Shots Across the Bow

A Reality Based Blog

 

More Anti-War Nonsense

Katie Allison Granju links to former "soldier" who has a burning question he'd like to ask:

A young man (or his parents) needs to ask himself: Would I kill a kid to preserve my country? That question should be asked of all soldiers who enter the military. Just as important is the second question: How does killing a kid preserve my country?

Would I kill a kid - each soldier should ask himself - would I shoot a woman? Would I ruin a house with machine gun fire? Would I burn a row of shops? How about an entire town? Would I level a town if my commander ordered? Would I napalm a town? (Fallujah was napalmed but US officals[sic] deny it). Would I fire into an unruly mob of civilians? Would I fire into an approaching car without knowing who is inside?


First off, let's check into Mr. Herman's right to call himself a "soldier." According to him, he joined the Air Force as his best option to avoid the draft and Viet Nam.

Good thing he didn't choose the TANG, or liberal Democrats would want nothing to do with him, right?

Then, when assigned as a military policeman, whose job most likely would have been to sit on a Vietnamese airstrip guarding a plane, he stole a car and took off for Canada. Only he got too cold on the trip, ran out of gas and money, and went back, where he was arrested, placed in the stockade, got out, and was assigned as a driver stateside.

Not exactly compelling credentials, but on to his argument.

Itís full of crap.

Let's rephrase his questions just a bit.

Are we willing to allow people to be enslaved to avoid war? Are we willing to allow innocent men, women, and children to be slaughtered in order to avoid war? Are we willing to allow men to be fed into paper shredders, women to be raped, tortured, and mutilated, children to be orphaned and imprisoned, just to avoid war?

Are we really that cowardly?

Let me make it a bit more personal. If you had to allow a child to die to prevent a war, would you? If so, would you kill the child to prevent a war? If allowing your neighbor's house to be firebombed would prevent a war, would you let it happen? Would you light the bombs yourself? What if the only reason for the firebombing was his religion? Would you still light the torch?

Now these are the true questions. This war was never just about WMD's no matter how much liberals like to spin it that way. Hell, I remember SKB making fun of the Bush administration over how many different reasons they used to justify the war. This war was in no small part a war of liberation for the Iraqi people.

Let's cut even closer to home. How many 9/11's are you willing to accept before war becomes necessary? Obviously one isn't enough because there are many who want us out of Afghanistan as well as Iraq. So how many does it take? 2? 5? One every 5 years? Or do you believe the question is irrelevant because we are to blame, that it is our corrupt foreign policy that provokes attacks and if we would just give the terrorists what they want, they'd leave us alone? If the latter is your answer, then you believe that we need to drop our support of Israel, and let that nation be wiped from the face of the earth.

Again.

I guess your hatred of violence depends on who is suffering it.

Let's get even more personal, shall we?

If you are attacked, do you have the right to fight back? Say you're an upper middle class person, raised in comfort and privilege. You've got a good life and you've never really had to struggle at all. And now you're being attacked by a couple of thugs who want what you have because they have nothing.

Do you have the right to defend yourself, using violence against their violence to protect what you have, or should you meekly surrender your watch, wedding ring, wallet, and keys because these poor fellows mugging you have had it so much worse than you? Suppose you go the latter route, and they decide to kick the living hell out of you for being "the man" or maybe just because they have a mean streak. Do you fight back then, or do you sit back and take the beating?

OK, y'all think I'm being ridiculous and exaggerating unduly, I know. Just about all of us would fight back to defend our property, and most of those who wouldn't would fight back to protect our lives, and the remainder are evolutionary nulls, dead enders who will cull themselves from the herd. But there is a point to this exercise.

Same scenario as above with one change; you are no longer the victim, but a bystander. Do you have a right to interfere, to stop the robbery and the beating? More importantly, do you have a duty to do so, whether by physically intervening, or calling on somebody else to do so? Our morals, ethics, and in many cases our laws say yes, you not only have that right, but you have a duty to intervene and to use violence as needed to protect another person.

But would you?

If not, and you're the next victim of these thugs, should you expect help from anybody else? Should you expect somebody else to risk their neck to save yours?

Here's the point. We're in Iraq right now stopping a brutal mugging that's been going on for decades. We let it slide in the past because "it wasn't any of our business." On 9/11 it became our business, not because Saddam was directly linked to those attacks but because we suddenly found out that we could indeed be the next victims. The threats coming from the Middle East were no longer empty ones. War rhetoric from Hussein could no longer be dismissed as the venting of a lunatic blowhard.

We were to be the next victim.

Fighting to protect yourself represents the most basic level of ethical behavior. You are stopping unethical behavior because it threatens you directly. The next level is when you stop unethical behavior because it threatens somebody you know, i.e. defending your family/friends. The ultimate level of ethical behavior is when you fight unethical behavior on the behalf of folks you don't even know.

Unfortunately, here in America, we fall very short of that level. On a personal level, we usually make the second level of ethics, but as a nation, it's the basic level all the way. We stick our necks out for nobody. After the Holocaust, we said never again. Tell that to the folks in Rwanda, the Balkans, and Darfur just to name a few.

We refused to deal with Saddam until the threat became personal. The scary thing is that so many of us still do not take the threat personally. Some of us believe that you can co-exist with evil, that the animals masquerading as men can be tamed if we just throw them enough meat. But like the idiot tourists who insist on feeding the bears in the Smokies learn, usually very painfully, eventually you run out of treats and bears donít understand ďAll gone.Ē
Posted by Rich
84.5 miles • (1) Comments • (0) TrackbacksPermalink


***Due to Spammer activity, comments have been temporarily disabled.
Please contact us by email if you wish to comment and we will enter it manually
rhailey(at)shotsacrossthebow(dot)com***



Commenting is not available in this site entry.

Quote

Bible Verse of the Day

Monthly Archives