Home The Book Dr Articles Products Message Boards Journal Articles Search Our Surveys Surgery ESWT Dr Messages Find Good Drs video

Social Activism vs. Pacifists

Posted by marie e on 2/27/03 at 20:08 (111074)

I would like to know what some of our name calling conservatives think of of Martin Luther King. What do you think about the thousands of people who marched from Selma to Montgomery. The Voting Rights Act was the result this social activism. Many people gave their lives to ensure the right that every American be allowed to vote. Where were you when Americans were required to take ridiculous tests in order to vote. The test I love to share in my classroom the most was the one where people were asked to give the number of jelly beans in a jar. Funny how all the folks who had the same political belief got the answer correct and the others were turned away. Where were you? Where were you when the Ku Klux Klan pulled a young white mother of 3 from her car and beat her to death for particpating in the march from Selma to Montgomery. Would you have protested for the right to vote? Or would you have called these fearless people who endured the beatings and harassment communists?

What do you think about children at the turn of the century who spent up to 12-16 hours a day working in coal mines and factories? Thank goodness for social activism. Without the protests, mostly led by women, children in this country would not enjoy the freedom to be children. Would you protest for the children? Would you have called the women who had the guts to stand up and make a change communists?

Social Activism is part of the make up of the history of our country. It was social activism that gave my ancestors ,(yes my family was here for all of it), the courage to stand up to England. Have you forgotten the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution? The foundation of our country was born of Social Activists who dared to write the Declaration of Independence. Would you have called them communists? Not only did the men that wrote this document, which we all hold so dearly, risk their lives
for signing it, they risked forming a democratic government. In all of the history of time no democratic government has lasted. It took the hearts of the American people to make it work. We made it work. All faiths, political views, colors, and so on..... Or were they just a bunch of Communists? How dare Americans criticize the King of England.

Disagree all you want with the folks in the world who asking that a diplamatic resolution be sought instead of rushing to war in Iraq but don't you dare call anyone that has the courage to stand up for what they believe a communist. My ancestors deserve more respect than that. They gave their lives to found this country. I would have to ask some of our conservative name callers to have more respect for our founding fathers....since you have bunched all protestors into a group of 'Communists'. Excuse me.


Re: Social Activism vs. Pacifists

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/27/03 at 21:44 (111097)

Placing your ancestors and the individuals involved in the founding of this country in the same league as those who wish to see Saddam stay in power is really begging for an argument. Why are you so mean spirited?

Re: Social Activism vs. Pacifists

Larson on 2/27/03 at 22:10 (111100)


I walk away from my computer screen for half an hour to get dinner nad come back to more of this. Those of us in California get the late night posts on this board.

Marie, if you are a teacher, I feel sorry for your students. Kids need to learn values and you apparently do not have a clue.

Our founding fathers beleived in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Their philosophies are the basis of modern conservatism and your analogies are simply outrageous. Asking whether a conservative would call the innocent people beaten in the quest for civil rights 'communist' is ridiculous and you know it.

Perhaps your family was here at the time of the Boston Tea Party. You are the one showing disrespect for your ancestors when you lump them together with the pro-Saddam ( lets inspect him for another 12 years) crowd. I am a first generation American of half Norwegian and half Finnish extraction.
Some of my relatives fought Stalin and the horrors of Soviet Communism and the other half fought Hitler. The bottom line is that my ancestors, the ones who survived, would never have survived if people in America were telling Roosevelt that he should not rush to war or that the murderous Hitler could be dealt with 'diplomatically.'

Re: I must be a fool to be in this argument...

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/27/03 at 22:48 (111104)

To argue with a fool shows that there are two. -- Confucious

Anyway: The tree of Liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -- Thomas Jefferson

Re: Please direct your protests to these people....

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/27/03 at 23:09 (111108)


Page 1 News
Page 2 News
Classified Ads
People Search
TV Guide


Muslim website warns
of imminent attack
Jihad fighters wait only for 'permission from the heroic commander'

Posted: February 27, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

A terrorist attack will strike the United States within the next week, according to an Islamist website.

The site, published a religious exhortation on Monday claiming that 'the train of death is on its way' within 10 days, and 'nothing will stop its riders,' according to a translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI.

Image from Islamic website warning of imminent attack on United States

The author, who used the moniker 'The Prince of Philosophy,' claimed that the attack is imminent and only an order from a commander is needed before it is carried out.

Two pictures of Osama bin Laden were posted with the exhortation – one with an image of the World Trade Center in flames – hinting of a possible connection to bin Laden's al-Qaida network, MEMRI said.

The writer said it is a 'little more than 10 [days] or less until we hear the cry announcing to us the good tidings of Allah's victory [coming] by the hands of our brethren, the jihad fighters. This is a serious matter and not a joke.'

'The operations have already been set,' the pronouncement says, 'and the lions have taken their positions and everything is complete. They are only waiting for permission from the heroic commander.'

MEMRI said the website is registered to Paris-based 'AlFajr,' and its technical contact is listed as DomainValet Support Department, located in Bellevue, Wash.

The following is the main part of the exhortation:

'Allah Akbar [Allah is the greatest], Allah Akbar. Here is victory appearing in the horizon.

'Allah Akbar, here is the dawn of Islam that has arrived to bring an end to the night of unbelief, collaboration [with foreign powers] and hypocrisy.

'Allah Akbar, die with your anger, oh herds of error. Allah Akbar, die with your wrath, oh gangs of [unjust Muslim] rulers. Allah Akbar, oh slaves: All of you are big slaves and small slaves, you and your masters.

'Your shrouds are woven with gun powder and smoke, and your coffins are shells of fire and spearheads.

'There is no rescue, nor escaping the earth, with all of its width and length [it] belongs to our Lord, the skies and their horizons belong to our Lord. You have nothing, oh slaves of the cross and slaves of the Dirham and Dinnar [currency used in the Arab world].

'Allah is our ally and you have no ally. Our dead go to Paradise and yours go to Hell, and how bad is their fate.

'Allah Akbar. It is Paradise, a paradise as wide as the whole skies and earth. Rejoice, oh lovers of the Hur [i.e., the black-eyed virgins of Paradise] and the gardens [of Paradise]

'Allah Akbar, it is the clear victory and the great triumph [promised by Allah]. By Allah, if you knew what I know, you would laugh much and you would go to your trenches crying with extreme joy, while you carry your arms.

'Allah Akbar, here are the heroic soldiers of the truth. They have taken their positions and raised their swords and they shielded themselves with the protection and support of Allah.

'Allah Akbar. Here are the lions ready to set out, waiting to hear the [battle cry] 'Allah Akbar' coming from their commander, to assault with speed, with the heat of a volcano, and the bombardment of thunders.

'Allah Akbar, how long was the dark night, its darkness will no longer besiege us.

'Oh the raiders for Allah, hurry on your way to crush this unbelief, oh the raiders for Allah.

'Allah Akbar, oh the people of Islamic lands, your brethren have left to encounter the enemy with firm resolve and conviction of victory, Allah willing.

'You should offer supplications. Continue with [supplications] and do not stop. Do not stop asking Allah's forgiveness and recite his name, so that victory should come from him.

'Oh lions of Islam, may our appointed time be tonight and every night in the prayer niches of the Exalted One so that we align our feet before Allah, he who has all power, kingship, and greatness.

'We beseech him and humble ourselves before him and implore him to direct the coming blows [right to the targets] and to protect our brethren who went out to meet the enemy inside his own home [country].

'You, our brethren, be firm and keep the path and hide in waiting and prostration [as in prayer] for it is only a matter of a few days, a little more than 10 or less until we hear the cry announcing to us the good tidings of Allah's victory [coming] by the hands of our brethren, the jihad fighters. This is a serious matter and not a joke.

'The operations have already been set and the lions have taken their positions and everything is complete. They are only waiting for permission from the heroic commander.

'Whatever the enemy may do, he will never be able, Allah willing, to thwart anything. The brigades for the main missions are ready. They are supported by their brethren, members of the supporting brigades and the reserve brigades. The alternative plans are ready.

'Hence, whatever the enemy of Allah may do, he shall not be able to harm us, Allah willing.

'The train of death is on its way. Its riders are steadfast. Nothing will stop them or turn them back, Allah willing, from the goal: Neither the bushes of the enemy nor his weeds, neither his reptiles [nor] his lizards will stop its progress.

'There is no force or advancement, except from Allah, the All-Powerful ... .

'It is only a matter of a few days so be patient. We will come out and announce to you the news of the great victory.

'And so I repeat: supplications, supplications, supplications, supplications to Allah ... .

'We implore Allah, to protect them [the jihad fighters] ... and to take away from them [the enemies'] hearing and sight.

'Oh Allah, this is America ... destroy it and shake it and all who walk in its line and entrenches with it ... . There is no god but you, the exalted ... .'


E-mail to a Friend Printer-friendly version



N.C. al-Qaida cell linked to al-Arian?

Saudis still financing al-Qaida

Muslim website warns of imminent attack

U.S. citizens attack anti-war celebrities

Arafat sends holiday greetings to Saddam

Most Americans believe in ghosts

Nice going, Dan Rather!

Castro on trial for U.S. terrorism

PETA responds to WND story

Military: Teachers harassing soldiers' kids

Saudi in Idaho charged for terror ties

Radio show hosts Cashill on Flight 800



Stop the invasion!
By Joseph Farah

Will Republicans go spineless on Estrada?
By Jane Chastain

Osama vs. the antichrist
By Hal Lindsey





© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.
Contact WND
Co-Located at Fiber Internet Center

Re: Social Activism vs. Pacifists

BGCPed on 2/27/03 at 23:23 (111110)

Well I cant address all of your points at this time. I would just like to point out that I would not label those people communists or fight any of their ideas. What I would point out is that you make the false leap that all dissent would be labeled liberal and shunned by conservatives.

The founding fathers, boston tea etc. were about freedom and mans god given (not government granted) right to exist and pursue happiness. I really dont know what or who you are trying to defend here. I do know that you are very scattered in your claim. I would say that the founders, today would be called conservatives. they were about less government, more freedom and personal accountability.

Diplomatic solution? 11 years of it so far. Should we listen to France and Germany since they supply arms and help Iraq violate trade embargo. I dont know what subject or grade you teach but I pray you are more objective and fact based with your students. I hope this is a sarcastic attempt to bolster a weak premise and not truly your conclusions


Re: Thomas Jefferson?

BGCPed on 2/27/03 at 23:25 (111111)

He was just some old dead white guy, what did he know


BGCPed on 2/27/03 at 23:34 (111113)

I dont know where you get this stuff. I get my info from Martin Sheen, Sean Penn, Al Franken, Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon. Those people have spent their lives living in the trenches, working hard and living in the real world. Dr Ed maybe you would gain more realistic views if you drove around Melrose in a Bently all day trying to find the best latte and the perfect pair of jeans that fit your butt.

Re: pacifists

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/27/03 at 23:53 (111116)

The following editorial has been produced by the Ayn Rand Institute's MediaLink department. Visit MediaLink at http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/ .

Dec. 9, 2002

Peacenik Warmongers
Pacifism necessarily invites escalating acts of war against anyone who practices it.

By Alex Epstein

There is an increasingly vocal movement that seeks to engage America in ever longer, wider, and more costly wars leading to thousands and perhaps millions of unnecessary deaths. This movement calls itself the 'anti-war' movement.
Across America and throughout the world, 'anti-war' groups are staging 'peace rallies' that attract tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of participants, who gather to voice their opposition to an invasion of Iraq and to any other U.S. military action in the War on Terrorism. The goal of these rallies, the protesters proclaim, is to promote peace. 'You can bomb the world to pieces,' they chant, 'but you can't bomb it into peace.'
If dropping bombs won't work, what should the United States do to obtain a peaceful relationship with the numerous hostile regimes, including Iraq, that seek to harm us with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction? The 'peace advocates' offer no answer. The most one can coax out of them are vague platitudes (we should 'make common cause with the people of the world,' says the prominent 'anti-war' group Not in Our Name) and agonized soul-searching ('Why do they hate us?').
The absence of a peacenik peace plan is no accident. Pacifism is inherently a negative doctrine it merely says that military action is always bad. As one San Francisco protestor put the point: 'I don't think it's right for our government to kill people.' In practice, this leaves the government only two means of dealing with our enemies: to ignore their acts of aggression, or to appease them by capitulating to the aggressor's demands.
We do not need to predict or deduce the consequences of pacifism with regard to terrorism and the nations that sponsor it, because we experienced those consequences on September 11. Pacifism practically dictated the American response to terrorism for more than 23 years, beginning with our government's response to the first major act of Islamic terrorism against this country: when Iranian mobs held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days at the American embassy in Tehran. In response to that and later terrorist atrocities, American Presidents sought to avoid military action at all costs by treating terrorists as isolated criminals and thereby ignoring the role of the governments that support them, or by offering diplomatic handouts to terrorist states in hopes that they would want to be our friends. With each pacifist response it became clearer that the most powerful nation on Earth was a paper tiger and our enemies made the most of it.
After years of American politicians acting like peaceniks, Islamic terrorism had proliferated from a few gangs of thugs to a worldwide scourge making possible the attacks of September 11.
It is an obvious evasion of history and logic for the advocates of pacifism to label themselves 'anti-war,' since the policies they advocate necessarily invite escalating acts of war against anyone who practices them. Military inaction sends the message to an aggressor and to other, potential aggressors that it will benefit by attacking the United States. To whatever extent 'anti-war' protesters influence policy, they are not helping to prevent war; they are acting to make war more frequent and deadly, by making our enemies more aggressive, more plentiful, and more powerful.
The only way to deal with militant enemies is to show them unequivocally that aggression against the United States will lead to their destruction. The only means of imparting this lesson is overwhelming military force enough to defeat and incapacitate the enemy. Had we annihilated the Iranian regime 23 years ago, we could have thwarted Islamic terrorism at the beginning, with far less cost than will be required to defeat terrorism today.
And if we fail to use our military against state sponsors of terrorism today, imagine the challenge we will face five years from now when Iraq and Iran possess nuclear weapons and are ready to disseminate them to their terrorist minions. Yet such a world is the goal of the 'anti-war' movement.
The suicidal stance of peaceniks is no innocent error or mere overflow of youthful idealism. It is the product of a fundamentally immoral commitment: the commitment to ignore reality from the historical evidence of the consequences of pacifism to the very existence of the violent threats that confront us today in favor of the wish that laying down our arms will achieve peace somehow.
Those of us who are committed to facing the facts should condemn these peaceniks for what they really are: warmongers for our enemies.

Alex Epstein is a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Send us your comments (PIPE) Recommend this page to friends (PIPE) Read more articles (PIPE) ARI Home

The Ayn Rand Institute's op-ed program is made possible thanks to voluntary contributions.
If you would like to help support ARI's efforts, please make an online contribution.

Copyright © 2002 Ayn Rand® Institute (ARI). All rights reserved. Reprint Permission Policy
ARI is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions to ARI in the United States are tax-exempt to the extent provided by law.

Re: Social Activism vs. Pacifists

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/28/03 at 00:11 (111118)

Thursday, February 27, 2003
'That Which Deceives, Also Enchants' -- Walfield

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing -- Edmund Burke

Home TOC Sitemap Search
Alerts - Petitions - Polls - Surveys
Archives Features Cartoons
About Us Contact Us

Conservative Calendar of Events
Election 2002
Columnists Guest Voices Bios
Publishers Corner

'That Which Deceives, Also Enchants'
On the Right Side

Paul Walfield
(email removed)

'You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.'
-- Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), 16th U.S. President (1861-1865), author of the 'Emancipation Proclamation' and the 'Gettysburg Address'

February 24, 2003

Plato spoke the phrase in the title of this column thousands of years ago, and today, the Left's use of the phrase 'anti-war' proves his philosophy is as relevant as ever. The phrase 'anti-war' as used in the 21st century is not truthful, rather it is deceptive. It is a notion that conjures up another side that is by logical conclusion, pro-war, and therefore Neanderthal in its thinking. What could be more enchanting for all than a premise of peace throughout the world, and more damning to its opponents?

Anti-war movements today are, in reality, movements that are unwilling to fight. Unwilling to fight for freedom and justice, and unwilling to fight for the maintenance and continuation of what America truly stands for.

On the other hand, those accused of being pro-war and 'hawks', are neither. Rather, they are those in America and throughout the world who are willing to fight for freedom, justice and the values we in America hold dear.

The Left's so-called anti-war movement will always accept and recognize the reality of Saddam Hussein's barbarism. They will acknowledge the fact that he has gassed his own people and is the cause of millions of deaths. Yet, they will not acknowledge a need for military force to oust him, while at the same time they admit he isn't going anywhere without it. While it may be correct that many in the 'peace movement' are in actuality, anti-American, as it is easily gleaned from the many speeches and posters at their rallies, some may not be.

Although it has been pointed out by FrontPage Magazine that the most prominent 'anti-war' group A.N.S.W.E.R. is merely a front for the communist Workers World Party, it is unlikely that all who attend their rallies are aware of that fact; or, if they were, they would excuse that reality. However, it is clear that all are unwilling to put their lifestyles, let alone their lives, on the line to end tyranny in the world.

Purposeful unwillingness to open one's eyes to indisputable facts is only done for fear that the reality will challenge one's beliefs. Accepting the reality of the vile and unrepentant nature of the Iraqi regime on one hand, yet unwilling to accept action that will end it on the other hand, doesn't necessarily speak to the naiveté of the holder, but it does speak to that individual's or group's character.

Pundits from both ends of the spectrum rationalize the reasons and ideology of both the Left and the Right. Depending upon your perspective, and generally speaking, the Left is viewed as either naïve or progressive; the Right is seen as either pro-war or 'willing to face reality'. Nevertheless, it is clear that, whatever description is used, the Right is viewed as willing to fight for their beliefs, and the Left is not.

The Left is generally understood to be a champion of human rights and equality for all, yet none of their spokespersons at any of their rallies chose to demand an end to the despotic and brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. Rather, they are championing his 'right' to continue to brutalize the Iraqi people. This can be dismissed by the Left as giving the Iraqi people the 'right' to decide who shall lead them, not America. Yet, it all boils down to the consequences of action. The Iraqi people are in no position to overthrow Saddam. He will remain in power for as long as he continues to eliminate those he deems his enemies, whether that enemy is some of his own people or all of the United States.

If America was to take action and eliminate Saddam, the fallout may lead to terrorist attacks in the U.S. If that does occur, Americans will be affected, and our safety will be diminished. Many may die, and our economy will take a beating. The Left is unwilling to take that chance or pay that price. Whether it is for the oppressed people of Iraq, or to protect our freedoms here in the U.S., the idea of putting their lives or lifestyles on the line is more than the Left, for all their enchanting slogans and professed ideals, will allow.

The Left in all its hedonistic glory will sacrifice the lives of their children and children's children so long as they can maintain the status quo. It is not that they don't value the freedoms they have; rather, the Left is so enthralled, selfish and self-indulgent, they will do nothing that may jeopardize their lifestyles -- even to the exclusion of any future generations.

The depth of the Left's convictions is no greater than the thickness of the ink on one of their poster boards.

Copyright © 2001, 2002, 2003 by Paul Walfield & America's Voices, Inc. All rights reserved.
Paul Walfield is a freelance writer and member of the State Bar of California with an undergraduate degree in Psychology and post-graduate study in behavioral and analytical psychology. Formerly of Houlton, Maine, he now a practicing attorney in California. In addition to his column 'On The Right Side' for America's Voices his commentaries are published on a number of conservative webzines. You can e-mail Paul at pwalfield@americasvoices.org.

Home TOC Sitemap Search
Alerts - Petitions - Polls - Surveys
Archives Features Cartoons
About Us Contact Us

Conservative Calendar of Events
Election 2002
Columnists Guest Voices Bios
Publishers Corner


D-Day inaugural
feature article

Editor's Mailbag
Publishing Guidelines

Copyright © 2001, 2002, 2003 by America's Voices, Inc.
Columbus, Ohio. All rights reserved.
America's Voices, America's Voices University, americasvoices.org and http://www.AmericasVoices.org are service marks of America's Voices, Inc. a not-for-profit educational organization.
Last Modified: Monday, February 17, 2003 09:16:44 PM

Re: pacifists

marie on 2/28/03 at 06:41 (111126)

Sorry just couldn't resist making a statement that was as ridiculous as some of the ones I've seen lately here on the board. I thought it would get a reaction and it did. Amazing.

Democracy is such a beautiful thing. It's what America is all about. Love it or leave it.

Re: Social Activism vs. Pacifists

marie on 2/28/03 at 08:49 (111137)


You're absolutely correct. However we live in a democracy. I believe it was you that labeled all protesters communists. I am not sure how you came to this conclusion. Social Activism is necessary for change. You may not agree with everyone out there but they still have the right to voice their opinions. I'm personally not against ousting Saddam. I'm all for it. What I am not comfortable with is the fact that we are about to declare war on a country that has not attacked us. If I am not mistaken 10-15% of all bombs dropped don't hit the target. If my math is correct that means about 500 bombs will miss their target on the opening day of the war. Call me any name you like. I would certainly hope that before that happens our leaders will exhaust every effort to reason with Iraq.


Re: Social Activism vs. Pacifists

marie on 2/28/03 at 09:00 (111140)

You are correct. But please leave my students out of this. My students know they are safe to express their ideas without being labeled a communist or any other name some of you have come up with. I wouldn't dream of calling any of you a name. You have the right to call me any name you like. Afterall it is a democracy.

The founding fathers, boston tea etc. were about freedom and mans god given (not government granted) right to exist and pursue happiness. I really dont know what or who you are trying to defend here. I do know that you are very scattered in your claim. I would say that the founders, today would be called conservatives. they were about less government, more freedom and personal accountability.

Do you suggest that only conservtives have the right to protest? My claim is simple...not all social activism is led by a bunch of communists. Each and every person has the right to pursue freedom and mans given right to excist and pursue happiness. Now where have I heard that before.

Re: Social Activism vs. Pacifists

marie on 2/28/03 at 09:08 (111142)

Yep I'm a meany head. The point is simple each and every individual has the right to voice their opinion. Like it or not this is a Democracy. I am proud to defend this simple idea. Even you have the right to voice your opinion and you have done so on this board loud and clearly. I respect the right to your opinion in fact I would defend you and your rights with my life. I am an American. Liberal and conservative and moderate we make this country great. Hats off to you Ed.


Re: Social Activism vs. Pacifists

marie on 2/28/03 at 09:14 (111144)

Sir, leave my students out of this. My students know I respect them and their opinions irregardless of their beliefs. I don't always agree with them but I always respect them. Unlike many others who come to this board I am not offended by you. I respect your rights....the question is do you respect mine? I would defend your right to your opinions and judgements with my life? Respect is something you give not demand.



john h on 2/28/03 at 09:50 (111149)

BG: I think that most are concerned that high proflie Hollywoood actors and the like have such a platform to express their views. It is their right however. Many of them are airheads in my opinion. I should also point out that there are Conservatives who are out there also. Charleston Heston heads the NRA and their are others. I do not know that we as a public give these people anymore credence than they deserve but the fact remains they have a platform that reaches millions. As you would expect Jane Fonda is burned into my mind for ever when she carried her protest to a gun position in Hanoi with helmet and all and a big smile. All this while these same people were shooting us down and taking prisoners. Hollywood for what ever reason has always been involved in taking positions on such issues as Communism. In the 30's Communism was somewhat fashionable in Hollywood. There are also some legit American heroes that came out of Hollywood during WWII and quickly enlisted and fought the good fight.

Re: Social Activism vs. Pacifists

john h on 2/28/03 at 10:02 (111153)

BG: We should never leave our destiny in anyones hands and especially France or Germany. The Berlin Wall did not crumble from old age. We should all be glad the America is the only Supper Power. What if it was Iraq or even France. We see over and over again the term 'Anti War'. Does this mean all war or just the current possible war against Iraq? If one is to argue against all war under all circumstances then there is no debate to be had. War has existed since the beging of civilization. We have world wars. wars between nations, wars of religion,wars between the states,wars on the city level in the form of crime, wars in families that end in violence and divorce. If we cannot get along within a family how could we ever expect everyone in the world to get along. If you accept the premises that there are reasons to go to war (Pearl Harbor) then the debate becomes 'Under what circumstances do we go to war?'.

Re: Social Activism vs. Pacifists

BGCPed on 2/28/03 at 10:23 (111156)

Right indeed

Re: Social Activism vs. Pacifists

marie on 2/28/03 at 10:36 (111157)


Your wisdom and wit has come through again. I think most Americans are willing to die for freedom. I am just not sure everyone is convinced that this is the right time for war.

thanks for your comment...you have my respect.


Re: Social Activism vs. Pacifists

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/28/03 at 10:40 (111158)

Thank you for your comments. You did realize that I used the 'mean spirited' comment in jest, imitating the debate 'style' of some others on the board.

Re: Social Activism vs. Pacifists

marie on 2/28/03 at 10:45 (111159)

That's ok Ed. I don't know what it is but whenever I use the term 'meany head' it brings us back to rational thinking.

later, marie


Ed Davis, DPM on 2/28/03 at 10:45 (111160)

Henry Fonda was a veteran. Ronald Reagan, Mel Gibson and Charlton Heston are other conservatives in the entertainment business. I don't watch TV and see an occasional movie(recently saw 'Gods and Generals' -- recommended) so I may not follow the Hollywood stuff that much. The liberal bias in the news media concerns me more because the public must trust that source for information (see my posts below concerning Bernard Goldberg of CBS).

Re: Social Activism vs. Pacifists

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/28/03 at 11:35 (111168)


Lets wait for Larson to come back. He listed an article in which 'communist' influence is mentioned. He did not state, or at least I could not find the claim from him, labelling all protestors as communist.
I had some similar articles but the problem that I mentioned to Leon below, is that that term is a virtual anachronism due to the sparsity of true communists. I aksed Leon to substitue the term 'leftists.'

The majority of protestors probably do not have a strong ideologic bent but I do beleive that many of the 'ringleaders' do. See the new bestseller by Mona Charen (about number 12 this week) entitled 'Useful Idiots.' Before anyone gets too upset at that title, it was coined by a prominent Marxist (I forgot who at the moment) to describe those individuals who, without realizing it, can be manipulated to further the goals of Marxism and the world revolution.

Re: Social Activism vs. Pacifists

Dr Z on 3/02/03 at 08:24 (111355)

Here is the real truth . When we go to war and we free Iraq with very little lost of lives on both sides, and we change Iraq and everyone lives happily then the conservatives will be right if something different happens then the liberal, war protestors will be right. History is always written from the eyes of the victor. Just like if the British had defeated our great founding fathers they would have been label by England as traitors, cowards, and probaby communists. So only history will be able to judge looking back on whether we did the right thing. I give George Bush alot of respect for not worring about the next future term. He believes in this war now.

Re: Social Activism vs. Pacifists

john h on 3/02/03 at 10:30 (111371)

Actually if we do not go to war Dr. Z it may be 10-30 years before the Iraq situation plays out. Before Hitler marched into Checkoslavakia and Poland he spent 10 years consolidating his power and building the 3rd Reich before he struck. I think people of your age can probably live out their lives without having to face Iraq but if he continues to amass power he appears to be someone that the world will have to face at some point. His son who will follow him is worse than he is.

Re: Social Activism vs. Pacifists

marie on 3/02/03 at 10:32 (111373)

I don't know if it's a matter of who's right and who's wrong. But in essence I do agree with you. It seems to me that this war may very well happen no matter what anyone saids. If and when the war begins we will all be on the same side....praying for a short swift defeat with as little loss of life as possible.

Re: Social Activism vs. Pacifists

BGCPed on 3/02/03 at 10:41 (111376)

I read an interesting article this am about Saddam and his family (cox news service, no author listed) They said his bio father either left him very young or was gone somehow. He was raised by his uncle who was also the father of one of his wives. It was said that this uncle worshipped Adolph Hitler. It also spoke about how much of a psychopath his son Odai is.

Odai was the head of Iraq olympic/athletic assoc. They said he would often beat and torture athletes. He also beat to death one of Saddams valets. They said Saddam was very upset about it. Odai had a huge collection of pristine classic autos stored under ground in a garage. Saddam torched them all. I guess it is safe to say even royal families have little squabbles from time to time

Re: Social Activism vs. Pacifists

Sharon W on 3/02/03 at 15:38 (111457)


I don't know if you'll see this but I thought it might amuse you. It comes from Chuck Shepherd's current column of (supposedly true) stories collected from news sources around the world, called 'News of the Weird,' (dated March 2, 2003). The link is


[We have a friend who sends us these]:

'Nation at War
Most recent antiwar demonstrations have been by clothed people, but since
November, nude demonstrations against an invasion of Iraq have taken place
in Marin County, Calif. (200 women at three sites); near West Palm Beach,
Fla. (23 people); Byron Bay, Australia (700); and New York City's Central
Park (30, in the snow).'