I will briefly tell you a single thing About the nature of us That will itself explain to you Many things about this troubled world― Provided you will but take the thing For a walk from time to time And let it have its say:
It is harder to persuade Many young men to Look something up in the Bible Than to persuade them to go Half way around the world To fight a war.
I’m not writing to create a full essay on American civic behavior, but rather, to point out just a couple of curious things. I posted meme pictured here on Facebook this morning, and then had further thoughts about it that seemed worth sharing.
Let me start by repeating in my own words what a friend replied. He said that we have many rights that are worth defending, but that the 2nd Amendment protects our option to defend our rights with force if necessary. And indeed, I have heard such statements before. So I replied with something like this, which I have since amplified after further reflection:
I ran across this cartoon on Facebook and it prompted a discussion that I thought I should share here.
My response to some of the dogmatic statements in support of it was as follows:
Hey, folks, I have some objections to the pledge that have nothing to do with religion. Have you ever REALLY thought through those words? Also, this cartoon might suggest to the not-thinking-deeply crowd that all wars about about “defending our rights”. The fact of the matter is that very FEW of them have anything to do with defending our rights. Take Iraq, for instance. What did that have to do with my right not to like our Pledge of Allegiance? Continue reading Rethinking the Pledge of Allegiance→
I recently criticized presidential candidate Ron Paul for his squandering of an opportunity in the December 14 Fox News Iowa presidential debate for failing to make the (good) argument against war in Iran. I opined that this failure in that instance could well prove pivotal in the race, and pointed out that his position on Iran (and other wars) was being “used by pundits everywhere as the look-no-further reason to dismiss Paul’s campaign as hopeless.”
This article concerns what I believe rightly justifies war and what does not. And I note that I believe these rules should apply to all nations, and not only to the United States.
At the risk of being misunderstood, let me stress here at the outset that I am generally against war and I believe that every war the US has engaged in since World War I (if not farther back in time) should have been avoided. The following, therefore, are not reasons I wantto go to war, but are merely reasons for which war mightbe reasonably justified. Where I stress caution below, I really mean it; these are not mere platitudes.
What GENERALLY Justifies War (Rightly)
Reprisal against any nation for acts of war conducted by its military against any of the United States, the Capital of the United States, any US territory, or any US vessel or military personnel—provided said acts are not initiated in retaliation for unjust acts of the United States. Continue reading What Rightly Justifies War→
In Fox News’ Wednesday night Republican presidential debate, candidate Ron Paul got into a notable spat with candidate Michele Bachmann over the issue of Iran’s ostensible race to achieve nuclear weaponry and to attack Israel and the United States with it. Paul, whom I do not trust because of his continued affiliation with a patently corrupt political party (both major parties are patently and incorrigibly corrupt), squandered an excellent opportunity to make some points that America desperately needs to hear, and launched instead into a barely-comprehensible rant that is now being used by pundits everywhere as the look-no-further reason to dismiss Paul’s campaign as hopeless. Continue reading Ron Paul: Failing to Make the Argument Against War→