It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Peacenicks and Pacifists : Are you one? Why The War on Terror is Right!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 06:16 PM
link   
And to think this article came from the IVY LEAGUE?


You can not have peace but doing nothing to defend yourself. You must fight for your rights and defend them if you are to keep them.

Of course I am not a peacenick or pacifist, but my bet is ATS is full of them and that is why I enjoy it here so much.

Forrest Gump put it so well "Stupid is as Stupid does"




Strings of origami “peace” doves, cute slogans, and talk of love is pretty as the first little flower in the springtime, and just about as efficacious, in preventing the future murder of innocent U.S. citizens. Unfortunately, this is all that Cornell’s recently mobilized “peace-police” were able to offer at their Peace Rally last Thursday. Many Cornellians seem to be joining in this peace movement, but shouldn’t we first contemplate the real consequences of this pacifism?

It seems following this path of peace, pacifism, and idleness amounts to suicide, self-destruction and certain doom for America as a people and a nation. If we want to survive, or ever to live in real “peace,” it is essential that we stand up and defend ourselves. If our peace-police still feel the need in some way to deal with the public, we can wait for the next extremist attack and send them to explain to the families of the new victims why their loved ones deserved to be vaporized by jet fuel or crushed by tons of steel and concrete, and why we need to act with prudence and caution while discovering what we did to rub someone the wrong way instead of swiftly ending the “circle of violence.”


Not only will attempts at “peace above all” yield no return, we have in fact already given “peace a chance.”




posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I couldn't agree more, we must defend ourselves. The real question is who or what we should defend ourselves against? The article did not address that to my liking.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 06:25 PM
link   
"Peacenick" ...gotta stick it to those stupid peace loving folks out there...
Thats right folks, people who want peace are stupid, people who want war are the smart ones... they sure know a lot about the depth of life.
Just ask edsinger, Our first enemy is the French, then after we've conquered them, we'll move on to the peacenicks! Get their crazy peace loving antics outta my country!

Save our rights from being taken away! Fight for freedom! Those iraqis were getting ready to destroy parts of our constitution! good thing we took care fo them when we did! Or else they might have tried to pass legislation that takes away some of our most basic rights! Dont let the terrorists take away our freedom!
Lets go bomb Iran and... um.... Norway! and Syria and Belgium!!! and...uh..um... Egypt! and Thailand! After theyre all done we can move on to even bigger evils like... Portugal!!!! and Greece!

We will conquer terrorism by bombing the crap outta 3rd world countries!
Not by giving aid or building schools and hospitals, no no no. If you want to achiveve peace, it comes in the form of cruise missiles and napalm!!!
Show the young men in those countries america is a good nation! Blow up their fathers and mothers! This is how we win their hearts!!!
America will always prevail! We can bomb whoever we want and no noe will EVER do anything, thats right. America can take on everyone all at once! in fact thats our plan! if we go to war with EVERYONE, we will surely achieve peace!


[edit on 14-11-2004 by Lekcark]

[edit on 14-11-2004 by Lekcark]

[edit on 14-11-2004 by Lekcark]



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lekcark
And the winner for most ignorant post of the millenium goes to...
bum dum dum dum.....
Edsinger yaaaaaaayyy!

[edit on 14-11-2004 by Lekcark]


I take it you didnt read it did you?

You know I find it hard to see how you go anywhere, see leaning left as you do would have you travel in circles like a dog chasing it's tail.

Ignorant? I highly doubt that, you better get a mirror.. and you were right about one thing, them Portuguese sure are a threat.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 06:36 PM
link   
The article makes good points. It makes the point that the United States has the right to defend itself in accordance to truth and justice. However in the case of the Iraqi occupation and the War on Terror in general such as the detainees who do not receive trials, U.S. justice has been subverted.

The U.N. considers the Iraq invasion/occupation an illegal action because it was not signed off on. The U.S. Constitution has a supremacy clause which makes all treaties a part of itself and to be a part of the U.N. the United States had to sign a treaty. So in effect U.S. justice has already been subverted in the case of Iraq. There is also the case of the Geneva Convention treaty breaking of the Abu Ghraib torture. Once again, the U.S. Constitution supremacy clause is in effect and once again the Constitution has been broken by breaking the Geneva Convention.

Indefinite detainment of suspects without trial is also against everything the United States stands for and once again U.S. justice has been subverted.

As for myself. I used to be a follower of Christianity. I followed the rules it laid down fairly carefully and still do despite being an agnostic today. If I'm a peacenick pacifist wuss for paying attention to such words as "love your enemies" even if it comes to persecution (like killing) as quoted from the New Testament, then so be it. I am not about to alter my own beliefs to justify the killing of anybody, guilty or not.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Let's hope other countries don't try to achieve peace using these same methods.

Someone might think that bombing Montana might be the way to avoid being attacked in their own country.

It's a stupid idea to believe that but it's also stupid to think that bombing Iraq is the way for the US to prevent being attacked.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 06:47 PM
link   
its funny how people think terrorism is some kind of new obstacle that can be beaten, the plain and simple truth is that since the dawn of time man has always tried to use funny ways to pervert the populus to want to go to war. You honestly think by using violence humankind is finally going to become better off? Somehow if we just spend a few more years a couple million more lives and billions of dollars, we will achieve something we havent seen before? No, peace isnt going to come by some guy from texas new vision for thew world. Its going to come from everyday people like you and me deciding that were sick of it. and that we wont participate.
Havent humans been playing the constantly murder each other game for long enough? or have YOU not studied your history?



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 06:47 PM
link   

It seems following this path of peace, pacifism, and idleness amounts to suicide, self-destruction and certain doom for America as a people and a nation. If we want to survive, or ever to live in real “peace,” it is essential that we stand up and defend ourselves.


You know, there is a huge differene between defense and open unchecked agression.


Advocating further dormancy is nothing less than advocating more murder of American citizens and continued destruction of America.

Anyone who would prevent the necessary defense of our country from further terrorist attacks, which means armed conflict to disband or destroy the groups responsible, is collaborating in the war to destroy our nation



Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country -- Hermann Goering at Nuremburg Trials


Anyone see the parallel methods being employed in this article? I mean really, they are still trying to play on that fear we all had right after 9-11, I sure hope people have woken up to how things really are. Overboard peace wont do anything, I agree, but cutting a swath through the middle east on intel thats luke-warm at best is not going to stop any future attacks. A middle-of-the-road approach would be better, but we all know the hardliners wouldnt want anything less than a blitzkreig across all of the middle east and any other country that didnt salute the new Fürher of america.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Forrest Gump put it so well "Stupid is as Stupid does"


I'm sorry, but I find this statement inflammatory and insulting and now see why some find you to be a well-disguised, point-seeking troll. What do you hope to accomplish with this statement?

The author of that article, from the Cornell Review Conservative Newspaper, writes:

"Advocating further dormancy is nothing less than advocating more murder of American citizens and continued destruction of America. Their movement, therefore, has nothing to do with peace and has everything to do with hatred of America. Anyone who would prevent the necessary defense of our country from further terrorist attacks, which means armed conflict to disband or destroy the groups responsible, is collaborating in the war to destroy our nation."


Just because someone opposes the invasion of another country for questionable reasons does not qualify them as a "peacenick", stupid, nor a collaborator. Apples and oranges. Because we refuse to agree with the mentality of war does not make us any less intelligent or capable of thought. I am against the action in Iraq for the simple reason that we have kicked over enough beehives and maybe its time to mind our own business and take care of problems here at home first. Over a thousand dead and Billions of dollars spent, while our country wallows in financial problems, and for what?
I am an American and a damn proud one at that, and I don’t need you or anyone else putting some politically motivated sticky-note label on me because of my beliefs. The board represents a wide array of people and beliefs; and like it or not, we do not and will not all see things your way. Deal with it.

You are entitled to your views, but I find that there are several small groups forming on ATS, polarizing the board. No more is it a matter of presenting issues and discussing them, it has moved into running gun battles. Why don't you get involved with defending America in intelligent debate with some of the new members that just absolutely hate America, rather than vilify those who don't walk your walk.
I think you enjoy it here because you are an argumentative old man.


Have a nice day



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Well you have a nice day also.

What is the difference? I get called a war mongerer and stupid because I support the war. My there is a double standard here isnt there.

It was a comment from Gump that shows that a little stuidity leads to stupid things....it happens deal with it.

Cheers!



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 07:51 PM
link   
The Cornell Review has always been a very conservative publication from a rural NY college (Ithica). Also, did you happen to notice the publication date? 10/22/2001 Somewhat dated. Perhaps this more timely piece would better suit your agenda? www.cornellreview.org...



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Ed, I am with you on this one. I don't like war, however the war on terror is right. We are defending our liberty. If we don't fight it now it will get worse in the future.

I my humble opinion the war on terror is about a "dark ages civilisation" versus a modern civilisation.and the equity gap rich versus poor. A conflict of civilisations of sorts.

I don't know where it is going to end, I just hope and pray peace can be achieved. We must fight for the peace first.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The Cornell Review has always been a very conservative publication from a rural NY college (Ithica).

Also, did you happen to notice the publication date? 10/22/2001 Somewhat dated. Perhaps this more timely piece would better suit your agenda?
www.cornellreview.org...




The date is not important, it is the "types" that never change, it could be dated 1969 and have the same meaning and you know that.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 09:10 PM
link   
I just don't see the reasoning in bringing the fight to a country which patently had nothing to do with 9-11. If we are doing anything we are breeding more terrorists. You think the mulsim world loves us after what we are doing in Iraq. They barely had the capability to defend themselves. We took care of that over 12 years of bombing raids over no fly zones, essentially consolidating their military might or lack there of into a 500 by 750 mile square area which is mostly inhabited by city folk.

Goin to Afghanistan was the right thing to do, going to Iraq is like kicking the bully after we whupped him down. There was no reason to stir things up there, they were beat.

If anything, that 500 billion dollars could have solved american problems first like homelessness and diminishing/non existent healthcare. Another solution could have been splitting that money to revamp our National and Coast Guards to protect against further agressions within America. Why drive to L.A. to stop a yard fight that is ultimately in New York?

If you want to defend our freedom, why not defend it in the country which is threatened, our own.

Sheesh...

-ADHDsux4me

[edit on 14-11-2004 by ADHDsux4me]

[edit on 14-11-2004 by ADHDsux4me]



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ADHDsux4me
If anything, that 500 billion dollars could have solved american problems first like homelessness and diminishing/non existent healthcare. Another solution could have been splitting that money to revamp our National and Coast Guards to protect against further agressions within America. Why drive to L.A. to stop a yard fight that is ultimately in New York?

If you want to defend our freedom, why not defend it in the country which is threatened, our own.

[edit on 14-11-2004 by ADHDsux4me]


500 Billion??


You just dont get it, it was not Iraq, it was Saddam's Iraq...



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Ed I Fail to see your point, please make one. Elaborate. Saddam was no threat to the U.S. If he had wanted revenge he had 12 years to make an attempt. His window of oppourtunity was pretty big, the reasons we went into Iraq were for what, The war on terror? Yeah right, cause Saddam was threatining us with Terrorism on a daily basis. *Cough* Oil

GW needed a distraction for the American People, when Rome was going down the tubes, they always distracted the masses with the Collesium. Hmm we are growing increasingly seen through, and so are our policies. Quick look here, Man Eating Lions! OOOOHHH AHHHHHHH, WOOOOW...

Thanks,

-ADHDsux4me



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ADHDsux4me
Ed I Fail to see your point, please make one. Elaborate. Saddam was no threat to the U.S. If he had wanted revenge he had 12 years to make an attempt.

Don't hold your breath waiting for something even resembling sober reasoning from the originator of this thread, ADHDsux4me...



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 01:02 AM
link   
well it seems you 2 have it all figured out, we went into Iraq for oil then, fine believe what you wish but you are wrong.

As for the reasons, you can read my other threads and durden's replies.

You 2 have your heads in the sand IMHO.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
You 2 have your heads in the sand IMHO.

Edsinger, the irony of you making that statement is simply wonderful.




[edit on 15-11-2004 by Durden]



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 10:45 PM
link   
And I guess you think I am nuts then?

Just becuase I dont agree with your logic? So now I am nuts?




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join