Peace is important, but is peace without freedom acceptable?
The Soviet Union was at peace between the two world wars and from 1945 until its collapse in 1989, and in those times managed to shoot, starve or kill in the gulag more than 20 million of its own people. In Chairman Mao's Cultural Revolution, China killed and starved many millions more. Pol Pot in a Cambodia at peace killed two million Cambodians. Zimbabwe is at peace, but dictator Robert Mugabe is starving his subjects. North Korea is at peace, and enslaving and starving its people. Iraq is, likewise, oppressing its people.
To quote columnist Andrew Sullivan, "War is an awful thing. But it isn't the most awful thing." Enslaved peoples and peace without freedom are worse.
If you believe peace is paramount, which of the following wars would you not have fought:
• The Gulf War of 1991, which liberated Kuwait from Iraqi invasion and terrorism?
• World War II against Nazi Germany?
• The American Revolutionary War?
• The Civil War?
• The Korean War?
• The war that freed Afghanistan from the Taliban?
And if at the height of the Berlin blockade in 1948 the Soviet army had attacked West Germany, Belgium and France, would you have opposed an American military response?
Friday, March 14, 2003
Pete Du Pont has some questions for peaceniks. Some examples:
Posted by Betsy Newmark at 7:43 PM