Reply
Mon 8 May, 2006 10:00 pm
The Sudan but not Iraq, Iraq but not the Sudan.
Why were we willing to send troops to Panama, but not Burma? Bosnia but not Rwanda? Haiti but not Liberia? Somalia, but not The Congo?
Charges of racist motivations are absurd.
Arguments about strategic interests are not entirely convincing, in part because they take a back seat to the arguments placed before the American People.
If our military interventions are based, primarily, on strategic interests then our leaders should tell us so. This is not a poor reason for sacrificing the lives of our youths, but it certainly is less inspiring than the argument that we need to be the warrior champion of human rights across the globe.
If we are going to champion human rights and freedom then we need to be consistent in our Crusade. Thousands of people suffering death and torture in Iraq is no more acceptable than the same situation in the Sudan.
And, we must look at the practical side of our Crusade.
Unless we can engage the youth of this country to join the Crusade for human rights and liberty and, in so doing, put their very lives on the line, we will not have sufficient forces to carry out the Crusade.
If this is the case we must appeal to our youth in ways other than the idealistic. We must sweeten the pot; make it lucrative to be an American Crusader.
The European Crusaders may have been sustained by their faith in God and the Church, but they were motivated by their purses. (Or visa versa).
Are we the Spear of God or are we not?
We can do whatever we please since we are the Single Super Power in the world, but all sorts of problems arise from inconsistency - globally and at home.
What we require is a new American Doctrine of Military Intervention.
If strategic interests are our primary motivator, that's fine, but let's not try and fool anyone otherwise.
If we aspire to a loftier status in the world, that too is fine, but let us also be consistent in the execution of our goal.
Either way, we need to seriously and soberly consider not only the value of our young people's lives, but their motivation for sacrificing same.
Problems arise with our military interventions when the reasons cited for their engagement are easily called into question.
Quote:The European Crusaders may have been sustained by their faith in God and the Church, but they were motivated by their purses. (Or visa versa).
Are we the Spear of God or are we not?
You mean the Crusaders from the Eleventh Century? Holy Cow! I thought I had a long view of history, but you're the top.
As to being the Spear of God... a curiously passive/aggressive pseudo-erotic wording... no, we are not. That would be George W. Bush, a man who has said he was called by the Lord to be the President of the United States and who has a richly detailed visionary plan for victory in Iraq.
Joe(Let's party like it's 1169.)Nation