Is War Ever Justified?

Yes, this is another response to a Facebook posting; its amazing how many time I come here to respond to a Facebook posting.  The posting was in response to the following picture:

What amazes me is the response that some made of this picture.  First of all, I think this pic says a lot about how most feel towards our vets.  A young man thanking a vet.  What could be better?

Well, when you start to read the comments, a discussion about the justification of war broke out.  A Kaye Bryant said that, basically, war is never justified.  Its just sanctioned murder and vets, by definition, went to war to kill.  Unfortunately, this thinking is not new.  Since we entered Afghanistan and Iraq, there have been anti-war protesters in our local city of Danbury, CT protesting against war.  These people amaze me.  Although nobody really likes war, sometimes it is necessary.  That is why we have a military.  But lets take a walk down through our history to see what I mean.

Human history is filled with conflict.  Some bad and some good.  I don't want to argue all wars, just those of the past hundred years.  Almost one hundred years ago, Europe erupted in what could be described as the last war in Europe fought over disputes between monarchies.  Whatever the reason, many millions of people died; that is until the United States went to war and, under the direction of General Pershing, we ended that war in months.  Was our entry in that war justified?  History says yes.  If we didn't, how much longer would the stalemate have lasted?  What other types of chemical weapons would have been developed and used?  So, we went to war and then there was peace in Europe, at least for a little while.

In 1917, revolution broke out in Russia.  There was mass lawlessness and panic in the streets.  The Communists, under Lenin, began to gain control.  It is a little known fact that the US sent troops into Russia to try to establish some order.  The effort was minimal; after all, we just ended one war in Europe, why should we jump into another.  The result, it is estimated that the Communists killed nearly 75 million people.  Maybe our attempt at intervention was actually justified.

In 1939, after Hitler conquered a number of eastern European nations, the British Prime Minister Chamberlain met with him and he saw no reason to worry about Hitler's plans.  Almost immediately after that, Germany invaded Poland.  Great Britain, France and the other allied nations, except the US, declared war on Germany again.  Chamberlain was so wrong about Hitler that he resigned as Prime Minister.  The US stayed out of the war officially for another two plus years.  However, we did not stay out completely.  We sent weapons and equipment to our British allies and we helped China defend against Germany's ally, Japan.  After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, we finally entered the war.  Was this war justified?  When done, somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 to 60 million people were killed, not to mention the 10-12 million killed in Hitler's death camps.  Sometimes we need to enter war.  Sometimes it is justified.

Since WWII, the US has been involved militarily during every Presidency.  We went into Korea because the people of South Korea did not want to be ruled by communists.  We went into Vietnam for the same reason.  We found ourselves trying, and failing, to invade Iran in 1980.  We had troops in Beirut because of the bloody civil war that was resulting in civilian slaughters and kidnappings.  We went into Granada because we had some American students held under siege by communists.  We invaded Panama because Noriega was working directly with the drug smugglers in Columbia.  We went into the Persian Gulf war because Saddam Hussein invaded his neighbor Kuwait and threatened, with hundreds of thousands of troops, to invade Saudi Arabia.  The Iraqi army orchestrated the killing, raping and pillaging of thousands in Kuwait.  In Somalia, people were starving because of a drought that wiped out crops and the warlords were ambushing aid supplies, then selling them to the highest bidder, which were not the general population.  In Croatia, Milosevic attempted to wipe out the ethnic population with his campaign of ethnic cleansing, which meant slaughtering all the males and raping and impregnating the women with Serbian babies.  The same thing began happening in Kosovo.  Usama Bin Ladin formed Al Quada in order to wreck havoc against the west, especially the US.  They killed thousands of civilian on 9/11 as well as hundreds around the world in numerous attacks, including the two US embassies in Africa, the attack on the USS Cole, and several bombings in Saudi Arabia against US forces.  There was even a connection with Al Quada and the first World Trade Center bombing in 1992.  Recently, we sent troops into Libya in order to prevent Qaddafi, a known terrorist sympathizer, from slaughtering his own people.

Wow, that list is long; and I'm sure I left some conflicts out.  The point is that the US has used our military force repeatedly throughout the past hundred years.  Although some may disagree with the decisions to use force, every time was justified, at least in my mind.  All one has to do is put themselves in the place of the people that we are sent to save.

Now lets confront the primary argument that anti-war protesters use.  "What makes you think that we are right.  Isn't it a bit arrogant to say that the American way is the right way?"  I love this argument.  These are the same people who will argue that Gitmo detention is wrong because it violates our enemies rights and maybe even the Geneva convention.  What a minute. LMAO (sorry, had to do it).

The point is that it is the US and our allies that abide by the Geneva Convention.  If we so much as slap a illegal combatant, then that soldier is looking at spending years in Leavenworth.  Our enemies, on the other hand, kill civilians, torture captives and never abide by these rules of war.  That is why they are our enemies. Period.

If we didn't invade Europe not once, not twice, but three times in the past century (WWI, WWII, and Croatia), many more millions would have been wipe out and the blood of genocide would have been on the hands of all those nations who were complacent.  Saddam Hussein was already in production of chemical weapons within Kuwait by the time we entered.  How many more would he have slaughtered; after all, he used these weapons on towns within his own country.  Milosevic, probably one of the worst butchers in the post WWII era, would have successfully wiped out the Croatian and Kosovar populations.  Pol Pot, after we left Vietnam, did manage to slaughter a million plus.  Since we didn't intervene, the slaughter in Uganda in the 1990's resulted in an estimated 800,000 plus being butchered by machetes. (I remember seeing a documentary where a TV crew went back to a town that was being attacked when the crew originally left.  There were skeletons laying all over the place because so many were butchered, there was no one left to bury the bodies.  The rat population was huge because they were able to feed on the bodies for years.)  And the examples can go on and on.

So the question is, is war justified?  My answer: Yes.  As long as there are bad people in this world, then we must fight them.  But then what?  The argument that democracy is not for some people in the world is wrong. This same argument was used in the middle of the 19th century.  Slavery had always existed.  Since the beginning of civilization, there have always been slaves.  Why should those of the North try to dictate their opinions and views on those of the South?  What makes the US think it is arrogant enough to force the South to change its ways?  The answer is that is was right.  Slavery was wrong. Period.

By the same token, slaughtering civilians is wrong, no matter who is doing it.  Violations of the Geneva convention, which specifically prevents civilians as being targets, as well as shields, is wrong.  And I for one believe that we, as the most powerful superpower the world has ever known, should fight for those who cannot fight for themselves.  I think that the Croatians and Kosovars would think the same way.  I think the Kuwaitis would think the same way.  I think the Somalians who were starving would think the same way.  

Americanization of the world means the spread of democracy and ability of the population to have the same rights that we have:

• Freedom of Speech
• Freedom of Assembly and, yes, dissent
• Freedom of the Press
• Freedom from the oppressive nature of the government
• Freedom to chose, and change, your government
• Freedom to experience those inalienable rights, endowed by our Creator, of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

I will support our use of military force to guaranty these rights, not just for American citizens, but for Humans throughout the world.  The reason: Because our Creator did not give these rights just to Americans.  They were given to the entire human race.  If that defines Americanization of the World and if we have to go to war because of it, then so be it.  Period.

An attack on our Freedom of Speech

Congress just passed H.R. 347 which prohibits protests on government or even private property whenever the secret service is involved in security.  The article (the link below explains the bill in more detail) explains the apparent motivation of the lawmakers when they passed it.

First, this was in response of the Occupy Wall Street movement that has gripped several major cities across the country of the past several months.  Although I disagree with the message of this protest, I do defend their right to peacefully protest.  It is the foundation of democracy to allow protests, especially political protests.  What is interesting is that it was the Occupy Wall Street movement that lead to this legislation, not the TEA Party movement.  The difference in the two movements is like night and day.  The TEA Party movement began with the Pledge of Allegiance and remained peaceful, organized, had a specific message, and they left the area clean.   The Occupy movement was the exact opposite.  Drug use, human defication, and utter disrespect for the people who lived and worked in the area was all too common.

Second, the other reason cited in the article was to prevent protests of the G8 summit.  This is incredible.  The rest of the world would be criticized if the host country prevented protests at the G8 summit and the US will as well.  And it should be.  Now, don't get me wrong.  Violent protests should result in some serious charges, especially against the organizers.  It is up to these organizers to keep the protest peaceful.  However, with a President that was a founding member of the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN), I would be surprised if he does in fact sign this bill into law.  If he does, I wonder how his fellow community organizers will feel.

However, the reasons for passage that congress gave are only the tip of the iceberg.  What this bill does is prevent protests whenever the secret service is involved in security.  Really?  That means that no one will be able to protest any Presidential candidate, or even the conventions.  So much for freedom of speech.  Although I do believe that this bill will not survive a review by the supreme court, the court wouldn't even be giving the argument until October and they may not hear the case until next year.  That gets all the politicians past the 2012 election without having to deal with protest from the American people.

I believe that this is a travesty.  In the House, only three representatives voted against the bill.  What amazes me is that these three were Republicans.  I thought it was the Democrats that supported the free speech rights of the population.  I thought it was the Democrats that would not support such a bill.  Unfortunately, most Republican also voted for it as well.  In the Senate, the vote was by unanimous consent, which means we do not know who voted for it or who voted against it.  What a way to stay incognito on this subject.

I think that this is one of those times that, if the President signs the bill into law, that the American population should go out and purposefully violate this law and force the government's hand.  I, for one, would go to Washington DC and protest in front of the White House so that I could get arrested.  I am sure that if the American people saw this bill for what it is, a power grab by the government, that they would vote out every one of their representatives that passed such a law.

Click Here is the link for the article explaining the bill.

Joseph Kony, International Criminal

I just watched an eye opening movie on a man named Joseph Kony.  I have to admit that before today, I did not know the name.  Unfortunately, many in Uganda know his name.  He is considered a rebel leader but I don't see him as that.

In a part of the world where gangs become armies, Joseph Kony is a gang leader.  He abducts children, forces them to kill their parents, and makes them into child "soldiers."  The girls are made into sex slaves.  If this happened in the United States to this level, Joseph Kony would have his picture on just about every news broadcast.  Instead, I just heard about him today, 20+ years after he started his terror and slaughter.

What can we do about that?  What interest is it of us in the United States?

My answer is slightly different than, I think, of those who made this movie.  Without a doubt, we should go after this poor excuse of a human being.  But Joseph Kony hasn't been the first bad guy and, unfortunately, he probably won't be the last.  The 20th century is filled with these types of characters.  Our response has been anything but consistent.

Hitler, of course, comes to mind first.  He slaughtered millions.  Why?  Because Hitler was a bad guy.  Pol Pot slaughtered million in Cambodia and Laos.  Why? Because he was a bad guy.  Milosovec slaughtered millions in his "ethnic cleansing" campaigns.  Why?  Because he was a bad guy.  Millions have been slaughtered in Kosovo, Uganda, Darfur, Tibet, Iraq, Somalia, Central and South America among so many other places.  Sometimes we get involved.  Sometimes we don't.  Well, the time for complacency has ended.  It is time for the United States, with or without our allies, to stop this madness no matter where we find it.  Justice, human justice, not just American justice, must be administered and the time is now.

Let us start with Joseph Kony.  The United States has no political or economic interest in helping to catch him.  But it is the right thing to do.

Here is the video I watched.  Please watch and share.  Get the word out.  KONY 2012

Joseph Kony Video

Democrats want to silence Rush

http://dccc.org/pages/denounce-rush

Check this site out.  The Democrat party wants the Republicans to denounce Rush Limbaugh for his recent comments about women who want free birth control to "make a sex video."  The vitriol coming from the left over this comment is nothing but amazing.  They are demonizing Rush, on top of calling him a fat drug addict.  Funny.  Kudos to Rush.  If you ever actually listen to him, you can probably realize that Rush uses satire all the time.  Remember SATIRE.  It has been used in political debates at least as far back as the mid-19th century.  I remember reading a short story in high school. published in London, about how to cook and eat humans; Irish humans.  It wasn't a call to slaughter and devour the Irish people.  It was a satirical attack against the British oppression in Northern Ireland.  Rush has based the majority of his show on satire.  Why?  Because it's funny and entertaining.  Besides, when people are offended, it sparks publicity and debate over the real issue.  So lets stop getting distracted by this and talk about the real issues, like public financed abortions and contraceptives being described by Obama as "preventative care."

But I can't let this go by without a simple comparison.  Michael Moore basically accused President George W. Bush as being responsible for the attacks on 9/11.  He insinuated that he didn't care that we were attacked and that he was possibly criminally responsible.  This was not denounced by the Democrats.  Instead, Mr. Moore was given the prized seat at the Kerry acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004...this was the seat next to Kerry's wife.

So, it seems there is a double standard.  Strange.  Oh, wait a minute.  That's right.  There always has been a double standard.  The Democrats can say and do whatever they want without repercussions from the left wing media but should someone on the right make a satirical comment, and he is demonized to the point that the Democratic party distributes a petition to have the Republicans denounce Rush. This is simply an attempt to silence Rush, especially during this election.  They are afraid of Rush.  And they should be.  They should be VERY afraid because his core audience doesn't care what the Republican party does about him.  Therefore, it won't get him off the airwaves and he will continue what he has done for twenty plus years; provide political commentary.  And his commentary has a much larger impact on conservatives in general than on the Republican party itself.

Finally, the comment about him being a "fat drug addicted a**hole" is typical of the liberals misinformation, let alone the nastiness of the liberals in general.  First, Rush is far from being fat.  He lost an incredible amount of weight and looks healthy.  As for the drugs, that is something that he dealt with, in full view of the public.  He is no longer addicted to the pain killers that he took to help with his back pain.  What about Obama?  Rush at least was using drugs prescribed by a doctor.  Obama's cocaine use never involved doctors, but instead involved dangerous street dealers and gang members.  And I know that the liberals will point out that was many years ago.  Well, so was Rush's drug problem.  Maybe not as many years ago as Obama's, but Rush isn't President is he.

Koran Burning argument on Facebook

I was just reading an argument concerning a recent event where a number of copies of the Koran were burned by US military personnel in Afghanistan.  The rationale behind the burning was that the terrorists where using the pages of the Koran to send secret messages to each other.  The actual event was not as important, though, than the President's response.  He promptly apologized for the actions of these "morons".  What were the soldiers to do?  These sacred books, and Islam, were defiled by the Muslims themselves, something that they were doing anyway by killing civilians in the name of their faith.

The fact is that these terrorists are guilty of so much more, and yet no apology from anyone.  Let me try to explain why, as far as I know it.  The Islamic religion, unlike Christianity, is based around the community.  The community is the most important aspect of daily life.  There is no central authority of the Muslim religion, apart from the Caliphs and Imams of the past.  The local authority is centered around the mosque and the sheik in charge.  So when one "community" develops abhorrent versions of the religion, it doesn't have anything to do another community.

Now, that doesn't negate the responsibility of all good Muslims to speak up against the crimes committed by the terrorists groups and the countries that support them.  The rest of the world has, including the US and Europe.  Individual Islamic communities should also be standing up; but, silence.

And make no doubt about it.  These terrorists are the bad guys.  An example comes from my recollection of a couple years ago when I opened a local newspaper to the WORLD NEWS section on page 8.  It had three short "summary" articles, all in one column.  The middle one had to do with some controversy happening in Peru.  The other two were about Iraq.

The top article was about a report, to be released soon, about the actions of some US military personnel at a camp in Iraq.  The article went on to describe that the findings in the report would show that American soldiers struck an illegal combatant while in custody.  The article went on to describe how this report would probably result in official charges that could land these soldiers in federal prison for years.

The bottom article told how two terrorists in Baghdad detonated two bombs on a soccer field during a youth soccer game, killing 60 people and injuring many others.  Some of those killed were children.  What was their "crime"?  Any of us who have had kids play on a youth sport team knows exactly what their crime was. They wanted to watch and cheer on their children.  Instead, they get blown up.  What about the terrorist, who, by the way, got away?  I am sure that they got great kudos from their superiors and maybe a promotion within their ranks.

Here's the point.  Many decry the US as being decadent and immoral.  That if you look at TV and the movies, look to either Hollywood or Washington, that this country is just a terrible place.  But in the history of the world, there has never been a country that would jail their soldiers for striking an illegal combatant during an intense interrogation.

Illegal combatant is defined by the Geneva Convention.  These are rules that are signed and adopted throughout the world in order to reduce civilian deaths in a time of war.  It explains that soldiers are accorded certain rights while POWs.  It also defines who is not protected.  The convention, in summary, says:

• Combatants will operate under a specific leadership, either a government or a government in exile.

• Combatants will display a specific uniform, including appropriate insignia to identify them.

• Combatants will not use civilians to shield themselves, including residing and operating near civilian only locations.

• Combatants will not target civilian populations.

• Combatants are allowed to pursue enemy combatants, even if the later hide in civilian areas.  The former will not be held liable, the liability of civilian deaths lie with those hiding there.

• Combatants not following these rules are considered "Illegal Combatants" and are NOT accorded the privilege of POW status and are NOT protected by those rights.

Traditionally, these illegal combatants were either spies or saboteurs.  In most wars, those found in such a situation were summarily executed by firing squad.  There was no treating them nicely.  There was no according any rights whatsoever.  There was no Morandizing illegal combatants.

So the comparison of these two articles is interesting.  For the first time ever, military personnel are charged for assaulting an illegal combatant and may be jailed for five to ten years or more.  On the other side, the Muslim terrorists are not jailed for a crime much worse. And their story is relegated to the bottom of the page.

Believe it or not, I am very proud to have noticed this.  I am very proud of the fact that this ordeal will be investigated.  The reason has nothing to do with whether American military personnel are terrible or bullies, as many in the media, and unfortunately, the White House, would have us believe.  Instead, I see that this shows that the US is not a country in total moral decay.  In fact, I see this as an example the our country is the most moral country in the history of the world.  What other country in history would jail there own soldiers for this action in the face of such an enemy group of illegal combatants. 

So when our President apologizes to our enemies, maybe that's going too far.  Maybe we should hold back judgement until all the facts are in.  (Remember that teachable moment where the President made stupid remarks about the Boston PD who arrested his friend and fellow Harvard professor.)  And if the American soldiers are in the wrong, only a just and moral nation would hold them accountable with punishment to be appropriate.

Now, back to the burning of the copies of the Koran.  If this was a blatant act of aggression or disrespect for the Koran, that's one thing.  But if these books were being used to harm both military and civilian targets, then to destroy them only makes sense.  Please Mr. President, lets not rush to judgement again.  And lets understand that your actions have consequences.  So much was talked about how President Bush's actions were creating more terrorists.  What about President Obama's actions?  How often will this incident be played out in the madrases throughout the Islamic world in order to recruit new terrorists?  How many times will the President's own words be used by our enemies?

Finally, I am not some professor of religious studies.  I am not a priest or sheik.  I am just a guy who has read dozens of books, including the Torah, Bible and an English translation of the Koran.  I have read a number of books written about these religions.  And I have read a number of books about terrorism and about Bin Laden himself.  I feel I have some basic knowledge of the subject and can talk intelligently about it, albeit sometime I do ramble on a bit (sorry).