A reader left the following comment regarding my take (http://therightrant.blogspot.com/2006/06/disgrace-to-uniform.html) on the Army officer, Lt. Watada, who refused to obey his deployment to Iraq. It was actually a comment on the larger issue of the legality of the war itself. I thought I would post the comment and my reply because it's probably the most important issue facing us (the U.S.) at this time, and I wanted as many people as have opinions to wade in...
Anonymous said...
If you're as interested in world affairs as you claim to be, then you should certainly be doing your homework about this 'war'. For a lieutenant to actually refuse to go to Iraq because he believes he can not blindly participate in an illegal (yes, that's right - this is no war, not called out by an Act of Congress, but a pre-emptive strike enforced by the president who wanted to make a name for himself to stake out the world's oil supply, which would more likely be called an invasion) aggression, which does in fact undermine who we are as a nation, only shows that Lt. Watada is indeed a person of integrity and conviction. I support him 100 percent. When all is said and done, many years down the road, you will be looking at this situation with an entirely new perspective, hopefully, because you will begin to understand what invading Iraq has really done not only for this country, but for the world as well, and it is not encouraging, nor will the outcomes be positive. You must look at the big picture and refuse to follow blindly when there is far too much to lose by believing everything you hear from totally biased sources. By the way, are you or have you ever been in the armed forces? If not, then perhaps you should go to Iraq, and see things first hand, You just might change your mind about everything you think you believe in.
Sun Jun 25, 03:02:08 PM CDT
OK, there's a lot to address here but first let me begin with the legality of the war. Set aside for a minute the fact that presidents for years have been wrestling with Congress regarding the War Powers Act--without resolution, and that there are as many legal opinions concerning the use of the WPA as there are constitutional scholars to offer them. I found this during some research today on Wikipedia...
"Although the constitutionality of the WPA has never been tested, it has been followed, most notably during the Grenada Conflict, the Panamanian Conflict, the Somalia Conflict, the First Gulf War, and the Second Gulf War. In each case, the President asserted the constitutional authority to commit troops without the necessity of Congressional approval, but in each case the President received Congressional authorization that satisfied the provisions of the War Powers Act."
That being said, I will concede that there is room for interpretation regarding when is it necessary, and when it's not, for the Chief Executive to use the WPA, but it is primarily a partisan political matter as to which side one comes down on, and valid arguments can be made supporting either position. That pretty much settles the question of legality. Let me address the other points made by the reader...
The wild-eyed assumption that Bush wanted to stake out the world's oil supply is ignorant at best, and just plain idiotic at worst. If Republican war-mongers wanted oil, we would have kept Kuwait's oil when we went there in 1991...and we would have kept the Iraqi oil fields for ourselves instead of turning them over to Saddam after we put the fires out...that he ordered set.
(Blogger's side note...) If the price of oil ever hits the point where it is prohibitive and the American economy crashes to a halt, believe me, every person in America will clamor for the government to do whatever is necessary to secure an affordable supply of oil...even if it means taking it from somebody...in order to return our way of life to how it was. It's easy to say oil is not worth going to war over when gas is affordable, but what happens when the market shelves are empty, unemployment is at 70%, there is no affordable transportation, gas is $20 a gallon, and your children are hungry? What then? I'll tell you what...you'll say oil is precious...and it's worth fighting for. You'll say to our government, "I don't care how you get it...just get it!"
Moving on...
Why go into Iraq? That's easy. The list is long and well-reasoned: Saddam killed thousands of Kurds with poisonous gas (WMD) attacks, financial support of terrorism across middle-east, rewarded families of suicide bombers who slaughtered innocent women and children, rooms dedicated to systematic rape and torture of women and children, ignored 17 different U.N. resolutions dating back to the first Gulf War (these resolutions threatened military consequences if they were unheeded), maintained stockpiles of WMD (verified this week), Al Qaeda officials frequently visited Iraq, etc. There are many other atrocities but that short list suffices. The question of what invading Iraq and deposing Saddam does for our country, and others, is simple: it demonstrates that we will go to any length to stamp out terrorist breeding swamps, which threaten peaceful democracies world-wide, no matter where they hide. If you support terrorism, it's open season on you. The terrorists and terrorist-supporting states are ideologues. They don't respect or understand diplomacy. They are hell-bent on the conversion or destruction of all things not Muslim. Because they can't be reasoned with, we must stop them before they attack us again, and it's better to do it on their land than on ours.
As for Lt. Watada, why did he stick around, enjoying the benefits of officer rank, when he was personally conflicted about the legality of the invasion since 2003? If Lt. Watada had any honor, he would have immediately resigned is commission in 2003 and returned to civilian life where he belongs. Or maybe it's just that he fancies himself a political activist, wanted to make a public statement, and waited until his deployment orders came to state his opposition to the war. The active military is apolitical...there is no room in the chain of command for individualistic enlistees who choose which orders to follow based on esoteric, political nuance.
The last issue is about me personally. I am retired USAF National Guard. I have never seen combat, but greatly admire those who have. I don't believe that going to Iraq would change my opinion of the war, or cause my support to waver one bit. Why would it? As for my information gathering, I research dozens of sources every day...some conservative and some liberal in their editorial styles. Obviously I am conservative, but I try to get all points of view before taking a stand on an issue as complex as this one. I look forward to hashing this out with you again.
Regards, Ed
5 comments:
Sorry, Anonymous. Round #1 goes to blogger Ed.
Cedric...you sound very anti-American. Why exactly do you continue to live here? Surely you could think of a country more in line with your way of thinking that would better suit you. People like you like to sit back and criticize what the government does, but what are you willing to do to change it. Are you willing to come up with constructive and reasonable alternatives to the current method of dealing with terrorists or are you hiding away in Idaho planning a revolt against our government. Your vile hatred of the U.S. is clear. If you don't like it in America you always have a choice...LEAVE.
OK Cedric, I'm going to respond to both your ignorant, profanity-laced screeds with a single comment because both of yours were similarly devoid of reason and logic.
The hate, venom, and bile in your writing belies a level of self-loathing and irrational guilt which is obviously eating away at your liver. That your formative years were spent during the sixties is telling, as you have Ted Kaczynski's sense of mistrust of the government and Jane Fonda's willingness to regurgitate it to the world.
That you believe the liberal rantings of the DailyKos, DemocraticUnderground, and George Soros is truly pathetic and worthy of my pity. Not a single thing you said was based in logic or reason. Your comments consisted entirely of the bumper-sticker slogans the Democrats love to repeat day in and day out, regardless of truth or accuracy.
Sadly for our representative republic, it's wild-eyed voters like you whose ideas were hatched in the fever swamps of Liberalism/Socialism, who would, if given a chance, sacrifice everything that the American military fought and died to preserve, in favor of establishing your Socialist, progressive utopia. You obviously loathe free-market capitolism (an extension of the word freedom)...the economic philosophy which has lifted more people out of poverty worldwide than any other form of economy and government. Contrary to your belief system, Socialism doesn't equally distribute wealth, it seizes wealth from those that created it, and doles it out to those that didn't...how is that fair? It punishes achievment and rewards degeneracy.
Since you're a fan, I have to believe you fit in the latter category.
In the future, if you cannot form a profanity-free thought, please keep them to your self.
Cedric..Let me start by saying that I do not necessarily agree with everything that blogger Ed says nor do I think that Bush has been the best President. My point to you was that people like you sit back and criticize our government but never actually offer any reasonable alternatives. What do YOU plan to do to change a system that you so clearly abhore. You accused us of hiding behind a keyboard...might I remind you that that is exactly where you are right now. I am curious, what was your reaction to the 9-11 tragedy. Did you think the US got what it deserved? Did you not think that we should retaliate in some way or are we supposed to sit back and allow terrorists to destroy us? I personally support whatever is needed to protect our country (It's your country, too, you know). It's not about blind loyalty..it's about faith in a system that has worked for more than 200 years.
Cedric, vileness of your zealotry is surpassed only by the depth of your ignorance. You swallow, hook, line, and sinker, the tirades of the radical left who would do harm to this country if it meant sticking it to Bush. Like Farp, I am no great fan of Bush. To me there is no such thing as a big-spending conservative. He has yet to use the veto pen to curb spending, will not do anything to secure the border with Mexico, among other things. His stance against the relentless advance of the threat of terrorism on our soul has my support. You seem to have nothing but disdain for this country and wish it harm, rather than do something constructive to fix the perceived problems.
Clearly you live a sad, pathetic existence, consumed with hatred and resentment.
C'mon man, life is too short for that...expecially your life at 61.
Post a Comment