Before you read what's below, I want to be sure that y'all understand that I am pretty certain that Mike and Bill do not endorse my feelings on the subject matter involved. This is pretty incendiary in our society today, and I am not even sure that I'll still be here tomorrow as a result (Sanborn calls the shots here). On the other hand, I feel so strongly that EVERYONE needs to be held accountable for their actions that I think I must make my feelings clear on this issue. I agree with Mr. Rose, who regularly sends me emails on his view of the state of affairs in this country and this country's illegal actions overseas.
==========================================
Tonight on the Peter Mac Show (now on Liberty News Radio), Peter and Larken Rose will be taking an objective look at the notion of "supporting the troops." Just about every politician and every voter, no matter what his opinion of any particular military conflict, always adds, "but of course I support the troops."
I (Larken Rose), for one, don't. (I'll let Peter speak for himself.)
Just because someone lives on the same big piece of dirt I live on, doesn't mean I have any reason to support him when he goes off to do the bidding of the tyrants. And just because someone lives outside of the imaginary line which defines "The United States" does not mean that he has fewer rights than I do, or that his don't matter as much. How many warrantless searches, coerced interrogations, acts of censorship, disarmament, robbery, harassment, assault and murder are committed by "our" troops on a daily basis? Are their acts good because they were "just following orders"? (Where have you heard that excuse before?) And should I cheer for them because they're Americans?
I'm sure the show tonight will get into issues of nationalism, "war"-think, blind obedience to authority, pack mentality, and lots of other fun stuff. The show is on from 9:00 p.m. to midnight, Central time, and you can listen live (or by using the archives later) at: http://www.libertynewsradio.com/
Sent by Larken Rose
9 comments:
I am non-violent, Bob, remember? A Gandhi kinda guy. I turned down two military appointments when I was 18. One to Annapolis and one to West Point.
That said, my take on soldiers and war is along the lines of Krishna's counsel to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita.
BTW, Bob, I didn't listen to the broadcast, is there a transcript of it somewhere?
Since I can't put html in the comments box, you'll have to paste the direct link to the audio archive into the address line of your browser (there is no transcript of the show)...
http://libertynewsradio.com/shows/tms/tms20090815a.mp3
I have a passing acquaintnce with the Bhagavad Gita, but I don't know what Krishna's counsel on fighting in war is. Of course, back in those days people went to war based on passing fancies. They didn't go to war to impress the values of freedom on others like we do today.
Oh brother. When men are angels then we won't need soldiers or tax collectors. Liberal fringers pole vault off the deep end when they confuse indefensible policies with soldiers. Or when they confuse good soldiers with those who commit a criminal act. John Adams successfully defended British soldiers. Would you belittle the service of Senators Kerry, Webb, Reed, etc?
That's not to be confused with conscientious objectors - many served honorably in or out of the military. One of the hardest moral decisions is to be non-violent and actually walk the talk. I can't, won't and acknowledge it while defending the opposite steadfastness in others.
John Adams successfully defended British soldiers who defended themselves against a mob intent on doing them harm.
I would defend American soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq under similar circumstances.
I am not advocating prosecution of privates in the Army for doing what they're told in those places. I do advocate criticism of them for joining up and willingly following orders to fight in an illegal war not even declared by Congress.
It's a fine line, and one that causes conflict in my own argument.
Bob, exactly. It's an extremely tough call.
Yesterday was the anniversery of Kent State. This continues to come to mind as I witness all the blogs from health care to this particular post. I am not sure what all the connections are, but wonder if complacency has not wrought a more unfree society than we had then? But as Bob's post says, it is a fine line almost contradictory in itself. I think we were all close in age as Nam unfolded on us. Draft, conscientous obejectors, volunteers and then lotto. Who would we prosecute? All of the above were prosecuted. Those of us who won the lotto prosecuted ourselves. And now with an all volunteer military, are we truly any freer than 40 years ago? Probably very little with any connection to Larkens message. Bill on topic of Bhagavad Gita, I read that the furthest relationship of any person on earth is 67th cousin. Not sure if the number is exact but my memory. My uncle crawled over a bunker in Germany and looked another 18 year old German in the face, they stopped, stared and turned and walked away, probably cousins by a much smaller number and thankfully connected brothers through the universe.
Beautiful story, Les. Thanks for it, brother.
Some interesting data to support your point, Bob.
Post a Comment