Why Pro-war v.s Pro-peace is a problem

Tony Olivia
Pittsburgh Standard

In the light of the current situation on terrorism, it is assumed that the country is falling under two camps.  One camp is in the vast majority and the other is in the minuscule minority.  Seemingly, so the press is telling us, we can be either Pro-Peace or Pro-War.  To this I must respond that the “mainstream” media is pro-hypocrisy and of liberal bias.

One may wonder to what I base this allegation on?  I respond with this simple logic.  You see, to call the majority that back President Bush’s response to terrorism as “Pro-War” and those against his resolution as “Pro-Peace” is a very subtle way that the liberal press subliminally attacks the president’s actions. As we all know (or at least should know) war is a bad thing.  Anyone who thinks otherwise has something wrong with him or her. 

Of course, justice is a good thing and retaliation is a necessity that equates to a just war being a necessity.

Now onto something that is better then war…that is simply peace.  Peace beats war hands down, always has, always will.  But pacifism is not the way to go.  As my old football conditioning coach Buddy Morris used to say, “The meek are not going to inherit the earth, the meek are going to die, the strong shall inherit the earth”.  Harsh? Perhaps, but that makes it no less true.  No one says the peaceful have to be weak.  A favorite saying of mine (partly because its my own) is this: Peace is paid for in blood; let it be more of theirs then ours. 

Now taking into consideration that war for the sake of war is bad, and peace for the sake of pacifism is equally as bad we must look at the wording we use in order to distinguish the differences behind those seeking justice and those turning a cheek.

 Let us continue with the seething plot of liberals to downplay the war effort.  Let us look at the two sides I highlighted when I started this article by the names the press gives them:  Pro-War vs. Pro-Peace. 

Do you see the problem?  Pro-War is what barbarians back and Pro-Peace is what the enlightened try to attain.  I argue that if we call one side Pro-War, we should call the other side Pro-Taliban.  I say this because anyone who objects to this war is against America and is for the taliban and terrorism.  Now if you want to call that side instead, Pro-peace, then I contend that we call the other side Pro-Justice for isn’t that what we seek.  Perhaps we could call them Pro-Safety.  Without terrorists blowing up buildings the world is obviously a safer place.

Now for a patented article twist.  Why don’t we call one side that backs the president Pro-Peace and the other side Pro-Pacifism.  In World War II the allies used war to insure peace in the region from an evil empire.  In the American Civil War the North used war to insure peace from an evil practice.  Why should George W. Bush not use war to insure peace from both an evil empire and evil practice?

Express Your View