Dissecting Anti-War Crowd
April 7, 2003
Despite the fact that coalition forces in Iraq have Baghdad surrounded and the Saddam Hussein regime is just about over, the anti-war protesters are still marching in rallies all across America in protest. Nevertheless, with President Bushís approval rating and support for the war well over 70%, it has become very suspicious to be an activist for peace at this point.
We have not seen such protests against a war like this since Vietnam. And I believe that there are many liberals and conservatives alike who are against Operation Iraqi Freedom. But the key thing to remember is that war has always been a divisive issue in this country.
There is a common perception that everyone supported our involvement in World Wars I and II. But the fact is that many people were boldly against going to war with Germany and Japan. Americaís strategy of detente almost backfired on us when Hitler began taking over Europe. But our isolationist attitude changed when we became engaged in World War II as a result of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
Americans have and always will have the right to protest any actions taken by our government that they feel are wrong, including wars. This principle of liberty we enjoy is what our military has fought so hard to defend ever since our nation declared its independence from Great Britain on July 4, 1776. And I have no doubt in my mind that there are many people who earnestly do not approve of war as a means for resolving conflict.
While I am sure these people mean well in their opposition to war for any reason, I wonder if they have thought about what would have happened if we had refused to fight in any of the wars in the past. Would the United States of America exist as a freedom-loving superpower nation in 2003? Would our country even exist at all today?!
Even worse than those who just oppose war, many of the anti-war protesters today just donít care about the United States at all. They hate America and everything it represents. These people are against the war in Iraq because it gives them the opportunity to spew their anti-American venom. This perfectly describes most of the anti-war propaganda coming from Hollywood idiots such as Martin Sheen, Michael Moore, Madonna and the like.
The lives of these entertainers (and I use that word VERY loosely) are so imaginative that it is difficult for them to grasp the reality that most people understand. The saddest thing about these Hollywood actors is that although Americans support them by going to movies or buying their CDs, they consider most of us to be ignorant for not believing the way they do. It really makes you want to just stop going to the movies and buying CDs altogether!
There are also factions of the anti-America crowd who have long been against this nation for one reason or another. A large number of the peace marches and anti-war protest rallies have been organized and funded by a group called ANSWER, which stands for Act Now to Stop War & End Racism. ANSWER is supported by the radical socialist group known as the World Workers Party. If you go to the World Workers Party website, you will find the following quote regarding the philosopical makeup of the members of ANSWER:
"Are there any communists amongst the members of ANSWER, the principal organizer of the (anti-war) protests? Specifically, are some of the leaders in ANSWER members of the Workers World Party? Sure. The question is, so what? As any student of the powerful--and successful--movement against the U.S. war in Vietnam knows, members of the Socialist Workers Party and the Communist Party were among the leadership of the two major anti-war coalitions during that war."
What is most ironic about this is that not one single communist or socialist country would ever allow such public protests like this to be conducted. Do you think Saddam Hussein would have let the Iraqi people get away with protesting his invasion of Kuwait back in 1990? Itís not at all likely! He probably would have put them to death for questioning his authority.
Just so I am not misunderstood on this point, let me be clear. I am not saying all anti-war protestors are communists or socialist sympathizers. But the fact is that the organizations that fund the rallies and marches against war are filled with them. And I think it is safe to say that many of these anti-war protestors are the exact same people who protest on behalf of the environment, in support of animal rights and for abortion rights.
Now letís get down to the nitty gritty about who many of these anti-war protestors REALLY are. It is my belief that many of them just absolutely loathe President George W. Bush. They donít just disagree with his policies or dislike his personality, THEY ABSOLUTELY HATE HIM! This is so blatantly obvious to anyone who is paying attention to the comments being made about him since he was elected in 2000. There is a sizeable faction of people in this country (maybe up to 20% of the population) who STILL thinks Bush illegally became president in that election. To that end, the problem these people have is not so much about the war with Iraq as much as it is with George W. Bush being the Commander-In-Chief!
I wonder if the anti-war protestors would be having their peace rallies if Al Gore had been elected president in 2000 instead. This is probably a poor hypothetical since it is highly unlikely that Gore would have gone to war with Iraq. But we do have a precedent for how the anti-war protesters reacted during a liberal administration: President Bill Clinton.
I donít remember hearing anything from the anti-war crowd when thousands of civilians were killed in Kosovo after Clinton approved of bombing there. The silence from the Hollywood cronies was deafening! Can you imagine how the liberal media and the anti-war crowd would have reacted if a Republican president had been the one who called for the Chinese embassy to be destroyed killing several Chinese civilians?
I can hear the response from liberals now. It goes something like this: ďBut the military action in Bosnia was necessary to stop the genocide and agregious human rights violations.Ē But that excuse doesnít hold water because there have been even worse human rights violations in Iraq for a much longer time than Bosnia ever had! Saddam Hussein has literally killed thousands of his own people and has used chemical weapons against the Kurds.
The anti-war crowd simply ignores this reason for war with Iraq. They attempt to dodge confrontation about it by saying that the United States has helped lots of countries who have a history of human rights violations. This response is so typical of liberals. They simply evade the question because they donít want to face the serious questions.
Why were liberals so silent about military action in Bosnia to stop human rights violations but are creating a ruckus about the military action in Iraq where human rights violations are documented as so much more severe?
Although there will be liberal apologists who will attempt to answer that question with a gobbledygook response, the answer to the question is simple. Many of the liberal, anti-war crowd hate President Bush and will be against ANY and EVERY policy that he stands for, regardless of what it is. If Bill Clinton were still in office today and he had decided to go to war against Saddam Hussein and Iraq, then I would bet you there would not be hardly ANY protests against the war like we have seen in the past few months! I challenge any liberal Democrat to deny this.
The anti-war crowd also likes to criticize the war with Iraq since the United States helped arm Saddam Hussein in the war he fought against Iran. The rationale goes something like this: ďSince we gave Saddam Hussein some of the materials he would later use to make weapons of mass destruction, this is a problem we created and should not go to war over.Ē The United States may have been mistaken for giving Saddam Hussein arms materials in the past. But does that excuse us from our responsibility to disarm him before he uses them against us or another country?! For some in the anti-war crowd, the answer to that question is a resounding YES!
In hindsight, Saddam Hussein has been a much bigger threat to the United States than Iran ever was. But, rather than showing gratitude to us for helping him in his fight against his nemisis neighbor, Saddam Hussein has made it his goal to do anything and everything to hurt the United States of America. For that reason, we HAVE to disarm Iraq. If we donít do it now, then the future of America will be in grave danger.
Now that the anti-war crowd has been dissected for who they REALLY are, we can all better understand their motives for the next time they decide to rear their ugly head in the future!