Posted on 09/18/2001 1:25:01 PM PDT by LS
Every so often, Rush says something that calls for a response . . . more appropriate, a clarification. Few people are better than Rush at explaining the logic of a position to an ill-informed and, let's be blunt, often moronic caller. But in some cases, he lacks the historical big picture to know how powerful and solid his position really is.
Take today, for example. A fellow advocating "peace studies" and the doctrines of "Gandhi" called in, urging a "peaceful" reponse to the WTC murders. It was a golden opportunity to ask a simple question:
Name the successful peace protestors in Ghengis Khan's Mongol Empire. What's that? Cant think of any? Let's try another: name the successful peace movements in Attila the Hun's march of extermination. Huh? What's that deafening silence?
Ok, so you're not up on medieval history. Fair enough. Name the successful peace protestors in Nazi Germany. Still have you searching, don't I? How about Soviet Russia. "Well," you say, "how about Solzyneitzyn?" Not quite valid, but even if I grant him, you still missed the "successful" part. (That, for you peaceniks, would be Reagan, Thatcher, and Bush 41).
See, the pacifists like to point to Gandhi and Martin Luther King as prime examples of how peaceful responses can be effective. Bad, bad, bad examples. What do we know about both Gandhi and King? They operated in liberal westernized democracies in which, ultimately, civil rights, concern for humanity, and the rule of law were paramount.
Show me the Nazi equivalent of a King. You can't, because he or she (whoever they were) died relatively fast at the hands of the Third Reich. Indians and Pakistanis to this day HATE (ooooohhh, there's a strong word) the BRITISH, but scamper when confronted with the fact that ONLY in a British or French or Dutch or American "empire" would the goofy views of a Gandhi have been tolerated for a minute. Mr. Gandhi, meet Mr. Idi Amin. Mr. Amin, eat Mr. Gandhi.
The genius of King was that he understood the fundamental goodness of America and Americans; he knew that if he could somehow get the television cameras and news reporters from around the country to cover the treatment of black Americans in the South, that the rest of the nation simply wouldn't tolerate it. CLUE: Moral goodness only works on those states and nations that are morally good. American expatriates to the "Soviet paradise" discovered this in the 1920s when they thronged to Russia, only to be slammed into Lenin's and Stalin's prisons.
Funny thing about those dictators. They just could give a crap about your vision of world peace.
The bottom line is that only in nations rooted in the Judeo-Christian ethic, such as Israel, which, for all its acclaimed harsh methods has demonstrated self-destructive restraint, ever even countenance "peace marches." When was the last "nuclear freeze" meeting you saw in Iraq? The last peaceful protest I saw in Communist China was at Tianamen Square. The tanks rolled over it, and China hasn't changed one iota.
So before you invoke King or Gandhi, let's see how they do against the "A" team of thugs and terrorist, not freedom-loving humanitarians who actually care about their plight (which, of course, was undeniably real). I'd wager that the first "sit-in" at the Walgreens in Bagdhad lasts about 30 seconds, and is dealt with before Peter Arnett even gets a wakeup call.
Why do I suspect so strongly that the REAL agenda of these morons is to have America surrender? They are clearly under false beliefs as to what their place in a defeated and occupied America would be. They would not be hailed as "Heroes of the Revolution"- they would simply be lined up at the edge of graves they had dug themselves, and shot (along with a lot of the rest of us).
Things do not always happen for the best, and they do not always turn out the way we would wish. My son has already enlisted, and is awaiting orders to report for training.
I would trade the lives of every stupid "peace protestor" in Union square for his chance to live in a truly peaceful world. But wishing and waving candles around isn't going to get it done.
My dear brother and sister FReepers,
At this, of all times in my lifetime, I would like nothing more than to be able to read these threads and reply to them. I have much I would like to say.
BUT, I cannot!
Why?
Because I am trying hard to raise the finances needed to keep FreeRepublic up and running so that we can continue to share valuable information and respond to it.
I beg you, if you have not yet donated to FreeRepublic this quarter, do so now!
I realize you are giving to lots of Relief efforts and I encourage you to do so. But we need to help FR too. Where would we be right now without it?
If you have no money, please come and bump the Fundraiser Thread.
I would really like to reach our goal quickly so that I and the rest of the dedicated FReepers who are working the Fundraiser Threads can participate in what is undeniably the most important time in FreeRepublic's history.
WHERE WOULD YOU GET YOUR NEWS FROM IF FREEREPUBLIC WASN'T HERE? <--click here
Support FreeRepublic! Support the U.S.A. <--click here
It is interesting that virtually ALL of the new material coming from the USSR's vaults confirms this---and more than a few of the leaders behind the Iron Curtain admitted that SDI tipped the scales. Not one---not ONE---ever mentions "civil disobeidence" or Solzy. Even the recent books that point to the complete helplessness of Soviet leaders and the bankruptcy of their own commitment to communism don't credit the "civil disobedience" with any important effect. This happened WELL after Gorby was already in deep trouble, and after Yeltsin had already made his move, too.
He started his recearch and struggle while in Gulag and exile, well before NATO became a reality.
...this "civil disobedience" you refer to came AFTER Reagan de-legitimized the Kremlin even at home by spending them into the ground.
Civil disobedience has many forms. Yes, open protests became massive and frequent after 1985. But there was massive drop out of system already in 60s and 70s. It was not necesserily done on politically determined platform, but plain folks practiced what was called in Russian POKHUIZM [pardon for indisency!] and formula 'Government pretends that it pays us salary - we pretend that we are working' became a common point.
When millions turn their backs to system, it goes down. It is not that visible (especially outside) as demonstrations or rebellions, but way more devastating.
...more than a few of the leaders behind the Iron Curtain admitted that SDI tipped the scales
For those leaders SDI is a perfect reason to pass their incompetence, helplessnes and ideological bancrupcy on the "enemy abroad". Do you really think that they will praise any internal opposition for their failures?! They had no pne by definition, you know...
The very idea of the communism is that its roots are in working masses. If communists (Gorby included) will admit that they failed because masses did not support them - they are out forever with their leftist ideology. SDI is a great excuse to them, nothing more.
Everyone not blinded by propaganda could see fatal processes in the farming sector and industry well before any SDI. I graduated from high school in 1979 [just a time/age mark] but already at that time I could see a degradation in food supply, even in Moscow.
Even the recent books that point to the complete helplessness of Soviet leaders and the bankruptcy of their own commitment to communism don't credit the "civil disobedience" with any important effect.
And why do you think they were helpless? Nobody of honor and intelligence went into their system for decades. Nobody trusted them - and as a result their ranks from top to bottom were filled with people who does not trust in themselves. It took time until generation of leaders departed from natural causes, but once it happened they had nobody among themselves to rely on.
Look at countries with religious fanaticism like Afghanistan. They are poor, they are devastated - but their belief is not ruined. They care not about SDI, NMD, being nuked or starved to death. Saddam stays in power no matter what is done to his country. Was USSR in worser shape economically than any of above? No. When people know (or thing that they know) that they suffer for right cause - they can endure anything. When the common cause is no more common - all goes apart.
If you see a rock rolling down the mountain slope, it does not meant that you are a superman and power of your sight (or sharpness of your pocketknife) made the rock rolling. For ages water, sun and winds weakened the rock. You did not see it, but it does not mean that this is not the real cause.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.