Why are we at war?

You know, I understand that the US can't be the world's policeman, and throw our weight around in the international community.  I also know that military action should be a last resort.  However, I also believe that the UN is often unable, for political, monetary, and competency reasons, to do anything about the gross human rights violations around the world today. 

These violations are perpetrated mostly by the existing Communist (atheist) and Islamic dictatorships (the two most morally and practically bankrupt ideologies on the planet, but both masquerading as moral/ethical visionaries).  Anyway, my Uncle, a vietnam vet, sent me this moving article, which I wanted to share.  You may not agree with it, but this is how conservatives see the US responsibility in this world.

The other day, my nine year old son wanted to know why we were at war. My husband looked at our son and then looked at me. My husband and I were in the Army during the Gulf War and we would be honored to serve and defend our Country again today. I knew that my husband would give him a good explanation. My husband thought for a few minutes and then told my son to go stand in our front living room window. He said: "Son, stand there and tell me what you see?"

"I see trees and cars and our neighbor's houses." he replied. "OK, now I want you to pretend that our house and our yard is the United States of America and you are President Bush."

Our son giggled and said "OK."

"Now son, I want you to look out the window and pretend that every house and yard on this block is a different country" my husband said.

"OK Dad, I'm pretending."

"Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and pretend you see Saddam come out of his house with his wife, he has her by the hair and is hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face, he throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to death. Their children run out and are afraid to stop him, they are screaming and crying, they are watching this but do nothing because they are kids and they are afraid of their father. You see all of this, son....what do you do?"

"Dad?"

"What do you do son?"

"I'd call the police, Dad."

"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations. They take your call. They listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help.

What do you do then son?"

"Dad..... but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts to whine.

"They don't want to son, because they say that it is not their place or your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my husband says.

"But Dad...he killed her!!" my son exclaims.

"I know he did...but the police tell you to stay out of it. Now I want you to look out that window and pretend you see our neighbor who you're pretending is Saddam turn around and do the same thing to his children."

"Daddy...he kills them?"

"Yes son, he does. What do you do?"

"Well, if the police don't want to help, I will go and ask my next door neighbor to help me stop him." our son says.

"Son, our next door neighbor sees what is happening and refuses to get involved as well. He refuses to open the door and help you stop him," my husband says.

"But Dad, I NEED help!!! I can't stop him by myself!!"

"WHAT DO YOU DO SON?" Our son starts to cry. "OK, no one wants to help you, the man across the street saw you ask for help and saw that no one would help you stop him.

He stands taller and puffs out his chest. Guess what he does next son?"

"What Daddy?"

"He walks across the street to the old ladies house and breaks down her door and drags her out, steals all her stuff and sets her house on fire and then...he kills her. He turns around and sees you standing in the window and laughs at you. WHAT DO YOU DO?"

"Daddy..."

"WHAT DO YOU DO?" Our son is crying and he looks down and he whispers, I'd close the blinds, Daddy."

My husband looks at our son with tears in his eyes and asks him, "Why?"

"Because Daddy.....the police are supposed to help people who need them ...and they won't help.... You always say that neighbors are supposed to HELP neighbors, but they won't help either...they won't help me stop him...I'm afraid....I  can't do it by myself Daddy.....I can't look out my window and just watch him do all these terrible things and...and.....do nothing...so....I'm just going to close the blinds....so I can't see what he's doing.....and I'm going to pretend that it is not happening."

I start to cry. My husband looks at our nine year old son standing in the window, looking pitiful and ashamed at his answers to my husband's questions and he says...  "Son"

"Yes, Daddy."

"Open the blinds because that man....he's at your front door... "WHAT DO YOU DO?"

My son looks at his father, anger and defiance in his eyes. He balls up his tiny fists and looks his father square in the eyes, without hesitation he says: "I DEFEND MY FAMILY DAD!! I'M NOT GONNA LET HIM HURT MOMMY OR MY SISTER, DAD!!!  I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM, DAD, I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM!!!"

I see a tear roll down my husband's cheek and he grabs our son to his chest and hugs him tight, and says... "It's too late to fight him, he's too strong and he's already at YOUR front door son.....you should have stopped him BEFORE he killed his wife, and his children and the old lady across the way.  "You have to do what's right, even if you have to do it alone, before it's too late." my husband whispers.

THAT scenario I just gave you is WHY we are at war with Iraq. When good men stand by and let evil happen son, THAT is the greatest atrocity in the world.

"YOU MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO DO IT ALONE! "BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN! BE PROUD OF OUR TROOPS!! SUPPORT THEM!!! SUPPORT AMERICA SO THAT IN THE FUTURE OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR BLINDS..."

This should be printed in every newspaper and posted in every school in America.

Of course that won't happen so we'll use the Internet. If your blinds are closed do nothing with this email. If they are open I do not need to tell you what to do.

Comments

[Stewart]

Seeker, without question that is the the most outrageous, lunatic thing you have ever posted. The only sense that this is "moving" is in the sense that it moves me to stay away from people who would see it as a reasonable argument. In spite of it being an obviously fictional account, the "lesson" involved is tantamount to child abuse.

You are not a rational person.

[Silver Hallide]

Umm...Seeker that there link in your post points to the TypePad log in page and not an article. :D

That is a sappy article and has no bearing on the war really. As many Neo-Cons are fond of saying, the parallels with fighting communism and the war in Vietnam have no comparison with the War on Terror espoused by the Bush Administration.

We got into the war in Iraq out of shear ignorance and faith that we could win with no plan for winning, getting out, or expression of the need for national sacrifice. That is no way to win a war.

You know, I understand that the US can't be the world's policeman, and throw our weight around in the international community.

If that is the case, I would think that you would be more supportive of a more effective, fully funded United Nations with real teeth (read not hobbled by the United States and its constant objections to the organization that it helped define and found--see previous comment here)

I also know that military action should be a last resort. However, I also believe that the UN is often unable, for political, monetary, and competency reasons, to do anything about the gross human rights violations around the world today.

Again, if the United States and the members of the Security Council would fully implement the UN Charter that they signed on to, including a standing international force to intervene in conflicts under the UN flag -- particularly in cases like Darfur, etc. But, that smacks in the face of your concept of Sovereignty (see your previous post).

Moreover, the most significant barrier to the United Nations doing anything (besides bureaucracy) is the fact that the United States is a major impediment to it doing anything that does not conform with current social, economic, or political policy of the administration de jour. Coupled with the huge operating deficit of the UN at the hands of the United States withholding dues because of policies it disagrees with (e.g., Contraceptive distribution in the 3rd World through WHO) it is no wonder the organization is not as effective as it could and SHOULD be.

You can't have your cake and eat it too in this case Seeker. :D

- Silver

[seeker]

Actually, I think that the war in Iraq has some strong parallels to Vietnam, but the war on terror has strong parallels with WWII and our fight against a wicked dictator motivated by a racists, anti-semitic, murderous ideology.

Again, if the United States and the members of the Security Council would fully implement the UN Charter that they signed on to, including a standing international force to intervene in conflicts under the UN flag -- particularly in cases like Darfur, etc. But, that smacks in the face of your concept of Sovereignty

Somewhat, but only in a superficial straw man look at "my version" of sovereignty. Surely, I am not arguing against all such cooperation, only that it has some real perils to be avoided. Again, I did not directly accuse the UN of such errors, but I did mention that the EU is making some of those mistakes.

Again, while I agree that a multi-national force in all of the places where such genocides are happening might be a good thing to do, I was merely making a statement about why such organizations are mistrusted.

Separately, I made the case against the current Human Rights Council. Will you agree that they are doing a poor job, despite whatever reasons you think excuses them?

Coupled with the huge operating deficit of the UN at the hands of the United States withholding dues because of policies it disagrees with (e.g., Contraceptive distribution in the 3rd World through WHO)

That is a separate issue. The fact is, the UN doesn't just fail for lack of finances, but for lack of resolve, lack of accountability, and lack of a balanced view of the US and Israel.

[Silver Hallide]

Separately, I made the case against the current Human Rights Council. Will you agree that they are doing a poor job, despite whatever reasons you think excuses them?

Seeker, let's be perfectly clear, I do not think those reasons I cited excuses the HRC's shortcomings. Rather, is merely a situation of the pot calling the kettle black with regard to the US' lack of participation and total lack of action in Darfur.

That is a separate issue. The fact is, the UN doesn't just fail for lack of finances, but for lack of resolve, lack of accountability, and lack of a balanced view of the US and Israel.

Fine. Cite specific examples. I can point to the number of Security Council resolutions coming to the defence of Israel and the United States and also can point to the number of resolutions blocked by one of the Big Five condemning Israel for actions taking against the Palestinians during the Intifada and numerous other occasions. Actually, I have a complete history of all actions taken by the UN SC.

So, point to some examples.

- Silver

[seeker]

Rather, is merely a situation of the pot calling the kettle black with regard to the US' lack of participation and total lack of action in Darfur.

OK, I might agree with you on that one if I knew more about it.

I can point to the number of Security Council resolutions coming to the defence of Israel and the United States and also can point to the number of resolutions blocked by one of the Big Five condemning Israel for actions taking against the Palestinians during the Intifada and numerous other occasions.

You are right in that I am ignoring the successes of the UN. However, in particular, I was (a) pointing the one commission, and (b) explaining why conservatives don't trust the UN.

If I gave the impression that the UN is a total failure, I recant. I also did not say that I *agree* with that evaluation of the UN, though I am skeptical, and with education on this topic, I may change my mind. I think my arguments got lost in the breadth that this spread out to.

However, I maintain that the EU is making mistakes that threaten the sovereignty of member nations, and making them prey to Islam. But beyond that, you may correct me ;)

[seeker]

Seeker, without question that is the the most outrageous, lunatic thing you have ever posted.

Stewart, I'm glad this bit of schmaltz hit your button ;). But I do find that it effectively communicates how conservatives feel about war and the war on terror, even if our initiation and conduct of the conflict with Iraq has been crappy.

[Silver Hallide]

Seeker,

However, I maintain that the EU is making mistakes that threaten the sovereignty of member nations, and making them prey to Islam. But beyond that, you may correct me

I contend that the very purpose of the EU is to have the member states relinquish their very sovereignty to the European Parliament at the Federal level. Those very moves (save the United Kingdoms Jekyl and Hyde attitudes) are moving forward (albeit slowly).

This is no secret to the member states and has been out in the open since the founding of the European Economic Community post WWII as the eventual goal.

Every nation that petitions for membership knows full well that that is the very goal for Europe and the EU. So, this question of sovereignty that you take issue with at the local nation state level and the EU is misplaced if not mislabeled.

Its like the mad and insane line for countries to join NATO. Everyone wants to be a member, but they know full well that one of the membership requirements is to go to war if any of the other member states are attacked. No secret there. Same parallel.

It may seem like an inane amount of minutiae to you, but the EU is structured in a very particular way with very specific goals outlined in the original EC treaty from 1951. Making generalizations as you did with the EU is does not always make your points very strong.

Now, if you make the argument that the EU is making political decisions that threaten the sovereignty and economic viability of the EU and by extension the member states with respects to Islam, that is an argument that is valid based upon how the EU actually functions...even though I may not totally buy it.

- Silver

[seeker]

Making generalizations as you did with the EU is does not always make your points very strong.
OK, point taken.

that is an argument that is valid based upon how the EU actually functions...even though I may not totally buy it.

OK, that's a good point. I guess that begs the bigger question - are they making decisions beyond their charter, or within it. And if nations have problems within the charter, maybe they should have not joined - that is, IF they really had the choice. And beyond that, perhaps the EU isn't really a good idea, but that's a whole other subject.

I'd be interested in your opinion of the Brussel's jounral, though I figure you won't like them.

[Silver Hallide]

And if nations have problems within the charter, maybe they should have not joined - that is, IF they really had the choice

That is an interesting question. I think it is pretty clear that no one has to join. I mean no one is putting a gun (or in this case a ballistic missle) at a country and say join, resistance is futile.

Rather, a country may choose not to join and not directly derive the benefits of open borders and favorable economic policies for trade that go with membership. It is like NAFTA and the attempts to broaden it. We aren't forcing anyone to join in the free trade zone, but the benefits are so high that countries want to. The same thing goes here.

Now one can argue that the carrot that goes with EU membership is so big that a country cannot avoid the lure of membership with the other riders that go with it. However, that is really a non-starter as there are some very specific economic criteria to be considered for membership and also there are a few countries within Contintental Europe that have said they have no interest in joining and have not filed an application.

I'd be interested in your opinion of the Brussel's jounral, though I figure you won't like them

As you might not expect, I follow different extremes of the spectrum to get an informed look at what is happening particularly in Europe, but I reality check it with what I know of the EU and family that lives under EU rule. So there is always a balance.

Actually, I have read them before and have a middle of the road take on them. Simply put, they do raise some interesting points, but they are driven by a overriding sense of local Nation State nationalism that naturally derides anything that might replace the power of a local country government.

This is a mighty thing to try and put aside. That sort of nationalism is the primary reason why the UK goes back and force about joining the common market and eliminating the British Pound...carryover nationalist sentiment from the days the UK was an Imperial Power.

And beyond that, perhaps the EU isn't really a good idea, but that's a whole other subject.

I tell you what. If you raise that subject and topic here within the realm of economic and social policy (not strictly tied to Islam alone) we can touch upon it. I will come with my UK-made size 9 Doc Martens and my copy of the EC treaty from 1951 and we can go to town arguing the merits of the economics and political aims of the EU from a conservative vs. liberal vs. real world-politick perspective.