Politics, Terrorism, War, and OurTroops

So, do you support the troops? Does anyone know what that means?

I don't see how I can say war is wrong in principle, but support each war that came along in practice. The life of one of our soldiers must be worth more than the life of one of their soldiers, right? How else can we have any wars at all? I don't want any Canadian soldiers to die, but I don't want any enemy soldiers to die either. I don't really want anyone to die. There is bravery on both sides of a fire fight, otherwise it wouldn't be a fight

Joining the military means agreeing to bomb whatever country the politician who happens to be Prime Minister (probably with thirty-six per cent of the vote) says to. Remember when we didn't trust or respect politicians?

It is hard for me to get past the fact that war is the justification of killing, is saying, “It is okay to kill these people. Do as much of it as you can.” If that is what 'supporting the troops' means, can  I oppose what is being done while supporting those who do it?

If we show we value democracy and tolerance by shooting the enemy in the face at every opportunity, we can also show it by questioning the idea of war and the justness of politicians. Democracy is defended more by exercising dissent here than by bombing anyone an ocean away.

Is it really less practical to look for peaceful ways to resolve problems than it was to spend 18 billion dollars sending troops half a world away for eleven years? We know what we are willing to sacrifice to fight wars, what are we willing to sacrifice to not have wars? War is never the last resort because you always had the option of sacrificing the thing the war is fought for.

The problem with fighting a war on terrorism is that war is terrorism, just seen from our side. The opposite of terrorism is not a drone strike, the opposite of terrorism is the same as the opposite of war, that is, diplomacy.

If we keep ISIS from forming a state - and states are things you can do diplomacy with, they have borders and economies and governments and interests - and just kill large numbers of them, how do we cope with what emerges from that war, which will be...another war. A war we will fight by bombing and they will fight by encouraging attacks domestically.

At what point does this end? When we stop bombing them in their countries and when criminal attacks in our countries are dealt with as criminal attacks. Ending the Baader-Mienhof terrorists in Germany or the Red Brigade terrorists in Italy did not necessitate the bombing of anyone (least of all Germany and Italy).

Denying ISIS a state will not end terrorism. Nothing will end terrorism, the way nothing ends murder. We just live with the risk of it, have laws against it, put people in jail for it, try to build good citizens who don't want to do it. What makes us think we can eliminate terrorism if we can't eliminate murder? Murder doesn't stop us from living our lives, exercising our freedoms, and ensuring due process, nor should it. Should anything?

Why Mass Shootings Don't Bother Me.

Somebody shot somebody today. Somebody may have shot multiple somebodies today. A few days ago there was a mass murder in a church. A few days from now there may be one in a mall or a school or a factory or yes, even a post office.

Beyond mass murders, there have are individual one-on-one murders - one person shot here, another person shot over there. There are even murders that are of more than one person, say a mother and her child and then the shooter ex-boyfriend, that don't quite qualify as 'mass'. I don't buy anymore that people are outraged by it.

Clearly America has made its choice. Society has made its grand bargain and it is this: regular mass murders are an acceptable price to pay for not having to change gun laws. Yes, they are unfortunate - especially if you are involved somehow (but that's the risk you run for the privilege of living in status quo America - and who doesn't love that) - but a fair trade off when you consider the benefits of allowing people and companies to make money off producing, promoting and selling guns. What do you want, communism? Socialism? Regulation? Peace?

The tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of victims and the powerless - that's just the way it is. Those African-Americans who died in the church shooting were patriots who willingly gave up their lives for America's gun freedom and should be honoured as the heroes they are (were). Because of them and their willingness to put there lives on the line, and the willingness of all Americans who put their, and their loved ones', lives on the line everyday in every schoolhouse, daycare and street of the country, the United States of America remains free of government
interference in the business of guns. The U.S. stands as a beacon of hope, a shining example to peaceful but insignificant countries like Norway, Australia, Canada, the hated France, or Costa Rica.

But not just Americans die to defend these freedoms. America's destiny is to be leader, not just off the free word, but of the entire world, and the export, sale, and smuggling of guns around the world, the flooding of the world with guns, is part of fulfilling that leadership. Guns make America great and America makes the world great. If it wasn't for war and murder, what would we watch on TV? More cooking shows? Masterpiece Theatre? In depth political journalism? Science?

Freedom doesn't mean security, it means the opportunity to make money, and lives cannot be sacred - everyone's going to die anyway - but money can be, because it is immortal. It can be passed down from generation to generation to generation. In a truly religious nation it is eternal life that is important, not this temporary, finite life as church-goers, or grade school students, or movie theatre patrons. God has given us freedom and we must use it or lose it, and nothing says 'freedom' like having the power to end some stranger's life any time you want to, just because you feel like it. And what country has done more for freedom than the United States?

Psst...we can hear you...

Do Americans not realize that the rest of the world can hear it when they talk to each other?

Things that go over well when one American talks to another, can make the rest of the world think the U.S. is full of crap-crazy fart eaters. When V.P. Cheney said that maybe America should launch a nuclear attack on a non-nuclear Iran, no-one in the U. S. - politician, media, or voter - batted an eye. It was just one of the options on the table to be discussed in a reasonable and dispassionate cost/benefit analysis. When a candidate says God told him/her to run (you and every other candidate - I guess God hedges his bets), or that President Obama is secretly a Kenyan Muslim Stalinist nazi (do they actually know what those words mean: A communist and a fascist? An atheist and a Muslim?), the rest of the world gets creeped out.

It's like suspecting the big dude with shotgun may not be right in the head.

Thing is, America has nuclear weapons. If it goes off the deep end it could get us all f-ing killed. And what do we have as a safe-guard against an ignorant, easily manipulated, sadistic, religious nut-bar coming to power in the most militarily dominant country in the world? Democracy? Are you serious? Do you see the people who get elected?

As the British joke goes, an Ambassador in 1776 rushes into the court of King George the Third with news from the colonies. "Your Majesty! The Americans are revolting!"
"You're telling me," the King says, "they're disgusting."

The U.S. is not disgusting. It's just so-o-o weird. It wasn't long ago world polls called the U.S. the greatest threat to world peace. Maybe that's because the guy with the assault rifle is swinging it around pointing at things no-one else can see, hates women, hears voices in his head, has already killed 12 people in the crowd and keeps mumbling something about the Rapture being true and Climate Change a lie.

No doubt every country has its less-than-normal-intelligence population, and maybe it is just because I'm Canadian that I know so much about Michele Bachman and Ted Cruz and Sean Hannity and very little about any equivalents they may have in the Czech Republic or Australia. But most countries aren't death-dealing militaristic superpowers constituting a law unto themselves and bent on self-aggrandizement at any cost, only exceptional ones are.

If a country wants to be taken seriously and respected as a nation of adults with contributions to make to the good of the world, a positive first step would be to stop talking to each other like brain cells were as rare as fossils, and just as hardened.
.