Why Has The “Peace Movement” Failed

Flopping Aces ^ | 03-17-08 | Scott Malensek

[Starman417]

What is the “peace movement” doing wrong?

• It failed to prevent the war in Afghanistan.
• It failed to prevent the war in Iraq.
• It failed to change power in the executive branch.
• It failed to end the war in Iraq.
• It was duped by Democrats in 2006 who promised “A New Direction In Iraq” without ever having even formed a committee to brainstorm ideas until 2 months after being elected.
• It failed to prevent The Surge offensive.
• It failed to stop cannibals in the Congo [and was silent while 4-6million died as UN peacekeepers raped and sold children en masse].
• It failed to stop the bloodshed in Darfur.
• It speaks out against the efforts (war) of US forces to protect people from terror.
• It speaks the same rhetoric as the enemy’s propaganda. It is silent in response to terrorist attacks.
• It is openly embraced by Islamic holy warriors.

What is the “peace movement” doing wrong?

In late 2002 through early 2003, millions and millions of people took to the streets around the world and protested against further military attack on Iraq. They failed to prevent the invasion and removal of Saddam Hussein. Post war investigations and even interviews with many senior level regime leaders (as well as with his interrogator) show that Saddam never believed the U.S. would have the will to go against the world’s anti-war movement. At most, he expected another Operation Desert Fox, and it wasn’t until the last few weeks or days that he finally recognized that the invasion was going to happen. What do you think might have happened if millions of people took to the streets and-instead of trying to deter action (as Saddam believed would be successful)…what if those millions had protested in demand that Saddam answer Blix’ 129pgs of “Unresolved Disarmament Issues”? Could the “Peace Movement” have better achieved peace by protesting against Saddam rather than against those who would later remove the dictator? Would the Peace Movement be more effective if it protested against dictators, warlords, etc rather than representative governments?

Maybe the Peace Movement has failed because it’s embraced the very tactics that it alleges were used to start a war? Before the war, we were told by members of the Bush Administration that the war would be short, costs offset by Iraqi oil revenue, and casualties would be comparable to those of Desert Storm. Those claims were wrong. Opponents of the war often point to them as deliberately wrong, misleading, etc.; i.e. lies. Conversely, for the past four years the American people have been told that the Army was on the verge of collapse, that there was no way to continue the war in Iraq without a draft, that casualties are 50x higher than the actual number of bodies, that the cost is trillions higher than it really is, that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror (despite the fact that 95%+ of the suicide bombers were Al Queda, and 80% of all civilian casualties were from Al Queda suicide bombings). Today’s Peace Movement seems to feel it’s ok to lie and/or mislead to try and end the war in Iraq in the same way that Bush Administration people are accused of having lied and misled to start it.

[jdm]

Good post.

[ilgipper]

Why is Darfur of interest for so many liberals when Iraqis in mass burials are not?

[Paladin2]

So why haven’t they Stopped Jihad Now?

[cowboyway]

[Beckwith]

Because it's not a “peace movement.”

It's an anti-American, socialist bunch of misfits.

[nobdysfool]

Simple reason: It’s illogical, and most people realize that it isn’t practical, rational, or feasible. The ones who participate and believe in it are brain-damaged.

[TNPatriot]

“A lie told often enough becomes truth” Vladimir Lenin.

[Vaduz]

Old stoners tire faster now.

[RightWhale]

Looks familiar, but anyway, the Peace Movement, Inc has failed in its stated aim due to not acting on the true causes where they are, and been astonishingly successful in its unstated goal of attracting $ millions every year.

[Waverunner]

The peace movement failed because of just that ... a belief in Marxist drivel.

[garyhope]

Exactly.

Thank you.

[stompk]

How about, “because I don’t believe peace is their goal” when their methods are violent?

(ex. slashed tires, stolen flags, stolen election signs, cars vandalized, etc)

peace my @$$

[ctdonath2]

‘cuz waving signs and shouting cute rhetoric does nothing.

[Publius]

The peace movement has failed because no one is being drafted out of his soft, comfortable life to go abroad, fight and die.

[Gorzaloon]

Because it's not a “peace movement.”

It's an anti-American, socialist bunch of misfits.

And, as we knew in the '60's, a cheap date.

[Mr. K]

I subscribe to P.J. O’Rourke’s theory of “follow the babes”. In the 60’s the hot babes were in the anti-war movement and Nixon gave them lots of Ammo and there was ONLY the liberal press.

Now take a look at the wide-loads, dumbasses, and poofters who congeal at these events... and it is easy to see why they don’t have any mass appeal- who wants to associate with losers!?

[Disciplinemisanthropy]

the absence of war does not mean peace

[pfflier]

Look at the pictures that accompany the post. It is a loose coalition of lunatics that haven’t met a conspiracy theory they didn’t like.

[Niteranger68]

Any movement which is comprised of the laziest among us is destined to fail.