Is this a senseless loss of a young life, or is this what gives life meaning? You decide.
More:
"In his October 4, 2007 Wall Street Journal piece,“ Modern Heroes,” Robert Kaplan observed that “according to LexisNexis, by June 2005, two months after his posthumous award, [Smith’s] stirring story had drawn only 90 media mentions, compared to 4,677 for the supposed Quran abuse at Guantanamo Bay, and 5,159 for the court-martialed Abu Ghraib guard Lynndie England.” This is nothing short of a scandal."
7 comments:
The premise that a great deal of these articles are based on is the idea that some people must die in order for others to live. This is the EXACT same premise upon which Michelle Obama's socialist ideas rest. In reality, I have nothing to gain from any other man's death. The only people who gain when an American soldier dies are the Islamists. So mourn loss, honor courage and commitment, but do not honor sacrifice or duty. Sacrifice is the way of the suicide bomber who blows himself up for Allah or some other foolishness (notice how those who will so readily sacrifice themselves are completely unhesitant to take others with them). Life has meaning in how it is lived, not in it being ended.
Anyway, here's an email I sent to Glenn Beck a few weeks ago after he praised soldiers for sacrifice on his show:
"....but tonight at the end of the show you made a comment about military men and women that I did not like. Unfortunately I can't remember the quote exactly, but it was something about how Stephen King's freedom came because of sacrifices made by soldiers who chose to give up their lives for their country. I realize that this is the dominant view of the military today, and has been for a long time, but as a Navy ROTC Midshipmen, I offer you an alternative viewpoint to advocate.
First of all, American soldiers do NOT choose to give up their lives, they get killed by their evil enemies. American soldiers should, and for the most part do, enlist for the purpose of protecting their own lives, freedom, and loved ones from foreign aggressors. They also do not join the military and go off to war in hopes of dying. American soldiers want to live in a free country where they are able to pursue their own happiness, just like you have been able to do. Joining the military should not be seen as a sacrifice; it is no sacrifice to choose to live as a free man rather than as a slave, and to fight for your right to live that way. It would be a sacrifice to let the Jihadists win.
Although right now I am just a college student, I will be an active duty officer in only a couple years. I do not want my time in the military to be seen as a sacrifice. I find it insulting to be thought of as a sacrificial animal. I am a man just like you, and my life, like yours, is an end in itself, not a means to anyone else's end. Earlier on your program you correctly denounced Michelle Obama for wanting to take from some in order to give to others. The same principle that you advocated there applies to those in the military.
Since you are someone in a position of great potential influence on American culture, I ask of you this favor: Please, do not honor soldiers for their so-called sacrifices. Instead, honor them for their courage and for their commitment to life and freedom. If you do this, your efforts will go a long way towards supporting the troops. Remember that death and sacrifice is the way of the suicide bomber, not the American soldier, marine, sailor, or airman."
Finally, Paul McKeever has a good video about this topic on YouTube. He's vlogging while driving so you may find it a bit rambly, but it's a great video.
For the Love of Life
"The premise that a great deal of these articles are based on is the idea that some people must die in order for others to live. This is the EXACT same premise upon which Michelle Obama's socialist ideas rest. In reality, I have nothing to gain from any other man's death."
But on the larger scale people are dying so that others can live and live freely. At least, the reason we are given for the death of every terrorist, soldier and civilian that is killed by the US military is to ensure the continuation of American freedoms and protect American lives. They're not giving up their lives voluntarily, except in the case of suicide bombers, but it's true that they seem to be dying so we can live.
Why would American soldiers kill people in first place if Americans, and by extension you, have nothing to gain? Freedom and lives.
Lucy, I'm speaking on a fundamental, metaphysical level, on which that premise is false. The choice that is based on that false premise is the choice made by the initiators of force, the Islamic Totalitarians. In retaliating, we are simply granting them their choice. All civilian deaths are their moral responsibility. Anyway, I'm on a ship and have stuff to do, so check this space again in about a month.
By "their" I meant the initiators, not the civilians who die. Except that most of the civilians support the ends towards which the initiators fight, making them guilty as well.
By "their" I meant the initiators, not the civilians who die. Except that most of the civilians support the ends towards which the initiators fight, making them guilty as well.
So, by that logic, if Iraqis started bombing New York City it would be the moral responsibility of our government, and not the Iraqi bombers, since we were the initiators of force. Am I getting that right?
No. A tyrannical government is ALWAYS the initiator of force by its very nature. The US has the moral right, but not the duty, to invade any dictatorship at any time. An example is Vietnam, in which we had the right to go to war to stop the communist takeover of the south. That being said, actually going to war there was stupid and self-sacrificial. The violation of rights that our government was responsible for was not against the Vietnamese, but against American soldiers. Even if these soldiers weren't drafted it would still have been immoral to send them to a war in which there was no self-defense motive. Add on top of that that the soldiers were drafted (enslaved) and were literally not allowed to do what was neccessary to win, and the result, as everybody knows, was a disaster. BUT, the criticism that comes from the left and from Libertarians, about the war being immoral because of the damage done to the Vietnamese, is false.
I think the decision to go to Iraq in the first place was a poor strategic move, as Iran is the real threat to American freedom and should be our #1 priority. My real beef with the whole thing is again, that our soldiers were sent to war and were not allowed to win. They were prevented from blowing up mosques even though they were being shot at from them. "Shock and Awe" never really fully happened because we didn't want to hurt civilians. American soldiers were given sensitivity/cultural training beforehand so as not to offend tribal customs. Rather than asserting our own moral confidence in Western values, we sacrificed these values for those of the stone age. We sent Marines from door-to-door in insurgent-ridden Fallujah, where they would literally open doors to find ANTI-AIRCRAFT guns pointed at their faces. What we should have done is simply blown up the whole city.
Anyone who thinks American foreign policy is too selfish, too overbearing, too "unilateral," whatever, is simply not paying attention.
In short, there is only one kind of morally acceptable war. That kind is absolute 100% total full-out assault with the objective of obtaining the enemy's complete and total unconditional surrender as quickly as possible. This is the kind of war that Douglas Macarthur and William Tecumseh Sherman knew how to fight. It is also the kind of war that will ultimately SAVE more civilian lives in the enemy country simply by ending the war as quickly as possible. Honestly, does it make sense that we've been in Iraq fighting a primitive enemy for 5 years with the most advanced military in the history of the world, when in WWII we defeated Japan, a much stronger enemy, in about 3 1/2 years? During these 5 years, Americans and Iraqis have been dying all over the place. My kind of war would've been done in a few weeks, and the subsequent occupation would not be encountering insurgencies.
"Why would American soldiers kill people in first place if Americans, and by extension you, have nothing to gain? Freedom and lives."
Freedom and life are inalienable rights. A war of self-defense does not seek to gain values, but to protect them.
Please, keep the questions coming.
Post a Comment