Before going all ape shit because its Joe Scarborough, read it.




War leads to peace (Joe Scarborough)



War leads to peace. If you don't believe me, just ask the leaders of terrorist groups across the Middle East who are now suing for peace.

This weekend anti-war activists will take to the streets in New York and across the country to protest America's war effort in Iraq. This despite the fact that there is no doubt among all neutral political observers that removing Saddam Hussein from power led to the first-ever free elections in Iraq.

Even the dazed and confused editorial page of the NY Times reluctantly admits that.

Reasonable people simply cannot disagree on the geopolitical reality that those successful elections led to freedom marches in Lebanon, where this week, 1 million citizens demanded the end of Baathist rule and Hezbollah-sponsored terrorism. Today, we learn that the terror organizations Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad are all declaring an end to terrorist attacks while they seek, for the first time ever, a peaceful settlement with Israel and the United States.

Like President Bush, Israeli PM Ariel Sharon has told the world that strength is the only way to bring terrorists to the negotiating table. He is being proven right. Likewise, George Bush learned from Ronald Reagan that thugs do not respect concessions, but rather, strength.

That simple truth has led to free elections in Afghanistan and the inauguration of the first democratically elected president there in the nation's history. U.S. troops also insured the same for Iraq, which led to a flowering of democratic activity in Lebanon, and Palestine, and even Egypt — who responded to US scolding by promising free elections and releasing from prison its most well known democratic activist.

Ironically, the same protesters who will be cursing this war of liberation, this president, and this country's troops are many of the same forces who opposed Reagan's liberation efforts in Central America and Europe. They convulsed in protest when Reagan dared to call nuclear weapons deployed to Western Europe the "peacekeepers." Millions marched in the streets and predicted Reagan's actions would destroy U.S. alliances with Europe and lead to WWIII.

Sound familiar?

Is there any doubt that if these liberals had their way, Communists would still be ruling tens of millions in Central America and hundreds of millions in Eastern Europe and Russia?

Of course not. And now that freedom is on the march again in the most repressive region in the world — the Middle East — it is disturbing that these left-wing radicals will take to the streets to condemn the very actions that have led to the spread of freedom across the world.

Sadly, it proves once again that too many Democrats and leftists hate the president so much that they would rather see American troops lose overseas than see George W. Bush win at home.

And that's today's Real Deal.

What did World War I lead to? I'll let you answer that.

This is way too simplistic. It will be years if not decades before we learn whether the war in Iraq truly leads to peace.

Well World War I led us into another World War, and after that war it brought us peace. But I am not going to say that the Iraq war is equivlent to World War I

I have no idea why conservatives have such a hard time understanding that the ends don't always justify the means. They have no problem stating that for many other issues near and dear to their hearts but can't fathom the same for the other side.

I'm sorry but I just choose to believe that there's always a better way than war. Sure it's harder and takes longer but war always leads to horrible death and destruction. Instead of looking to where war has lead to good things why can't we emulate where peace has lead to the same result?

I didn't know that that was such a trademark of the conservative thought.

However:



I pretty much completely agree with that.

yeah, 40 years of a nuclear arms race after world war 2 doesnt matter much.

40 years of a nuclear arms race that didn't involve any deaths. I can't believe you're trying to hide the fact that World War 2 solved something. Don't tell the greatest generation that.

I'm not convinced that true peace can ever be attained by taking up arms against other human beings under any circumstances.

Of course you can't. There could be U.S.A soccer teams playing Iraqi teams in Iraq, while Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds sit in the stands talking with each other politely, and still you will keep your same opinion. It doesn't matter to me, if all goes well, history books won't be repeating your quotes.

nobody died in chernobyl?

OH chernobyl!!! What was I thinking?!

Not just Chernobyl, just look at the deaths and illnesses from EVERY Nuclear test that has taken place by not just Americans, but by the British, Russians, Chinese, and specifically the French.

Sometimes I don't think you do...Well definetly no critical thinking...

Oh I don't think? You're helping in saying that World War 2 didn't solve anything. I should stop talking to you right now, because that could be the dumbest comment anyone could make. Unless you're so arrogant you don't know it.

Yet another paid pundit. I stopped listening to dipshits like this guy long ago. And that goes for those on both sides of the aisle. But hey, I guess most Americans love being spoon-fed their opinions.

Oh believe me I've been saying the same opinion since the beginning of the war. I just like the way Joesph put it.

Take a look at recorded history. You will see that over that time span, every single war ever fought has eventually resulted in a time of reduced aggressions. Some short, and some long. Then followed by another war. Then some reduced aggressions. Then some war. And on and on.

And think about this. War *may* lead to a period of reduced aggression, then to only eventually be followed by yet another war.
However, peace never, ever leads to War. Otherwise, it would not be peace.

True peace is almost this strange unattainable goal in our culture. It's like a graph with the lines rising and falling over time with either more or less aggression and war, and true peace being zero on the scale with which the lines never intersect. Theres always something to fight over.

It didnt solve anything. It was just another step in history. The world can't be "Solved" by anything- it can just be less bad at times.

WWII did improve a lot of things world wide.

How about this- Ill tell the "greatest generation" that WW2 didnt end all wars...

If you go tell the same age group in Poland, Czech Republic, East Germany and Yugoslovia that the World War 2 solved all the worlds problems and no one died after the war was over.

Did I say World War 2 ended every problem in the world? Of course it didn't, but it solved plenty of things. I don't feel the need to go through them because I hope you can figure them out on your own, since all of you know everything.

I'm just going to stop now. I am talking about Iraq and all the changes happening in the middle east and listening to you change the subject and fall into denial. Personally I think its pathetic. You guys are really sad.

I should know better though, I am on a pearl jam message board.