Even as a private in the United States Marine Corps, I began to question the reasons that compels my country to send its young men, including myself, to risk life and limb in a needless conflict.
In October 3, 2007, I asked of these mixed messages:
Why do we expect trained killers, like myself, to enforce peace with the barrel of a gun pointed at those we claim to be fighting for?
The monster that is Saddam Hussein, the product of our interventionist policies, has been toppled and captured. Yet we insist in “staying the course.” How much longer?
It is troubling: that nearly four years later I find myself still asking these questions of not only Iraq, but Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and now Libya as well (not to mention our covert wars in over 120 countries);
That I am asking these questions under a Nobel Peace Prize-winning president who promised to end the war in Iraq;
That we are “withdrawing” from Afghanistan with an increase in troops;
That we are liberating Libya with bombs and leading the deposal of its dictator without ever being at war with them;
And that we are providing material support to the very same Islamists we are fighting against in Iraq and Afghanistan.
When confronted with these contradictions, it would be a mistake to conclude (as I did) that the message had been rendered obscure. That the lofty rhetoric of peace and liberty were merely lost in war’s misguidance. It is now clear that the message was never mixed, but had always been a travesty of the bloodstained truth: we must suffer perpetual war.
That the FBI is engaged in a campaign of defamation and intimidation aimed at this website is not at all surprising, and yet I still can’t accept it emotionally. We have done nothing wrong: indeed, it is the FBI which is clearly in the wrong. Their activities in regard to Antiwar.com are of dubious legality, and are an infringement of our rights to free speech and to organize on behalf of our ideas.
Everyone should take a few minutes to read this article. “Disturbing” doesn’t even begin to describe what is going on in the surveillance state that many of us have the misfortune of calling “home.”
Ron Paul and liberals’ moral dilemma
Many of the other responders reminded him than Paul is against a lot of things that progressives hold dear. Obama, they reminded him, is a progressive; Paul’s views regarding Social Security, welfare, and abortion are too extreme.
Myself, I asked him a fair question:
Can you look at yourself in the mirror and honestly say that the fat chance that Ron Paul would single-handedly gut Social Security and all of entitlement spending is morally equivalent to Ron Paul unilaterally stopping the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people who are victims of all our wars?
People forget that Social Security and Medicare are laws that Congress (not the president) decides whereas our illegal, unconstitutional wars are unilaterally waged by the president.
Ron Paul cannot end Social Security or Medicare alone, but he can and will end the wars.
I am tired of the argument that the potential of someone’s welfare check being cut is more important than immediately stopping the murders occurring everyday in our name.
We wonder why people in the rest of the world hate us. We are selfish; and we hold welfare checks more important than the lives of those we kill.