Posted on 12/15/2002 8:39:16 AM PST by Libloather
"As it turns out, sir, a British person is more loyal to America than you are."
Regards, Ivan
Actually, Sean is closer to the truth than he might realize.
When committing US troops to action, the President does have their blood upon his hands and therefore, those that put him in power have their individual share as well. The alternative, however, is to have the blood of the American civilian population on one's hands. So SecState Penn, which would you choose?
The power we give the Commander In Chief is indeed awesome and not to ever be used lightly. I am absolutely certain that each drop of blood that is spilled weighs heavily upon the soul of our President. This is his gift to us, that he will accept the responsibility and pay the price so that we may continue to live in freedom, even to the point of one of us talking nonsense at the feet of the most evil person walking the earth today. The President makes this terrible choice because he knows the alternative is unacceptable, unconscionable, and immoral.
In the terrible calculus of "blood on the hand," how far up the arm does the blood for September 11th go on those that had Osama signed, sealed, and almost delivered? What say you, Mr. Penn? What is your share of blood from that? If we accept your premise, Citizen Penn, that we all share in the blood spilt by our leaders, then let's talk about the Iraqis. What is the share of blood that the Iraqi people bear, given them by their unanimously chosen leader?
This is the crux of the matter when we talk of the death of innocents. This is why we first try sanctions, as sanctions are always upon the people themselves and never their leadership. This is why 1.5 million children die (has anyone ever come even close to verifying this media "fact"?) when the humanitarian aid is diverted to build 53 palaces and who knows what kinds of armament horrors. What a gift of blood Saddam gives to his people. Why, they are positively swimming in it. How can you avoid getting any of it on your shoes, Mr. Penn?
[By the way, I don't ever recall hearing one shred of moral outrage from Mr. Penn or his ilk (media included) when CNN and others played video from some of Saddam's palaces].
Ultimately, when a leader or a regime accumulates such a butcher's bill of blood for his people, it is their responsibility to make payment by ending their sanction of their reign. Should those people be unable, incapable, or unwilling to do so, then others must step in or the bill comes due for us all.
So thank you, Mr. Penn, for finally bringing this to our attention and making clear just how immoral are those alternatives to war. [/debate]
 |
Start with the one between your ears. |
|
Brilliant post. Wish I'd said that. |
Yeah, but then Joe Isuzu says it's not, so I don't know what to believe. I wish John Belushi were still alive; at least he remembered when the Germans attacked Pearl Harbor.
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.