Not Fond of Fonda

by Ryan on January 28, 2007

in Politics

Jane Fonda, who should still be serving time for treason, was at it again in a rather small DC anti-Iraq War protest yesterday. A few dozen Freepers showed up to call them traitors, etc., but the real fun was set on stage. They said that word again. The only word the neo-Marxist United For Peace, ANSWR, and the Moonbats really know how to say at these melees which gets the brainwashed masses to swoon: “peace”.

Yet, the thoughtful person may ask: “Peace” is a noble goal, but how is America withdrawing from Iraq going to bring peace to anyone?

  • A Sunni-Shia civil war funded by al-Qaeda and Iran will turn the area into a bloodbath the likes of which would make Rwanda look like scraping one’s knees while roller blading.
  • Turkey would immediately invade the newly formed Kurdistan to prevent that new nation from even forming.
  • American interests would not be served as two or three new Taliban-era-style Afghanistans pop up in the center of the Mideast, all emboldened by a fresh showing of a lack of American “stick-to-it-ivness.”
  • The new crisis would force a future President to send troops in again since no one else would to any effect (except Iran, of course).
  • The instability would force Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan to pursue nuclear weapons as Iran’s new hegemony as their inroads into Shia Iraq would grow.
  • Forget about oil prices and the fate of Israel as a newly bold Hezbollah takes advantage of America’s newly distant proximity from their backyard!

In my opinion, these hippies at the protest yesterday need to put down the pot, drink some vinegar, read more than the New York Slimes and the Nation, and get grounded in reality: leaving Iraq before the situation is at least stable is a bad idea on a practical, military, and on a humanitarian level. They’re floating a thin line now, where the troops may start being part of their problem shortly. Even now, funding them is an open debate amongst the Dems and the Moobats. That’s pretty scary to me.

{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }

madmouser January 28, 2007 at 10:27 am

You make a good point. If the Peace Lovers think it is bad now, like you said, just wait till we pull out. The ramifications of us leaving Iraq as is, only raises the level of insecurity here at home. With a Syrian and Iranian takeover of Iraq, this will financially improve their capability to increase their war machine, which is directed at Israel and the US. They will have billions upon billions of oil dollars to defeat us. No country will side with us out of righteousness when they are threatened with having their oil supply cut off.
The peaceniks can’t think beyond their noses.

Reply

jeremiasx January 28, 2007 at 11:20 am

The collapse of the Iraq state is an inevitability that no amount of US military pressure will relieve, and at best all that our military presence will accomplish there is an exacerbation of the existing problems, as is evident from the scores of bombing campaigns between one or the other side. We are not contributing to the betterment of the Iraqi people with our continued presence in the region. A state of civil war exists in Iraq whether we want to admit it or not, and has been there for over a thousand years…and will continue to be there until some divine revelation can convince Sunnis to stop killing Shia or vice versa.

Peace has a definite benefit that most of you seem to miss: not one more American life need be lost to help the Iraqi people to do for themselves what they should have been doing since the transfer of sovereignty from the Coalition Provisional Authority to the hands of the Iraqi people.

Do you honestly contend that American forces need to remain indefinitely in a theater of war in which there are no defined objectives or missions? This is ludicrous, and that is why the American people by overwhelming MAJORITY want out of Iraq.

By the way…it was not a relatively “small” protest…there were millions involved worldwide…the tens of thousands you mentioned in D.C. couldn’t really be considered a “small protest” when you consider the counter-protest only drew about FORTY PEOPLE.

Wake up…stop deluding yourselves…it’s over.

Reply

theslowsteadydrip January 28, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Hanoi Jane should still be serving time. Personally she is disgusting to me for her Vietnam bull. Some of my friends lost older brothers there and she sure didn’t help. None of the liberals ever do. Good work…..

Reply

Mike January 28, 2007 at 2:27 pm

Our troops are no going to lose the war unless the Democrats strip them of their funding. Ongoing violence in Iraq is not evidence of defeat. It is evidence that there is a war in Iraq. We have suffered fewer casualites in this war than in most of the other wars we have ever fought. Saddam is gone. The pressure on Sunni and Shia militants has stepped up since we pressured the PM.

Although there is much history between Shia and Sunni it hasn’t always been the case. In our lifetimes, the two factions lived in harmony. You even saw instances of Shia-Sunni marriages. Unfortunately, many of these couples have left the nation because of the heightened tensions at the moment. ALthough relations between the sects are certainly at a low point, the history of their relationship in what is now called Iraq suggests the future is not hopeless. The terrorists on both sides must be rounded up and/or killed. That will take military action. With the new rules of engagement, I have confidence in our troops.

And by the way, public opinion polls (especially ones with a pool of “adults” with an oversampled Democrat size) are not evidence of defeat either. Somehow I don’t think the 2002 and 2004 elections were all that compelling to you in your opposition in the war at the time. As for the war protests, you libs have them every other week. Conservatives have these called jobs and families that prevent them from attending your bi-weekly protests.

Stop deluding yourself. Our troops are not what John Kerry says they are.

Reply

Ryan January 28, 2007 at 8:09 pm

On “majority”:

A majority of Americans wanted a split nation during the Civil War if you include the South itself and add the “peace” Democrats of 1864.

A majority of Americans wanted a peace settlement with Britain if you include loyalists and the acquiescent during the American Revolution.

A majority of Americans wanted someone other than Bill Clinton as President in 1992 (43% Bill) and 1996 (49% Bill).

A VAST majority (70%) of Americans happily wanted to sit aside accept Hitler’s control of continental Europe and potentially Britain as a puppet state as late as December 1941.

Point being: one cannot lead by opinion polls and history tells us that when times get tough, most people want an end to the conflict, some as quickly as possible, unfortunately to the detriment of their own interest. This is what separates the brave from the meek in times of crisis. As an historian I see it all the time.

“Peace” is not simply the absense of conflict. Otherwise, you’d have to hate Martin Luther King Jr. for severely disturbing the “peace” of the segregated South. You’d have to hate Gandhi for severely disturbing the “peace” of colonial India. You’d have to dislike the protesters for disturbing the “peace” of Washington DC on a quiet Saturday afternoon in January. The Peaceniks are not heroes fighting the good fight against the fascist/imperialist George W. Bush– rather they are scared and blinded people with not much faith in their leaders, their government, or their way of life. It’s sad.

If there was real public sentiment against the war, the Democrats would see it in their ABSOLUTE best political interest to use their enumerated Congressional powers to defund the war immediately, lest more American troops die, for what some believe, is nothing. These are not days of grayness on this issue anymore– shall we win or shall we lose? The peaceniks and the Dems are not acting as if they are sure what they truly want for this country. That is pitiable as well, if it wasn’t so dangerous.

Reply

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: