War. What Is It Good For?

I guess there is a desperation by devout Republicans to scare Americans into believing those who are allegedly "Liberals" are Satan lovers who desire an al Qaeda terrorist to become the next president. Sound silly?

I can only speak for myself, something more people should learn to do. I am against war. All wars for any reason. If that makes me Liberal, that's wonderful. If that makes me a Commie or a Iraqi sympathizer, I'm down with it. Because there are only two possibilities in a nuclear age - total peace or total destruction. This ain't 1860. This ain't Napoleon taking Europe in 1792. If the world doesn't make PEACE its single goal, there are grounds to argue we won't make it another 50 years.

Things go extinct daily. So the argument that war has always existed and will always exist "because it is part of human nature," offers no credibility. People don't start wars, their governments do. Often the leadership uses fear and hatred in the guise of subterfuge against its own people as the initial weapon. In fact, it's the human elements and screams from the populaces that end wars.

Making innocent children into orphans is a 100 percent chance many will grow up to blow up. How many are enough?

So, on this 62nd anniversary of the cremation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we have to realize that: 1.) The United States created atomic weaponry. 2.) The United States is the only nation to ever use atomic weaponry. 3.) The proliferation of atomic weaponry has become so ubiquitous; it will surely fall into hands irrational people at some point. 4.) There is no proven means to transport and store the waste products of atomic weaponry.

The bombs used in Japan were so small compared to today's ICBMs, with multiple warheads, that it would be hard to imagine or describe the kind of destruction even one missile would wrought over a heavily populated area. It's a safe guess one missile could decimate a town of 20 million.

"At the beginning of 2006 the U.S. nuclear arsenal was composed of eight types of nuclear warheads (in thirteen variant modes) on active duty. Some 5,736 warheads of these active warheads were operationally deployed, another 3,637 were either listed as spares or are part of the responsive force . . . . The total number of warheads of all levels of readiness stands at 9,962 warheads," according to "javascript:ol('http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Wpngall.html');"

All told - and it never is! - we've produced more than 70,000 nuclear weapons of 72 varieties at a cost of literally untold trillions of dollars. Of course the greater cost has been to infrastructure (bridges in Minnesota, for example), poor performing schools, and a health care system in the world's richest economy that just can't seem to insure that last 40 million people.

Vision is important. Fighting a group of dedicated terrorists is like having a fight with a pack of rabid Doberman Pinchers. No chance to beat them, unless the BIG guns are used. And if 19 Doberman’s went insane in New York City, would we go on an anti-Doberman campaign throughout the nation? Would we call the campaign a "war?"

The question is meant to be rhetorical. But obviously, it's not. We've have wars on Drugs. Wars on Poverty. All sorts of losing causes. Add Iraq and al Qaeda to the list of other failed wars. But the rationale of impending doom always seems to make creative text for about half the nation who believes whatever they are told regardless of Ollie North or Watergate. The mother of all lies was: If we fail in Vietnam the dominos will all fall, and it won't be long until Hawaii and San Francisco are next.

That noise you haven’t heard for the last 35 years is the sounds of silent dominoes falling. If lies like that don’t work, they just start comparing our current 4,000 dead (Iraq and Afghanistan) to 69,000 in Vietnam or the 405,399 that died in World War II. Then they get their following to parrot that 4,000 isn’t even warming up the old war machine.

There is an answer. The same global peace force - the United Nations, created by us - that voted to send 26,000 to the Sudan, did not offer to help the USA in its far-fetched invasion of Iraq. Nor did almost every other nation on Earth - including most of our NATO allies.

We can not spread the message of peace, harmony and democracy by spraying a village of school kids with bullets and starting civil wars. Invading a sovereign nation in the interest of democracy is like beating one's spouse to further the cause of marital trust and love. Label me anyway you want. You can't end killing by shooting.

A lot of deaths, yet World War I (116,516) and Korea (54,000) did not end the killing. In retrospect, what was proven from all of history’s wars? If your answer is that forked-tongued White men can take Wyoming and Utah from horse-backed Redskins, you’ve come across the reason for most wars.

From 1775-1783 we lost 4,435 to the British Red Coats. In that war we won the United States of America; our autonomy and freedoms to write our recently violated Constitution and Bill of Rights. I'll let you know, shortly, when we tie that number of American deaths. You let me know what we won in Iraq.