February 09, 2006


If you were under any doubt the the "peace movement" is a filthy sham, Scott Burgess notes:


...Meanwhile on the letters page [of The Guardian], a paradox central to the "peace" movement is thrown into sharp relief.



In a
letter headed "Our fears over threats to Iran", we read that:



"We Iranian-British academics and anti-war campaigners wish to express our deepest concern about the decision by the UK, France, Germany, US, Russia and China to report Iran to the UN security council."



Take a moment to let that sink in. "Anti-war campaigners" are objecting to a broadly multilateral request for UN involvement to help prevent an aggressively belligerent government - one which has threatened to "wipe [another sovereign nation] off the map" - developing nuclear capability.



Signatories include Tony Benn, John Rees (National Secretary of the Respect coalition), various Iranians ... and Kate Hudson, of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.



That's right - the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is vehemently opposed to UN action to encourage, erm, nuclear disarmament....


And I'm sure every damn one of them criticized President Bush in 2003 for not working with France, Germany, Russia, etc. and for not subordinating us to the UN (even as he was enforcing UN Resolution 1441) and it's peaceful ways. Every damn peacenik in the world criticized Bush for "not consulting with allies," for not being "multilateral." but they were lying, they would have supported Saddam no matter how multi-lat America was. No matter what the UN voted.


They thought


Pacifists are frauds and liars. It's possible that there actually were real pacifists in the past, but now it's just a shabby cover-story for lefty anti-Americanism.

Posted by John Weidner at February 9, 2006 07:39 PM | TrackBack
Comments
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Weblog by John Weidner