"so you were an artist. big deal! elvis was an artist. but that didn't stop him from volunteering for the military in time of service. and that's why he's the king, and you're a schmuck." -- "serendipity" taking to "azrael," from the movie dogma
maybe there are times when "pacifism" is "inaction," "complacency," and "tacit approval" -- you decide. but maybe it is unfair that everytime there's a crisis, the united nations asks american men and women to risk their lives to help. but when the usa feels compelled to take a dictator out of power in order to forestall a crisis, then so many people start whining -- the french, the russians, the filipinos...
does the world really care about justice and human rights? or is the world just pissed off that america is doing what america needs to do, and jealous and fearful of america's power and ability to do so? i saw all these pictures in the paper of germans picketing, filipinos protesting... because they love peace and justice and hate war and violence? i don't think so. where were they during rwanda? why were they silent during burundi? why did it take so long before the united nations intervened in sarajevo? the world vows "never again" whenever it is reminded of hitler's holocaust of the jews, yet it does nothing or acts too late in all of these minor holocausts mentioned above. the bush administration, with the support of the majority of the american people, decided that this time, it couldn't sit and wait for the united nations to act, especially when the nations are far from being united.
so what's my conclusion? the world doesn't give a damn about peace and justice, and maybe america really doesn't, either. but let's cut through the hogwash and tell the truth: the foreign critics of america simply do not want america acting on america's self-interest. they want america to be their police, their helper, their hired thug, their bodyguard, and america has complied and helped them. now america needs to help herself.
cut the usa some slack. if the terrorists had decided to also slam passenger jets into major civilian centers in london and paris and berlin, then the story would be different, wouldn't it? but the terrorists were clever enough to only target the usa, knowing full well that the rest of the world would try to stop america from acting. but america did act, thanks be to god, with the usual american persistence and resolve in tough situations -- or if you wish, with the usual american brutality when balls are to the wall -- and bush opened up a can of whup-ass on afghanistan and iraq.
america did act, and brought an end to the taliban. america did act, and made possible the only happy ending to the iraqi people's suffering under the post-kuwait trade embargo. face it people, saddam was never going to give in. and the longer that saddam doesn't give in, the longer the iraqis had to suffer under the sanctions. and i'm sorry, but if the usa had lifted the sanctions, then it would have been tantamount to saying that if a dictator is stubborn enough, he can get away with it. imagine that -- the french asking the usa to give saddam what he wants and lift the sanctions. things were getting ridiculous, and the maintenance of the no-fly zones were getting costly, and bush decided to bring it all to a favorable conclusion.
i also read this letter from an order of catholic sisters in iraq. it speaks about how people were starving in iraq, and this was all america's fault because of america's sanctions and embargo against iraq. what? america is to blame? and saddam isn't? last i checked, america didn't invade kuwait -- iraq did. and if the iraqi people suffered because of sanctions, is america to blame while saddam is not? the iraqi government is rich enough to build palaces equipped with gold-plated bathrooms for saddam and his head honchos, yet america is blamed for bringing iraq to the point of bankruptcy and starving its people in poverty? excuse me, but what kind of government builds palaces and allows its people to starve? and is this the kind of government that an order of catholic nuns should try to defend? i'm starting to dread that the catholic church in iraq is just as cozy with saddam as the european churches were with the nazis -- or just as brainwashed.
i saw the airport and the palaces on tv. is this poverty? no. this is corruption -- not america's corruption, but saddam's corruption.
oh, and i wish the british would cut prime minister blair some slack. his decision to side with the usa does not mean that he is bush's lapdog. it only means that he saw 9/11 and understood that new york could just as easily have been london. i don't know how, but living in a country that had to deal with the ira for so long, some of the british seem to have forgotten how destructive terrorism can be. now bush's war against iraq was a way to take a massive bite out of the worldwide terrorist network.
and isn't it funny that the very same people who criticized the war because they were for peace and justice and harmony now make fun of bush because there doesn't seem to be a huge stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. um, excuse me, but if you really are for peace and justice, you should applaud the war effort that has finally freed the iraqi people from saddam's rule. you should congratulate the coalition soldiers who made the lifting of the trade sanctions possible. you should give comfort to the family members of the fallen soldiers, as well as of the 9/11 victims, that the deaths of their loved ones have contributed to a chain of events that will help to make sure that iraqis will no longer be tortured, will no longer starve, will no longer die of common curable diseases for lack of medicine simply because saddam has a thing for golden bathrooms and sloppy mistresses.
go back to the [articles] page