War Is Not Fought for Peace

RUSH: Randy in Riverside, California, welcome to the EIB Network.

CALLER: Hey, Rush, conservative God-fearing dittos from California out here.

RUSH: Thank you, sir, nice to have you with us.

CALLER: Hey, I had an observation to make. It looks like you have finally cracked the nut with the liberals in your observation of their creating carbon in order to reduce carbon emissions.

RUSH: Yeah, the guy said this with pride. The guy analyzing Live Earth said, ‘Well, they’ve got to make carbon in order to destroy carbon.’

CALLER: I think you finally cracked their nut with what we can call the conservative paradox of progress, because that is the exact same principle that we rely upon with our need to attain and maintain peace. Sometimes you gotta go to war in order to establish peace.

RUSH: Uh, uh, uh, well, gee, where do I start? Wars are not fought for peace. That’s a big misnomer. I’m not nitpicking you here, but when somebody says something that gets me on a roll here, and I could go on a roll on this, wars are not fought for peace. But at the same time, most wars are fought for legitimate reasons.

CALLER: Granted. But I mean even still, though, is that not still the ultimate objective of — you get the enemy to concede to you, theoretically you’re looking to establish some element of peace in their surrender.

RUSH: Well, yeah, but that’s too fine a point of this, but, you know, the Soviet Union never fought war for peace. Whenever the Soviet Union engaged in military activity or some dictator oppressor nations, they don’t want peace, they want havoc. They’re not going after people to threaten them. They’re going after people to dominate them and put them under control and tyranny and so forth. Now, you got good guys like us —

CALLER: Well, granted, that’s why I’m disclosing my personal demographic of God-fearing dittos on this because the God-fearing approach to war is in order to basically to wipe out the bad guys in order to maintain or establish peace.

RUSH: Okay, all right, well, then you gotta start defining peace. That’s not as easy as you might think. It might have a very succinct dictionary definition, but it’s elusive. I kind of recoil with the peace movement and the diet for peace, global peace march for global nuclear disarmament. In the wrong mouths, peace means the exact opposite. Peace means tyranny. In the right mouth, peace means tranquility and lack of fear with the presence of justice. There’s any number of ways that can define peace, and not all of them are good. I mean the peace activists in this country are seeking the defeat of the United States as it exists. The peace activists in this country are actually pro-US enemies. The peace activists in this country sidle up to people like Fidel Castro, and they get goo-goo over lunatics like Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez. I know they’re misguided as hell, but they think they’re doing what they’re doing under the banner of peace. And of course that makes them good people. Peace is an illusive thing. You fight wars to either stop attacks on yourself, to liberate people who are being oppressed. The purpose and the way you do it is to kill people and break things. There’s nothing peaceful about war. Now, the end result is what you’re talking about. You can arrive at a peaceful conclusion if the right side wins. World War II was not fought for peace. World War II was fought to stop the Germans. I’m not splitting hairs here. And World War II was to stop the Japanese. World War II, we should have completed and stopped the Russians, too, but George Patton got suspended for that. So we won’t go there. I appreciate the call, Randy.