I imagine that had Gore been elected (or succeded in stealing the election, rather) in 2000, and had reacted to 9/11 in the EXACT SAME MANNER as Pres. Bush has he'd be lauded as the greatest president of the U.S by the MSM. THe anti-war movement would have been JUST AS FRINGE as the protests against Clintons bombing of Serbia. Dammit! (Countersue those bastards Race!)
One of our most common retorts when asked by the media abot whether the PEACE CROWD is for Peace, is to ask them: Where was the PEACE MOVEMENT when the Soviet Union attacked anyone?
On a few website bulletin boards, I have used the term PEACE NAZI to describe the peace movement in general, and one person asked me for an explanation as to what the term means and why I say it. Here is my answer:
It is intentionally derogatory, and I use it because I believe it has to be said.
It has to do with the foundation of the PEACE movement in the US and abroad and their Communist foundation, and how the majority of the signs held and slogans chanted are not about peace or genuine concern for the people of two warring countries, it is about the anti-American attitudes and the violence-inducing signs and slogans calling for violence against American Troops and President Bush.
Carrying signs calling on troops to kill their officers, to bomb Texas, for Bush to choke on a pretzel and die, for troops to shoot their officers, signs that call for communist revolution, starting fights with people who disagree with you while carrying a peace sign, trying to steal my money in Boston while carrying a peace sign and then telling me because you were shamed into giving back the money that means you are ok after all...
Things like that.
I will NOT stop using it. It is intended to make the peace protestor think.
After all the horrors we found in Iraq, you should all be thankful we went in and invaded to remove that madman. Yet, the mantra has changed, it is now against occupation! Still, not one PEACE NAZI has apologized and admitted we were right. All they do is complain that a people that were under slavery for 30 years have gone looting, and who do they blame? Why the US!! We did nothing to stop it! Maybe because we stayed out of the crowd because the PEACE NAZIS would have complained we didn’t let them vent their anger??
(As a side note, people who are now called PEACE NAZIS didn’t call on the LAPD or Federal Troops to stop the LA riots after the Rodney King riots, did they? They told us all to step back and let them vent their anger, yet all of a sudden, we are supposed to go in and use force to stop rioters in Iraq?)
We never intended to occupy a country like SYRIA has the last 20 years, and where are the PEACE NAZIS and their signs calling on SYRIA to leave Lebanon? They are non existent. The Syrians killed tens of thousands, chasing little children into bedrooms and shooting them point blank.
Did you know there was a Christian Community in Beirut before 1985? Now, they are almost either all killed or fled from the Syrian backed Junta, and not a peep from the PEACE NAZIS, only against American forces sent to Beirut to keep peace. Why arent the PEACE NAZIS arguing for the return of the Christian Community back to Beirut where they lived for 2 Millennium?
In fact, there is not a single country that we ever went to war with that we stayed as the government power for more than 10 years! We always returned it to the people.
And that brings up another point: PEACE NAZIS are NOT against war, they are against wars that the US is engaged in to overthrow pro-Communist or PRO-radical Islamic regimes or PRO-Maoist/PRO-Stalinist regimes.
My point here, is simple: These COMMIES are not for peace. If they were, they would have been screaming about Clinton killing innocents to keep his sexual scandals off the tv,
they would have been screaming for the Hutus and Tutsis to make peace,
they would have been screaming for that madman Saddam to stop killing Kurds or Iranians,
they would have been screaming for the Turks to stop killing Kurds or Greeks,
they would have been screaming for the Chinese to stop killing Vietnamese in 1982,
they would have been screaming for the Angolan Army to stop killing with the help of the Cuban Army in the 1980's,
they would have been screaming for the Muslims to stop killing Christians in Indonesia
They would have been screaming for the Sudanese to stop the torture and slave trade which continues today
They would have been screaming when the Syrians invaded Lebanon in 1985
They would have been screaming when Pol Pot started a genocide in 1975,
They would be screaming now about Mugabe killing all the white farmers in Africa in Zimbabwe
They would have been screaming at the murders caused by the African National Congress and their necklacing of prisoners and at Winnie Mandela who was convicted of murder, yet the communists are silent
They would have been screaming about Tiananmen Square, but they are silent.
They would have been screaming about the repression in Cuba and why so many people have chosen to flee in rickety little boats, but instead they lionize that dictator, Castro
They would have been screaming about the invasion of South Vietnam where the north started a genocide campaign in direct violation of the Paris Peace Accords of 1973 and caused over 2 million Vietnamese to flee in little boats that got picked up by ships like mine in 1981
They would be screaming at the Palestinians for their suicide bombings that intentionally target innocent school age children
Except, the only time they scream is when the US is at war against a tyrant who is support by Russia.
And since NAZI is one of the most vile insults you can give someone in our last two generations, I call them PEACE NAZIS, for they are not for peace, they are for war, they are for the overthrow of my country and into communism and anarchy, and they are a violent bunch who base their foundation on lies and the telling of lies and the repeating of lies.
The following article ran in the NY Post not long after the Iraq War began (note that it's by an Iranian author based in Europe)
ANTI-WAR OR ANTI-U.S.?
By AMIR TAHERI
The rebirth of the peace movement. This is how sections of the Western media describe the marches that attracted 30 million people in some 600 cities, in 25 countries, across the globe in recent weeks.
Last week, a group of "peaceniks" gathered in London to discuss ways of nursing the "reborn" child into adulthood.
By coincidence,today marks the 50th anniversary of Josef Stalin's death. The Soviet dictator was the father of the
first "peace movement," which for years served as an instrument of the Kremlin's global policy.
Stalin's "peace movement" was launched in 1946 at a time when he had not yet developed a nuclear arsenal and was thus vulnerable to a U.S. nuclear attack. Stalin also needed time to consolidate his hold on his newly conquered empire in eastern and central Europe while snatching chunks of territory in Iran.
Pablo Picasso, a "fellow traveler" with the French Communist Party, designed the famous dove of peace as the emblem of the movement. French poet Paul Eluard, another fellow traveler, composed an ode inspired by Stalin. The "peaceniks" were told to wear white shirts, release white doves during their demonstrations and shake their clenched fists against "imperialists and revanchistes."
Soon it became clear that the "peace movement" was not opposed to all wars, but only to those that threatened the U.S.S.R., its allies and its satellites.
For example, the peaceniks did not object to Stalin's
decision to keep the entire Chechen nation in exile in
Siberia. The peaceniks did not march to ask Stalin to
withdraw his forces from Iranian Azerbaijan and Kurdistan. When Stalin annexed 15 percent of Finland's territory, none of the peaceniks protested. Neither did they march when the Soviets annexed the Baltic states. Nor did they grumble when Soviet tanks rolled into Warsaw and Budapest, and a decade later also in Prague.
But when America led a coalition under a U.N. mandate to prevent North Korean Communists from conquering the south, peaceniks were on the march everywhere. The movement targeted Western democracies and sought to weaken their resolve against the Soviet threat.
Over the years nobody marched against any of the client
regimes of the Soviet Union that engaged in numerous wars, including against their own people. The wars that China's Communist regime waged against the peoples of Manchuria, Tibet, East Turkestan and Inner Mongolia,lands that were eventually annexed and subjected to "ethnic cleansing," provoked no protest marches. Even when China attacked India and grabbed Indian territories the size of England, the peace movement did not budge.
In the 1960s the movement transformed itself into the
campaign for unilateral nuclear disarmament. Here, unilateral meant that only the Western powers had to give
up their arsenal, thus giving the Soviets a monopoly on
nuclear weapons.
The peaceniks spent much of the '60s opposing U.S. intervention in Vietnam. The 1980s gave them a new lease on life, as they focused on opposing American Pershing missiles in Western Europe. The Pershings represented a response to Soviet SS-20 missiles that had already been stationed in central Europe and aimed atWestern European capitals.
But the peaceniks never asked for both the Pershings and the SS-20s to be withdrawn,only the American missiles. President Ronald Reagan's proposal that both the SS-20s and the Pershings be withdrawn was attacked and ridiculed by the peaceniks as "an American Imperialist trick." Francois Mitterrand, then France's Socialist president, put it this way: "The missiles are in the East but the peaceniks are in the West!" No peacenik, not even Joschka Fischer, now Germany's foreign minister, marched in support of tearing down the Berlin Wall and allowing the German nation to regain its unity.
All that is now history. The "evil empire" of communism has gone for good, but the deep anti-West sentiments that it promoted over the decades remains. It is this anti-West, more specifically anti-American, sentiment that provides the glue of the new peace movement.
Last month, the British daily The Guardian asked a number of peaceniks to explain why they opposed the use of force to liberate Iraq? The main reason they felt they had to support Saddam Hussein was that he was disliked by the United States.
When the Tanzanian army invaded Uganda and removed Idi Amin from power, no one marched because the United States was not involved. When the Vietnamese army invaded Cambodia and changed the Khmer Rouge regime there, no one marched. Again, the United States was not involved.
When French troops invaded the Central African Republic and changed its regime, again no one marched. The reason? You guessed it: America was not involved. And what about a march in support of the Chechens? Oh, no, that won't do: The United States is not involved. The peace movement would merit the label only if it opposed all wars, including those waged by tyrants against their own people, not just those in which America is involved.
Did it march when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran? Not at all.
Did it march when Saddam invaded Kuwait? Again: nix!
(Later, they marched, with the slogan "No Blood for Oil," when the U.S.-led coalition came to liberate Kuwait.) Did it march when Saddam was gassing the Kurds to death? Oh, no.
Stalin died 50 years ago to the day. But if he were around
today he would have a chuckle: His peace movement remains as alive in the Western democracies as it was half a century ago.
Iranian author and journalist Amir Taheri is based in Europe.
E-mail: amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com
(article cached at http://globalspecops.com/anti.html)
You are absolutely right.
The LSM wouldn't pay any attention, and there would be no 'anti-war' movement.
Just like there was no 'homeless' once Klintoon was elected. {Thanks a lot, Perot.}