Posts Tagged ‘say’

Osama’s Dead, But the War Machine Sure Isn’t

Sunday, May 22nd, 2011

The head of the enemy in the war on terror has been dead for three weeks now. If the official story can be trusted, then Bin Laden has likely been absorbed into the aquatic food chain of the Arabic Sea.

Many Americans feel the assassination was warranted. Invading a sovereign nation, eliminating a key target and murdering his unarmed wife were all justifiable acts because America was invaded and unarmed people were murdered.

Well, perhaps Osama’s death can be rationalized. But, by this very rationale, shouldn’t Iraqis, Afghans, and Pakistanis be entitled to the same justice? Are their lives any less valuable than American lives?

Professor Noam Chomsky weighs in on this very notion, asking “How we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic (after proper burial rites, of course). Uncontroversially, he is not a “suspect” but the “decider” who gave the orders to invade Iraq.”

By all accounts then, writes Chomsky, Bush should ultimately be responsible for “the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country and the national heritage, and the murderous sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.” Crimes which “vastly exceed anything attributed to bin Laden.”

Well, of course all human life is equally valuable. And yes, Americans are ultimately responsible for allowing their war machine to run amok.

But violence is never the answer. Invading Iraq, occupying Afghanistan, bombing Libya, assassinating bin Laden… these actions only reinforces the cycle of fear, hatred and violence, which will likely reap more of the same.

Instead, building a peaceful planet means we have to break the cycle. It’s time to recognize that we are a new generation in a rapidly interconnecting world, and we have no more room for institutionalize violence.

Take a stand and say ‘NO!’ to war.

Saying No to Escalation in Libya

Sunday, March 27th, 2011

There’s been an uproar in the blogosphere about strictly limiting the scope of the intervention in Libya. And by uproar, I mean yesterday’s post on this very blog.

The piece is written with a sense of urgency, as I’d only just recognized the foul stench of the military complex trying to sink its corrupt claws deeper into Libyan soil. The gist of post was states how we need yank back on the war machine’s leash right now, because if we don’t, we might find ourselves wondering how to get out of Libya a decade from now.

But let me expand upon these thoughts.

Speaking out against escalation in Libya doesn’t mean abandoning support for the innocent civilians. There is no doubt that preventing a massacre is indeed a high priority, but this bid to save lives should not provide the pretense for another long, drawn out war.

And, considering how another years-long, blood-soaked money pit is precisely what the war industry desires most, we would do well to make sure this newest armed conflict doesn’t run away on us.

So that’s why we should say no to escalation right now – to strike a preemptive blow against an entity that will take a mile when given an inch.