Magic City Morning Star

Advertising | RSS Feed | About Us 

Last Updated: Oct 13, 2013 - 12:38:22 AM 

An eclectic mix of news and information
Staff Login
Donate towards our web hosting bill!

Front Page 
  News
  -- Local
  -- State
  -- National
  Community
  Business
  -- IRS News
  -- Win at Work
  Education
  -- History
  Tech Notes
  Entertainment
  -- Comics
  International
  -- R.P. BenDedek
  -- Kenneth Tellis
  Outdoors
  Sports
  Features
  -- M Stevens-David
  -- Down the Road
  Christianity
  Today in History
  Opinion
  -- Editor's Desk
  -- Guest Column
  -- Scheme of Things
  -- Michael Devolin
  -- Tom DeWeese
  -- Ed Feulner
  -- Jim Kouri
  -- Julie Smithson
  -- J. Grant Swank
  -- Doug Wrenn
  Letters
  Agenda 21
  Book Reviews
  -- Old Embers
  Notices
  Archive
  Discontinued


Web Directory Reviews
WDR Directory of Directories
Restore The Republic - The Home of the Freedom Movement!

Charles Cutter

Spitting on Dead Soldiers
By Charles Cutter (www.cuttersway.com)
Feb 3, 2005 - 10:39:00 PM

Email this article
 Printer friendly page
"What a smug [contemptible person] you must be, letting soldiers die for your freedom, then spitting on their graves."

"Your article…has to be the most tasteless piece of literature I have ever read."

"…obviously [written by] a liberal (or perhaps that MAY even be an insult to liberals!)."

The preceding are examples of the response to last week’s column ("They All Died in Vain"), which espoused two arguments - that the glorification of war is a primary factor in the perpetuation of war; and that soldiers who die in unnecessary wars (like Iraq and Vietnam) are dying pointlessly.

A number of readers objected to these ideas - specifically, as they applied to Iraq - and wrote to say so. Within those objections one can discern the emotional fuel that propels the American war machine.

"I suppose sanctions and pressure are what you believe would put an end to Saddam’s cruelty and torture of his people…"

Well, no; sanctions and pressure had little or no impact on Saddam Hussein’s mistreatment of his fellow citizens. Unfortunately, this fact has nothing to do with the present war. The relevant point is that sanctions and pressure (including United Nations inspectors) were managing to contain Hussein’s WMD aspirations, and these weapons were the stated reason for the war - before the war.

This rewriting of history - that the war was launched for humanitarian purposes - has been energetically sold by Bush & Co. and has been bought by many Americans. (If you can’t be a heroic protector of the homeland, you might as well be a heroic liberator of the oppressed.) Another reader hews to this line: "What happened in Iraq to the Iraqi people is no different from what happened in Europe during the Holocaust…Let us pray there will always be people brave enough to lay their lives on the line for others."

In a similar (though more expansive) display of illogical bundling: "You serve as a grim reminder of why our country has come to its current state of affairs…I think it is time you listen to a survivor of the concentration camps…and the victims of 9/11…who wear their badges of courage as a milestone. Suggest to them that they sacrificed their limbs, lives, and efforts to vanity…The world came to our doorstep and delivered death."

Where to start? Again we confront the suggestion that the war in Iraq somehow equates with World War II. And note that, for this reader, the glorification of battle extends beyond soldiers to concentration camp prisoners and those in the path of the 9/11 attacks. Granted, there were individual acts of heroism in both circumstances; but can’t we resist the emotional impulse to confer nobility on each and every participant merely for "being there?" This is cheap sentimentality and has no rational substance.

Simply put, it takes no courage to be a victim.

But the best evidence of a flawed thought process is in the line, "The world came to our doorstep and delivered death." The world? Nineteen individuals, connected to Osama bin Laden’s organization. It must be asked again - what does this have to do with the war in Iraq? When the Ku Klux Klan firebombed a church in Mississippi, should we have responded with a full-scale military attack on Vermont?

"Anyone who dies while protecting someone else should be honored. To dishonor such a selfless sacrifice is the epitome of selfishness…If you have one, check your moral compass."

Morality, as we know, is a very subjective matter, so advising one to check their "moral compass" can be a dangerous thing - there is no magnetic north to predetermine one’s direction. For instance, if a bodyguard were to jump in front of an Adolf Hitler (or even a Saddam Hussein) to save him from an assassin’s bullet, should the dead man be "honored?" Obviously, it’s a "selfless sacrifice," however one may judge the particular circumstance.

But let’s take the risk and turn the tables: For those who support the present war in Iraq - for those who feel our fallen soldiers have died for a noble cause - let’s check your moral compass.

The pre-war rationale was national self-defense. Saddam Hussein, according to George W.Bush, was actively working to develop nuclear weapons; had a vast stockpile of chemical and biological weapons; and had long-standing, on-going ties to al-Queda.

Not only have these claims not been substantiated, it’s clear that the Bush administration was willing to both exaggerate and lie in order to sell their much-desired invasion.

If you bought into Mr. Bush’s baseless self-defense argument, why would you still support the war? Indeed, why wouldn’t you be calling for Mr. Bush’s impeachment?

When the first rationale withered, the war was retroactively declared a benevolent mission, triggered by compassion. We freed the Iraqi people from the grip of a brutal tyrant, we’re instilling democratic values, we’re staking the flag of liberty…you’ve heard the rhetoric. If all this is true, why did we wait until after 9/11? What did the September attacks have to do with instigating a military policy of moral intervention? If George W. Bush is indeed a great humanitarian, why did he oppose the NATO effort to combat Slobodan Milosivic’s crimes against humanity? Why hasn’t he committed troops to stop the slaughter in Sudan? (Where, it should be pointed out, an estimated 70,000 people have died in a situation the U.S. has called "genocide." The Bush administration’s response? Lobbying for U. N. sanctions.)

If you’ve bought into Mr. Bush’s post-invasion rationale, you must ask yourself: Why is the vote of an Iraqi more important than the life of a Sudanese?

And: Should we now use our bombs to liberate the people of North Korea? Of Pakistan? Of Saudi Arabia?

It’s time to define your values.


© Copyright 2002-2013 by Magic City Morning Star

Top of Page

Charles Cutter
Latest Headlines
Democrats to the Rescue (Cue Laughter)
Bush and His Gang
An Attack on the King
Alito's Dark Vision of the World
The End of the World (Hopefully)

A Dinosaur of Education - a blog by James Fabiano.
Shobe Studios
Wysong Foods - Pets and People Too

Google
 
Web magic-city-news.com