Homespun Symposium VIII - MajorDad's Spin
This week's question:
What, in your opinion, are the moral responsibilities of the individual citizen in the United States (or your own country) today and how do you believe people should act upon (or react to) those perceived responsibilities?
I would say that the number one moral responsibility of the American people is to be responsible for their own actions/inactions and accept the consequence of them.
We are a society, it would seem from reading the paper or watching the nightly news, full of people that are unwilling to step up to the plate and admit that they've made mistakes. It's always somebody else's fault when:
1. Bills go unpaid.
2. Children go untended...or worse.
3. A job is lost....even to a harder working nobody in a far off land.
4. Homes, businesses, and family fortunes are lost.
5. Homework isn't done....or checked up on by the parents.
6. Families with little money opt for cigarettes and lottery tickets rather than fresh milk and diapers.
7. Illegitimate children are brought into this world without the means to be supported.
8. Marriages fail.
9. A drunk driving fatality occurs.
10. Another American goes to prison.
I could probably go on for a very long time listing things that shouldn't happen as often...if people would just accept the fact that they're responsible for a great deal of what happens to them. I'm far from perfect...I make mistakes...but unless I can honestly blame another person or circumstance, I'll fess up, tell the truth and ensure that it doesn't happen again.
It sure doesn't seem like there are enough other people in this country willing to step up and play the game straight. But again, I'm typing here in the blogosphere...I'm probably preaching to the choir.
From the high ground.
MajorDad1984
. And here is the rest of it.
posted by MajorDad @ 1/12/2005 08:00:00 PM
12 Comments:
You forgot my favourites: not taking responsiblity when stupid mistakes are made (like putting a cup of very hot coffee in between your legs when driving), blaming others because you couldn't watch where you're going, and insisting that doctors/medicine be infallible.
What! You mean I can't blame everything on society or a bad childhood? You ogre. I'm going to sue.
Actually of course I agree with you. I just had to have some fun.
If we're talking about taking responsibility here for your actions, can we see the glorious president be prosecuted under the Geneva Convention, hunted down for fitting the FBI's definition of a terrorist, or maybe even prosecuted for war crimes? After all, the US invasion / annexation of Iraq is just as illegal under international law as when hitler invaded poland in 1939.
bearing in mind a quote form James Rubin, Asst secretary of state from an interview in 2000 with john pilger (quoted in his essay 'paying the price') referring tot he sanctions that left 500,000 Iraqi children under 10 dead due to embargoes on medical supplies ; "What you have to understand is that Saddam Hussein invaded another country. It's about Iraq's violation of the basic rule of the international system .They are paying the price for that". The same rules also apply to the US, which has broken international law and invaded Iraq. Shouldnt the US also be "paying the price" for having "invaded another country"?
If you want to talk about taking responsibility, whats wrong with starting with your own faults?
Gee Graham...lemme guess. European?
Apparently you don't see the difference between a just war and an unjust war. Comparing the ongoing operations to anything that Hitler embarked upon is ludicrous at any juncture. Do you think for one moment that if our goal was to subjugate the Iraqi people to our will, that we don't have the military capability to do so? Just like the Nazi tanks that rolled into Poland to meet horse cavalry...I do believe that were we to completely unleash the dogs of war that the coalition and Iraqi forces have on the ground...the insurrection would be over in days. Unfortunatly, in doing so we'd have thousands, if not tens of thousands of collateral casualties to answer for. Bottom line...two invasions, two different reasons.
As to assertion that UN sanctions put 500K Iraqi kids under ten in the ground...I just don't know enough about it to speak intelligently, but I do know that the oil for food program apparently didn't put enough food on the table for the average Iraqi. I recommend that you ask the UN and Mr. Annan about that one. Don't think that it was US only sanctions. I believe that the sanctions in place were there because Iraq's leadership failed to play ball and comply with the sanctions ended the first Gulf War. Maybe we should have seen them as a bunch of liars and cheats way back then...and finished the job in 1991.
Finally, Graham. I believe that I was answering a question about personal responsibility...not the responsibility of governments. Like soooo many teachers of mine used to say....
READ THE PROBLEM!
I think wether the unwanted occupiers are indigineous dictators or invading foreign armies, they're still unwanted. The war is lacking a global perspective : the rest of the world is wondering "who is next? and when's our turn?", and America isn't necessarily considering the implications of it's actions, in so much as there may be yet more anti-American behaviour. America has only ever seen itself as an under attack, without understanding why it is under attack.
"Being jealous of freedom" is the wrong answer.
"The United States of America does not recognize international law...never have, never will, as long as we can keep the left out of office! "
Dagney, does this mean then that the US has a right to ignore International law conventions and so forth and act just how it wants to in direct contravention to legality, ignoring world opinion by just doing what the hell it wants, all justified by a perceived foreign 'bogeyman' who you believe is threatening your way of life? Be it a communist or an Islamist? Or may I remind you of the Gulf of Tonkin and Operation Northwoods?
Any nation that acts in contravention of international law is, and should be, punished by international law. Any nation that considers itself above and beyond the process of law, and invades other countries as such, is a tyrant against the rest of the world - especially when it claims to uphold the very principles it is ignoring. To draw another comparison - the current US invasion of Iraq is as illegal and as much a violation of international law as the Hussein invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Do you not see an inherent contradiction here? Therefore, the Un would be perfectly legitimate in issuing a UN resolution stating that the use of force to remove US troops from iraq would also be legitimate as it is an illegitimate and illegal occupation.
Funny thing is, when rules exist, you can't just make other people abide them and ignore them yourself when they are no longer convienient without making yourself into a hypocrite and completely invalidating yourself in the international community.
Mark:
First...read the problem. This discussion has taken a nasty turn from the intended purpose. I am a member of the HomeSpun Bloggers...and each week a number of us take some time to write about a common issue. It had NOTHING to do with "The War"...but how we all feel about the number one responsibility of an American.
Having gotten that off my chest, let me address your contention that we're unwanted in Iraq. I believe we still hold a clear majority with the average "Ali on the Street" in Iraq. Things are better today than they were under Saddam. It's in all the papers...the mass graves we're filling now are with insurgents (for the most part) and Iraqis killed by the insurgents or foreign "Islamic Freedom Fighters."
Next, I don't think that the security of the nation is up for debate in the world arena. We had a compelling reason in the post 9/11 world to believe that Saddam intended to harm the US. Whether you want to buy that fact is completely up to you...I sleep better knowing that there's one less meglomaniac out there ruling a country with the ways, means, and inclination to harm us that Iraq possessed prior to its fall.
Who's next? I'm betting on either Syria or Iran...but that's just me.
And just why is America under attack? Because of the way we dole out foreign assistance? Because of the way we come to the aid of oppressed peoples? Because we're willing to die so that others may live free?
Sheesh! I can see why they're pissed at us!
From the high ground!
MajorDad1984
Graham...
First things first...run-on sentences. Avoid them. It makes it difficult to follow your thoughts.
You're right Graham. We're such bad actors on the world stage...and such a horrid bunch of people. But I have something else to say to that....
20 Million Illegal Aliens Can't Be Wrong
Yes, I stole that from American comic, Richard Jeni but can you argue with that?
Has anyone risked crossing the Pacific, Atlantic, or any other ocean to come to your country? Braved the summer heats in the southwestern deserts?
See you on the high ground....
MajorDad1984
Graham...
First things first...run-on sentences. Avoid them. It makes it difficult to follow your thoughts.
You're right Graham. We're such bad actors on the world stage...and such a horrid bunch of people. But I have something else to say to that....
20 Million Illegal Aliens Can't Be Wrong
Yes, I stole that from American comic, Richard Jeni but can you argue with that?
Has anyone risked crossing the Pacific, Atlantic, or any other ocean to come to your country? Braved the summer heats in the southwestern deserts?
See you on the high ground....
MajorDad1984
Blogger took so long I almost forgot my point! Oh well. I think Iraq overall would quite like America to withdarw now so they an get on with things themselves : not wanting Saddam does not automatically equate with wanting American occupying forces.
Yes, the conversation took a left turn, but when Americans start talking about responsibility, the first thing that comes into many minds is that of America's current global strategy.
By the way, the US are already in Iran according to reports, on the ongoing "Democracy Tour". I think Condolezza hinted at future destinations the other day.
And to comment on what Dagney says, point by point.
"And just why is America under attack?"
I don't consider America to be under attack. I don't see B-52's with Iranian, or Iraqi flags, carpet bombing San Diego with cluster bomnbs and fuel air explosives and firing delepeted uranium shells into civilian buildings do i? No. I see American bombers bombing caves and villages in third world countries. America is Attacking the world, and thats an indisputable though often ignored unpleasant attack.
Iraq DID not attack america. It had no weapons of Mass destruction. 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, not Iraqi.
"Because of the way we dole out foreign assistance?"
"Because of the way we come to the aid of oppressed peoples? "
Simply a change of oppressor does not mean you are suddenly free. Who do you think killed more people - Saddam hussein when he gassed the kurds in 1988 with nerve gas (that he bought from US munitions companies - which makes the US complicit in this atrocity)....or the US government with sanctions that killed 500,000 Iraqi children under 15 in the years 1991-1998 (according to UN reports) due to lack of medical supplies, and another 100,000 iraqi deaths since the first shots were fired in iraq when the US troops went in?
"Because we're willing to die so that others may live free?"
In 9/11, 3000 people died. Another 1000 US troops have died in the Afghanistan/Iraq operations. Compare that to the 100,000+ iraqi casualties. I don't think its a case of the US willing to die so others may live free, but the US willing to kill so they can install a client government to push through things such as oil. Look at the recent example in the ukraine where a legitimate election was opposed and a re-election forced when US observers declared it invalid because an non-US favourable candidate won? Or the example that the US opposes and has even participated in overthrowing democratically elected governments in the central America's in the past - see Guetamala (cant remember how to spell it), Haiti, Somalia and so forth. People cannot live free when an occupying army sponsors an election - it will be no more legitimate than the vichy goverment of Occupied France under the Nazi's.
Post a Comment
<< Home