|
|
David Spates Now is not the time for peace "No more eye for an eye ... Let's break
the cycle of violence." If this were a perfect world, that would be
a fine, fine sentiment. Of course, in a perfect world, terrorists
don't crash hijacked airplanes into buildings, killing thousands
of people. So much for the perfect world scenario. "No more eye for an eye ... Let's break
the cycle of violence" was written on a banner carried by
antiwar demonstrators earlier last week in Washington, DC (their
picture was in USA Today recently), and it vividly demonstrates
that sometimes people don't think things through to a logical
conclusion. I would even submit that, in the end, these pacifists
and the terrorists would produce the same result - more attacks.
The pacifists of this country don't want more terrorist attacks,
but that's what their inaction would produce. To think otherwise
is unreasoned. Thankfully, the pacifists are in the minority.
For the most part, they're limited to a few college campuses
and one congressional seat. U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee was the one
vote against authorizing military action in response to the attacks,
a move that panders to her left-wing constituents in Berkeley,
CA, a hotbed of knee-jerking liberals who no doubt would have
simply shrugged their shoulders as Hitler herded millions to
the gas chambers. If given the choice, I'd much rather make
love, not war. The problem is we don't have a choice. If we as
a country would have done nothing, we'd be guaranteed more terrorists
attacks. I suspect that we'll suffer more attacks anyway, but
we're certainly not going to idly stand by and not take steps
to prevent it. Allowing the Sept. 11 attacks to go unpunished
is an open invitation to more attacks. It's irresponsible and
shortsighted to suggest that a peaceful course of action will
solve this problem. It won't. The men we're fighting against would love
nothing more than to kill you, your children, your parents and
everyone you know. They're not interested in peace. They've made
that abundantly clear. In their twisted minds, we Americans are
nothing more than infidels who must be killed. With an opponent
like that, certain options are eliminated. Peace, as a course
of action, has been eliminated. I don't consider the relatively few pacifists
as unpatriotic or traitorous. On the contrary, they're entitled
to their opinions, as we all are. I'm entitled to mine, and George
Bush is entitled to his. Casting opposing views to the majority
is one of the things that makes this country so outstanding.
I welcome contradictory opinions. It makes things interesting.
On this particular issue, however, I'm happy to count myself
among the masses. I've considered the pacifist approach. I've
contemplated the pros and cons, and I've determined that a forceful
response is our best course of action. But I find it difficult to believe that the
college kids at Berkeley have given this issue careful consideration.
I suspect, instead, that they're protesting just to be protesting.
It's a time-honored college tradition. Voice your resistance
to the popular beliefs of the day and you'll get noticed. It
can be a thrill to defy authority. The story in USA Today also included another picture of a young man holding a sign stating that New York loves peace. He's right. New York loves peace. So does Tennessee and the other 48 states, for that matter. That's why we're fighting a war. It's a tired cliché, but it rings true: "Freedom isn't free." Maintaining peace, in this, our imperfect
world, comes with a price. More Americans are going to die soon.
More civilians could die from more terrorist attacks, and there
certainly will be deaths among our military's ranks. Things may
get worse before they get better, but in the end I'm confident
that a short-term war now will mean a long-term peace later. Now is not the time for peace. To slightly twist an Italian proverb, "If a man wrongs me once, shame on him; if he wrongs me twice, shame on me." It's our responsibility ensure we're not wronged again. · · · |