are liberals really anti war?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by LuvRPgrl, Jan 15, 2006.

  1. LuvRPgrl
    Offline

    LuvRPgrl Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,163
    Thanks Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +206
    or are they just anti Republican?

    http://www.jhunewsletter.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/02/21/3e555666251a0?in_archive=1

    http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/a.../601130327/1071


    The real ANSWERs in anti-war rhetoric
    Deconstructing Terror
    by Jonathan Snow
    February 21, 2003
    In an op-ed piece printed in last week's Wall Street Journal, Rabbi Michael Lerner exposed the often hidden forces behind the current "anti-war" movement. Rabbi Lerner is a leader of the liberal left and an outspoken critic of the proposed war in Iraq, yet he was not allowed to speak at last weekend's "anti-war" demonstrations in San Francisco.
    Why, you may ask, would a popular, well known, and forthright anti-war activist be banned from a rally that supposedly seeks to showcase the same anti-war ideals? The answer is simple: Rabbi Lerner refused to ignore the rampant anti-Semitism that is helping to drive the current movement against war in Iraq.

    Rabbi Lerner was blacklisted from the speakers list because of his criticism of ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism), one of the organizers of the event. His critiques of ANSWER have focused on the group's constant anti-Semitic declarations, and their attempts to blame "International Zionism" for all of the problems in our world.

    Rabbi Lerner's predicament is representative of a larger problem in the current "peace movement." Lerner is struggling with the fact that his pacifist tendencies are drawing him towards a movement that is being led by people with underlying motives that often conflict with their stated peaceful goals.

    At anti-war rallies and events around the world, a seemingly endless stream of slogans is constantly being thrown about. Many of these slogans are not actually pacifist in nature, but are merely "anti-establishment," with the establishment being the United States and Israel.

    I was shocked to find signs calling for the destruction of Israel at a peace march in Washington that I attended last spring. How, I wondered, could a march dedicated to avoiding armed conflict not understand the hypocrisy of advocating the violent overthrow of a democratic state?

    Therein lies the problem with the current movement: it is not being led by people who are pacifists, but by people trying to protect the corrupt regimes in the Middle East. Groups like ANSWER are not interested in ending racism; this is evident by the fact that they support self-determination for certain groups (like the Palestinians), but not for others (like Jews in Israel). This begs the questions: Why does a group that is itself espousing a racist/anti-Semitic ideology claim to be "acting to end racism?" The answer is that the leaders of ANSWER understand that the vast majority of the American public despise racism and are hopeful that someday racism will no longer be present in our society. ANSWER uses the loaded term "racist" to draw allies to causes that they would not otherwise support, like the destruction of the Jewish state.

    The groups at the center of the current "peace movement" have not just appeared out of nowhere. Many of them are legitimate groups with long and storied histories fighting for civil liberties in the United States and abroad. Others have appeared more recently and often give little information about who is funding their activities and crafting their agendas. Public information that is available, however, shows massive funding for many of these new "anti-war" groups comes from the Saudis and from Iraqis with ties to Saddam. It is no surprise that donors to these groups often have connections with other types of "resistance movements" as well, including terrorist groups around the world.

    It is of vital importance that members of a democratic society express their desires and opinions to their elected officials. If, after carefully studying and understanding the situation in Iraq an educated person still feels that war is wrong, they have not only a right but a responsibility to stand up and educate others.

    A person is also responsible for his or her associations, however. Groups like ANSWER must be made to understand that their racist and anti-Semitic statements are hurting the validity of the "anti-war" movement. Anti-war activists must educate themselves about the groups sponsoring events, and refuse to participate in events coordinated by these types of groups, even if the message of the event is supposed to be one of pacifism. Individuals must demand that other groups refuse to organize events with these types of organizations. Anti-Semitism is not a benign aspect of these groups; it is a driving force, and cannot be ignored.

    When seeking allies to a common cause, people must often overlook their differences for the sake of unity. This cannot be such a case. ANSWER and similar groups are using the true anti-war movement to legitimize their anti-Semitism and hatred, and to help support the corrupt regimes of Saddam Hussein and Yasir Arafat.

    A reasonable person can certainly oppose the anticipated war in Iraq. The "anti-war" movement, however, is in danger of loosing all legitimacy by continuing to associate with hate groups like ANSWER.


    Jonathan Snow can be reached at JSnow@jhunewsletter.com.

    Greenpeace co-founder praises global warming

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/a.../601130327/1071

    Greenpeace co-founder praises global warming


    By Sean Hao
    Advertiser Staff Writer


    Global warming and nuclear energy are good and the way to save forests is to use more wood.

    That was the message delivered to a biotechnology industry gathering yesterday in Waikiki. However, it wasn't the message that was unconventional, but the messenger — Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore. Moore said he broke with Greenpeace in the 1980s over the rise of what he called "environmental extremism," or stands by environmental groups against issues such as genetic crop research, genetically modified foods and nuclear energy that aren't supported by science or logic.

    Hawai'i, which is one of the top locations nationwide for genetically modified crop research, has become a focal point in the debate about the risks and value of such work. Friction between environmentalists and other concerned groups and the biotech industry surfaced most recently in relation to the use of local crops to grow industrial and pharmaceutical compounds. Last year that opposition halted a Big Island project planning to use algae for trial production of pharmaceutical drugs.

    Zero-tolerance standards against such research by environmental groups delay developments that could help those with unmet basic needs, Moore said. Instead Moore called for compromise rather than confrontation on the part of the environmentalists.

    "There's no getting away from the fact that over 6 billion people wake up each day on this planet with real needs for food, energy and materials," he told those attending a luncheon at a three-day Pacific Rim Summit on Industrial Biotechnology and Bioenergy.

    The event was sponsored by the Biotechnology Industry Organization. Sponsors included Dupont, Carghill and the state Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, which spent $15,000 to support the conference.

    In direct opposition to common environmentalist positions, Moore contended that global warming and the melting of glaciers is positive because it creates more arable land and the use of forest products drives up demand for wood and spurs the planting of more trees. He added that any realistic plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and the emission of so-called greenhouse gases should include increased use of nuclear energy.

    Among the 300 or so members in the audience yesterday was Henry Curtis, executive director for environmental group Life of the Land. Curtis said he found Moore's comments "interesting."

    "He's obviously thought about things," Curtis said. "But I don't buy a lot of his arguments.

    "I think the movement dealing with (genetically modified organisms) is very wide. You can't just say everybody that's against it is against it for this reason and they're totally against it.

    "Part of what we're doing in the environmental movement is safeguarding the downsides," Curtis added. "We don't want to see a downside that we don't anticipate overwhelming the system."
    __________________
    "Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now." Bob Dylan

    Earth first! Make Mars our bitch! Dale Gribble
     
  2. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    They are just anti-Republican/conservative. Back when conservatives were staunch isolationists, the libs are the ones who did all the warring.
     
  3. Abbey Normal
    Offline

    Abbey Normal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    4,825
    Thanks Received:
    391
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mid-Atlantic region
    Ratings:
    +391
    Where has Rabbi Lerner been? The anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian leanings of the left are not really new.
     
  4. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    True.

    And just look at the popularity of Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Joe Stalin, FDR, Mao, the Shining Path, Pol Pot... the list is endless. The liberals and the left are a bloodthirsty people. 7 million people died under the Communist regime in the USSR. There is nothing scarier than people willing to commit genocide in the name of peace and equality.

    The right can get violent, but the right at least doesn't proclaim to be pacifist. The good right at least sees some exercise of force in the name of the natural order - but always within the confines of preservation of that natural order, which includes the safety and security of family, people and nation.
     

Share This Page