Ok Smart Guys — What’s YOUR Solution?
If you want to shut up an entire room full of anti-war left-wingers, just ask them what to do about the global terrorist network, or more specifically, Iraq. Actually, this SHOULD shut them up. But instead you’ll be treated to long, nonsensical diatribes about how this is about oil, imperialism, hegemony, why we should give more aid to the poor, the Kyoto treaty, ‘Noam Chomsky says’, Florida in the 2000 Presidential election, the ‘cycle of violence’, Israel, how brave they are for being against the war, dissent is patriotism, civilian casualties, how America is cowardly for bombing instead of using the army and fighting face to face, etc, etc, etc. They’ll talk about anything except how to deal with terrorists who consider skyscrapers, pizza parlors, and nightclubs to be legitimate targets.
The reason the anti-war left doesn’t want to talk about real solutions is because they don’t have any that hold water. Their ideas go from the unworkable (let’s try more of the same sanctions that have been failing miserably for more than a decade) to the ridiculous (the root cause of terrorism is poverty so we need to give more foreign aid.) We’re more than a year out from 9/11 and I have yet to hear anyone who opposes the war offer a single plausible way to destroy the global terrorist network without using military force. Since the anti-war crowd doesn’t have any real alternatives to offer, they’ve just decided to sling as much mud as possible at the pro-war argument. It reminds me of watching of a bratty six-year-old in a grocery store arguing with his mother…
“You won’t give me that candy bar because you’re mean! It’s not fair! I hate you!”
The pro-war crowd is talking about real threats to America and the world and the anti-war crowd is claiming their motives are impure. How do you respond to that? “No, I’m not a warmonger, but thank you very much for asking?” Is there anything the pro-war crowd could say that would ever convince the anti-war left that this is really about stopping terrorism? Slinging mud and talking about motives is all well and good, but by refusing to offer up feasible solutions of their own, the anti-war crowd has become largely irrelevant. Brad Wardell atJoeuser.com: summed it up fairly well when he said that,
“The anti-war crowd is like the man trapped in a burning building. Standing near the edge of a window he sees a net being placed below him to jump into. He ponders all the things that might go wrong if he tries to jump into the net. Maybe he’ll miss. Maybe the net will break. Maybe he’ll get hurt anyway. Does that mean he shouldn’t still jump? Without considering the results of not jumping (such as being horribly burned to death), it’s a meaningless argument.”
Despite all of their complaints that “we haven’t had a debate yet”, the debate came to Congress and the antiwar-left had no viable plan to offer to the public. Even though George Bush spent almost a year telling the world how he intended to deal with the global terrorist network, there were still claims that he, “hadn’t made the case” (Could any argument have ever “made the case” as far as they were concerned?). Coming from people who hadn’t even started to “make a case” for their non-existent plan of action, those words rang hollow. By default, the argument they were trying to make seemed to be “we’ll just have to learn to live with thousands, perhaps even millions of Americans dying in terrorist attacks. Better that than go to war.”
The monsters among us who thought nothing of murdering thousands of people on 9/11, who murder women and children at bus stops in Israel, who blow up pedestrians in the streets of Kabul, who attack the Parliament of India, who killed almost two hundred people just trying to have a good time in Bali, have to be stopped. To allow these terrorist groups and the rogue regimes that support them to continue to flourish is madness. In a world where chemical, biological, and soon perhaps even nuclear weapons will be in the hands of regimes that actively fund, train, and protect terrorist groups, no nation is safe. A handful of homicidal terrorists armed with a nuclear weapon or biological weapons are capable of killing astronomical numbers of people while still remaining relatively anonymous. In fact, even if millions died in an attack, there is no guarantee that we could determine who was responsible and who supplied their weapons of mass destruction. To ignore a threat like this is irresponsible. Worse yet, to disparage those who are trying to save not only American lives, but also lives all across the world without presenting an alternative is wrong. If the anti-war left is willing to live in an America filled with 9/11s and punctuated by mushroom clouds and biological attacks, that is their own foolish choice. But to try to drag the rest of us into the inevitable carnage and horror that would result from their paralysis is nothing less than despicable.
FacebookTwitterEmail Economist Milton Friedman said the promotion of bad policy requires two types of advocates. “Do-gooders,” he said, act in
FacebookTwitterEmail The White House opposes Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to Congress, but not because the speech has political