Brian in Mesa

In My Opinion

by Trevor Bothwell


For several months now, activist actors and musicians have championed an anti-war campaign against a potential conflict in Iraq. One of the most visible opponents to the war effort during the last few weeks has been singer/human billboard Sheryl Crow.

In January, Miss Crow accepted her award for best pop-rock female artist wearing a white T-shirt with the message “war is not the answer” displayed across the front in black sequins. In addition, she made an appearance on Good Morning America with a shirt reading “I don’t believe in your war, Mr. Bush!” And this past weekend, Crow opened the NHL’s annual all-star gala bearing a shirt that read “only love will conquer hate.”

The problem with peace activists like Sheryl Crow is not that their message isn’t attractive, or even preferred in theory -- it’s simply impractical.

To be sure, both liberal and conservative pundits have made arguments against war in Iraq. Some question our ability to fund a war effort on one or possibly two fronts simultaneously, while others downplay the severity of threat that Saddam Hussein poses at this point in time. But unlike others, whose aversion to war is based not necessarily against war in general, but on semi-reasonable current economic or strategic concerns, Miss Crow believes absolutely that “war is never the answer to solving any problems.” To her, war is “based on greed,” and “the best way to solve problems is to not have enemies.”

Despite doing her best Sean Penn impression, saying that “the best way to solve problems is to not have enemies” is about as obtuse as the mental midget (sorry, “little person”) argument that we can eliminate crime in this country by simply “getting rid of the guns.” This will apparently occur just as soon as we solve the horrors of abortion by giving up sex (Ironically, when anti-abortionists actually attempt to bring this message to teenagers and unwed couples, they’re often literally run out of rooms.).

If this weren’t bizarre enough, the idea that war never solves any problems is naivety in a nutshell. Are we really to be convinced that the Civil War didn’t solve the problem of slavery? That Allied forces, led by the United States during World War II, didn’t put an end to Nazi tyranny? Or that the U.S. didn’t save the lives of thousands of innocent Kuwaitis during the Gulf War? Those who oppose war at any cost apparently don’t realize that the costs they’re willing to incur oftentimes come in the form of continued unnecessary lives lost at the hands of those we debate warring against.

Surely it is true that a nation may never choose to engage in war as a strategy for resolving conflicts. But it is equally true that that nation may not be guaranteed continued autonomy over their lives as a result of that choice. Sheryl Crow claims that this is Mr. Bush’s war. This is plainly not true. Every American who understands the lesson that a now-nuclear North Korea has taught us likely supports this impending war. Indeed, it belongs to anyone who hopes to preserve the lives of people like Sheryl Crow long enough so they can continue to tell us why war is always wrong.

Advocating “peace” as opposed to war is easy. Clearly, no one wishes to see to the inevitable deaths of innocent civilians and children of other nations; we cringe at the idea of having to put our brave soldiers in harm’s way. But too often, those who fashionably utter that “war is not the answer” to threats to our sovereignty fail to offer any other viable solutions to combating these threats, save for the perpetual act of doing nothing about them. The costs of action must be weighed against the eternal costs of inaction.

Some people will always be convinced that the United States acts on “greed,” as if in 1991 we couldn’t have simply taken all the oil we wanted if we had so chosen. But if the deposing of a megalomaniacal despot who starves, murders, and rapes his own children is the definition of "greed,” so be it.

Sheryl Crow is absolutely correct when she expresses that “only love will conquer hate.” But it is a perverse oddity that she is either unwilling or unable to acknowledge the existing hatred that our armed forces are readying to combat. As history has proven time and again, sometimes it is possible to compel others to love by only first forcefully eliminating the hate.

And so it is to the ladies and gentlemen of the United States military that I offer this simple message: Godspeed in your upcoming ventures to spread American love across the globe. Our thoughts and prayers are with you. Warm up the Tomahawks.

Trevor Bothwell is editor of The Right Report and author of the cookbook, 50 Ways to Impress Your Girlfriend’s Parents. He is a former elementary school teacher and college instructor.

__________________
"If Chuck is Solo, Larkin is his Fett!" - Morgan

WaywardFan

Nice. Very nice...

http://www.whittierdailynews.com/Sto...234836,00.html


Antiwar protesters trash 9/11 memorial
American flags burned and slashed
By Debbie Pfeiffer Trunnell, Staff Writer


LA HABRA -- Antiwar protesters burned and ripped up flags, flowers and patriotic signs at a Sept. 11 memorial that residents erected on a fence along Whittier Boulevard days after the terrorist attacks in 2001 and have maintained ever since.

However, although officers witnessed the vandalism Saturday afternoon, police did not arrest three people seen damaging the display because they were "exercising the same freedom of speech that the people who put up the flags were,' La Habra Police Capt. John Rees said Monday.

"For this to be vandalism, there had to be an ill-will intent,' he said.

Rees said in order for police to take any action, the owner of the fence would have to file a complaint.

Jeff Collison, owner of The RV Center in La Habra, who has allowed residents to add patriotic symbols to the fence on his property, said he just might do that.

"Their free speech stops at destruction of private property. If they are allowed to come on my property and burn flags, does that mean I can go to City Hall or the police station and light their flags on fire because that is freedom of speech? To me, this is vandalism,' Collison said.

Some residents Monday hung signs criticizing those who destroyed the display.

Tracey Chandler, a Whittier mother of four who has maintained the spontaneous memorial since it was created by other area residents soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, said she was shocked by the destruction.

"They trashed 87 flags, ripped 11 memorial tiles made by myself and my children out of the ground and glued the Bob Dylan song to a sign that said, 'America, land of the brave, home of the free,' ' she said.

The Bob Dylan song she referred to is "With God on Our Side,' an antiwar anthem of the 1960s.

"It's unbelievable, because there were absolutely no political messages on this fence. It was all about supporting our troops, which could mean bringing them home, and about remembering 9-11.'

Les Howard, a sociology professor at Whittier College, said the incident might be an indication of some confusion among people trying to stop a possible war against Iraq but uncertain how to express their sentiments. However, he said he does not condone the destruction of symbols important to those who erect them.

"Some think (the best way to support the troops) is to not question their role. Some think the best way is to pursue all means possible to avoid putting them in danger,' he said. "That still does not excuse any desecration of people's symbolic participation.'

Chandler said she plans to rebuild the Sept. 11 memorial.

"We are going to rebuild this memorial, and it will be brighter, bigger and better than ever,' Chandler said.

Debbie Pfeiffer Trunnell can be reached at (562) 698-0955, Ext. 3028, or by e- mail at debbie.pfeiffer@sgvn.com .

__________________
Fell deeds awake... Now for Wrath... Now for Ruin... and the Red Dawn...

SirStefan32

That's terrible.