Lamentations in Logic
Yesterday in a chatroom a woman chided me and the other progressives present, saying that we ought to be glad that the troops are in Iraq protecting our freedoms. I wanted to ask her exactly how the troops are doing that, because, just as before the occupation, I see absolutely nothing in Iraq that even remotely threatens our freedom. But I held my tongue.
I have to always keep in mind that, at the age of 20 she lost a brother in Vietnam. She became a nurse and volunteered to serve in Vietnam, in memory of her brother. She fell in love with a soldier there, and a short time later, he, too, was killed, and in the same year her father died (at home). And now she has a son-in-law who is serving in Iraq, and her daughter is apparently keeping everyone on the knife's edge, fretting endlessly. Also I never forget that this chatroom woman is the very dedicated head nurse in an intensive care unit.
Almost without exception, if we live long enough, sooner or later tragedy strikes each of us. For some it comes early, while others are not hit till much later in life, and I suppose that there are a few, a very few lucky ones that never experience it at all. With some it strikes multiple times, others just once or twice. But that's all it is, luck -- or more accurately stated, a lapse of good fortune, and when someone is spared tragedy nearly all of the time, it's not because they're smart or good-looking or virtuous or members of the ubermensch.
Still, no matter what degree of tragedy is present, we are obligated to follow our lines of reasoning to their logical ends, rather than to be satisfied with an abrupt disconnect just because an orthodoxy exists that one feels more obligated to follow.
And in this case, I think following the orthodoxy of supporting Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq, no matter what, only leads to more and more tragedy. Thirty-five years isn't my idea of ancient history, and so we've recently seen how that operated in Vietnam, eventually resulting in millions of deaths, with the conclusion only being the exact result that the American leaders claimed to be trying to prevent. So it would appear that all those American war dead DID die in vain, or at least more so than in the case of the Vietnamese, because the latter were fighting to maintain control of their own lands.
Taking into account all the present mayhem in Iraq, what, then, is the inescapable conclusion of my line of reasoning here? Is it that this noble woman and millions of others like her, are, with their unquestioning support of the Bush misdeeds in Iraq, unwittingly allowing themselves to be cast into roles of accessories to murder?
I am not comfortable with that, but there it is.
...You begin to see more and more the great aptness of the name of this weblog.
I have to always keep in mind that, at the age of 20 she lost a brother in Vietnam. She became a nurse and volunteered to serve in Vietnam, in memory of her brother. She fell in love with a soldier there, and a short time later, he, too, was killed, and in the same year her father died (at home). And now she has a son-in-law who is serving in Iraq, and her daughter is apparently keeping everyone on the knife's edge, fretting endlessly. Also I never forget that this chatroom woman is the very dedicated head nurse in an intensive care unit.
Almost without exception, if we live long enough, sooner or later tragedy strikes each of us. For some it comes early, while others are not hit till much later in life, and I suppose that there are a few, a very few lucky ones that never experience it at all. With some it strikes multiple times, others just once or twice. But that's all it is, luck -- or more accurately stated, a lapse of good fortune, and when someone is spared tragedy nearly all of the time, it's not because they're smart or good-looking or virtuous or members of the ubermensch.
Still, no matter what degree of tragedy is present, we are obligated to follow our lines of reasoning to their logical ends, rather than to be satisfied with an abrupt disconnect just because an orthodoxy exists that one feels more obligated to follow.
And in this case, I think following the orthodoxy of supporting Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq, no matter what, only leads to more and more tragedy. Thirty-five years isn't my idea of ancient history, and so we've recently seen how that operated in Vietnam, eventually resulting in millions of deaths, with the conclusion only being the exact result that the American leaders claimed to be trying to prevent. So it would appear that all those American war dead DID die in vain, or at least more so than in the case of the Vietnamese, because the latter were fighting to maintain control of their own lands.
Taking into account all the present mayhem in Iraq, what, then, is the inescapable conclusion of my line of reasoning here? Is it that this noble woman and millions of others like her, are, with their unquestioning support of the Bush misdeeds in Iraq, unwittingly allowing themselves to be cast into roles of accessories to murder?
I am not comfortable with that, but there it is.
...You begin to see more and more the great aptness of the name of this weblog.
posted by Carl (aka Sofarsogoo) | 12:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home