inaction and constant mewling over Iraq has made many countries hesitant to get involved in the Horn of Africa, as a result of their never ending protests outside universities and coffee shops innocents die. It's my contention that the peacemovement causes more harm than good, this movement scares democratic countries into inaction. These bullies only see blood when it suits their agenda, other wise why don't they care about the innocents the terrorist kill. Again what purpose does this global group of people serve? Enlighten me merci.

   

Because they hold their own country to a higher standard than terrorists?

   

You really think the Peace Orgs are responsible for inaction in Africa? That's way off base.

Why would they not protest Sudan? First, depends on what you call a Peace Org. Some, like Amnesty International, certainly have condemned the situation in Sudan. Many peaceniks have also condemned the inaction, especially in comparison to the willingness to invade Iraq where the main genocide was long over and no longer an urgent issue, like it currently is in Sudan.

Second, many Peace Movements are Domestic movements meant to: a) Prevent War, thus encouraging a war with Sudan, whether justifiable or not to some, just doesn't fit their philosophy; b) Are meant to influence their own Elected Officials; c) Are simply not in the Sudan or can't go to the Sudan to protest.

To blame Peace Orgs for the lack of action in Sudan is really reaching credibility. Western Governments have a long history of rejecting any attempt to get involved in African situations, Somalia excepted. Many Orgs tried very hard to get their governments involved in Rwanda, even the Canadian Government at the time was ready/willing to lead such an attempt, but other key Western governments wanted absolutely nothing to do with the situation.

No, you are off on the wrong tangent here.

   

Well, I remember plenty of anti-nuke protests in the 80s, and Reagan and Gorbachev wound up scrapping an entire category of nuclear weapons (IRBMs; SS-20s for the USSR and cruise missiles and Pershings for the USA). Peaceniks also heavily influenced the American withdrawal from Vietnam (not that that was a good thing, but they did make a difference).

Other than that, I think peaceniks and their organizations are a good thing, if only for one thing, to release frustration and anger among its members. People go out and protest something and feel like maybe they made a difference. In some other non-Western societies, people use guns and/or bombs to get their points across, doing much more disruption to society than a few peaceniks complaining about furs, war, whatever.

   

That's a good point.

   

Just not a big fan of leftist weenie peaceniks who ally themselves with the absolute worst causes on the planet.

They sided with Pol Pot, they sided with Ho Chi Minh, they sided with the USSR, they sided with Iraq, they side with Al Qaeda, they side with Hugo Chavez, they pretty much take the side of anyone who is anti-American and anti-freedom.

   

That's ridiculous.

   

We were in 'Rwanda, the UN made us sit on our hands and watch genocide take place, bring a valid argument to the table if you can.

Bang on Bart, for the life of me I can't see the Peaceniks making any difference in a positive light other than target practice. Chavez is their new hero, what a bunch of lame brains.

Clog, I agree the peace movement really isn't interested in peace or innocents dying they care more about their movement and it's idiology.

   

During the last middle east problems, there were a number of anti-Isreal rallies that showed a solid membership of Hezbulla supporters. The Liberals, NDP and the Bloc all sent an official staff to the Montreal rallies, which begs an interesting question.
How big would Hezbulla and other foreign terrorist groups become in an independant Quebec?

   

I agree. It's ridiculous that Cindy Sheehan, for example, would try to promote "peace" by kissing Hugo Chavez and it's also ridiculous that Jane Fonda promoted peace by cozying up to the Viet Cong and that Hugo Chavez's favourite author and pen-pal is Noam Chomsky. Yep, it's ridiculous that these asstards would betray their own countries to dictators and tyrants, but there it is.

   

The UN had little choice in Rwanda, because member nations wouldn't support any action.

   

Thanks for proving my point. You have painted a very large movement based upon a few instances. Ridiculous.

   

Are you talking about the UN Bart?

   

Absolutely right. It's going to be fun watching Chavez's little kingdom implode over the next few years. He's as looney as Mugabe, and demonstrated that when he delved into scatological "humour" during his visit to the States last year.

That bought him a lot of points amongst the San Francisco Birkenstock set and Louis Farrakhan's boys, but the fact remains he's nothing more than a South American dictatorial thug and no amount of lionization by the left is going to change that.

   

1  2  3  4  5 ... 7  Next