September 21, 2004

SELL IT TO THE PEOPLE'S ARMY:

War is obsolete, Dalai Lama declares during Sunrise visit (James D. Davis, September 20, 2004, Orlando Sun-Sentinel)

Thousands of listeners rose, cheered and clapped wildly as the Dalai Lama not only called for peace, but declared war obsolete.

"My interests in the future, my economic prosperity, depend very much on others, including my enemy -- and theirs depends on me," the revered head of Tibetan Buddhism told nearly 13,000 listeners Sunday in Sunrise.

"In ancient times, nations would only think `my interests,' then destroy the enemy and enrich themselves," he continued. "Today, with modern economy and ecology, everything is interdependent. Our interests are the same as others'.

"So I think the concept of war is out of date."


That's always a vapid sentiment but it's especially appalling from a man who fled, left his people to suffer under tyranny, and now hides behind the skirt of the most powerful nation on Earth.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 21, 2004 4:42 PM
Comments

A lot of people need to watch the scene in LOTR again. The one where Eowyn said, "...those without swords can still die upon them."

Posted by: ray at September 21, 2004 7:03 PM

"War is Obsolete."
Wasn't that what they said throughout the 1930s?

Except for these two countries in Europe ("SIEG! HEIL!" "SALUTO IL DUCE!") and one off the coast of China ("TENNOHIEKA! BANZAI! BANZAI! BANZAI!")...

Posted by: Ken at September 21, 2004 7:31 PM

Don't forget that the Nobel Prize for Peace was once awarded to for the idea of "outlawing" war.

But he is right about the interdependency part. Too bad he's too senile to realize that the people waging the war against us are parasites who don't care what they destroy because they don't share our interests. Hell, why doesn't the old fraud offer himself up as a substitute hostage if he believes the crap he's spouting?

(Sorry , but there's nothing more reprehensible than a pacifist who's willing to let others die to keep his hands clean. The only reason Dante's Inferno doesn't have a special place and punishment for them is because it's a sin unknown in his day.)

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at September 21, 2004 9:31 PM

BTW, the Nobel Peace Prize winner has been selected, and will be announced on Oct. 8 (if I remember correctly). The early line is on Kofi Annan.

They should change the name to the Nobel Death Prize.

Posted by: jim hamlen at September 22, 2004 10:31 AM

WSJ's Opinion Journal never mentions Arafat without the end line "Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize in 19-whenever."

Posted by: Ken at September 22, 2004 12:32 PM

Kofi already won for UN Peacekeepers didn't he?

http://www.nobel.no/eng_lect_2001b.html

Posted by: oj at September 22, 2004 12:58 PM

Sorry - I mussed up. The favorite is Mohammed El-Baraedi (IAEA chief). Of course, he is just as silly a choice as Kofi.

Posted by: jim hamlen at September 22, 2004 9:00 PM

Doesn't he know that dependency breeds resentment? The reason that they (Muslims) hate us is that they are dependent on us - on our technology, our military protection, our economic vitality, our foreign aid. But you wouldn't expect a commonsense understanding of human nature from a person who was raised from birth with the idea that he was the incarnation of a god. He's never had to deal with the schoolyard bully, so he is clueless about war and human conflict.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at September 23, 2004 11:43 AM

I don't see how he couldn't have fled, given Tibet's religious structure.

With him dead, the religion would have ground to a standstill.

But he should have turned into an exile military leader, like DeGaulle.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 23, 2004 4:40 PM

Good one! Like DeGaulle! Ah, the glorious victories he led...

Posted by: oj at September 23, 2004 4:47 PM

He fought.

That's the most you can ask. You cannot demand that someone win just because his cause is just.

Almost always, the just lose

Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 23, 2004 8:38 PM

Sometimes DeGaulle fought more with the Allies than with the Germans. Probably more than sometimes.

Posted by: jim hamlen at September 23, 2004 8:42 PM

He hid in Britain and returned home to spread the myth that France had resisted rather than collaborated. He was a vile man, not fit to shine Franco's boots.

Posted by: oj at September 23, 2004 10:17 PM

The French atheists did resist.

You're right, the Christians collaborated, as did Franco

There were many more Christians, so you're right in your oveall observation: practically all of Europe collaborated with Naziism.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 24, 2004 3:20 PM

Harry:

Nazism is atheism rampant. Hitler wanted access to Gibraltar to seal off the Med. Franco stopped him. Catholic 1, Darwinist 0.

Posted by: oj at September 24, 2004 3:27 PM
« BUREAUCRATS DON'T INNOVATE (via Robert Duquette): | Main | INDECENCIES OF THE DECENT LEFT: »