ANTI-WAR OR ANTI-U.S.?

New York Post ^ | 3/05/03 | AMIR TAHERI

[kattracks]

March 5, 2003 -- '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.

[MEG33]

This has been a hot topic on FR. Right on!

[Rain-maker]

Anarchists have but one purpose.

Attack established order, create chaos, and collapse the current government.
They are the parasite within and they feed upon freedom's protectors.

[goldstategop]

Exactly. The so called "peace movement" is NOT pro-peace, its viscerally anti-American at the core. If America were not involved in plans to free Iraq from its evil tyrant, would the peace marchers have organized mass demonstrations? Nope, you probably wouldn't have heard a peep from them. Its convenient people in the West discover a sudden affection for peace when its the one country in the world that is trying to head off war. When you think about it, doesn't turn out to be a coincidence at all.

[Mo1]

Sounds about right

[I Am Not A Mod]

This has been added to the Free Republic Highlights, 3/05/03 thread.

[livius]

But if [Stalin] were around today he would have a chuckle...

That's certainly the truth. But I guess he'll have to let Saddam do his chuckling for him.

Very good article. When you see all of the causes of the "peace" crowd laid out side by side like that, there's no way of missing their real agenda.

[Alas Babylon!]

Well, in recent decades, this movement hasn't been so much anti-American as it's been anit-REPUBLICAN-American. Note the lack of concern or protest over Clinton's wars, and the canonization of Jimmy Carter by these so-called peaceniks.

[Kudsman]

He right they are here and who knows what will happen today. Pray.

[Kudsman]

3. The struggle against war can be waged systematically and effectively only to the extent that it is directed against the socioeconomic system that produces war—that is, against capitalism and for socialism

Taken from this link provided by my local peace groups website.

http://www.wsws.org.articles/2003/feb2003/ann-f21.shtml

DIRECTED AGAINST= ATTACK IN COMMYSPEAK
SOCIOECONOMICSYSTEM= CIVILIAN ECONOMY IN COMMY SPEAK
AGAINST IMPERIALISM is self explanatory. Prepare.

[Dark Wing]

book mark

[AppyPappy]

They are anti-Bush

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Nice piece, and it comes from a Persian. Thanks for posting it.

[visitor]

jane fonda and bjc popped into my mind when I read this ...rto

[KC_for_Freedom]

Yes, and the reason islam is allied with the peace movement is that they too oppose capitalism. It, and the technology that comes with it will bring western ideas to most parts of the islam third world. It now appears that at least some of the third world wants to stay that way.

[AFPhys]

in recent decades, this movement hasn't been so much anti-American as it's been anti-REPUBLICAN-American.

Absolutely right! I am somewhat surprised that the author of this article didn't state that. I'm also surprised that he didn't bring up the "useful idiots" phrase. I thought Stalin had originated it, but perhaps it predated his foray into the peacemovementgame.

[AnnaC]

I agree with Alas Babylon. When America entered the Croatian war there were no protests. This occured during Clinton's administration. The Serbians aggression towards Croatia was for as much the same reason as Irag's aggression towards Iran and Kuwait. I had no problem with our involvement during the Croatian war. Croatia was under attack and could barely defend itself. If I'm remembering correctly the French, Russians, and even Germany was against the Serb's aggression. And also sent in their troops. It's funny however a militant exploiting tyrant such has Saddam Hussein can be seen as less offensive than the Serbian leader. The Serbian leader was allowing inhumane acts just the same as Saddam Hussein as been doing for decades. Yet Saddam is still allowed to run a country with more accounts brought up against him than the Serbian leader. Yet we have protests against the UN getting Saddam Hussein out of dictatorship and held accountable for his cruel actions. That's what should have been settled back in 1996 when reports after reports and his denial to accept UN resolution. Saddam Hussein has been a threat for decades. A man who would kill to get in position, has no safe state of mind nor a conscience. If it were Bill Clinton making this call back in his admistration , would there have be any protests? I seriously doubt it!
(To read upon the Serbian aggression I got some info from : 'Causes and Dynamics of the War in Croatia' by Mladen Klemenic publ. in the ACTA Geographica Croatica, vol. 28, 1-245 Zagreb, 1993)

[driftless]

Leftists are nothing if not stinking hypocrites. Objections and protests to American foreign policy are well within the rights of every American citizen. But all these "peace" marchers should realize that their marches are organized by international leftists. In short, the marchers are just dull-witted if well-meaning dupes in the international hate-America conspiracy.

[expatpat]

Jean-Francois Revel, a curmudgeonly titan of French political thinkers, published a book last year titled "The Anti-American Obsession." His thesis: Anti-Americanism today expresses the revenge of a defeated, but still pervasive,......left that never forgave the United States for winning the Cold War and exposing what he calls its bankrupt ideology.

This is why it is not just anti-American, but also anti-Republican, because the Democrap socialists were not the ones who won the Cold War.