« taking liberties with labels | Main | Feed the IDF: thank you for participating »

Mothers for Saddam

From Instapundit comes a story of Moms Against Wartm.

"I said that all mothers should automatically be against war," Reed said. "It was against their nature to be violent instead of nurturing." Maybe, she said, it was time to start a movement -- Mothers Against War.

Nurturing my children includes this: the desire to make sure the world that lies ahead of them is a safe, peaceful, democratic one, free of tyrannical dictators who want to see free countries blown to bits.

There are many other groups opposing the war, says the article. One group is the National Council of Churches, the people who brought you the What Would Jesus Drive campaign.

On December 8 through 15, there will be a series of actions across the country. The biggest day, (Robert Edgar, General Secretary of the group) said, is Dec. 10, which is significant not only because it is Human Rights Day but also because it is the day that former president Jimmy Carter is to receive his Nobel Peace Prize. "Carter, as an evangelical Christian, represents a great number of people in the antiwar effort," Edgar said.

Carter also represents - I don't know, maybe only himself - in the movement to have America disarms to set an example for other countries. Which, of course, would get us all killed in the end anyhow.

Indeed, on that day, religious groups across the country plan to stage mass acts of civil disobedience. Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry's ice cream, founder of Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, plans to join church groups in New York and get arrested, he said, for the first time.

"I've never engaged in civil disobedience before," he said. "But if some country was going to do this to us -- have a little preemptive war with the U.S., bomb our people, kill or maim people because they thought that at some time we might bomb them, we'd say that's a war crime. I feel that getting arrested is the biggest statement that I could make to say that what the Bush administration is doing is wrong."

Ah, yes. Nothing like having a police record to make a statement that you are Business Leader with Sensible Priorities. Hey, how about free ice cream for all those starving Iraqi children! He could even bring it over there himself. And stay there.

Once again the activists are purporting to speak for everyone and saying absolutely nothing at all. It's all fine and dandy to promote peace and and want to stop war. But you have to have viable alternatives. You can't just say "go make peace" and not have a plan for that peace. Easier said than done. And until some peacenick can come up with a way to make this world a safe and democratic one, I cannot take them seriously.

update: Glenn also has a bit about the other side of the Mom coin.

Comments

If I had known that the WWJD campaign was a bee in the National Council of Churches' bonnet, I'd have been railing against it more vociferously than I have. The NCC has never met a communist dictator, tax, welfare program, or wealth-destroying regulation it didn't support with an enthusiasm bordering on neurosis. They make Ed Asner look like Ronald Fucking Reagan, so complete is their left-wing idiocy.

Here's to hoping that the protestors get the same treatment a similar set of protestors would get in Peace-loving Iraq.

My favorite is the acronym "MAW". If used as the hillbilly way of saying "Ma", then it is totally wrong as most of the people who would say it Maw are generally the first to go to protect our nation. The other meaning of the word "maw", as in gaping orifice, well, that one almost seems to fit. A black hole from which nothing escapes, even Clue™.

And it makes perfect sense, because mothers are naturally non-violent and nurturing. Like, say, a mother bear when her cubs are threatened

It is truly a fallacy to equate mothers against war with mothers for saddam. Eye-catching, but false and unfair.
If I, as a mother, feel that nonviolence is a part of my mothering nature, how can you dispute that feeling? PEACE is not really that radical of an idea. Neither is solving conflicts with diplomacy and nonviolence. It is your right to disagree, but also it is NOT helpful for you to accuse mothers "against war" as being "for saddam." Nor is it kind to wish harm on war protestors. Please reconsider your stance and sarcasm.

Its very sad to see people arguing for war and everywhere i turn people simply and without a conscience talk of the cost of spending on the war.They forget the innocent child that wants to have a daddy all its life,and that innocently plays in the fields of Iraq right now.Will the history of war help this child forget that she or he lost her dad to a bomb?If kids were put in the halls of government and the halls of the U.N they would not even remember their geographical borders but would play in the very halls where others talk of war.
Its very easy for adults to speak of killing others,it really is killing other human beings.But when shall we return to the innocence of childhood and love?
I am African and have friends who lost their parents to war in Congo,and believe me they dont thank the winners,but they wish they had their parents back.Mothers against war is a right path.In the future these will be the heroes of this time.