Sunday, August 30, 2009

Peace Protesters: wasters of money and time

LAFAYETTE, CA - SEPTEMBER 11:  Mark Kirby, dre...Image by Getty Images via Daylife
Every time US goes to war, such as against Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on, some "peace protesters" dominate the news by staging huge rallies, disrupt people's lives in general, raise a lot of ruckus all over the place. In the nutty place known as Berkeley California, there's even a protest right in front of an Armed Forces recruiting station. What exactly do they hope to accomplish with such actions?

It sounds like the protesters themselves don't even really know. If you ask them "how will your actions today stop the war and achieve peace?" Their answer is pretty much, "we need to show the government that fighting is not the answer!"

Some will then sprout conspiracies like "blood for oil", or "war industry controlling Congress", or my favorite "Bush Jr. finishing what Bush Sr. left behind." But those are not answers to the question. They may answer WHY the government went to war (at least for the protesters), but it doesn't answer HOW will they stop war.

The more sane among them, not swept up in the fever, will tell you that "we will convince the government NOT to go to war and they have to follow the will of the people!"

Let's just imagine for a moment, a world where the peace protesters succeeded. Congress vetoed the President and forced the troops to be returned, or never sent in the first place after 9/11. What will happen then?

What will happen is Osama will send video messages, denouncing America as weaklings who can't defend themselves, and order even MORE terrorist attacks.

Perhaps the troops and whatnot will be sent to secure borders or whatever , man checkpoints, and so on, but eventually SOME will get through, and MORE civilians will die. In the meanwhile America is turned into a police state, people constantly live under the threat of terror, civil rights are shrinking as more terrorist acts happen across the world.

Is that really peace? Of course not.

These peace protesters are making a fundamental mistake: we are fighting terrorists, not reasonable people.

Even Hitler is somewhat reasonable when it comes to accommodations. If Churchill choose to surrender, Hitler would likely have accepted in WW2. Hitler is reasonable when it comes to expanding the Third Reich with minimum casualties. England has little resources of her own. Taking her is not that much of an advantage. Hitler's target was always Russia, but I'm off topic here.

Osama Bin Laden and his cronies, on the other hand, are NOT reasonable people. Think about it... How can someone who ordered the death of HUNDREDS of innocent civilians (just those on the four planes), and caused BILLIONS dollars of damage, and THOUSANDS more deaths when the WTC went down, be considered 'reasonable'?

The peace protesters wants our country to be Ghandhi: if someone slaps you, turn the other cheek. Their assumption is that the attacker, being reasonable, would soon grow tired of slapping, anger spent, and start talking, then there will be dialog, and problem will be solved.

The fault with this assumption is that terrorists are reasonable people. If you turn the other cheek to a terrorist, they are far more likely to hit your other cheek with a knuckleduster, then a pipe over your head. Terrorists are like bullies, who terrorize their victims into submission. They enjoy your suffering, as it gives them power and validation.

Please note that I did not say anything about the reasons for going to war with Iraq. That is a different topic altogether.

Another problem with the peace protesters they end up leaning to the left often, as the "right" are often associated with war. Unfortunately, the "left" is also associated with communism and socialism. And socialism is against world trade and capitalism.

Capitalism is the only thing that is likely to bring world peace. Why? If you kill your trading partner, you have nobody to trade with! Sure, you can conquer him and make him your slave/vassal/whatever, but will he be as good as a trade partner after you do that? Of course not.

Yet socialists / peace protesters keep mumbling about how we're EXPLOITING the third world countries for our benefit. What they don't see is the so-called VICTIMS don't seem themselves as exploited. They see the investments in their country(ies) as great opportunities to advance in life. So-called child-labor sweatshops may look horrible through OUR eyes, but the so-called victims won't bat an eye over it. Children work BECAUSE the family need their income, not because the shops forcibly dragged them out of family homes and schools. It's "sweatshop" only by US standards, not THAT country's standards. Studies have shown these so-called sweatshops actually pay MORE than local industries, by providing jobs that otherwise would NOT have existed.

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say there's this fictional third world country called Bravostan. They were strictly agricultural, but growing population. Massive unemployment as there are no factories and such in Bravostan.

Then someone from the US imported 500 sewing machines, threads, fabric,and opened a clothing factory. Any one can operate a sewing machine after a little training. Suddenly there are 500 jobs that weren't there before. make that 1500 jobs if you run 3 shifts 24-hours a day. Make that 1450 since some machines are down for maintainability and repairs, but we'll also need shift leads and supervisors, and repair techs and whatnot.

The standards of living is VERY low there. People can live comfortably on $1 (US) a day. The factory pays $1.50 equivalent of USD per 8-hour shift, VERY generous by local standards.

Is this a sweatshop? Absolutely, by socialism standards.

Is it improving Bravostan's people's lives, those who found work there? You bet! And in turn, it will improve everybody else's lives as the increased income means more buying power for everything else in life, and that means more money in the economy, which benefits everyone.

But do these socialists-wannabes care? No. They are fixated on the word "sweatshop". They rather chant their slogans like "no blood for oil" instead.

If they want change, donate money to improve third-world conditions, or join the Peace Corp. Peace Corp actually IS doing good, instead of talking the talk. But no, these so called peace protesters, as my grandma puts it, "stomach full, mind empty". They are basically restless and need SOMETHING to do. Unfortunately, what they chose to do is costing you and I money.

Do you have any idea how much a peace protest costs the city? Police presence (and overtime costs), cleanup crew after the crowd goes home, and more. You're looking at thousands of dollars per event, or even TENS of thousands of dollars if it's a huge one. And who's footing the bill? You and me, the taxpayers.

Personally, ANY SORT of rally or march should post a bond equivalent of $5 per person they expect will attend. If you expect 10000 people, post a bond of $50000. That way, someone instead of the city will pay for the cleanup and police overtime. If there are money left, they'll be refunded. If there's a deficit, you can't apply for another permit until the deficit is made up. To be fair about the count and costs, appoint a citizen's committee to oversee the process. If there are incidents of violence by the protesters, the bond is immediately forfeit. Except peace protesters will then say this is an illegal limit on the right to assembly. Nothing illegal about ASSEMBLY. It's the MARCH that is the problem.

So WHY do they do the things they do? Frankly, it's an addiction. yes, I said addiction.

You see, it's about feeling good. They want to feel the mass hysteria, they want to control it, bend it, immerse in it. When there's no mass, no more peace protesters. It is an addiction to the chemical high of mob mentality. Remember, in a mob, you are no longer an individual. You can get away with things you would never otherwise get away with, such as looting, vandalism, theft, arson, and much more. Peace protesters are after that high.

You see any peace protesters now? Where are ANSWER and Code Pink and all those organizations now? A few are still hanging out around Berkeley and SFSU student union, still with those posters and pamphlets and buttons and whatnot, but their numbers have dwindled, as they no longer have the mass. There's always a few core "true believers" (who actually believes all this bull**** they are sprouting). They keep the organization going until the next item they can protest about, such as an anniversary of something.

In conclusion, Peace Protesters are selfish bastards who just want to feel good. Their actions cause massive disruptions, costs taxpayers money that are NOT compensated by the instigators, promoted no useful change, and in fact may do the exact opposite of what they claim they want. If that is not bull****, I don't know what is.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

No comments: