Posted on 11/11/2002 10:14:18 PM PST by FairOpinion
Young men and women -- soon, conscripts, if Bill Kristol and Richard Perle have their way -- are going to die in large numbers. And the "Holy People's Will" is not made legitimate by two-thirds of the Congress giving George Bush imperial authority.
Whether The People can loose and bind
In heaven as well as on earth;
If it be better to kill mankind
Before or after the birth;
These are matters of high concern
Where State-kept schoolmen are;
But Holy People, we've lived to learn,
Endeth in Holy War.
Whether The People are led by the Lord
Or lured by the loudest throat;
If it be quicker to die by the sword
Or cheaper to die by the vote;
These are things we have dealt with once,
And they will not rise from their grave;
But Holy People, however it runs,
Endeth in wholly Slave.
Whatsoever for any cause
Seeketh to take or give
Power above and beyond The Laws,
Suffer it not to live!
Holy State-- or Holy King--
Or Holy People's Will--
Have no truck with the senseless thing.
Order the guns and kill!
Saying -- after -- me --
Once there was The People,
Terror gave it birth.
Once there was The People
And it made a hell of earth.
Earth arose and crushed it;
Listen, oh ye slain!
Once there was The People,
It shall never be again!
the infowarrior
Yes, Kipling hated war. But he recognised that it was sometimes necessary, and the Great War (during which the poem I posted was written) was one such time.
From the names you mention, I think we agree on at least one key point. If Americans are going to fight and die, it must only be for the vital national interests of the USA. And we all know for whose national interest the likes of Kristol, Pearle, and Wolfowitz would prefer them to die. I believe George Bush is too wise, and too honorable, to let that happen.
There's nothing subtle about it!
Rigth on, this is exactly correct. A democratic nation should do everything possible to avoid war except compromise its security (to be read appeasement). This is exactly what we are doing with Iraq. All the steps have been taken to make the choice up to Saddam. We have given him the chance to no longer be a threat. If he remains a threat we will be compelled for the sake of our own security to eliminate that threat.
If we fail to do so, we do not preserve peace and save lives. We merely put off the war into the future when more people will die on both sides.
We have an all-volunteer military, and if my kid were old enough and joined, well, in the immortal words of Superchicken, he "knew the job was dangerous when [he] took it, Fred."
I'm a Naval Reservist. I've spent 15 years on active duty or in the Reserves and I have no problem with putting my life on the line in a war with Iraq. Indeed, this will be the first military action in the last decade I feel is worth dying in -- for the first time in a decade we're defending America's interests (which is what I signed on for), not some squishy international meals-on-wheels operation that has no lasting effect and won't be remembered a century from now.
Could we stop the ideological editing please?
Just leave people with different opinions alone.
You're proving his point.
And that, my friends, is the answer to ALL who ask "Why are we even talking to the United Nations?"
You guys get the "big picture."
"OR, 'DID YOU STOP BEATING YOUR WIFE'?"
Have these people had an original thought in 100 years? It's ALWAYS the same thing, over and over.
I cannot think of any parent who will ever say to any question of the like "do you want your child to die doing xxxx..." Let's face facts generally no parent wishes their child to die by any means other than old, happy and in their sleep... but life is not simply about what we want. That is a foolish greedy game of narcisim only the most naive would ever propose.
Do I want my child to die via a violent end in the deserts of Iraq? Of course not. Do I want to die a painful violent end in the deserts of Iraq? Of course not... but would I die a violent and painful end in the deserts of Iraq to keep the arab nutballs from getting Nukes? Yes, I would, and I am raising a family that will share those same values.
There are causes and purposes that are larger than ourselves. Thank God most american's understood that in the teens, 40s and 50s. It was only when the self centered overprivileged baby boomers came along that the vaseline blurred vision started to appear. The men and women who fought in WWII and grew up in the depression decided to lavish upon their children opportunity they never had, and who could blame them? Unfortunately they produced a far too large number of overpriveleged brats who think and can see nothing farther than the noses on their own faces.
So, do I want my child to die on a battlefield half a world away? No.... Would I expect him to not fight if the stakes truly were the safety of his own children and country? I know for a fact I have raised children who would go without hesitation.
I always find it amusing, that generally speaking the people asking these types of questions, have no kids.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.