Thursday, November 18, 2004

It takes WAR to create PEACE.

My grandfather passed away a couple weeks ago. Yet I am left with words of his echoing through my head, and his deep burly voice of a Veteran who fought in World War Two, and the wisdom forged from a man who had to kill and go to WAR for the rights of FREEDOM.

Grandpa Howard won the Purple Heart and Silver Star for his services in World War II and the Philippine War, and the battle of Okinawa. Many people as of late have been mad and frustrated with the "politics" of the BUSH campaign in going to war in the Middle East, especially with that of Iraq.

I would like to make a couple statements here:

1) If Terrorism was able to attack the world's most powerful nation, was the rest of the world that much safer?

2) If we were attacked by a Nation would we not retaliate? Post 9/11 people seem to be confusing certain issues. In this high-tech global world connected by the hub of the internet, we are not fighting any particular corrupt nation; we are fighting a corrupt IDEOLOGY.


Jack Zipes quotes Nancy Armstrong and Leonard Tennenhouse in their comments,

A class of people cannot produce themselves as a ruling class with out setting themselves off against certain Others. Their hegemony entails possession of the key cultural terms determining what are the right and wrong ways to be a human being. (Norton, p. 336)

This statement enlightened me about why certain groups are "mad" with the BUSH campaign, and why world nations are angry with the U.S. for the WAR in IRAQ.

Yet again, we are specifically at WAR with the IDEOLOGIES of TERRORISM and the brutal tactics those who practice such ideologies exercise. Iraq may be a separate state, and the people’s liberties, what little they had, may have been imposed upon, but if TERROR makes its presence and nobody is there to stop it... Apocalypse ensues. How can it not? Do we need a dictionary to realize that things like TERROR, absolute CORUPTION are bad? People say WAR is bad, but have they ever wondered what we are fighting for? It's not just for fightings sake.

The United States was attacked on September 11, 2001, and what our world leaders noticed was that it wasn't one nation, or one crazy man with an army (Hitler) that attacked us, but it was an 'idea' of the worst kind. An idea that 'power' is more important than freedom and that 'terror' is the corrupt methodology utilized to maintain such 'power'. When you through the Religious elements in, things get really bizarre and twisted. But ruling by terror to ensure only a select elite of corrupt dictators a stronghold of power is not ethical. So we went to war with the ideology that challenged freedom, and we now had an excuse to do so; Two smoldering towers and over three thousands deaths to human lives.

There are those who desire talking to these 'corrupt leaders' who utilize terror as a means. People often love these corrupt leaders, and well they should, because they are told to, and they have no education to let them know otherwise. But everyone has a conscience, and deep down we all know that beheading, chopping off hands, suppression and abuse of women, constant threats religious or otherwise, and acts of terror are not moral of activities. There are those who know right from wrong but chose to ignore their conscience and do the thing to ensure they get power in return, this is an evil lot. And there are those who complain that Bush and his "WAR ON TERROR" is the biggest evil of all? Let me tell those people something. Arafat promised peace for over 30 years, and he died last week. There was still no peace. Just one example of why "talks" with men who hold power over freedom and liberty cannot be trusted. To terrorize people into submission is the same tactics of the Devil, if you believe in such a thing, and so why would fighting such an evil be wrong? God sent his angels to WAR to rid the corruption Satan had become. Evil was conquered, and Peace ensued.

Let me share another thing with you all, my Grandpa Howard, an honorary WAR HERO, had this to say:

"I fought; I saw my countrymen bleed and die. We fought because we knew that what Hitler was doing was wrong, and so we died for the beliefs that everyone has the right to freedom and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I invaded countries and fought WARS to ensure that peoples FREEDOMS would not be taken away, because you see, freedom is not a natural thing. You have to create it, and then maintain it. There are people who take it for granted and think that it just exists for them, that's because they've never lived without it, or they don't yet know the meaning of it. There is always a man or an idea that will try to take FREEDOM away and hurt others for his own selfish ideas, but we have the choice to fight for freedom. Now in such a small world, how can the strongest nation sit back and look on as people suffer from such cruelty, oppression, and hate? They suffer. To not go to WAR for their freedom would be the real crime."

Every time the News would have 'talking head's discussing how immoral the 'War on Terror' or the War in Iraq is, my grandpa would flip. He would turn beat red and just puff. For all his sacrifices and blood, there are still people today who will disrespect him and the things he fought for because they are more worried about the civil liberties of the 'individual' rather than the liberation of the 'whole'; everyone's freedom is important. How can an individual have liberties when they are so suppressed? When the terror seeps into every nation on the planet, why should we not fight against those who sponsor such ideals as terrorism? Are we not allowed to ensure humanities moral rights and freedoms? If people are inconvenienced, and nations are caught up between to opposing forces at WAR (and to opposing ideologies), I wish they would hurry up and choose a side. You can talk about freedom all you want, but until you actually do something to secure it -nothing will ever happen to allow those to have freedom. Terrorism is directly attacking freedom, and it saddens me to think there are more people worried about one specific 'individual's liberties' when everyone on the planet has the liberty of freedom at stake. The lack of foresight as to why Terror is bad and growing so rapidly that it directly attacks the world’s greatest FREE nation is scary. Do these people really believe that by talking about peace the terror will cease and desist? TERROR people! TERROR IS EVIL. Wake up. (Does Terror have people so terrified that they are unable to stand up to it? That they will make any excuse not to hurt others, because to do so would be wrong? More wrong then letting them live under a reign of terror? More wrong than letting humanity fall to terror and the evil corruption of those who seek power? Are we so naive as to think that Terror as an ideology has no effect on the outcome of stable and lasting peace?)

Coming back to the quote:

A class of people cannot produce themselves as a ruling class with out setting themselves off against certain Others. Their hegemony entails possession of the key cultural terms determining what are the right and wrong ways to be a human being. (Norton, p. 336)

As the ruling class of the planet, Americans definitely do set themselves off against others, but at the same time we need to realize that we DO HAVE FREEDOM, I know because my Grandpa fought for it. He bled for it. And in today’s world where a corrupt Idealology of hater, fear, and terror is great enough to throw entire nations into a frenzy, we need to FIGHT FOR FREEDOM even harder.

UNLIKE NATIONS of the past, i.e. ROME, America isn't fighting for land, money, or power. Not even the oil, because we import enough from Russia and China to not even worry about the Middle East oil, oil is just an excuse by those who want to attack the reasoning for WAR, or even justify it in some strange way, but we are fighting the IDEALOLOGY of TERROR, the evil forces behind it, and for the rights of those people who don't yet have what we have in abundance: FREEDOM. We want their freedom, and we want to keep our freedom too. Certain folks think that a pre-emptive attack on Iraq was imorally sound, they obviously never played a game of Chess. Sometimes you need to make the first move in order to ensure a checkmate.

Humanity has always been Chaotic by nature and so it is inevitable, there is no running from reason, no escaping destiny, and fighting WARS ensures PEACE. That's how it works, and that's how it will remain to work. People who believe otherwise, well, it's a nice dream. A world utopia where we didn't need to fight wars and where corrupt men can be trusted not to lie on their word's of honor of peace. This would be a nice 'ideal' world, but so would pulling bread out of thin air every time I was hungry. As we all know, pulling bread out of thin air is IMPOSSIBLE. Having a lasting PEACE exist without any war would also be nice, but common sense denotes that this too would be impossible, especially in a world where TERROR runs rampant through the lands. We must fight TERROR, and we must go to WAR! Freedom is worth fighting for and my Grandpa new it.


6 comments:

KS said...

Tristan - I commend your articulate defense of the great men who have served our country. I had two great-uncles who fought in WWII - one died in Europe and my brother bears his name as a tribute, the other lived near us and treated us as his own grandkids. My uncle served in Vietnam and I have a dear friend in Iraq right now. I know that I am not the only one who has relatives in the military. Anytime I hear people denouncing the current campaign against terrorism, I feel like I'm betraying the brave men that have either served or are serving our country. The honorable men I know joined the service because they believe in America and its values, have respect and patriotism, and are not afraid to put their life on line to defend the country that houses their families and gives them freedom. Obviously your grandfather had the same exemplary qualities. I ask opposers to the War on Terrorism - if the people who are willing to fight have the above qualities, what qualities does that leave the people that oppose the anti-terrorism campaign?

Francoise Saurage said...

Tristan, I applaud your grandfather's noble deeds. I also come from a family of war veterans and my mother works on the psychiatric unit at a VA. I believe that war is the final solution when EVERY other one has been exhausted. Despite that WWII was about usurping an evil leader, Hitler, from conquering Europe and for death camps, remeber that the US and Canada had their own "internment camps" for citizens of Japanese (and to a much lesser extent) German descent. The soldiers were fighting against tyranny and genocide. In the Korean and Vietnam wars, American fought against and ideology - which proved much less effective. My point? We don't fight chaos, by creating more chaos. It is why war to create peace is an oxymoron. We cannot claim to be the moral majority by engaging in the same "inhumane" actions as the "other" we have constructed. In order to create freedom, we must allow others to make a free choice, we have not given that choice to Iraqi citizens. We may have just replaced one oppressive government with another.

Francoise Saurage said...

I dont' think my first comment posted. I'll reiterate. I come from a military family. My mother works at a VA hospital on the psychiatric unit. I believe war is the last solution after all others have been exhausted. In WWII, we were trying to usurp an evil dictator, Hitler as well as free prisoners from death camps and avenge Pearl Harbor. Bear in mind, that the US and Canada had "internment camps" for Japanese [and to a lesser extent] German immigrants and descendants. These camps were a euphemism for war camps. We forced innocent civilians to live there against their wills.
Secondly, we are fighting a very different war. In WWII we were fighting a leader who wanted to take over the world, or at least most of Europe. All the other wars we have fought have been over political ideologies - not a very effective motivator and a very nebulous resason to send soldiers. We are again fighting over ideologies, terrorism this time. Tell me, how does a country fight a group of loosely organized, kamikaze, angry at the US's foreign policies terrorists. Seriously how? There creed is that they are willing to die for their cause. They are not a country, they are barely a group. I will tell you how we fight terrorism is this country. We take the easy route, one Arab is as good as another - lets ignore Afghanistan and Saudia Arabia where the 9/11 terrorists are from - instead lets go to Iraq! Better yet, lets piss on all of our diplomacy, ignore the UN and Gary Cooper our way to victory! While we're at it lets discriminate against France and Germany - hey we rebuilt your damn countries and enjoy your Freedom fries. By the way, its a little ignorant that we decided to rename a food, a la Victory Cabbage - not sauerkraut [WWII propaganda] that the French don't even claim as their own - that will show them we know what we're talking about.

All cynicism aside, I believe that we should not risk the lives of solidiers unless absolutely necessary. Putting in our 'B' team - the National Guard and lesser ranked units - is counterintuitive. To win with the least cost, prudence dictates we send our best if we send any at all. I think we are putting too low a cost on soldier's lives. They are fighting for nothing but a Texan famility's pride and the economic interests of the elite 2% of the country. By acivating these forces, you have cheapened their patriotism and their lives. My mom has already had several vets on her unit from this war -- war removes humanity from [wo]men. Is this worth it? NO!!!!

Tristan Vick said...

It's like a suicidal robot. Does it make sense? That perhaps the robot is sad because robots don't have any emotions. Doe it make sense? War. How hard did you have to beed your child to make them play the piano correctly? War to gain peace, or war to end war to ensure peace. Does it make sense? Everyone's point is well validated, but can we assume natural law? Even a sientific one? Survival of the fitest. A super-nova will spawn a white dwarf to make a black hole, and we get to the sucking. Here is the rub. Does it make sense? To finalize, I most definately prefer to be the "kicker" rather than the "kick-ee", and if that goes against your moral grain, prepare to be kicked. Most likely where it counts. Does it make sense?

Francoise Saurage said...

Yes. I understand the instinct for self-preservation at all costs. Part of me wants to be a pacifist - but I'm simply not built to stand by and take it. Another part is angry not only at the terrorists but the way their despicable act was used a carte blanche to attack anyone and everyone at any given time. It would probably suprise you to know that I started the recruitment process in the Marines [family legacy]. Do you know what stopped me? The truth is that I respect no authority higher than myself, not God (I accept the Bible as literature not divine truth - a la Bib/Class Lit with Sexson) and certainly not my commanding officer. With this in mind, I wisely passed on being all I could be. But growing up in family where everyone is on the periphery of war or the consequences of war has rendered me incredibly cautious with preemptive strikes [sorry for the mini-rant about my life]. My final question is, do you think Bush would have been able to finance/engage in this war IF the UN weapons inspectors had completed their inspections and found the little cache [no WMD] of minor weapons we have found in Iraq since Hussein was deposed? Of course, I think no. But what do you think?

Tristan Vick said...

Me personally, I don't look at it politically. If you look at it politically then you fail to ever address the issue. I'm entirely sure, that if we ignored 9/11 and DID NOT enter into Iraque, that the rest of the world (albeit slower to the fray) would have inevitably engaged in a war on terrorism.

Too many people look to blame the U.S. government, or Bush, or his cabinet, or sloppy lazy American's greed of oil, etc. But many of these same people say there is "no" excuse for war, yet they are able to make an excuse not to. What is a fact is that the U.S. DID NOT want to engage in WWII. Yet on December 7th, 1945 an act of terror led us to engage.

My question would be, do you really think it mattered if Bush did or didn't get funding to fight, or that the U.S. may or may not have finished its inspections finding any weapons of mass destruction at all?

If the U.S. did not take the stance to engage terrorism, then the rest of the world would have eventually done so. Time was the only factor. People aren't mad because it happened, they're mad because it didn't happen on 'their terms'.

Play chess, or read the "Art of War" by Sung Tsu, and I think you would agree that this war would have been wage regardless of political agenda. Your question lies within the perameter of wether or not America's political agenda propelled the inevitability of such a war.