Nobel Peace price winner threatens Bush’s life
In this article, once I get past the moronic remark about our Commander-in-Chief, I see an inherent difference between Right and Left.
For one, the Nobel prize winner seems to blame Bush for the death of so many children, and suggests the America’s involvement in Iraq has contributed to those deaths. That’s a typical Lefty position, and I don’t deny the fact that many civilians have suffered in this war on terrorism. That truly is a shame. But, unfortunately, it is a fact of life when it comes to war. There is no such thing as ‘zero collateral damage’. It’s part of what makes war so horrible. But is this enough to say ‘never’ when it comes to war?
The Right position would say: "Yes, there are some children dead because of the war, but how many lives were saved as a result of removing this madman from power?"
It’s a fair question and, unfortunately, one that can’t be answered outside of ‘a lot’. After all, if you look at Hussein’s track record, he is responsible for much more innocent dead than has occurred in the 3 years of warfare that has gripped Iraq. So is America the brutal animal that everyone makes them out to be? The sad thing about history is that man does not have the luxury of viewing the outcome of decisions NOT made. Such is the case with Iraq.
They say shame on us for taking action, while I would say shame on us for not taking action. It’s a debate that began in the 60’s and may never end.
She also mentions a story about British soldiers killing an IRA operative, resulting in his car careening onto the sidewalk and killing two innocent children. Tragic. But who’s to blame? The Left would say it’s the British soldiers who are to blame. The Right, myself included, blame the IRA. They were, after all, a terrorist organization that killed MANY innocent people in the struggle they called a revolution. These two poor children were amongst those.
I hope we can all agree that terrorists must be stopped. The question is how. My hope is that we won’t be looking back twenty years from now and wondering about the possible outcome of decisions not made.
8 comments:
I agree with you completely. It makes me angry to hear these stupid remarks.
Hubby and I were talking about Dean's stupid remarks about events in the Middle East (if Democrats were in power this would not be happening). Also Kerry's remarks (if HE were President, this would not be happening). They really need a cow-pie in the face.
I refuse to buy anything made by 'Heniz' because it reminds me of limp-wristed, worthless Kerry and his rich-though-she-did-not-work-for-it wife.
Also I am sick of the word "disproportionate" damage. Oh, the killing and damage Israel is doing is 'disproportionate'.... Well, what we did in WWII to Japan may have been a little 'disproportionate' to their attack on Pearl Harbor, but it was necessary.
Why is it always the violent people who always get, or get nominated for the peace prize? Yassir Arafat, Tookie Williams, and this nutjob? I don't get it. These people need to stop lying to themselves. The award is for peace like Fox news is fair and balanced.
By the way, I left another comment on the stem-cell research post.
Deb, I have forsaken Heinz as well, I've gone generic. THanks for stopping in.
Appreciate the comments, Cody. Please see my other remarks on ESCR, I think they explain my position fairly well
"Yes, there are some children dead because of the war, but how many lives were saved as a result of removing this madman from power?"
I'm curious: Will it cease to be just in your mind once more innocents have died as a result of the invasion than were killed by Saddam?
You're right, John, I do believe it was the British soldiers' fault. After all, they could have easily taken out the IRA operative when he had cleared the crowded street and there were NO bystanders. --Deano
Easily? Are you sure of that or are you just assuming that the soldiers intentionally endangered civillian lives?
What if Bin Laden were in the car? Should they have waited to 'get' him as well? What if it were before 9/11? Think of all the lives that could have been saved. It's not as simple as you think is it?
No, Dan, it would not cease to be just because the unknown is how many Saddam would have killed had he stayed in power. So we can't put a 'number' on what's acceptable as civillian casualties.
So, we will always be right, even if every last citizen of Iraq dies in our efforts to save her?
Post a Comment