Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Pacifism Kills



Pacifism kills. Period. If you believe that war is always wrong, and promote this belief, and have an effect on the world with this belief, then you are a killer. This is inadvertent. You are not doing it on purpose. I know your intentions are good, but you are a murderer just the same. This includes you, Bruce Springsteen, and all your ilk.

War, what is it good for? That depends.















Pacifist Neville Chamberlain, who caused the death of millions.

War is a good thing when 3000 of your fellow citizens have been murdered. It is a good thing when a cult, the cult of radical Islamo-facism, is trying to slaughter you. War is a good thing when it stops cold-blooded killers from strapping on bombs to blow up women and children. War is a good thing when it prevents maniacs from developing, using, and selling weapons of mass destruction.

In these circumstances, war is not just good, it is an obligation. You are either a coward if you don’t use it, or morally blinded. Yes, God wants you to make war, in these circumstances.

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

Ecclesiastes III (King James' Version)


click to show/hide the rest of the post


Freedom Is Not Free

What the pacifists don’t get is that freedom is not free. People have died, in wars, to give the pacifists their right to spout their drivel. These ungrateful scourges of the earth, the pacifists, believe they are morally superior to the people who sacrificed their lives to give them freedom.

Neville Chamberlain was a pacifist who enabled Nazi Germany to kill millions of people. Cindy Sheehan is a modern-day pacifist who is causing the death of American soldiers.

How? Her anti-American, anti-war propaganda, along with the Democratic stance on the war, plus the peace crowd’s jabbering, encourages terrorists around the world to continue killing. Without Sheehan and Springsteen, Hollywood and the murderous pacifist left’s diatribes, the terrorists would know they were facing an enemy with resolve.

Pacifists are Killing American Soldiers in Iraq

It is no coincidence that the killing in Iraq, actual human deaths of dear American soldiers, young men and women in the prime of their lives, has increased recently—just before our November elections. The terrorists of today are quite sophisticated. They believe, rightly or wrongly, that they can influence our elections. If they kill enough Americans, they think, they can incite the pacifist left to get out and vote, and discourage patriots into staying home on election day.

We are All for Peace

Being for peace is a no-brainer. We are all for peace. Nobody is for war. When the time for peace comes, I’ll be there with a sign for peace alongside the most whacky of you. That time is not here. We are rightly, justly, blessedly and unfortunately, in a time of war.

Being a pacifist is cowardly, illogical, and deadly. God save us from pacifists. God give us the courage to fight our two enemies, the terrorists, and the pacifists. We will fight the terrorists with bombs and bullets, and the pacifists with truth.

Rock


(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone


click to hide most of this post



18 comments:

Mike said...

I don't know where you've been for the past two years but I've been in Iraq. I arrived two years ago today.

That, however, is not what qualifies me to say you are a coward. And anyone who advocates the killing of anyone for any reason is a coward. A brave man, like the Jesus you probably claim to be a follower of, would rather die than kill.

America has either killed directly as "collateral damage" or enabled the killing of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. And if you think this war is about anything other than oil, you are as stupid as you are cowardly.

Rock said...

Mike, as you see, I welcome all points of view on my blog, even by people like you.

Thank you for your comments, and I hope you broaden your reading one day to include not just the liberal claptrap that you obviously read. You are a perfect liberal, and you make my case, so comment often.

I am not a Jesus freak, as you imply, but I do advocate common sense. I could debate you on the issues, but you are a typical liberal, without logical reasoning ability.

You are one reason why Americans and Iraqis are dying.

Still, you have the right to your opinion. I just want you to know that there is an opposing view. We, on the other side, represent truth. You represent hate and ignorance.

Rock

Rock said...

Mike, by the way, on your site you say:

I am a civilian working for a contractor in Iraq

I see you're not averse to taking filthy American lucre to benefit from this evil war. Typical liberal hypocrisy.

Plus, you make the claim that the war is just about oil. So what if it was? Oil for what? Have we stolen it, or guaranteed the world's access to it? Do you know what would happen to your precious right to free speech if the oil were shut off from the West?

Whacky guys like you would be the first that the Islamo-facists would go after.

Enjoy the money you make from this ignoble war effort Mike.

Rock said...

A comment to my Readers, including Mike. I usually don't take comments with personal attacks in them. It just degenerates into name-calling. So, from now on Mike, you stop the disrespect and stick to the issues and I'll do the same. Ditto for anyone else.

Passions are high, and for good reason. I can understand people getting worked up, but I want to keep the tone of this blog as hard-hitting, with an edge, but without hatred.

Rock

Rock said...

One more comment, to Mike and Readers. If you disagree strongly with this or anything else I've posted, write your views countering me. You can be a Guest Blogger. I understand that the truth is sometimes controversial, and that it sometimes hurts, so I want to offer this opportunity for public rebuttal. Present your ideas in a lucid manner, without hatred, and I'll use it as a guest post. I will comment on your post, but I will be respectful.

If you are right on anything, and I am wrong, I will admit it.

Sarge Charlie said...

Thank you Mr. Rock, I think Mike has a lot to learn about life in troubled times. We have had his type around forever, they just do not seem to get it.
I was in Vietnam when Hoani Jane acted like a kid with a new toy, and anti aircraft gun. I also remember when Jane and John Kerry went to Paris in support of the North Vietnamese.
I am a history buff, I am also a firm believer that we must learn form history, or repeat it.

Cindy Sheehan os a sad case, she has been boutht and paid for by the liberal left in this country. Her son was a hero, God bless his sole, she has defamed and insulted his memory. She has also demoralized troops on the field of battle and emboldened our enemy. She is truly pathetic.

Mike said...

I'm not the "Mike" that started this comment train, but Rock, I think your reply does you no credit. If you don't like name-calling don't engage in it.

Rock said...

Thank you Mr. Rock, I think Mike has a lot to learn about life in troubled times. We have had his type around forever, they just do not seem to get it.

Thank you, Charlie. I know I was harsh in the post and in my response to Mike, but lives are at stake, and I can't pull punches. You're a great American Charlie. Thanks for your support.

I was in Vietnam when Hoani Jane acted like a kid with a new toy, and anti aircraft gun. I also remember when Jane and John Kerry went to Paris in support of the North Vietnamese.
I am a history buff, I am also a firm believer that we must learn form history, or repeat it.


Thank you for your service to America. Hanoi Jane half-apologized but she is back to America-bashing like Kerry. None of them respect the military or the debt we owe to them.

Cindy Sheehan os a sad case, she has been boutht and paid for by the liberal left in this country. Her son was a hero, God bless his soul, she has defamed and insulted his memory. She has also demoralized troops on the field of battle and emboldened our enemy. She is truly pathetic.

I know we don't like to pick on a mother of a dead soldier. She deserves our sympathy for this. But, we have to draw the line. She is doing harm to the nation, and is dishonoring her son's memory, as you've said.

Thanks Charlie. Keep up the good work.

Rock

Mike said...

I find the statement "Pacifism Kills" to be at odds with what I understand to be Conservative principles.

One of the Conservative principles that I admire is the idea of personal responsibility. You are responsible for your actions and others are responsible for yours. To accept the notion that "Pacifism Kills" you have to accept the notion of being responible for the actions of another. By definition the Pacifist doesn't pull the trigger, some other individual makes the choice to kill. For the Pacifist to be responsible for a death, he's got to be responsible for the actions of another.

On a more pragmatic note, if you accept the notion that "Pacifism Kills" you find yourself slave to the whims of any violent nutjob with enough money or man power to threaten anyone. If "Pacifism Kills" we are forced to invade Iraq to prevent a madman from using weapons of mass destruction because the resulting deaths would be on our hands. If "Pacifism Kills" we are forced to invade Iran to prevent them from getting a bomb, or any deaths that result from an Iranian bomb are on our hands. If "Pacifism Kills" any time any nut says if you don't do X I'll kill Y the death of Y is our fault, and not the fault of the nut that killed Y. If "Pacifism Kills" we would be forced to negotiate with terrorist and give in to all their demands, otherwise the deaths of their victims would be our responsibility. We don't negotiate with terrorists, ipso facto we don't believe "Pacifism Kills"

- Mike (Not the one that went to Iraq)

Rock said...

Mike, you said:

I'm not the "Mike" that started this comment train, but Rock, I think your reply does you no credit. If you don't like name-calling don't engage in it.

You're probably right, and I will try to resist the urge to strike back when attacked. I realize too that the post was harsh, but I believe that lives are at stake and I am very passionate about saving soldiers' and American lives.

I want to be hard-edged in my posts, so I choose to be just totally blunt in them, but I will try to just stick to the issues when responding to comments.

Thanks for your comment.

Rock

Rock said...

Mike, you said:

One of the Conservative principles that I admire is the idea of personal responsibility. You are responsible for your actions and others are responsible for yours. To accept the notion that "Pacifism Kills" you have to accept the notion of being responible for the actions of another. By definition the Pacifist doesn't pull the trigger, some other individual makes the choice to kill. For the Pacifist to be responsible for a death, he's got to be responsible for the actions of another.

If you don't stand up to tyranny and evil, you are responsible for it continuing. People like Neville Chamberlain in the pre-WWII era said things like you say too. "It's none of our business. We're not doing anything wrong." I think you are doing something wrong if you don't fight evil. If a thug murders my neighbor, it's up to me to stop that thug from murdering anyone else. No man is an island.

If "Pacifism Kills" we are forced to invade Iran to prevent them from getting a bomb, or any deaths that result from an Iranian bomb are on our hands.

You're right Mike. We are obligated to invade Iran. We are shirking our responsiblities by not doing it. Or, at least, this should not be off the table as a last resort. Yes, we are responsible, and we do need to act, before the nuclear bombs go off.

If "Pacifism Kills" we would be forced to negotiate with terrorist and give in to all their demands, otherwise the deaths of their victims would be our responsibility.

We should never negotiate with terrorists, because this encourages more terrorism. Just like paying ransom to kidnappers. It just doesn't work. Pacifism does kill, yet you are right, the ultimate responsibility lies with the killer, not the pacifist. The pacifist, the pure pacifist, who never believes in war, for any purpose, at any time, is an enabler. He/she is responsible for death in the sense that fewer deaths would occur without their radical pacifism. Hence, ipso facto, they cause death, by ignorance. Ignorance is no excuse. Let them get educated. Lives hang in the balance.

Thanks for your comments, Mike.

Rock

Mike said...

If you don't stand up to tyranny and evil, you are responsible for it continuing. People like Neville Chamberlain in the pre-WWII era said things like you say too. "It's none of our business. We're not doing anything wrong." I think you are doing something wrong if you don't fight evil.

You mis-characterize my position. I didn't say that I would not be responsible for my response to evil. Quite the countrary, I feel I am completely responsible for my response to evil. "It's non of our business" is not Pacifism, it's Isolationism.

No, I feel so responsible for my response to evil, that I want to be sure I don't create a greater evil than I oppose. If I see a person throw a rock through a window, and then pick up another rock, I'd have a pretty good idea that he was going to break another window. I should oppose that. But not with deadly force. I might shout at him, or try to arrest his throwing arm, or try and block the rock. But killing him is out of the question.

If a thug murders my neighbor, it's up to me to stop that thug from murdering anyone else. No man is an island.

Nice words, but do you really believe them? I believe a number of murders took place in America today. What did you personally do to prevent them? What resposibilty do you feel for the ones you didn't prevent? "Well," I can hear you respond, "None of them took place right in front of me, or I would have done something". Yeah, but I'd bet you could find a neighborhood where murders are likely to take place and patrol to prevent them.

I'm not saying that you should become a vigilante. You do a part by paying for schools and a court system that helps provide greater opportunity to the poor. You suport laws that give the working man a fair shake, and punish criminals. These things oppose evil. I'm trying to make the point that the Pacifist is not responible for the murders committed by evil doers. There are many ways to oppose evil, and they don't all involve violence.

The pacifist, the pure pacifist, who never believes in war, for any purpose, at any time, is an enabler.

I've never met one of these "pure pacifist" that you're talking about. They sound like highly principled people, but that's beside the point. The most pacifistic person I've ever met took the position that they personally would never kill another person for any reason. That doesn't mean that they believed war is never an option.

He/she is responsible for death in the sense that fewer deaths would occur without their radical pacifism.

I think you're still assuming that the pacifist does not oppose evil (which I don't) or that there is no way to oppose evil that is more effective and/or results in less death that killing.

Are you willing to restate your original statement "Pacifism Kills" as "There is no way to oppose evil that is more effective and/or results in less death that killing"?

One other question: What about China? They're guilty of human rights abuses. Are we supposed to invade China or accept responsibily for their crimes against humanity? If a war with China went nuclear, both our countries might wind up in the middle ages. Does your military interventionsim policy extend to the countries that we can't easily defeat, or is "Pacifism" O.K. when it comes to our largest creditor nation?

I guess what I'm really saying is a phrase like "Pacifism Kills" is jingoism, that reflects an emotional point of view rather than a reasoned response to complex international situations. But it certainly sounds a lot more enthralling than "Sometimes War is Right".

Mike said...

If you don't stand up to tyranny and evil, you are responsible for it continuing. People like Neville Chamberlain in the pre-WWII era said things like you say too. "It's none of our business. We're not doing anything wrong." I think you are doing something wrong if you don't fight evil.

You mis-characterize my position. I didn't say that I would not be responsible for my response to evil. Quite the countrary, I feel I am completely responsible for my response to evil. "It's non of our business" is not Pacifism, it's Isolationism.

No, I feel so responsible for my response to evil, that I want to be sure I don't create a greater evil than I oppose. If I see a person throw a rock through a window, and then pick up another rock, I'd have a pretty good idea that he was going to break another window. I should oppose that. But not with deadly force. I might shout at him, or try to arrest his throwing arm, or try and block the rock. But killing him is out of the question.

If a thug murders my neighbor, it's up to me to stop that thug from murdering anyone else. No man is an island.

Nice words, but do you really believe them? I believe a number of murders took place in America today. What did you personally do to prevent them? What resposibilty do you feel for the ones you didn't prevent? "Well," I can hear you respond, "None of them took place right in front of me, or I would have done something". Yeah, but I'd bet you could find a neighborhood where murders are likely to take place and patrol to prevent them.

I'm not saying that you should become a vigilante. You do a part by paying for schools and a court system that helps provide greater opportunity to the poor. You suport laws that give the working man a fair shake, and punish criminals. These things oppose evil. I'm trying to make the point that the Pacifist is not responible for the murders committed by evil doers. There are many ways to oppose evil, and they don't all involve violence.

The pacifist, the pure pacifist, who never believes in war, for any purpose, at any time, is an enabler.

I've never met one of these "pure pacifist" that you're talking about. They sound like highly principled people, but that's beside the point. The most pacifistic person I've ever met took the position that they personally would never kill another person for any reason. That doesn't mean that they believed war is never an option.

He/she is responsible for death in the sense that fewer deaths would occur without their radical pacifism.

I think you're still assuming that the pacifist does not oppose evil (which I don't) or that there is no way to oppose evil that is more effective and/or results in less death that killing.

Are you willing to restate your original statement "Pacifism Kills" as "There is no way to oppose evil that is more effective and/or results in less death that killing"?

One other question: What about China? They're guilty of human rights abuses. Are we supposed to invade China or accept responsibily for their crimes against humanity? If a war with China went nuclear, both our countries might wind up in the middle ages. Does your military interventionsim policy extend to the countries that we can't easily defeat, or is "Pacifism" O.K. when it comes to our largest creditor nation?

I guess what I'm really saying is a phrase like "Pacifism Kills" is jingoism, that reflects an emotional point of view rather than a reasoned response to complex international situations. But it certainly sounds a lot more enthralling than "Sometimes War is Right".

Rock said...

Mike, thanks for the comments. I'll respond when I get the time.

Phil said...

As a non-american Mr Rock, can you tell me if your views are those of friends and family, and or, newspapers and the wider city/state you live in, and or, America?

In your 'about me' you say you want to help save your great country? I find this in stark contrast with your comments you have made in this post. Dont you think being pro war would quicken USA's demise? Would love some more insight from the inside of your great nation (as opposed to from the outside looking in).

Rock said...

Phil, thanks for commenting. You said:

As a non-American Mr Rock, can you tell me if your views are those of friends and family, and or, newspapers and the wider city/state you live in, and or, America?

I am an iconoclast. I am alone most of the time in my views, both at work and socially. The reason is that Los Angeles is a liberal haven where conservative ideas are either shunned or kept hidden for fear of retribution. Hollywood (and I am a screenwriter) is viciously liberal.

Still, I speak out, and I earn some respect from my liberal friends for doing so.

I am hardline on both my conservative and my progressive views. As such, I am not representative. I do though, as you see, continue to garner a larger and larger audience for my blog, in a relatively short period of time. I think it's because I do speak the truth, without regard to political correctness, and without regard to fears about my reputation. If I were running for president I couldn't be so blunt. On the other hand, maybe a president who told the truth would be a welcome change. Diplomacy has its place, and so does honesty.

I want to be seen as a nice guy, but I'm not always a nice guy. I know that. War is not nice. I am not "pro-war," as you say. I am pro-Iraq war. I realize the war is not going well, but it was the right thing to do. It isn't being waged very intelligently, but part of this is because of liberal propaganda against it.

In your 'about me' you say you want to help save your great country? I find this in stark contrast with your comments you have made in this post. Don’t you think being pro war would quicken USA's demise? Would love some more insight from the inside of your great nation (as opposed to from the outside looking in).

You are a very kind man. I can feel the goodness in you. I, along with millions of conservatives in America, have wondered what has happened to Europeans and other nations who seem to have just given up trying for justice in the world. You appear to be back in the same Neville Chamberlain frame of mind that allowed Hitler to rise. We wonder why you haven't learned your lessons. Still, you personally seem open to listen.

The anti-Americanism and anti-Bush sentiment in the world I find appalling. I believe we are a good country, with good intentions. What we are doing in Iraq is meant to do good in the world, for all peoples. It is not about oil, as the propagandists attest.

I am a great believer in paradox, and the complexity of life. Waging war to bring peace is paradoxical, but it is sometimes a truism. Now is one of those times.

Pacifism, the belief that war is always wrong, is a philosophy, I believe, that causes death, suffering and destruction. War is sometimes needed, perhaps more often than we would hope. On the other hand, Gandhi’s approach has its time too. When that time comes, I'll be the first to lie down with other protestors in front of tanks.

One difference between liberal and conservative philosophies at this time is that liberals see only greys. Conservatives see black and white sometimes. There is good and there is evil. America is good. Hamas is evil. Period. Israel is good. Saddam was evil. The Palestinians are in the evil camp at this time in history. George Bush is good. Conservatives are good. Liberals can be good, but they have left their classical roots, and so, at this time in history, are serving evil. They are not evil, but they are enabling it.

Thanks for your kind attention. I wish you and the world well. May we all have peace. Unfortunately, though, sometimes this means we must wage war to get it.

Rock

Phil said...

Thanks Mr Rock for the insight you have offered into the first part of my last comment. It is a rare trait for people to put a point of view forward regardless of how it is recieved and still gain respect (as you appear to do). All together to many people shy away from their opinions because they are intimidated (therefore will never gain the respect you can).

I am not living in the country of my nationality, and i feel i am well travelled.
*The anti-Americanism and anti-Bush sentiment in the world I find appalling. I believe we are a good country, with good intentions.*
There is something fundamentally flawed with this statement. The same anti-american/bush sentiment that you speak of does not apply to the second part of the statement 'I believe we are a good country, with good intentions'. Let me assure you Mr Rock you ARE a good country with good people.

However, Everyone that I have met that has anti american/bush sentiments (and there are a lot) have distinguished between the american government with their foriegn policy, and, the american people. anti americans/bush dont hate american society or individuals. I meet american tourists in the pub and have a rip roaring good night (why wouldnt I? you guys love to drink, so do I). you understand? Maybe as an american you dont differentiate this anti american/bush sentiment because he is your representative, but outside USA we all do. Can I have your opinion on this matter? Its just an interst thing you know? I would like to have the inside edge on an anti american bush pub conversation sometime, need the fodder to do so, no better fodder than the truth.

Rock said...

If I see a person throw a rock through a window, and then pick up another rock, I'd have a pretty good idea that he was going to break another window. I should oppose that. But not with deadly force. I might shout at him, or try to arrest his throwing arm, or try and block the rock. But killing him is out of the question.

We’re not talking about rocks, Mike. We’re talking nuclear weapons. We’re talking 3,000 people dead in one day, innocents. Have you forgotten?


If a thug murders my neighbor, it's up to me to stop that thug from murdering anyone else. No man is an island. 



Nice words, but do you really believe them? I believe a number of murders took place in America today. What did you personally do to prevent them? What responsibility do you feel for the ones you didn't prevent?

That’s why we have laws and judges and policemen and courts. I support all these.

There are many ways to oppose evil, and they don't all involve violence.

I agree. There is a time for peace and a time for war. If you say there is never a time for war, then we disagree. 



The pacifist, the pure pacifist, who never believes in war, for any purpose, at any time, is an enabler. 



I've never met one of these "pure pacifist" that you're talking about.

I have. I call them Democrats.

The most pacifistic person I've ever met took the position that they personally would never kill another person for any reason. That doesn't mean that they believed war is never an option.

Democrats recently never met a war they would wage or a tax they wouldn’t raise, or a Republican they wouldn’t bash. All of these positions are wrong for the country.



He/she is responsible for death in the sense that fewer deaths would occur without their radical pacifism.



I think you're still assuming that the pacifist does not oppose evil (which I don't) or that there is no way to oppose evil that is more effective and/or results in less death that killing.

Are you willing to restate your original statement "Pacifism Kills" as "There is no way to oppose evil that is more effective and/or results in less death that killing"?


It’s a matter of timing, Mike. Sometimes Gandhi’s method is best, sometimes Patton’s. Now, it’s Patton’s time, in my opinion.


One other question: What about China? They're guilty of human rights abuses. Are we supposed to invade China or accept responsibly for their crimes against humanity? If a war with China went nuclear, both our countries might wind up in the middle ages. Does your military interventionism policy extend to the countries that we can't easily defeat, or is "Pacifism" O.K. when it comes to our largest creditor nation?


You got it Mike. One of the rules of war is, never start a fight you can’t win. Period. Common sense. Does this apply to Iraq? Maybe. Still, I think we could have waged this war more intelligently.

I guess what I'm really saying is a phrase like "Pacifism Kills" is jingoism, that reflects an emotional point of view rather than a reasoned response to complex international situations. But it certainly sounds a lot more enthralling than "Sometimes War is Right".

Pure pacifism, Mike, is jingoism. I’ll join you in a chant, “Sometime War is Right!” “Sometimes War is Right!” That’s the truth that I stand for. Pure pacifism is never right. Now, war is right.

Thanks, this is an intelligent debate, and I respect you for it, though we disagree. This kind of liberal ideology I can respect, as opposed to the usual name-calling of your compadres.

Rock