Sweet tribute to America just after 9/11, & the folks defending America's honor to this day.
Whatever our political or social differences six years later, we're still the same America that came together when it counted.
While I'm firmly against our going into Iraq, my beef is with the politicians that put us there, not the soldiers who went. As far as I'm concerned, this poem isn't about "the war;" it's about the men & women who serve, and the values that make this country worth defending.
So, while I am opposed to the fighting they're doing, I have no problem sharing this video tribute to the folks doing that fighting here on my blog.
She called...
Blacks, Whites...wait
African Americans and Caucasians, Asians -- excuse me --
Vietnamese, Philipenes, Koreans and Jamaicans or
Haitans, waitin' Hispanics y'all
Please be paitent
Mexican, Puerto Ricans, Venezualean, Cuban, Dominican, Panamanian, Democrats
-- I beg your pardon, you partied with the late, great Reagan? --
Republican, Independent, Christian, Catholic,
Methodist, Baptist, 7th Day Adventist, 5 Percenters,
Hindu, Sunii Muslim, Brothers and Sisters who never seen the New York city
skyline when the twin towers still existed.
But still She called.
From the bowels of Ground Zero she sent this 911 distress signal.
Because She was in desperate need of a hero,
and didn't have time to decipher what to call 'em,
so she called 'em all Her children.
The children of the stars and bars who needed to know nothing more than the fact that she called.
The fact that someone attempted to harm us
this daughter who covered us all with her loving arms.
And now these arms are sprawled across New York City streets.
A smoke filled lung, a silt covered face,
and a solitary tear poured out of her cheek.
Her singed garments carpets Pennsylvania Avenue and the Pentagon was under her feet.
As she began to talk, she began to cough up small particles of debris
and said, "I am America, and I'm calling on the land of the free."
So they answered.
All personal differences set to the side
because right now there was no time to decide which state building the Confederate flag should fly over,
and which trimester the embryo is considered alive,
or on our monetary units, and to which God we should confide.
You see, someone attempted to choke the voice
of the one who gave us the right for choice,
and now she was callin.
And somebody had to answer.
Who was going to answer?
So they did.
Stern faces and chisled chins.
Devoted women and disciplined men,
who rose from the ashes like a pheonix
and said "Don't worry, we'll stand in your defense."
They tightened up their bootlaces
and said goodbye to loved ones, family and friends.
They tried to bombard them with the "hold on", "wait-a-minute's", and "what-if's".
And "Daddy, where you goin?".
And, "Mommy, why you leavin?".
And they merely kissed them on their foreheads and said "Don't worry, I have my reasons.
You see, to this country I pledged my allegience
to defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic.
So as long as I'm breathin, I'll run though hell-fire,
meet the enemy on the front lines,
look him directly in his face,
stare directly in his eyes and scream,
"I AM AMERICA! WE WILL NOT BE TERRORIZED!
WE WILL NOT BE TERRORIZED!
I REFUSE TO BE AFRAID!
I'LL FIGHT YOU ANY COUNTRY, ANY CONTINENT, ANY TERRAIN.
I'LL FIGHT TO MY LAST BREATH!"
And if by chance death is my fate,
pin my medals upon my chest,
and throw Old Glory on my grave.
But, don't y'all cry for me.
You see, my Father's prepared a place.
I'll be a part of his Holy army standing a watch at the Pearly Gates.
Because freedom was never free.
POW's, and fallen soldiers
all paid the ultimate sacrafice
along side veterans who put themselves in harms way.
Risking their lives and limbs just to hold up democracy's weight,
but still standing on them broken appendages anytime the National Anthem was played.
You see, these were the brave warriors that gave me the right
to say that I'm Black. Or white.
Or African American or Caucasian,
I'm Asian, excuse me.
I'm Vietnamese, Philipene, Korean, or Jamaican.
I'm Haitan, Hispanic
Y'all, Please be paitent.
I'm Mexican, Puerto Rican, Venezualean, Cuban,
Dominican, Panamanian, Democrat
I beg your pardon, you see I partied with the late, great Reagan.
I'm Republican, Independent, Christian, Catholic,
Methodist, Baptist, 7th Day Adventist, 5 Percenters,
Hindu, Sunii Muslim,
Brothers and Sisters We're just Americans.
So with that I say
"Thank You" to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines,
for preserving my rights
to live and die for this life
and paying the ultimate price for me to be...FREE!
-- Badass Marine
-- SSgt Lawrence E. Dean II
-- "Life"
The poet's myspace page: MySpace.com - Life - Conway, South Carolina - Hip Hop / Soul - www.myspace.com/lifeblackreignentertainment
A pro-troops site inspired by the poet: [defunct, as of 6/09]
And while I'm being so rah-rah, a new record label where former & current troops are giving voice to their stories:
To The Fallen Records, Inc.
Here's another version, mashed with a little music & film dialog:
.gif)
21 comments:
liked the words but not the presentation of it. but then again i'm not into this hip hop generation.lol
but will add that if it inspires i'm all for it.
It does seem to be inspiring, all over the place...
I think it's funny that he did the original video of the poem (& it's really just a poem--that folks keep calling it a rap is getting to be a pet peeve of mine) over a year ago, but it's "suddenly" catching on...
The version in his uniform is good, but I prefer the explanation & the setting of the version I posted (Besides, everyone & their brother is posting the other video; I figured I'd be a little different.)
I'm a little disturbed that some on the right are using it to sell the Iraq war, though that isn't the message of the poem.
I'm also disturbed at the hostility toward the thing from some on the left. There is a legitimate place for the military in this country. Even those who don't think Iraq should be that place should accept that there is one, but some seem not to...
the only difference between you and those on the right is the viewpoint of the meaning of the war in Iraq. the right sees that war as a very intregal part of the war against terrorism and winning there will further the cause while you see it as separate from the war on terrorism.
as for the words, the lyrics of any song is meant to be poetry set to music. and he presents in rap style rather than as a poem. that may be his way of doing it but it still is not recited as a poem as poems were meant to be recited.
as for the intent of the soldier as to why he wrote it or in regards to what i don't know. apparently it has inspired persons on many levels of understanding and to some Iraq is a part of it as well as afghanistan.
but to me it is inspiring because we are a country of much diversity in many different regards. he presented it in a way so that diversity should be united against a common foe now.
one thing you might think on tho. history records the justification of wars as determined by the winners of a war not the losers and i do not see this as changing anytime soon in regards to any war.
"...while you see it as separate from the war on terrorism."
Worse than that, I see it as making the battle against terrorism harder to fight, by becoming a recruitment point for terrorists.
I'm a big fan of poety readings... If you see it as rap, I don't see how I can dissuade you, but I see what he does as energetic recitation, just like poets of all kinds...
I mean, I guess it's related to rap, in that both involve passionate, rhythmic speaking, but I fear that some (perhaps not you, but some) will call this rap because of the man's race. The question is, is this little white kid rapping too?
as for the intent of the soldier as to why he wrote it or in regards to what i don't know.
SSgt. Dean explains his intent at the beginning of this video. I take him at his word.
history records the justification of wars as determined by the winners of a war not the losers and i do not see this as changing anytime soon in regards to any war.
That the history is written by the victors does not mean that history is accurate. I've been slowly reading Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. It talks about history from the point of view of the little people who lived it, rather than the kings, presidents & generals who made it happen and described their own roles later in the most shining of terms. I'm not saying these first person accounts are any more or less accurate than the bigwigs first person accounts, but they do provide another part of the story.
History may judge Mr. Bush less harshly than I, it's true. But it doesn't make my view any less valid that some historian who perhaps wasn't here, sees it differently in the future than I do now.
"I fear that some (perhaps not you, but some) will call this rap because of the man's race."
fear is never a good basis for an argument. and even if some did, so what? that doesn't change what it is. all i'm saying is that i think someone else could have presented it better.
tis the same with some songs i've heard, one person can sing it and really move me while another person could sing the same song and it does nothing for me. it comes down to a personal preference.
"That the history is written by the victors does not mean that history is accurate."
i never said anything about accuracy i said justification. there is a big difference. history focusses on the "decision makers" because of how their decisions impact the future. this is especially true of wars.
"Worse than that, I see it as making the battle against terrorism harder to fight, by becoming a recruitment point for terrorists."
that can be seen as a two-edged sword also.
and i don't think you would use this argument if you saw the war in Iraq as a moral decision as opposed to it being an immoral one as you do.
fear is never a good basis for an argument.
Fear isn't the basis of the argument... Evidence is. Fear (or sadness, more specifically) is how I feel about my conclusion.
all i'm saying is that i think someone else could have presented it better.
it comes down to a personal preference.
I can accept that... There's no accounting for taste (mine, or yours... 8>) In fact, I've no doubt a third person may come along thinkin' we're both wrong...)
i never said anything about accuracy i said justification.
Without accuracy, of what value is justification, really?
history focusses on the "decision makers" because of how their decisions impact the future. this is especially true of wars.
I believe the people affected by those decisions are (or should be) at least as important as the one's making them. And, I still believe that the folks affected, good or bad, are less likely to "fix the facts" to make themselves look better.
and i don't think you would use this argument if you saw the war in Iraq as a moral decision as opposed to it being an immoral one as you do.
I would like to think I'd still question it on practical grounds--if it's hurting us rather than helping us, it isn't a good idea, apart from it's immorality--but you may be correct. I'd be more likely to want to rationalize it, for sure...
"but I fear that some (perhaps not you, but some) will call this rap because of the man's race."
"Fear isn't the basis of the argument... Evidence is. Fear (or sadness, more specifically) is how I feel about my conclusion"
what evidence? the only evidence you gave to back up your claim was fear. and as you wrote it you know of no instance of it actually occurring yet. so you can't have any evidence to back it up.
"Without accuracy, of what value is justification, really?"
acccuracy is a subjective term not objective. it is dependent upon the bias of the recorder of history. it is also dependent upon what facts are accepted as worthy of use. facts can also be manipulated so as to appear accurate. we must remember that history as recorded is but a synopsis of the actual history of events.
as for your view or mine being as valid as a future historian, here i'd disagree. reason being is the fact he will have far more evidence than you or I do at this time. he will have the evidence of the effects on future generations that you or i can never add into our arguments. you and i can only speculate on or try to predict those effects. he will also have the results of any event to rely on that you and i do not have at this time.
and as you admitted we tend to rationalize based on our viewpoint. and one way of doing this is presenting a one-sided argument, meaning, using only those facts that support our argument as if the opposing argument has no merit therefore not worth taking into consideration.
what evidence? the only evidence you gave to back up your claim was fear. and as you wrote it you know of no instance of it actually occurring yet. so you can't have any evidence to back it up.
I see a number of people confusing this spoken word poetry for rap. (If I need to list people, I will.)
Most are white, and not rap fans. (Pictures &/or previous statements says they're white, and they themselves say they are not fans of rap.)
I see far fewer black folks or rap fans making the same error.
I draw the conclusion that the poet's race, as well as the race, age, & lack of familiarity with rap or poetry slams of the folks making these statements is a factor in their confusing poetry with rap, based on my observations of evidence I witnessed.
I'm not saying my hypothesis is a fact, but I think it may well be, and even the idea that it may be saddens me. On the other hand, I'm open to alternative explanations, should anyone choose to offer one.
Fear was never offered to back up anything, and as I cannot enter the heart of the folks making the error, I cannot prove my theory without their explaining themselves. I can certainly say what I think is behind it, however...
acccuracy is a subjective term not objective.
I beg to differ. 2+2=4, or it doesn't. Rummy either did or did not know where the WMD's were. These are not subjective, but objective facts.
it is dependent upon the bias of the recorder of history.
This is why many "recorders of history," from you and I to the papers & memoirs of Dubya & Saddam, is a good idea. The more first person primary sources we offer those who come later to write the "official version," the better. And still, some debates will continue, such as those who're trying to determine what "really happened" in the shooting of JFK. The more raw materials we give them, the harder it is for one historian's bias to color the end result.
it is also dependent upon what facts are accepted as worthy of use. facts can also be manipulated so as to appear accurate. we must remember that history as recorded is but a synopsis of the actual history of events.
That is why I argue for going beyond the documents of the powerful, and look at the contemporanious writings & stories of the folks who actually lived it. (I'm not saying dismiss the powerful; just that it'd be wise to look at the same events from a variety of angles.)
as for your view or mine being as valid as a future historian, here i'd disagree. reason being is the fact he will have far more evidence than you or I do at this time. he will have the evidence of the effects on future generations that you or i can never add into our arguments. you and i can only speculate on or try to predict those effects. he will also have the results of any event to rely on that you and i do not have at this time.
I think you're misstating (or misunderstanding) what I said, which was that my view of events here & now should not be dismissed because some historian may (or may not) take a different view after I'm dead.
Also, the ends do not justify the means. Whatever good may come from Bush's war, it does not absolve him of preemptively invading another country & beginning active hostilities.
one-sided argument,
Fortunately, there is always someone to present the alternative one sided argument. Nothing is ever really lost, and it all gets addressed, eventually.
"Fortunately, there is always someone to present the alternative one sided argument. Nothing is ever really lost, and it all gets addressed, eventually."
the fact that someone else will provide an opposing one-sided argument does not change the fact that it is a biased and prejudicial argument. the fact that others will too only indicates an ideological argument on both sides rather than one based on principle of a good argument. it also is a basis for division of which there can be no compromise.
"I think you're misstating (or misunderstanding) what I said, which was that my view of events here & now should not be dismissed because some historian may (or may not) take a different view after I'm dead."
it is not a matter of dismissing your view. in fact it recognizes your view as it is now. it declares you do not have all of the evidence as necessary to come to a valid conclusion therefore your view would be considered as jumping to a conclusion and that is a fallacious argument.
"I beg to differ. 2+2=4, or it doesn't. Rummy either did or did not know where the WMD's were. These are not subjective, but objective facts."
history is a depiction of past events not a mathematical problem. if we could depict history on mathematical terms then we could declare history as an objective fact but we can't. also history is recorded by historians using evidence as obtained and it is the fact that two historians could come to either conclusion about what rummy knew is what makes it subjective and not objective. and both would think that their conclusion was accurate.
don't confuse accuracy with truthful. they are very separate concepts. the news media recognizes this by using the word accurate rather then truth in regards to reporting the news.
something that is truthful is accurate but something that is accurate is not always truthful.
based on the statements you made in defense of your accusation the only conclusion that is possible is that you are guilty of what you accuse others of, the use of race and race alone to make the accusation. reason;
you acknowledge that the basis of it is not enough to declare as a fact thus it cannot ever be enough to declare it as a fact. you acknowledge that even some blacks have called it rap so it is not color that would be the reason but how it was presented that brought on this conclusion. and it is common knowledge that there are white rappers also. plus the fact you acknowledged that they are ignorant of the difference between the recitation of poetry and rap. you have also admitted that they are related so a person would feel justified in calling it rap based on that confusion. so, in order to come to the conclusion that some would call it rap based on the man's color you'd need to eliminate these four facts as reasons.
since you can't do that the only basis you have is the fact that you are basing it solely on the fact that most are white and it is these that would be seen as using color and color alone to call it rap. you are using stereotyping to make it. and that is fallacious.
"Also, the ends do not justify the means. Whatever good may come from Bush's war, it does not absolve him of preemptively invading another country & beginning active hostilities."
if you see "premptive action" as the justification used to invade Iraq then you would be wrong. that is not nor ever was the justification for it. that was used for the gathering of support for it.
as for the principle you used i know that. in fact i wrote a post on my blog a while back explaining your position using that principle.
but one thing; if you are relying on that principle to show morality 5then you would also be against our invasion of afghanistan also but you are not.
the fact that someone else will provide an opposing one-sided argument does not change the fact that it is a biased and prejudicial argument.
I agree that such things happen. But I would suggest that one has to show that a particular argument actually is biased & prejudicial before calling such a claim "a fact." My point in bringing up the fact that whether or not an argument is ideological, someone will answer it, was to say that every argument gets answered, and should one be so sloppy in presenting the facts, they will not succeed. All the facts do get out eventually, every time.
the fact that others will too only indicates an ideological argument on both sides rather than one based on principle of a good argument. it also is a basis for division of which there can be no compromise.
I do not have the same aversion to ideologically based argument that you do. When one has faith in a particular set of beliefs (be they religious, political, cultural, ...), it is going to color the way they see & interpret everything else in their life. Yes, it may make them rigid in their thinking, but it neither makes their arguments or the beliefs that underlie them objectively wrong or right. To me, saying "Oh, that's just an ideological argument" doesn’t make the argument any more or less worthy of consideration & debate than any other. In fact, I believe it can make for an even better discussion.
it is not a matter of dismissing your view. in fact it recognizes your view as it is now. it declares you do not have all of the evidence as necessary to come to a valid conclusion therefore your view would be considered as jumping to a conclusion and that is a fallacious argument.
I'm sorry, I don't agree with this, either... If one draws a conclusion based on all of the available evidence at the time, one is not jumping to a conclusion. The question is, will that person be willing to alter that conclusion as new facts become available? Showing that a person has or has not done so would make a point. Saying no conclusion can be drawn because more facts likely will become available doesn't strike me as a good idea. While Galileo & Copernicus were wrong on some things because they lacked the tools to find all the facts, their contributions should not be dismissed.
history is a depiction of past events not a mathematical problem. if we could depict history on mathematical terms then we could declare history as an objective fact but we can't.
Some parts of history are more subjective than others, and little history is as clear-cut as math, but that isn't to say that there are events that objectively did happen. Yes, people can dismiss the Jewish holocaust (just as one can claim 2+2=5), but the rest of us, and historians & those who were there in particular, look on them as nuts. The facts are out there, and objective truth based on accurate information can be found & declared.
also history is recorded by historians using evidence as obtained and it is the fact that two historians could come to either conclusion about what rummy knew is what makes it subjective and not objective. and both would think that their conclusion was accurate.
It isn't what they think that's important. It's what they present as evidence. When Donald Rumsfeld spoke about WMD's, & said "'We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.'", he was either correct or he wasn't. If we found evidence of those weapons or of their removal, he was right. If we didn't, he was wrong. 2+2=4, not 5.
something that is truthful is accurate but something that is accurate is not always truthful.
I trust that you recognize that the concepts are related, however... Without accurate facts, one cannot find truth, except through blind faith.
Besides, I think this argument keeps shifting. I brought up the concept of accuracy in terms of history as written by the victors of wars. What I was saying was, their version of history needs to be taken with a grain of salt because they have a stake in how they & their victory appears to future generations. I was suggesting going beyond the victors where possible, and reading the words of the losers, the innocent bystanders, and those on either side with less of a stake in the outcome. I did not say that any one account was more accurate, but that a more accurate picture may be found by using a variety of sources with a variety of viewpoints.
You then mentioned justification, and I wondered what good justification was if it wasn't based on accurate facts.
You replied by suggesting that accuracy is subjective, a concept I still disagree with. While I can accept that there will always be a few contrarian nutballs, a consensus among historians (& others) can determine the objective accuracy of a given historical event.
Now you're introducing truth (a concept you brought up, not I) & accusing me of confusing one with the other.
Try as I might, I cannot follow your poetry/rap argument. I have offered my hypothesis as to what the confusion is, & how the confusion happens. You're free to disagree or just dismiss it, I guess.
if you see "preemptive action" as the justification used to invade Iraq then you would be wrong. that is not nor ever was the justification for it. that was used for the gathering of support for it.
Bush Doctrine - Wikipedia:The Bush Doctrine argues for a policy of pre-emptive war in cases where the U.S. or its allies are threatened by terrorists or by rogue states that are engaged in the production of weapons of mass destruction."
(also check the myriad of links discussing Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive war, & google "Bush Doctrine" for even more.) It wasn't just a ploy for support. It was in fact, a dismissal of 98% or so of US foreign policy history up to that point.
as for the principle you used i know that. in fact i wrote a post on my blog a while back explaining your position using that principle.
I don't agree that your post describes my position. The jump from "the war is not justified" to "the troops deserve to lose" is a cavern I would not wish anyone in the Kinevil family to try to jump, no matter how good the jetbike.
but one thing; if you are relying on that principle to show morality then you would also be against our invasion of afghanistan also but you are not.
How so? Did a terrorist group operating out of Afghanistan, under the protection of the ruling government there, not attack us? Isn't that somewhat different than a government that did not attack us, and a ruler who was boxed in & pretty much prevented from attacking any other country?
I see a great distinction between the Taliban in Afghanistan, & Saddam in Iraq. I see no reason that the means (war) were unjustified in the case of Afghanistan, whatever the ends turn out to be (including the remote possibility of ultimate failure). Unlike Iraq, it was a war based on solid ground & long-established principles.
we are getting way off the issue of the post and forcing comments way too long so i will only address only those issues directly affected by the principle you use.
we are a nation where our federal government is divided up into 3 seperate and independent branches each with their own power and authority.
the executive branch and any member of that administration does not have the power and authority to declare war. thus any justification of war used by the administation is only a personal one and used only to gain support of those who are not convinced by the actual justification used.
it is Congress that has the power and authority to declare war and the justification of any war is to be found within the resolution that authorizes the President to wage that war.
as for afghanistan we went to war with that country because it refused to extridite Osama and al Queda members to the U.S, government as demanded to which is their right as a sovereign nation. that is a right enjoyed by every nation in the world. in other words we violated their right to protect any person within their national boundry that they choose.
even european countries will not extridite criminals we seek that is under their protection unless we agree not to impose the death penality. and if we refuse to agree to that then that criminal will continue to enjoy the protection of that country.
so, if you want to say we were justified to invade afghanistan just because they would not do as we demanded, so be it.
we are getting way off the issue of the post and forcing comments way too long
Seeing as how I don't have that many visitors so far, I'm not all that worried about being on topic or brief... Should it ever get crowded, I'll revisit the issue, but for now, there's no need to be concerned if you have something you wish to address...
so i will only address only those issues directly affected by the principle you use.
On the other hand, you're welcome to address those points that most move you, should that be your desire...
the executive branch and any member of that administration does not have the power and authority to declare war. thus any justification of war used by the administation is only a personal one and used only to gain support of those who are not convinced by the actual justification used.
Justification is justification. If the President (or you, or I, or a senator, congressman, butcher, baker, secret service agent, or babysitter say this is why we ought to do something (from invade a country to take out the trash), we ought to hope they are giving us the actual justification they're puting their faith in. I hink you're saying that a "personal justification" by the President is less worthy than the "actual justification" Congress chooses to hang its hat on. If so, I disagree... When the administration speaks, people listen, and they expect to hear "real" reasons that administration supports the actions they do, even if it is Congress that makes the decision in the end.
as for afghanistan we went to war with that country because it refused to extridite Osama and al Queda members to the U.S, government as demanded to which is their right as a sovereign nation. that is a right enjoyed by every nation in the world. in other words we violated their right to protect any person within their national boundry that they choose.
I'm surprised you have such a strict reading of the extradition laws, particularly with rogue governments. I can't say as I disagree in general--what you say below about the extradition of murderers & the death penalty is spot on, and I do support that most times--but I see a difference between a stable European government, and a rogue bunch like the Taliban in the ME. Still, you do have a point.
even european countries will not extridite criminals we seek that is under their protection unless we agree not to impose the death penality. and if we refuse to agree to that then that criminal will continue to enjoy the protection of that country.
I have absolutely no qualmes about such a thing when the person being protected is a citizen or resident of the country protecting them. When it's a US citizen who ran to this country because they (or their family & friends) had the wherewithall to allow them to do so, I'm not as comfortable. While I believe it to be a moral stand to take either way, I'm not so comfortable with he rich flying away to avoid prosecution, and when they are US citizens rather than EU citizens, it gets still more dicey for me.
so, if you want to say we were justified to invade afghanistan just because they would not do as we demanded, so be it.
It is a tough call, but I do believe we were so justified. As I said above, I'm a bit surprised you question it as much as you do.
remember you use the principle of "the end does not justify the means." that was what i was adressing when speaking of afghanistan. we violated their sovereign rights as a country by invading them for the purpose of capturing osama and company. that was an unjust means regardless of the rightiousness of capturing osama. we had no right on the basis. it was not the country of afghanistan that attacked us and declared war on us. in this you are abiding by the principle that "the end does justify the means."
as for justification of war, yes it does matter where justification is because the Constitution has placed that in the hands of Congress not the Executive branch. what anyone else says is irrelevant when it comes to declaring and waging war. it is there you must look to see if the war with Iraq was just or not.
the Constitution separated the two powers, the declaration and justification for war lies in Congress. the waging of war once authorized lies with the Executive branch. that is not only true for the war in Iraq but for each and every war.
so if you want to find out if the means was just you need to look at what Congress said not what anyone else said. it was the way our government was set up and it is the way our government works.
if we allowed anyone to declare the justification for war we are declaring that the Constitution no longer has any value to our society and government. for it is the Constitution that tells us to look to Congress for the justification of any war.
not accepting that would mean that we could declare that what Congress says is irrelevant if we happen to disagree with them and use any justification we choose to justify our position on the war. and this is what you are advocating.
lastly i want to say one more thing. you say you abide by the principle of "the end does not justify the means". there is another side to that too and that is,
"the means does not justify the end either."
remember you use the principle of "the end does not justify the means." that was what i was adressing when speaking of afghanistan. we violated their sovereign rights as a country by invading them for the purpose of capturing osama and company. that was an unjust means regardless of the rightiousness of capturing osama. we had no right on the basis. it was not the country of afghanistan that attacked us and declared war on us. in this you are abiding by the principle that "the end does justify the means."
Ahhh... I see what you're getting at, now... You're suggesting that not supporting the invasion of Iraq while supporting the invasion of Afghanistan is hypocritical...
It's a possible point. The Taliban was sheltering bin Laden, making them responsible for him. If attacking them was indeed wrong, as you suggest (I'm not sure it was, as I believe that sheltering bin Laden after 9/11 does amount to a criminal/terrorist act in itself), then it is hypocritical to support either invasion.
Of course, the fact that you've repeatedly stated how wrong it was to invade makes me wonder how you are safe from the same charge of hypocracy, considering you seem to support these unjustified acts.
as for justification of war, yes it does matter where justification is because the Constitution has placed that in the hands of Congress not the Executive branch. what anyone else says is irrelevant when it comes to declaring and waging war. it is there you must look to see if the war with Iraq was just or not.
In a strictly legal sense, you are correct. But when anyone in power advocates for a particular position, they are responsible for it, as well. If President Bush said armed robbery of banks was a patriotic thing to do, he would have to answer politically & morally for the patriotic robbers, even though he never personally entered a single bank. It isn't all about the law...
so if you want to find out if the means was just you need to look at what Congress said not what anyone else said. it was the way our government was set up and it is the way our government works.
I'm not so willing to cut anyone that much slack... Mr Bush & his administration, as well as you, me, & the guy down the street are also responsible for the actions the government takes in our name. What we say & do matters.
if we allowed anyone to declare the justification for war we are declaring that the Constitution no longer has any value to our society and government. for it is the Constitution that tells us to look to Congress for the justification of any war.
It's not strictly a legal argument, though... It matters whether or not the President believed he was justified in invading. To a lesser extent, it matters what the people believe in that regard, as well...
not accepting that would mean that we could declare that what Congress says is irrelevant if we happen to disagree with them and use any justification we choose to justify our position on the war. and this is what you are advocating.
Well, I do believe that we--& Congress for that matter--can reassess situations and change their position when the facts warrant it.
No action an elected politician takes is irrelevant. But that doesn't mean we need to agree with 'em, or continue support them as long as we believe they're wrong.
lastly i want to say one more thing. you say you abide by the principle of "the end does not justify the means". there is another side to that too and that is,
"the means does not justify the end either."
You'll have to explain what you mean by that... I believe that fighting the good fight is justified, win or lose. Fighting the bad fight isn't justified either way...
"Of course, the fact that you've repeatedly stated how wrong it was to invade makes me wonder how you are safe from the same charge of hypocracy, considering you seem to support these unjustified acts."
the reason being is that i don't use that principle of "the end does not justify the means" as my foundational principle to make my judgment. you do.
i was just pointing out to you why that principle is not a solid basis for judgment because it results in a contradiction when applied to these wars.
"In a strictly legal sense, you are correct."
when Congress gives the President permission to lead our troops into war that fulfills the legal sense. when Congress declares the reasons for it that is the moral justification used by Congress for the permission given. When the President signs that resolution he assents to lead our troops into war and also agrees with Congress as to the moral reasons as stated by Congress. the Declaration of Independence exemplifies this. it declares the moral justification of war against England and the moral justification of the revolution.
"But that doesn't mean we need to agree with 'em, or continue support them as long as we believe they're wrong."
i believe that is the reason we have leaders as elected. if we disagree with them we can vote them out of office. and this is especially true in the House who are the direct representatives of the people thus they need our approval the most. they need to be up for election every two years.
as for your example of bank robbery that is a poor analogy. any President who would say that would be subject to being impeached if it was seen as giving permission. we had a situation such as that already. it was called Watergate and the President resigned.
and we can hold a president responsible for what he says. it is called voting for him or voting against him when his term is up.
finally, we do not hold a person responsible for what he says. we hold people responsible for the decisions thay make.
and we hold those responsible for decisions made based on who has the power and authority to make those decisions. and when it comes to war that responsibility was given to Congress not the President. that is called separation of powers, the foundational basis of our government. in other words, we hold those persons responsible who has the right to make those decisions. and it is the reasons given by that body that has the right to make that decision that determines that war is justified or not.
that is the same for you or me also. we are held responsible for the decisions we make and cannot blame anyone else for those decisions. but that assumes we have the power and authority to make those decisions.
you would not hold someone else responsible for your decisions and you may have reasons for that decision and it is those reasons you'd want me or anyone else to judge that decision.
last but not least;
" "the means does not justify the end either."
You'll have to explain what you mean by that... I believe that fighting the good fight is justified, win or lose. Fighting the bad fight isn't justified either way..."
what i mean is can be exemplified by the fact we have a justice system that we consider a just way to judge a man of crimes (the just means) but it is also flawed because we know that innocent persons can be convicted. "the unjust end)
thus the means does not justify the end either.
and from your explanation i see you misunderstand the meaning of the principle. the end is not in the fighting of the war. that is only the process used to accomplish the end. the end is either winning the war or losing it. one would be justified and the other unjustified.
i was just pointing out to you why that principle [End doesn't justify means] is not a solid basis for judgment because it results in a contradiction when applied to these wars.
I think you're skipping a step. IF the means are just--such as invading a country that is harboring terrorists--then the end is not necessary to justify anything.
My saying that the ends don't justify the means was a response to your saying that history (& specifically the victors) will judge the actions of Mr Bush (his means) based on what he actually accomplishes in Iraq (the ends).
While there may be a few making the same argument as regards Afghanistan, most seem to think our actions there were justified in the first place, and few are looking to history to judge what he did there.
I just don't see the comparison you're making as being all that valid...
i believe that is the reason we have leaders as elected. if we disagree with them we can vote them out of office.
And that is happening.
...any President who would say that would be subject to being impeached if it was seen as giving permission.
There's some talk of that, too.
finally, we do not hold a person responsible for what he says. we hold people responsible for the decisions thay make.
Again, I disagree... We hold elected officials responsible for their words everyday... "GOTCHA!" politics, FauxNews, & some on the left as well, are based on holding elected officials responsible for every word they ever uttered, anywhere, in any circumstance... Yes, their actions (votes) carry more weight (as well they should). But every promise an official makes & does not keep, and every bit of on or off the record commentary, from dirty words to flubbed jokes to insensitive comments they utter matters, as well.
As for the means not justifying the end...
Actually, in your example about the justice system, the means (a fair trial) DOES justify the ends (a conviction, even of an innocent man), legally. The whole point of the justice system is to arrive at a just result, and by using fair means--includiing the appeals process--a just result is more likely. It is not a perfect system, and innocent people do occasionally get convicted, but I know of no remedy (aside abolishing the death penalty, which leaves open the door for correcting such errors.) As the saying goes, we have the worst justice system in the world, except for all the others. Unfortunately, a guilty verdict at the end of a fair trial IS a just end, even if that verdict is later overturned.
and from your explanation i see you misunderstand the meaning of the principle. the end is not in the fighting of the war. that is only the process used to accomplish the end. the end is either winning the war or losing it. one would be justified and the other unjustified.
I'm sorry... Are you telling me that I don't mean what I say?
I was the one who brought up the whole "ends justifying the means" discussion. I know the meaning of the principle as I was applying it, which was that if we start a war without justification, it doesn't matter whether we achieve good ends.
A free Iraq would be great, but that free Iraq will never make me believe that it was the right thing to do. Pre-emptive war is un-American, and does not uphold the values this country was founded on. Win or lose, that will not change.
Who started it and why is important to just war theory.
How we fight is important to just war theory.
Whether we win or lose might be important to this country (in fact, it is VERY important), but whether we win or lose doesn't make the war any more or less just.
he smiles now,
if in following the "legal" requirements of our justice system is what constitutes a just means therefore resulting in a just end in regards to an innocent man then you are admitting the following the legal requirements of our system of government in regards to war justifies any war that Congress declares and you admitted that we followed the legal requirements already in an earlier comment. and one of those requirements is that it is Congress not the President that is responsible for the declaration of the justification for war.
and as an afterthought of this the declaration of war is the only act of Congress that requires that justification be included in it, that i know of.
"I think you're skipping a step. IF the means are just--such as invading a country that is harboring terrorists--then the end is not necessary to justify anything"
we discussed this earlier about invading a country just because they are harboring people we want but are not willing to hand over just because we want them.
"I have absolutely no qualmes about such a thing when the person being protected is a citizen or resident of the country protecting them. When it's a US citizen who ran to this country because they (or their family & friends) had the wherewithall to allow them to do so, I'm not as comfortable."
as far as i know and i have not seen anything to the contrary osama bin laden was considered by the Afghan government as a citizen and he was a resident of Afghanistan. and it was for sure that he is not a U.S. citizen and designating him as a terrorist does not justify invading a country and overthrowing their government in order to forcibly extridite a man we consider as a criminal by our laws.
and your calling the Talaban government as a "rogue" government does not declare it any less the legitimate government of Afghanistan at the time. Thus by your own criteria we had no right to invade Afghanistan.
last but not least your continued use of the term "premptive strike" as the means amazes me. so, i will only say that your use of the term as the means of justification to be used for the invasion of Iraq is an assertion. prove it.
justifies any war that Congress declares
Great. Now show me where Congress declared war, and we'll reach agreement.
I am arguing morality, just as I would for the innocent man wrongly convicted. As we've already agreed, legal & moral/ethical are not the same. Just War Theory speaks more to morality than legality, though it does discuss both.
we discussed this earlier about invading a country just because they are harboring people we want but are not willing to hand over just because we want them.
If you wish to prove than neither of Bush's follies were justified, you're welcome to do so. To an extent, I wonder, myself...
While I'm not completely comfortable with the idea of our invading countries to get terrorists that those governments are harboring, I do see a difference between the government of France or Canada harboring a murderer facing the death penalty here in the US & that of Afghanistan under the Taliban harboring bin Laden, and I am not so rigid as to allow for no leeway, either in law or morality. While it's an interesting excersize of argument, I wonder whether arguing a position that (I suspect, given your writings elsewhere in support of Bush's wars) neither of us believes is in any way helpful. Perhaps the real argument is, how far are we (individually, or as a country) willing to bend in our morality or legality to get what we want or think we need...
last but not least your continued use of the term "premptive strike" as the means amazes me. so, i will only say that your use of the term as the means of justification to be used for the invasion of Iraq is an assertion. prove it.
They're actually calling it the Bush Doctrine, Griper... I don't know how much more proof you need...:
"The Bush Doctrine argues for a policy of pre-emptive war in cases where the U.S. or its allies are threatened by terrorists or by rogue states that are engaged in the production of weapons of mass destruction. The policy of pre-emption represents a rejection of deterrence and containment as the principal foundations of U.S. foreign policy because, it is argued, terrorists cannot be deterred in the same way as states. According to the Bush Doctrine, grave threats require a military response regardless of other countries' views. The Bush doctrine includes making reasonable efforts to include other nations in military or diplomatic actions, however in the absence of coalition partners, unilateral military action is taken against perceived threats. The policy document states that 'United States has, and intends to keep, military strength beyond challenge', indicating the US intends to take actions as necessary to continue its status as the world's sole military superpower."
Bush to Restate Terror Strategy - washingtonpost.com:
"President Bush plans to issue a new national security strategy today reaffirming his doctrine of preemptive war against terrorists and hostile states with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, despite the troubled experience in Iraq."
that is not proof. if you wanted to say that our government was a dictatorship or a monarchy then i would be inclined to agree with you but we are not.
for you to prove it requires that you first show that justification of any war is the decision of the executive branch of this government and not the legislative branch under the Constitution.
next you'd have to show that in the giving the executive branch of government permission to execute that war Congress did not include the justification for it.
if you cannot do this you have proven nothing and your claim of an immoral means is baseless.
all you did is present evidence of the existance of a policy statement that you base your belief on. evidence, i might add, i already knew about.
if you want to say that this policy is immoral, fine. i'll accept that.
Congress was remiss in giving Bush what amounted to a blank check, in effect making him a monarch as far as this occupation of Iraq is concerned. Many have said that they did not intend to do so, and that Bush is twisting what authorisation they did give him (which wasn't a declaration of war, as I'm sure you know) to fit whatever he wishes to do militarily, practically anywhere in the world. Iran can easily become the next "central front in the war on terror," with no further action. It was a bad authorisation that gave Mr Bush carte blanche to do whatever he chose, listening to whatever military generals ageree with him (& firing those who don't, like Shinseki).
As I've said before legally, the ground under Bush is somewhat firm. Stupid or not, Congress gave Bush something he could exploit. Morally, the ground seems far less firm, at least to me. Obviously, you don't share my morals, & thus "proving" my morality better or more right than yours is akin to "proving" my religious denomination is somehow better than yours. I may dabble occasionally, but I know better than to get too involved in any such debate.
Some folks morals cause them to be offended by sex on TV. Mine make me offended when my country engages in preemptive, morally unjustified war. Your morals may cause you to be offended by gratutitous sex, some aspect of war, or something entirely different. Morals are subjective, and hard to "prove," one way or another...
well we are getting closer now with that.
and as you have said and i agree with,what is legal is not always moral. and it also goes that what is illegal is not always immoral. thus, if we are going to infuse morality into the issue then what is legal should also be moral and what is immoral should not be legal. they then become inseperable.
if you accept this then we must go to the source that made it legal to determine its morality, the resolution as passed by Congress that made it legal. for within that resolution Congress declares the justification necessary to invade Iraq and overthrow the government. the justifications cited are the "moral" reasons Congess declared.
this is consistent with what the founding fathers did in the Declaration of Independence. they were giving moral reasons for the Revolutionary war not legal reasons.
so, when you use a "Policy" statement as a basis for your claim of immorality of the war it results in two sets of claims, one that you declare and one that Congress declares.
and as long as we give Congress the power and authority to place our country into a state of war then it is also their responsibilty to state the moral reasons for it.
if we wish to place that authority in the Executive branch of our government as you seem to want to do then that would require a Constitutional ammendentment.
as i said in an earlier comment this is the one act of Congress, that i know of, that requires Congress to declare that war with another country is to be shown as moral within the act as passed that makes it legal.
Post a Comment