|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grubble Grubble
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monday, March 24, 2003 :::
The Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary defines "patriot" as "one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests."
If you apply this definition in it's strictest sense, the fathers of the American Revolution were not patriots. Rather, they were traitors to their country: England. Remember, America was a British Colony at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Time, however, allows us to call them patriots because America won the revolution and we became a nation.
In every part of the country, American citizens are applying the strictest sense of that definition to other American citizens who are protesting the current war with Iraq. Accusations of unpatriotic acts are being bandied about with almost utter disregard to the facts of many cases and to the birth of this nation.
We are a nation born of civil disobedience. Why, then, do we accuse those of continuing that tradition of being traitors?
"The government must know something we don't, otherwise they would not start this war." That phrase is popping up more and more during newscasts showing support for Bush. However our history, even recently, does not support this view.
We entered the Vietnam Conflict based on events in the Gulf of Tonkin on August 2, 1964. Vietnamese patrol boats purportedly attacked the U.S. Destroyer Maddox. On August 7, 1964, we escalated our involvement the Vietnam Conflict with the "Tonkin Gulf Resolution." History bears out that President Johnson and his administration purposely misconstrued the event to Congress, and in fact, then fighter pilot James Stockdale, reported no signs of enemy patrol boats. The only sights he saw were two American destroyers firing into the night. For those that recognize the name, Stockdale ran on the same ticket with H. Ross Perot, as his Vice-Presidential candidate.
The later released Pentagon Papers showed how the U.S. involvement with Vietnam began in 1954 with our financial support of the French war efforts and our undermining of Geneva Accords of the same year. In essence, we picked the fight. The United States was mired in that arguably illegal war for more than a decade.
Technology will likely ensure that we are not fighting in Iraq for more than a few months, but that still does not condone the action. The terrible events of 9/11 are used as part of the pretext for this war, yet no link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden has ever been proven. We are expected to take the word of our president. This is the same man who wants unprecedented ability to spy domestically (that means he wants to watch us, folks), and who has protesters herded into protest-zones away from events (and cameras) when he takes to the trail.
I am no apologist for Saddam Hussein. I think he is an evil man and has potential to be dangerous. However, I can say the same for the leader of my own country.
Bush has bullied his way around the world since entering office and has these tactics have lost us any world support for our Iraq policies. Admittedly, we are the superpower in the world and are strong enough to dictate our terms, but remember, Egypt, Rome, and more recently, the British Empire could all make this claim in their glory days. We should take a lesson from history. No one likes or long tolerates a bully. Just ask our forefathers.
|
|
|
|
