Tweet
Well this on the verge of breaking Joel's rules, but I think its a worth while read even if it does get locked:
An Article printed in the Windsor Star, it's a pretty good read, I don't know the author:
Nice to see that the anti-war protesters want peace. Then again, who doesn't? But not all of us want peace at any price. As columnist Peter Worthington has said, "peace is easy, just surrender."
Of course everyone wants peace, but more important than current peace is future security.
After the devastation of the First World War, Great Britain wanted peace more than anything else. So when Hitler began re-arming in direct contravention of the Treaty of Versailles, Great Britain had to make a difficult choice between peace and conflict.
Unfortunately, under the "leadership" of Neville Chamberlain --and with the full support of the soft-thinking "intellectuals" of literature, academia and certain newspapers -- Britain chose peace over action. Standing almost alone against appeasement was Winston Churchill.
Great Britain was given a second chance in 1936 when Hitler, who was still relatively weak, invaded the Rhineland, which had been set up as a demilitarized zone to give France an early warning against attack.
Despite this blatant treaty violation, Great Britain again chose appeasement and current peace, at the risk of future security. It was the last time Hitler could have been easily stopped. It wasn't until Germany invaded France in 1940 that Churchill was given power, but by then it was too late. That first decision to take the easy way out was a mistake that cost millions of lives later.
So now we have history repeating. Once again we have rogue regimes in the world that are strengthening and will soon have the potential to inflict enormous casualties. Once again we have the anti-war people calling for peace rather than action. Once again we have people willing to sacrifice future security for the current illusion of peace.
Places like North Korea, Iran and Iraq and terrorist organizations like al-Qaida, are still weak enough that they can be stopped. But once they have multiple launching sights of nuclear or chemical weapons with long-range delivery capabilities, it will be too late. Once Iraq has the power to obliterate Israel, who will have the resolve to stop Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait again? Once North Korea has the capability of simultaneously landing long-range nuclear missiles on New York and, say, Detroit, how can they be stopped from taking their million-man army and crossing into South Korea? Will the U.S. be willing to risk New York to save South Korea?
And once al-Qaida has the ability to detonate nuclear suitcase bombs or unleash chemical weapons anywhere in the world, how will the spread of militant Islam have any chance of being contained.
If we want to save millions of lives later -- presumably even the protesters would be for that --the time to act is now. We all want peace. The peace protesters don't have a monopoly on righteousness. But peace doesn't exist in a vacuum. Peace comes at a price and someone has to be willing to pay that price. The time to eliminate the threat is now, while it still can be eliminated, just as the time to attack Hitler was in 1936, when he could still be easily defeated.
Fortunately for the well-meaning but naive peace protesters, George Bush will make the tough decision, but the protesters will still get to enjoy the security that Bush's decision brings. Including the right to be a holier-than-thou protester.
Nice to see that the anti-war protesters want peace. Then again, who doesn't? But not all of us want peace at any price. As columnist Peter Worthington has said, "peace is easy, just surrender."
Of course everyone wants peace, but more important than current peace is future security.
After the devastation of the First World War, Great Britain wanted peace more than anything else. So when Hitler began re-arming in direct contravention of the Treaty of Versailles, Great Britain had to make a difficult choice between peace and conflict.
Unfortunately, under the "leadership" of Neville Chamberlain --and with the full support of the soft-thinking "intellectuals" of literature, academia and certain newspapers -- Britain chose peace over action. Standing almost alone against appeasement was Winston Churchill.
Great Britain was given a second chance in 1936 when Hitler, who was still relatively weak, invaded the Rhineland, which had been set up as a demilitarized zone to give France an early warning against attack.
Despite this blatant treaty violation, Great Britain again chose appeasement and current peace, at the risk of future security. It was the last time Hitler could have been easily stopped. It wasn't until Germany invaded France in 1940 that Churchill was given power, but by then it was too late. That first decision to take the easy way out was a mistake that cost millions of lives later.
So now we have history repeating. Once again we have rogue regimes in the world that are strengthening and will soon have the potential to inflict enormous casualties. Once again we have the anti-war people calling for peace rather than action. Once again we have people willing to sacrifice future security for the current illusion of peace.
Places like North Korea, Iran and Iraq and terrorist organizations like al-Qaida, are still weak enough that they can be stopped. But once they have multiple launching sights of nuclear or chemical weapons with long-range delivery capabilities, it will be too late. Once Iraq has the power to obliterate Israel, who will have the resolve to stop Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait again? Once North Korea has the capability of simultaneously landing long-range nuclear missiles on New York and, say, Detroit, how can they be stopped from taking their million-man army and crossing into South Korea? Will the U.S. be willing to risk New York to save South Korea?
And once al-Qaida has the ability to detonate nuclear suitcase bombs or unleash chemical weapons anywhere in the world, how will the spread of militant Islam have any chance of being contained.
If we want to save millions of lives later -- presumably even the protesters would be for that --the time to act is now. We all want peace. The peace protesters don't have a monopoly on righteousness. But peace doesn't exist in a vacuum. Peace comes at a price and someone has to be willing to pay that price. The time to eliminate the threat is now, while it still can be eliminated, just as the time to attack Hitler was in 1936, when he could still be easily defeated.
Fortunately for the well-meaning but naive peace protesters, George Bush will make the tough decision, but the protesters will still get to enjoy the security that Bush's decision brings. Including the right to be a holier-than-thou protester.
Comment