|
|
Post by Yoshiko on Nov 30, 2005 14:03:35 GMT -5
I got this e-mail the other day. READ IT.
The other day, my nine year old son wanted to know why we were at
war...My husband looked at our son and then looked at me. My husband and I
were in the Army during the Gulf War and we would be honored to serve and
defend our Country again today. I knew that my husband would give him a good
explanation.
My husband thought for a few minutes and then told my son to go stand in
our front living room window. He said "Son, stand there and tell me what you
see?" "I see trees and cars and our neighbor's houses." he replied. "OK, now
I want you to pretend that our house and our yard is the United States of
America and you are President Bush."
Our son giggled and said "OK." "Now son, I want you to look out the window
and pretend that every house and yard on this block is a different country"
my husband said. "OK Dad, I'm pretending." "Now I want you to stand there
and look out the window and pretend you see Saddam come out of his house
with his wife, he has her by the hair and is hitting her. You see her
bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face, he throws her on the ground,
then he starts to kick her to death. Their children run out and are afraid
to stop him, they are screaming and crying, they are watching this but do
nothing because they are kids and they are afraid of their father. You see
all of this, son....what do you do?" "Dad?" "What do you do son?" "I'd call
the police, Dad."
"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations. They take your call.
They listen to what you know and saw, but they refuse to help. What do you
do then son ?"
"Dad.......... but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts to
whine.
"They don't want to son, because they say that it is not their place or
your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my husband
says. "But Dad...he killed her!!" my son exclaims. "I know he did...but the
police tell you to stay out of it.
Now I want you to look out that window and pretend you see our neighbor who
you're pretending is Saddam turn around and do the same thing to his
children."
"Daddy...he kills them?" "Yes son, he does. What do you do?" "Well, if the
police don't want to help, I will go and ask my next door neighbor to help
me stop him." our son says.
"Son, our next door neighbor sees what is happening and refuses to get
involved as well. He refuses to open the door and help you stop him," my
husband says. "But Dad, I NEED help!!! I can't stop him by myself!!" "WHAT
DO YOU DO SON?" Our son starts to cry. "OK, no one wants to help you, the
man across the street saw you ask for help and saw that no one would help
you stop him. He stands taller and puffs out his chest. Guess what he does
next son?" "What Daddy?" "He walks across the street to the old ladies house
and breaks down her door and drags her out, steals all her stuff and sets
her house on fire and then...he kills her. He turns around and sees you
standing in the window and laughs at you. WHAT DO YOU DO?"
"Daddy...?" "WHAT DO YOU DO?" Our son is crying and he looks down and he
whispers, "I'd close the blinds, Daddy." My husband looks at our son with
tears in his eyes and asks him. "Why?" "Because Daddy.....the police are
supposed to help people who need them...and they won't help.... You always
say that neighbors are supposed to HELP neighbors, but they won't help
either...they won't help me stop him...I'm afraid....I can't do it by
myself, Daddy... ..I can't look out my window and just watch him do all
these terrible things and...and.....do nothing...so....I'm just going to
close the blinds....so I can't see what he's doing........and I'm going to
pretend that it's not happening."
I start to cry. My husband looks at our nine year old son standing in the
window, looking pitiful and ashamed at his answers to my husband's questions
and he says..."Son" "Yes, Daddy?" "Open the blinds because that man.... he's
at your front door..."WHAT DO YOU DO?" My son looks at his father, anger and
defiance in his eyes..He balls up his tiny fists and looks his father square
in the eyes, without hesitation he says: "I DEFEND MY FAMILY, DAD!! I'M NOT
GONNA LET HIM HURT MOMMY OR MY SISTER, DAD!!! I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM, DAD, I'M
GONNA FIGHT HIM!!!!!"
I see a tear roll down my husband's cheek and he grabs our son to his
chest and hugs him tight, and says... "It's too late to fight him, he 's too
strong and he's already at YOUR front door son.....you should have stopped
him BEFORE he killed his wife, and his children and the old lady across the
way. You have to do what's right, even if you have to do it alone, before
it's too late." my husband whispers. THAT scenario I just gave you is WHY we
are at war with Iraq. When good men stand by and let evil happen, son, THAT
is one of the greatest atrocities in the world.
"YOU MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT! EVEN IF YOU HAVE
TO DO IT ALONE!" BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN! BE PROUD OF OUR TROOPS!!
SUPPORT THEM!!! SUPPORT AMERICA SO THAT IN THE FUTURE
OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR BLINDS..."
Moving? touching? Inspiring? ...In the right forum? XD
Post comments and such about it here.
I, myself, found it very nice.
However, highly corny. =P
|
|
|
|
Post by Lazo on Nov 30, 2005 15:07:52 GMT -5
It's a decent microcosm, but Soverignty and intervention (humanitarian or otherwise) is much more complicated than that.
The capital letters were not necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by joshi on Nov 30, 2005 15:10:22 GMT -5
I think it's very heartwarming, it's unfortunate that the father is unaware that the real reason we began fighting Iraq was because of Gas. A lot of money was owed to Iraq, eventually Iraq became very impatient and started pilfering the country's belongings since they could not receive the payment they have asked for. So apparently we made a big deal over an argument with gas that we decided to try to stop them, and that's how the war truly began, and because we kept digging our noses where they didn't belong, we started getting attacked by terrorists from the Middle East, I don't know about the rest of you, but I think this is partly Bush's fault in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Not-Garr on Nov 30, 2005 15:24:16 GMT -5
That's a good theory, Joshi. Though wasn't it technically the oil used to make the gas? Either way, I myself don't believe that theory. I just don't put much stock into rumors that don't have all that much evidence to them. I keep hearing Bush haters going on and on about the oil, and I don't doubt that was taken into consideration, for better or for worse, but I highly, highly doubt that was why we got attacked by the terrorists. It just seems to be too much of an easy way to stick the blame on President Bush, doesn't it? And not to mention, we could never truely know the terrorists motives unless we had a double-agent among them, and I don't think we do. It was essentially just another conflict, and what's your point in pointing out this is partly Bush's fault, anyway? Who cares whose fault it is? If we had a time machine, and such knowledge, we could go back to stop it, but we don't.
It is a very heartwarming story, though it leans too much to one side for my tastes, it does depict the author's point of view, and stance on this situation. And I agree, the caps were unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by UMS Author Lava on Nov 30, 2005 17:01:04 GMT -5
That little boy was right, and the father was just an idiot to let it all seem like he can't do anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by joshi on Nov 30, 2005 17:51:19 GMT -5
That little boy was right, and the father was just an idiot to let it all seem like he can't do anything. Yes, I agree. If the United Nations refused to help, then I'd suspect it was for a good reason.... |
|
|
|
Post by Lazo on Nov 30, 2005 18:01:43 GMT -5
If the United Nations refused to help, then I'd suspect it was for a good reason.... Not necessarily. The UN was set up so it couldn't go against the wishes of any of its powerful members. Any country on the security counsel can block an action of intervention. If China doesn't want action to be taken, then the UN will not take action. The same applies to all of the nations on the security counsel. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoshiken on Nov 30, 2005 18:32:49 GMT -5
OH MY GOSH! YOU ACTUALLY POSTED GREG! XD
|
|
|
|
Post by yoshicreator on Nov 30, 2005 23:10:41 GMT -5
---___--- heh, no, not touching to me. Genocide, simple word, right? Well it is happening in Africa and South America every day, thousands are dying every couple of months, we hardly know because nobody wants to know. It happened in Rwanda, in El Salvador, its happening today, millions upon millions have died...its like the holocaust down there, and yet we have done nothing. We are best friends with Saudi Arabia, who has a violently strict dictatorship...yes FRIENDS, we are so warm and open to them, but when the same things happened in Iraq we got ugly. Why? I'll tell you why...another simple word...oil. Saudi Arabia has oil, we need that oil, and we use so much oil that to sever our ties with an oil-yielding country would be murderous. That is why we are all good with Saudi Arabia, their oil is dire, and now we need Iraq’s oil but having a war over oil looks ridiculous, so we used the cover title of “War to Remove Sadaam.”
It seems obvious why President Bush is doing it:
A) He is finishing what his father started, it’s like a little son-to-father president, George Bush had his run-in with Sadaam; George W. Bush will be the one to finish it.
B) Oil – Oh, gosh the oil, we are over there to get oil for our country.
C) He can’t pull out now; Bush won’t look like a coward so hundreds of innocent young men and women are being killed in a war that is almost now unclear as to what its main point is.
D) A war for freedom? Hmmm…I’ll buy that and take back all I’ve said about Bush as soon as he sets up a program to eradicate all the other countries, if he does I’ll admit I was wrong about him. Oh wait, he won’t? He can’t? Not enough time or money? Gee…no big surprise there. As of 2004, there were a reported 193 countries in the world. Over 50 of them are controlled by dictatorships or tolitarian governments, many of those are WORSE…MUCH WORSE than Iraq with genocide and gender oppression and thousands upon thousands dead, there are names of kings we’ve never heard who are worse than Sadaam Hussein ever was but don’t get mentioned in the media ever...at all…zip, nada. Why? The big kicker, not one of those countries has oil or any other resource, Iraq did and does. Coincidence? I think not!
Your story left out a little piece of genuine fact, and I thought since you want to accurately show the world how “good” Bush’s agenda is, I’d point out the innocent correction. Those other countries, especially the genocidal countries in Africa, are those other houses. They aren’t peaceful and nice with Sadaam’s house being the only bad one on the block, if your story was 100% correct, you’d need to mention all those other houses had dead bodies in the yard, 13 year old boys with guns shooting other boys their age, more men raping and killing, brutally disrespecting their wives and mistresses, people being oppressed and martyred every minute. That is the other homes, in comparison the house of Iraq seems to have the least problems, I would have rushed to the other homes way before Iraq. Just a little something you forgot to mention.
Now…I’m not saying that I am not happy with Sadaam Hussein’s removal. I am very glad to see him gone. But let’s give him his trial, choose his penalty and be done. We need to leave Iraq, we have done what we came to do, we gave them a democratic election, now it is time to let them take control and get on their own two feet. If they cannot survive now with all our soldiers helping them, they can’t do it by themselves; and therefore they can’t do it when we leave. So leave now, it won’t be any different from when we leave later, save these poor soldiers lives while we can! If they have a civil war so be it, many, many, many, many other countries have civil wars too. It is not our job to intervene into a civil war, and we are picking battles with odd choices of contenders.
I respect fully our soldiers, I know that so many of them fought to let me have a better life, I love America, I love being an American and I love the soldiers ho could go do that for me. Iraq wasn’t a threat to us, they weren’t a looming presence we were totally afraid of, we caused their anger and extremism, it is a big part our fault they have revolted so violently. I do not speak treason.
President Bush’s ratings hit an all time low today. It seems, IMO, that it is apparent why. The fact he is only concentrating on Iraq when other countries have thousands more dying and dead as well as much stricter dictators is alarming. And the fiasco of Hurricane Katrina makes little to no sense either.
I just want you to all look beyond the media, read books, watch TRUE movies (Hotel Rwanda, Romero, Schindler's List, Salvador). These aren’t just simple works of Hollywood fiction with good acting involved, these aren’t movies meant to scare us or simply thrill us, they are meant to provoke the thoughts meant to be provoked because they are true, they happened…THEY HAPPENED and were even scaled down to be suitable enough to share to the world. These things are still happening and we do nothing. Is it coincidence they do not have oil, or that the genocide is so bad we are afraid of it, or that the victims of Africa and Katrina…both virtually un-helped…were black?
I just hope I’m wrong, but President Bush seems to be very centered on the wrong cause. That story you posted was most likely written by a pro-Bush. I’m not Pro anyone. I’m neutral. I see the wrong and good of the Iraqi war. But unfortunately, I see more of the bad than good.
The story is not touching to me because it leaves out the hard-hitting facts we don’t want to accept…the truth that Iraq was and remains one of the least of our problems,
~*YC*~
|
|
|
|
Post by Lazo on Nov 30, 2005 23:55:27 GMT -5
---___--- heh, no, not touching to me. Genocide, simple word, right? Well it is happening in Africa and South America every day, thousands are dying every couple of months, we hardly know because nobody wants to know. It happened in Rwanda, in El Salvador, its happening today, millions upon millions have died...its like the holocaust down there, and yet we have done nothing. We are best friends with Saudi Arabia, who has a violently strict dictatorship...yes FRIENDS, we are so warm and open to them, but when the same things happened in Iraq we got ugly. Why? I'll tell you why...another simple word...oil. Saudi Arabia has oil, we need that oil, and we use so much oil that to sever our ties with an oil-yielding country would be murderous. That is why we are all good with Saudi Arabia, their oil is dire, and now we need Iraq’s oil but having a war over oil looks ridiculous, so we used the cover title of “War to Remove Sadaam.” Let's not forget Sudan! Humanitarian Intervention sounds nice, but it brings a ton of problems. There are reasons to doubt whether the UN or any other organization can possibly implement a consistant and impartial docrine of Humanitarian Intervention. The problem becomes severe when we move from morality to implementing it. We may agree it is a violation of human rights for a government to assassinate its political opponents, however, does this mean that 10 assassinations require intervention? Exactly how great musht the violation of rights be before intervention becomes a good choice? Some draw it at genocide, but few are willing to restrict the right of intervention to cases that meet the strict definition of genocide. Some use the catagory of "Gross" or "egregious." What specific actions rise to these levels? There are the usual examples of Rwanda in 1994 and Pol Pot's Cambodia in the 1970s, but every other one is eleminated becuse they "were simply not bloody enough to warrent intervention." For some, 5,000 deaths might be "massive"; for others, it might not be "massive" until 100,000. This is only an accusation, brought up by inferences. While it would be foolish to say that there are no oil interests in Iraq, invading Iraq would not have been the most efficient way to get more of it. Right now the point of the war is to stabilize Iraq's new government. Pulling troops out now would not stop the insurgency, as their new objective is to topple Iraq's government. We need a 50:1 of citizens to troops in order to bring stability. As far as we know, classic counterinsurgency tactics still work, although they take about 10 years. There is a difference between how we should think about individual Vs state morality. If individuals chose to barge into homes to defend peopel being attacked, that is their right because the life they are putting at risk is their own. But if the president of the USA decides to send troops to Rwanda because he wants to protect lives, this is more problematic because he is risking the lives of others, people whose interests he is supposed to protect. The Govermnet is an agent, not a principle. It's primary obligation is to the interests of the national society it represents. Although it may be regrettable, states are simply not willing to incur substantial economic and human costs in order to defend the rights of others when their own national interest is not involved. Remember the public's negative reaction to Somalia in 1992-93. It's only a microcosm, not a representation of the entire world. The problem with letting Iraq just go is that they don't have a trained police force and will be unable to keep stability. They have already defeated the USSR in the past; if the USA backs out now then they are more than willing to give themselves a 2-0 tally. Don't play the race card. It is not relevant. The ideas of Humanitarian Intervention are moral pronouncements that are easily and readily abandoned the moment they clash with perceptions of national interests or threaten to actually cost anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Teo on Dec 1, 2005 0:34:02 GMT -5
Interesting story...I liked it, but there are too many sides to the issue really to see what's going on, why it's happening, and so on.
Thanks for posting this though, I have a debate to do on wether the redeployment of troops is good or bad (we don't pick the side, but I got chosen as a 'good' thing.) I'll read over this later, some VERY good points were made.
|
|
Graedius
New Yoshi
Chiptune Raccoon
Posts: 48
|
Post by Graedius on Dec 1, 2005 3:28:00 GMT -5
Don't argue with Lazoshi. He's such a master of world history and social politicsthat he most assuredly knows what Hitler had for breakfast every morning.
|
|
|
|
Post by UMS Author Lava on Dec 1, 2005 8:40:13 GMT -5
Right--Lazo, as far as I know--is not one to attempt to correct in the matters of social studies.
|
|
|
|
Post by yoshicreator on Dec 1, 2005 20:58:08 GMT -5
You may know social studies by the book but you cannot say anyone is right until they have personally been there, on the war front, in the disaster zone. I am no more experienced in that area than Lazoshi, but nonetheless we both take sides in this argument. We both have the ability to go off what is said in books, what we hear on the radio or watch on the TV, but neither of us have ever truly been there to say how it really is.
And while Lazoshi made some very good points, whether or not he is a maestro in the area of politics and history, no one in the world doesn't throw their own opinions into the mix. This is our blight; it is in human nature to state facts...but only the facts that best support our belief system. While you can claim to be neutral (as I did), no one in the world is fully one side or the other. I can assure you there is no democrat, republican independent or green in our country that is 100% for their party's agendas, they will always have one or two things they sway towards other parties choices for.
So my point is this, Lazoshi, I'm sure you ARE a political genius. You sound extremely in the know about what you said in your counter-argument, quite informed! However, I remain with what I said and you remain with what you said. It is better we all have our own ideas about how our government system truly works. As long as we know what we are talking about and have the proper books and seen the other proper material for the event in question, and know current events, then we have the right to speak our minds because we are speaking with informed tongues. Some people say things merely because it’s what their friends or parent believe, but I think we both know many things on this subject so I respect your arguments and I stick with mine.
I continue to say something is not quite right about this war and no matter what you will post in return to that, I can never be assured that those who fight me are purely neutral. No one can be, it’s just inhuman, and that is why I say I understand and respect what you said but am not convinced that what I said isn’t correct.
~*YC*~
|
|
|
|
Post by Lazo on Dec 2, 2005 22:32:35 GMT -5
You may know social studies by the book but you cannot say anyone is right until they have personally been there, on the war front, in the disaster zone. I am no more experienced in that area than Lazoshi, but nonetheless we both take sides in this argument. We both have the ability to go off what is said in books, what we hear on the radio or watch on the TV, but neither of us have ever truly been there to say how it really is. According to This Defensetech article, they're fighting because of the insurgents. "The guerillas in Iraq have been brutal, killing way more innocent bystanders than American occupiers or Iraqi collaborators. While I was in Baghdad, a group of soldiers in a nearby neighborhood were handing out candy to bunch of kids. Until a suicide bomber stepped in, and killed 27.'
'It boggles my mind, how someone can go into a crowd of kids, and kill them all. I’ll never understand it. But that’s why I’m here,' said Staff Sgt. Mark Palmer, with the 717th Ordnance Disposal Company, an Army bomb squad. 'Yeah, it’s still fun to blow stuff up. But it’s not the core thing. Figuring out how this crap [the bomb] works. Stopping it from hurting people. That’s the main thing.'"That is why it is so important to treat ideas as hypothesis to be tested. By introducing complicating evidence, a person is forced to re-evaluate their ideas. Rather than ignoring potentially troublesome details, zoom in on them. Opinions do not get a free pass. |
|
