Fweepers Say "Christmas Song Sends Wrong Message About War"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1307022/posts Christmas Song Sends Wrong Message About War
December 22, 2004 | David Burnett


Posted on 12/22/2004 7:46:49 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger


If there’s one thing I enjoy the most, it would be the Christmas season. Even though the line comes from an oft-repeated song, this truly is “the most wonderful time of the year.” And it weighs on my heart this year that while I’m at home, with my central heating, my warm bed, my nice room, plenty of good food, hot water, and a beautiful Christmas tree, there are tough soldiers security on the other side of the globe who have to spend the season protecting our nation, keeping both the US and Iraqi citizens safe from those who have no holiday except when good people die. Their home is a tank, or a bunker. If they’re lucky, they might get a few moments’ peace to sit down and eat their MRE. Back at home, the very battle they are fighting is being opposed by liberal politicians who have grand illusions of peace through disarmament.

I had these things in mind when I heard the song “Grown-up Christmas List” come on the radio the other day. It’s a very beautiful song, telling of someone who was once a child, writing Christmas lists for Santa. Now that the person is grown up, they still have a Christmas wish list — but not for toys and candy. This year, the items requested are peace and love in the world. Very charming, and I’m sure the author meant well, but the song gets a few things wrong. Don’t get me wrong, the song is beautiful. I like it. Without such visions of world peace, and the efforts of those who have that vision, the world would undoubtedly be a lot more bleak. But in the desire for peace, I think a few things get overlooked.

Two lyrics in the song particularly catch my ear, because they contradict one another, though most people probably don’t give it a second thought. The first line in the chorus is a wish that “wars would never start.” Just a few lines later, however, a wish “that right would always win” is expressed. Two attractive and appealing ideals, and two very opposite requests. If war never starts, how is Right always going to “win”? And for right to “win,” there have to be two factors in place.

First, that Right be stronger than Wrong. Luke Skywalker, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Jedi knights must be stronger than the evil Empire if they are to win the day. Gandalf and Aragorn (eventually) have to be stronger than Sauron if they are going to defeat his reign of darkness. And in the end, God Himself must be mightier than Satan at the Second Coming.

Second, Right has to be allowed to fight Wrong! For what does the word “win” mean, but that a contest of some sort has taken place, and Right has emerged the victor? And how can such a contest take place if a wish “that wars would never start” is granted? By accepting, understanding, embracing, tolerating, loving our enemies? Yes, Luke, Darth Vader is the bad guy, but give peace a chance! Don’t fight him! Gandalf, have you ever tried reasoning with Sauron? Think of his childhood! If the United States achieves its goal, it must not only be stronger than its terrorist opponents, but they must be allowed to engage the enemy. There are those who speak out against fighting a battle with terrorist regimes, crying “give peace a chance”. These folks would want Right to win too, I’m sure. What I think we all should realize is that, even though it can get ugly, Right must be given the chance to beat the tar out of Wrong.

snip

Pictures of amputation stumps. :eyes:

and that is that "right" is only won THROUGH wars.

Typical freeper bullshit.

I guess that freeper has never read the words of Jesus: "Turn the other cheek."

that "might" makes "right".

I don't believe that Mohandas Gandhi was engaged in very many "wars", in this writer's sense, but he definitely defeated the British Empire!!

By refusing to fight. Passive resistance, takes a lot more courage than shooting someone.

"And how can such a contest take place if a wish “that wars would never start” is granted?"

Well, the two leaders could sit down to a game of chess, or they could get out the boxing gloves and beat the crap out of each other, or they could just sit down and reason with each other. bush* and his ilk talk about defending freedom etc., but they don't have to do the dieing!

is always and only done through violence, that "winning" can never be done through negotiation.

For the freeps - and fundamentalists - there must always be "the other", an enemy, someone against whom to fight and "win". If we leave them in charge, there will never be world peace, because they MUST have an enemy. So that, even if they "win" and take over the world, they will then turn on each other.

This kind of freeper logic, like posted in this asshat's monologue, pisses me off. The base assumptions are utterly toddler-like.

If Right always won, there would be no more wars, because the battle would be won far before any need to bring an army into the discussion.

Sorry, Freeper Charlie Asshole Fuck, but you are an idiot moran.

that`s all i can say

Kind of funny to think of some guy being driven to do such mental gymnastics around a Christmas carol, of all things.

Don't they know Christ was God's Vessel of Venegence?

...and tell me who closely resembles Emperor Palapatine, Sauron, and Satan.

(And I don't mean physically so forget the Lieberman pics ;) )

What bullshit.

Paddler of Swollen Asses.