I pointed out in a comment to another article what all Christians, and every other person who professes to believe in the fundamentals of their religion, supposedly believes: Thou shalt not kill. Four little words that seem fairly self-explanatory.
Yet throughout history you can find untold millions of folks, if not billions, who changed horses and ran away from this concept at full gallop for various reasons: "To defend their homeland," "To serve their country," "To get an education," "To see the world," "To defend their religion" (!), etc., etc., etc. So I herein provide a refresher course, which I wrote with the intention of provoking thought, particularly in young men and women who might be contemplating these notions-and to anyone out there who is a cheerleader for "our armed services," which of course means most Americans.
Warning: If you have blood pressure problems, it might be wise to stop here and go read another article.
If you join the armed services, what are you if not a murderer for hire? How can there be "good men and women" in the armed forces? Do good men and women really offer to kill for others? I really can't see it.
How many people did Hitler kill? One, that we can be reasonably certain of, since it is general knowledge that he committed suicide. As for millions of other deaths generally attributed to him, as in, "Hitler killed six to ten million Jews," it robs so many others of proper credit and is thus unfair, since Hitler did not kill those millions--other people did it for him. In the same vein, George Bush did not kill anyone, nor did Osama bin Ladin, as far as I know. They have others do the killing for them.
If you are willing to kill another human being, what business have you on this planet? If you want to kill someone, I say kill yourself. I won't even get into the opportunities lost, because we squander over half our taxes on the military (which, incidentally, can't catch a cave man after how many years now?).
I do not support our troops. I support our conscientious objectors, and other thinking people. I support nurses, doctors, teachers, construction workers, garbage men, laborers, cooks, waiters and waitresses, writers, inventors, organic farmers, architects, scientists, engineers, computer programmers, landscapers, and all those who choose to actually do something with their lives. To the destroyers I say: Why don't you get a life?
Far better to be a prostitute, even, than to be a military person. You are at least hiring out to bring pleasure to others, not misery and destruction.
If you can't bring yourself to kill yourself, and you still feel a vague need to kill someone, at least get to know a great many people first. Then pick the one you like the least. It will probably be a Republican. Then you may have some real personal reason to kill, rather than doing so because some wacko politician wants others killed, but can't seem to do it him or herself.
'Nuf said. I bring you now to an article in the news today:
... [Ehren] Watada himself did what he believed he had to do seven months ago when he became the first -- and only -- commissioned officer in the United States publicly to refuse deployment to Iraq.
His conscience, he said, had overtaken him. He told the world what he had privately told his superiors months earlier: that he believed the war was illegal and immoral, and he would play no role in it.
Watada tried to resign; the Army denied him. He said he was willing to fight in Afghanistan; the Army refused him again: A soldier cannot pick and choose where he fights. As his unit shipped off to Iraq, Watada stayed to face the consequences.
Ehren Watada, I have no doubt, joined the Army in good faith--as I well realize most people do, in spite of the food for thought I passed out above-but when Ehren saw the light his conscience provided, he followed that light, and became a conscientious objector, at least according to his own inner light.
You may now say, "Yes, but he's still willing to kill, just in a different place." One point for you. But Ehren is still following the light of his own conscience, after carefully evaluating the situation in Iraq, and he is not blindly following a mandate he no longer believes in. I applaud him for that, especially given the enormous personal sacrifice he is making.
I think the time is overdue for most Americans to go potty or get off the pot. Are you a Christian who believes, Thou shalt not kill? Or are you one who would advocate for young people to go out and "see the world" and kill the strangers they meet out there, regardless of who they are or why they themselves have been sent there?
Geery lived off the grid for 15 years in an earth-sheltered, solar heated home, while his kids learned in school that solar energy isn't feasible. NAPTA hosts a page on Geery's foibles in education, and explains how he got his butt fired from a tenured teaching position. Here's a short clip of his most recent solar contraption; for more on that project, and Geery's contention that the Wright Brothers took a wrong turn, please visit his airship page (hyperblimp.com). Apparently, Geery is the only one in the world to respond to Osama bin Laden, call bullshit on him and George together, and expose them for the pansy ass rich kids that they are. Unfortunately, bin Laden has been too scared to write back and explain himsself; and George is still working hard to finish his goat book.
In one Russian play a character says,' To love your country means to find and support the honest people in it. They are the country.'
As such Efren Watada is an honest man and we, the true Americans must support him.
We have an honesty crisis in this country. What does 'honest' mean? Watada is honest and his judges are not? Who defines the honesty? Who defines what lies are? If people except the lies and are willing to fight for them and die for them, don't those lies become truth and don't we all have to bend to the 'new truth'? Those questions are vital. And the answers are difficult. The answers are in the acknowledgement that you, whoever you are, are not a a perfect American', sturdy like a rock and honest to the core. The answer is in the humble acknowledgement that you are the same as all the other people in the world. And then you look at the world and compare the behavior and find that Lt. Watada behaves exactly like Sophia Sholl or Private Shmidt, who refused to kill the hostages and his name is now on the German list of honors. Now it is, not then, when he did it. And then, when you compare, you conclude,'Those were the honest people and Watada behaves like them. so that means he is an honest man too. I thus have to support him. I thus also have to do whatever I can to find and support other honest people even if I myself do not do much. Support means a lot for those who fight a good fight.' That's what you think. That's how you become honest yourself. And honesty is the best policy. The problem of our people in the US is that their perception of honesty has never been really challenged. Until now.
As for Hitler, he wanted his wife, Eva Braun to die with him. Whether he did it himself or coerced her to die is not really clear, but it does show that he wanted her dead. There is also a story about his niece, Hely Raubal whom he either killed or coerced to suicide. Thus he at least directly is a cause of death of two women. Just for reference.
Thanks
by
Mark Sashine (42 articles, 19 quicklinks, 226 diaries, 3212 comments)
on Monday, February 5, 2007 at 10:25:02 AM
I guess because I spent 21 Years in the military I should go kill myself. I think my wife would miss me, so I'm not going to take you up on that. Is it any wonder that people don't take the left seriously, when we make broad statements based on emotion? Watada said he would go to Afghanistan. He is not a conscientious objector under the law. The military doesn't let it's soldiers pick their assignments. Of course you can make up laws as you go along, but then society would fall apart. People that serve in the military are serving their country. If we didn't need a military then we probably wouldn't have one. I can not think of any nation on earth that doesn't have some type of military. In a perfect world, we would not need one. Of course we don't need one the size of ours, that is criminal. But to talk in absolutes, to say we shouldn't have one in this day and age is pretty far-fetched. Still, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and 99% of the time I believe your opinion Mr. Geery, to be right on the money. Just not this time.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 575 comments)
on Monday, February 5, 2007 at 10:56:46 AM
Sir,
So, by your logic Police Officers are also murders for hire, and not "good" people. This seems a bit short sighted, as without police, chaos ensues.
You also mention that
"I do not support our troops. . . I support nurses, doctors, teachers, construction workers, garbage men, laborers, cooks, waiters and waitresses, writers, inventors, organic farmers, architects, scientists, engineers, computer programmers, landscapers, and all those who choose to actually do something with their lives."
Are you aware that the military is made up of nurses, doctors, teachers, construction workers, cooks, architects, scientists, and engineers? So then do you only support certain teachers and doctors? Not everyone in the military kills people. There is a wide varity of support staff out there.
You do however support conscientious objectors. People who joined the military when it was a good deal, but now that they might actually have to work for their free ride, they have a problem being in the military. You support these people.
So, police no good, shysters looking for an easy answer to their problems okay.
Odd view on life sir.
by
Ed Wood (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Monday, February 5, 2007 at 11:12:23 AM
Let's forget for a moment HOW Mr. Geery explained his concerns and concentrate on WHAT. The primary message is about honesty in convictions and also about priorities. So here are some questions for you and for all of us; those are the questions we ask ourselves when we are alone with our conscience:
1. Do you unequivocally support 'our troops' no matter what is done by them and where. If they round you up will you still 'support them'? if they round up your neighbor or your neighbor's chidren would you still 'support them'? What is your limit and is that limit real or you just brag?
2. If you were Lt. Watada what would you have done? With his rank, age and amount of info what would be your decision and how would you justify it to yourself? Do you think you are bettere than him or worse?
3. If you were in the active military and receive an order which you consider murderous what would you do if you are a officer, a sergeant or a private?
4. Do you agree that a person who exercises murderous orders in the field whatever rank he/she is becomes a threat to the fellow- soldiers and is no good as a military figure?
5. If you were an active witness to the torture in any form what would you do if you could do something? Wpuld you do aything at all?
Everyone asks himself this because even to die courageously is easier than to be corageous all the time. And that is why we usually come to the conclusion that we have to fight for the society in which such situations better be excluded or very rare. And that is the underline of all activities we mention but try not to reveal the real thing.
Good luck with the questions. I ask them myself every day.
by
Mark Sashine (42 articles, 19 quicklinks, 226 diaries, 3212 comments)
on Monday, February 5, 2007 at 1:27:57 PM
I.Do you unequivocally support 'our troops' no matter what is done by them and where. If they round you up will you still 'support them'? if they round up your neighbor or your neighbor's children would you still 'support them'? What is your limit and is that limit real or you just brag?
Of course I do not support illegal orders given by anyone. If I had to perform a military mission I would. If it involved crimes against humanity, I would not, and the military would not want me too.
2.If you were Lt. Watada what would you have done? With his rank, age and amount of info what would be your decision and how would you justify it to yourself? Do you think you are better than him or worse?
I respect the Lt. for his stand. I might also refuse if brought back on active duty .(I could be called back until I am 65 years old). I too would fight in Afghanistan but not Iraq. I would not expect to be vindicated however, and I would do my time satisfied that I obeyed the tenants of my conviction. I do not for a second believe that I am better than Lt. Wadata and I admire him.
3.you were in the active military and receive an order which you consider murderous what would you do if you are a officer, a sergeant or a private?
I would report it to my superiors and if the order was illegal, I would expect to be congratulated for doing the right thing. Believe it or not, the military tells us to do just that.
4. Do you agree that a person who exercises murderous orders in the field whatever rank he/she is becomes a threat to the fellow- soldiers and is no good as a military figure?
Of course, and I will also submit that most other military people feel the same. Can't you understand that we are not talking about the SS here? The US Army does not condone the killing of innocents. If you honestly believe that, you should really talk to military people. I would question who gave you that information. I am not a right wing supporter of the military, but I know what the military does and doesn't do. What they don't do is commit crimes against humanity. If you believe that, you have been misinformed. I don't know why "special or Black ops" do, I was not privy to that part of the military.
5.If you were an active witness to the torture in any form what would you do if you could do something? Wpuld you do
anything at all?
Of course I would try to stop it. I could, under military law go to the next in command and demand that the person that gave that order be relieved. If I were next in command (Which I probably would be) I would relieve that person from command and charge him or her under a violation of the UCMJ.
If you believe that I am making this up, I submit that you take this discussion and ask for clarification to any Military JAG officer and you will see that what I've written here is correct. This nation's Armed Services has laws and a moral code. I can stand in front of you and say that in all honesty.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 575 comments)
on Monday, February 5, 2007 at 2:20:45 PM
and it was not an intention of mine to smear all military. But as soon as what you specified so far can be considered as truth, you, together with me should acknowledge that what we witness now by various branches both in the military and out of it is ABUSE. If the mechanism you have defined should operate properly, the military of ours would not engage in blatant violations of the International laws, would not accomodate Gitmo and would not infringe on Justice by supporting the Military Commissions act. Officers would not be rewarded or promoted for such things. It is thus becomes understandable that what we see and witness is the rotting of the upper level command and abanddonement of honor. No, we are not talking about SS. And that is good, thank goodness. But the new and threatening developments like paramilitary units, Special Ops, mercenaries, 'security consultants' etc. not only undermine the honorable role of our military but create an environment which can bring in SS. And that is very harmful.
The task to 'seek honest people' is thus extended to the military also, big time. And that will be the support.
I hope you do agree that there are many ' floppy supporters', who do not really care for anything. Those do not support the military. They abuse it.
by
Mark Sashine (42 articles, 19 quicklinks, 226 diaries, 3212 comments)
on Monday, February 5, 2007 at 2:44:07 PM
"But the new and threatening developments like paramilitary units, Special Ops, mercenaries, 'security consultants' etc. not only undermine the honorable role of our military but create an environment which can bring in SS."
To call the military Special Operations Units a new and threating development show no understanding of U.S. Military Histroy. It also shows a lack of understanding about Special Operations, how they are and what they do. It is unthinkable to put them in the same group as paramilitary units and mercenaries, and to call them the harbengers of the S.S.
You are aware hopefully that Military Special opreations played a vital role in the invasion of Normandy. Since then they've played a crucial role in all U.S. conflicts.
They are the most trained group of military personnel, and selfless put themselves in harmsways everyday. How are they the second coming of the S.S.? How are they responsible for bringing dishonor to the U.S. military?
If you are not a supporter of the troops or the war, thats great and up to you. But it is reckless to make broad generalizations on subjects you've got no idea on. Being an arm chair quarterback is great for football, but don't try and speak about the military if you've never served overseas or worked with militray organizations.
by
Ed Wood (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Monday, February 5, 2007 at 6:07:32 PM
How foolish your writing sounds living in a world of violence.
Have you ever wondered how long people like you would live if all the good guys drooped their guns & left you easy prey to the bad guys? I'm not talking just our military personnel. Because even our local police would fall into the uniformed killers your ranting about.
A good example would be all those people in Africa being raped & murdered by the bad guy element. Yes, it would only be a matter of time before one of them shot you or cut off your head for the power rush scum like that gets from real murder of the innocent.
I often wonder why people like you have the right to enjoy freedom others are willing to die to protect, even though you spit in their face & call them names.
I would recommend your next vacation be spent in a few small villages in Africa where all the random killing takes place daily. I suggest you purchase a good weapon & some ammunition with the thought, I Shall Not Kill. Then when one of those black bucks comes at you with a machete & set to cut your head off. Don't pick up the weapon. Tell him how despicable you think he is to even think about killing a nice guy like yourself. I'm sure he would hang his head in shame & let you live.
Mitch LaRoche
by
Mitch LaRoche (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments)
on Monday, February 5, 2007 at 4:21:24 PM
First of all, argument that killing is unethical must be made on ethical, not religious grounds. Yes, is says that "thou shalt not kill" in the Bible, but it's fairly obvious that many if not most people pick and choose the matters they pay attention to in the Bible. Yes, much of the religious world is filled with hypocrisy--but if one is to debate the ethics of killing, morality is a much more powerful (and central) argument than religion. For better or worse, almost no one follows religious texts literally. Nearly everyone chooses the sections that support their intellectual and ethical point of view and ignores much of the rest.
Second, the statement that soldiers are inherently evil, or, at best, murderers for hire, ignores the fact that in some (obviously not all) cases, soldiers, war, and violence can be a force for good-not a destructive force, but a constructive force (or, at least, a protective force). While the Iraq war can only be termed a struggle for liberty by a thorough stretch of imagination, wars in the past have been fought for ideals, or for existence. Were a hostile power to invade the United States, millions of citizens would volunteer to protect their families and their values. Would these citizens be immoral as well? I would think not. Likewise, I believe that the American Revolution led to positive change-and constructive change-in the world despite its violent nature.
Third, the basis of American government is the rule of law. It is possible to support the US government even if one does not support its current policies, because one can believe wholeheartedly in the ideals, procedures, and goals set forth in the Constitution while lamenting the current state of affairs. In other words, one can believe that, eventually, constitutional government will lead to justice for all, and therefore serve the state despite disagreeing with the current situation.
Fourth, no government can survive without a subservient military willing to follow orders. With a military unafraid to assert independence, a coup is likely to arise. With a military unwilling or unable to follow government orders, government will be powerless against any threat--internal or external, in war or in peace. For example, if, after the Civil War, federal troops had refused to serve in the South, many of the strides freed slaves made towards equality during the reconstruction period would never have happened, and blacks in the United States might be economically and socially disadvantaged at a level far beyond what we experience today.
Fifth, while I do believe that soldiers must make their own moral decisions about war, these decisions should either be made before enlisting or with a full understanding--and acceptance--of the consequences of refusal to serve. This is especially true with our all-volunteer military. It is unfortunate that soldiers will be subject to legal consequences for actions they believe ethical, but it is absolutely necessary to maintain the independent and accountable military previously mentioned. A soldier joining the army and then refusing to execute orders is much the same as a fundamentalist Christian gaining control of a government program to distribute contraceptives to the poor and then refusing to fulfill her duty because she finds it ethically reprehensible. Citizens do not, and can not, serve the country merely when it serves their own ends, or they find action particularly important.
Finally, I don't believe that the actions of Ehren Watada are unethical. He is standing up for what he believes is right, and that is commendable. However, I believe that he should take responsibility for his actions, and not attempt to mitigate his sentence. He should both refuse to serve and accept the consequences that come his way. To do anything else would be morally unacceptable.
by
JSwanson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Monday, February 5, 2007 at 5:35:05 PM
A couple thoughts for those reading these comments. First, it would seem that the United States engaged in active warfare against both the Taliban and Sadam Hussein without a Congressional Declaration of War; therefore, both wars are unconstitutional and any military person has the right to refuse active duty in unconstitutional wars on the basis of their oath of enlistment to uphold and defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic.
Secondly, a biblical Christian is not called on to defend the nation states of this age because of higher obligations to God. Bush is a deceiver of Christians and all American citizens. He is not consistently pro-life. Whether the issue is abortion or defending the interests and security of the United States, his actions have belied his words.
A Christian who tries to apply the central teachings of the Bible will not readily undertake the death of child or mother, friend or enemy or even animals, which is a difficult calling for this age. Sometimes choices are forced by circumstances that result in someone dying since so much of life is not black and white. But that is not an option freely chosen - even suicide.
"First, it would seem that the United States engaged in active warfare against both the Taliban and Sadam Hussein without a Congressional Declaration of War; therefore, both wars are unconstitutional and any military person has the right to refuse active duty in unconstitutional wars on the basis of their oath of enlistment to uphold and defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic."
Whether or not it is within the spirit of the law for the US to wage a war without an explicit declaration of war from Congress (in addition to their permission to deploy troops, as was done in late 2002 with the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq), it is clearly within the letter of the law--and the constitution isn't about "spirit." It's about the rule of law and language. As such, until the Constitution is amended to require Congress to declare war before armed forces are deployed (mind you, this condition would almost certainly easily have been met, if required, before all recent military action), soldiers do not have the right to disobey solely because, in their view, the war doesn't fit the "spirit" of the Constitution. The fact that extremely learned and scholarly Supreme Court Justices, who have studied law their entire lives, routinely serve 5-4 decisions shows clearly that Constitutional law is not always easy or clear-cut.
by
JSwanson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Monday, February 5, 2007 at 8:57:16 PM
The U.S. armed forces, as they have sadly come to be, are nothing but a political hit squad; they're the Presidents own personal hired killers. Let's face it, the U.S. hasn't fought a "Just" war since perhaps the War of 1812.
(And BTW attacking Afghanistan was no more "just" than attacking Iraq or Vietnam or Yugoslavia or Panama, for that matter).
Most Americans don't see it that way because they are not only ignorant of history and current events, and lacking in critical thinking skills, but they're completely morally incompetent. Put simply, most seem incapable of any kind of sophisticated moral reasoning.
by
jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 287 comments)
on Monday, February 5, 2007 at 7:16:03 PM
Do you personally go around beating up people whom you think you can take, just to instill fear and respect in your neighbors?
If your neighbor has something you want, do you kill him and take it?
Do you like to play God with other peoples' lives, deciding to trade one person's life for that of another, etc.?
If you feel your neighbor is mistreating his wife, for example, do you make it your business to intervene into his maarriage, to solve the problem to your satisfaction?
In the course of living your life in society, do you generally treat others as you would expect them to treat you?
by
jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 287 comments)
on Monday, February 5, 2007 at 10:08:05 PM
"Let's face it, the U.S. hasn't fought a "Just" war since perhaps the War of 1812."
Explain to me why the War of 1812 was so just? Was it when we tried to invade Canada or when we attacked British non military ships? THis of course was much more just than say WWII, where we helped free most of an enslaved Europe from the cluches of Hitler.
Have you been to Afghanistan? You are aware that female children can now attend school. In fact, there is now a female collage, where women can learn and be productive members of society. Of course, a person harkening back to 1812 probally doesn't enjoy hearing something like this.
by
Ed Wood (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Tuesday, February 6, 2007 at 2:05:25 AM
I don't know if it was "so just", but it was certainly more "just" than anything since. It was the closest the U.S. has ever come to any kind of legitimate self-defense.
"Was it when we tried to invade Canada or when we attacked British non military ships?"
Sorry, but your grammar doesn't make much sense. (BTW the British were attacking our ships and basically kidnapping our seamen, and that was one of the main causes of the war. The British were also thought to be arming Indians and encouraging Indian attacks on U.S. soil. Apparently the U.S. attempt to invade Canada was intended to use captured land as a negotiationg tool, not because anyone wanted the land per se).
"THis of course was much more just than say WWII, where we helped free most of an enslaved Europe from the cluches of Hitler."
To anyone who knows anything about WW2 and the War of 1812, yes of course. (BTW, how did FDR get to become supreme arbiter of the value of human life? What authority do U.S. presidents like FDR have to trade the lives of U.S. servicemen for those of foreigners?
"Have you been to Afghanistan? You are aware that female children can now attend school. In fact, there is now a female collage, where women can learn and be productive members of society."
Wow! You're kidding! That makes it all worth while! So it's ok then if I go rob a bank, and kill people if necessary, as long as I give some of the money to charity, right?
"Of course, a person harkening back to 1812 probally doesn't enjoy hearing something like this."
ROTFLMAO! Actually, I sometimes enjoy such amusing attempts to rationalize mass murder. (BTW, obviously, I "harkened back to 1812" because that's the only example of what may have been a "just" war by the U.S., that I'm aware of).
by
jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 287 comments)
on Tuesday, February 6, 2007 at 5:13:17 PM
Read the book "Day of Deceit", and then get back to me.
Sorry, but you'll need to go a little deeper than the romantic tales they told you in high school "history" class to understand WW2 and appreciate FDR's treachery.
The U.S. basically started the fight, but the Japs took the first punch. Trying to get your "enemies" to strike first is a well established practice among warmongers; e.g., Lincoln maneuvered the South into attacking Ft. Sumter.
by
jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 287 comments)
on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 4:31:18 PM
I started the conversation here with Mr. Gatto but it progresses more and more into the quagmire of opinions I have seen many times before on the site. Everyone has his/her fortunate or unfortunate (usually limited) experience and then builds on it. It is time to rememeber the immortal HLS Menckhen, 'Every problem has a simple solution. Usually wrong.' The truth is there is no simple solution but there is an honest approach. And that approach, take it or leave it dictates that fish rots from the head. Our Commander-In- Chief is a lying moron? That inevitably will mean the infiltration of the similar lying morons in all the structures of military and civilians alike. Our VP is a vampire? That ineviatably means that vampiristic tendencies would encroach on all the ways and means the people with guns and people with power will conduct their deeds. Our Defense Secretary is a crooked idiot with murderous tendencies ( Rumsfeld)?That means that he would nurture and promote such people. That is the truth. The society and its structures are not'good' or ' bad'. Someone said that government structures are there not to build a Paradise but to prevent Hell. That means they refer to the lowest of the low;the standards are to be applied starting from the lowest grounds. And the only approach is honesty. We and the military too have to be honest about heroism and cowardice, atrocities and brilliant tactics, stupidity and persistence, malice and hard work. There must not be any illusions: Gitmo, Abu- Ghreib, Fallujah, invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan(yes, sorry) is a disgrace of our upper level commandment and abuse of our army for the private purposes. There is no honor in these endeavors and we have to know that. But an individual soldier or officer can still behave as the soldier should and then he/she is just an unfortunate, heroic even victim of deceit. That is now. There could be other cases. But honesty does not insult anyone. It helps. I could give numerous examples of why I am right, historical and others. But it is not about the soldiers and not about the ' world of violence'. It is about us. We are fathers. It is about how we would consider the future of our young people. I have been from the place which paid very dearly for illusions when the 'mask of heroism' permitted the fathers to hide from their decisions behind the backs of the young and I am doing that no more. Every young person I see I tell him or her that this particular war is not worth his/her life and then the decision is theirs. So, take your pick and do your job whatever you consider it but then do not come back and try to change the rules of the game: it is life and death we are talking here. Good buy.
by
Mark Sashine (42 articles, 19 quicklinks, 226 diaries, 3212 comments)
on Tuesday, February 6, 2007 at 8:35:07 AM
