Re: Anti-War? Not Entirely
I guess I'll take this opportunity to clarify my own position. War is something that has always existed, and will continue to exist until the very last human being is dead. I don't believe it's a matter of whether or not war should exist; the question lies in how it should exist.
The topic of war, as it stands in the US, tends to go from one extreme to the next. We have those on "The Left" who are, at present, the most vocal against the debacle in Iraq, and we have those on "The Right" who tend to crave this war, want even more of them in Iran, Syria, and North Korea, and actually believe that the United States can re-make the world in its own image with a constant flow of bombs and blood. A fine example of this insanity can be found in the writings of Ann Coulter, a self-styled "Christian" and "Conservative", who believes that nuclear genocide is a legitimate substitute for diplomacy.
(She's to writing as Britney Spears is to music: people listen because she's pretty, but the sound is horrible. One can only wonder why her and her fellow "pundits" -- let alone the "Right-Wing" echo-chamber here in the blogosphere -- don't form up an equivalent to Britain's Artists' Rifles if they're such true believers. I can only imagine how it might affect their writing.)
Meanwhile, there are those of us who tend to take a more principled approach to these matters - those of us who believe in the (truly) Christian idea of Just War, who do not excuse the death of innocent civilians, or unnecessary wars of conquest. Right now the US is ruled by those who believe that it's the tax-payers' job to supply the blood and funds it'll take to re-make the world. Of course this is an impossible mission, but they will kill us all before they ever awake from their silly dream.
There used to be a word in our vocabulary: filibuster. When someone got a wild hair and decided to go conquer whatever country for whatever reason, they raised their own army, their own funds, and did it themselves. Just imagine what kind of funding the Neoconservatives could throw together by themselves. Just imagine the army of mindless barbarians -- who think that God needs their help to protect Israel -- that they could raise on their own. They could all buy an island somewhere and use it as their base of operations. George Bush could even call himself "The King", and wear a funny hat.
I'd be alright with that.
Instead, these people choose to waste the lives of our friends, our friends' little brothers and sisters, our little brothers and sisters, etc. The kid from down the street that you used to play catch with...yeah, he took one in the head in Fallujah last week. Why? Who knows.
In short, I'm against useless wars launched by useless people. If it were 1776 or 1861, I'd fight. But Iraq never posed a threat to us. No one does. We should just be happy about that and leave everyone the hell alone.
anti-war; filibuster
Stumble It!
The topic of war, as it stands in the US, tends to go from one extreme to the next. We have those on "The Left" who are, at present, the most vocal against the debacle in Iraq, and we have those on "The Right" who tend to crave this war, want even more of them in Iran, Syria, and North Korea, and actually believe that the United States can re-make the world in its own image with a constant flow of bombs and blood. A fine example of this insanity can be found in the writings of Ann Coulter, a self-styled "Christian" and "Conservative", who believes that nuclear genocide is a legitimate substitute for diplomacy.
(She's to writing as Britney Spears is to music: people listen because she's pretty, but the sound is horrible. One can only wonder why her and her fellow "pundits" -- let alone the "Right-Wing" echo-chamber here in the blogosphere -- don't form up an equivalent to Britain's Artists' Rifles if they're such true believers. I can only imagine how it might affect their writing.)
Meanwhile, there are those of us who tend to take a more principled approach to these matters - those of us who believe in the (truly) Christian idea of Just War, who do not excuse the death of innocent civilians, or unnecessary wars of conquest. Right now the US is ruled by those who believe that it's the tax-payers' job to supply the blood and funds it'll take to re-make the world. Of course this is an impossible mission, but they will kill us all before they ever awake from their silly dream.
There used to be a word in our vocabulary: filibuster. When someone got a wild hair and decided to go conquer whatever country for whatever reason, they raised their own army, their own funds, and did it themselves. Just imagine what kind of funding the Neoconservatives could throw together by themselves. Just imagine the army of mindless barbarians -- who think that God needs their help to protect Israel -- that they could raise on their own. They could all buy an island somewhere and use it as their base of operations. George Bush could even call himself "The King", and wear a funny hat.
I'd be alright with that.
Instead, these people choose to waste the lives of our friends, our friends' little brothers and sisters, our little brothers and sisters, etc. The kid from down the street that you used to play catch with...yeah, he took one in the head in Fallujah last week. Why? Who knows.
In short, I'm against useless wars launched by useless people. If it were 1776 or 1861, I'd fight. But Iraq never posed a threat to us. No one does. We should just be happy about that and leave everyone the hell alone.
anti-war; filibuster
Labels: International, Iraq, Johnny Anonymus
Stumble It!
posted by Johnny Anonymus at 10:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home