I am against war. I have made this clear before. Others may see glory and honor, I see only broken, bloodied bodies and the pain and grief of the survivors. Perhaps war is inevitable, but I think people in power have more to gain from guns and bombs than words and more words. I understand that it is unavoidable, sometimes, that civilians will die during a war. I assumed that most people would want to avoid the deaths of noncombatants, of old men and pregnant women and children. Well, you know what they say about assuming . . .
According to Barabara, the US military is contemplating a medal for "courageous restraint", i.e., holding fire to save civilian lives.
This isn't precisely true. (Nothing Barabara writes is precisely true.) Certain NATO commanders have suggested that we need to do something to cut down on
civilian casualties in Afghanistan, while at the same time clearly stating that they don't want NATO or US troops to risk their lives, either.
Are we becoming the stupidest country in the world? What can terrorists be thinking when they read this nonsense?
The emasculation/feminizing of our culture continues apace. What next: Little League trophies for purposely taking a walk to first base?
I imagine the terrorists are thinking that's it's going to be a little harder to recruit if we become the good guys. Just a thought. Beyond that, if we make policy based on what terrorists will think, they really have won. Seriously, we should emulate al Queda's tactics and make the world unsafe for everyone? Maybe the writer hasn't noticed, but what we call a war zone is what the Afghanis call home.
She ends with this gem of a prayer:
Please dear Lord, can we vote these wusses out of power so we can let the military do what they are supposed to do?
Killing civilians: what the military is supposed to be doing. Nice.
I clicked over to her blog. She's a tad full of herself. I guess humility is not a quality she cares to possess.
ReplyDelete