full article with hyperlinks found here:
Imagine for a moment that sometime within the next month, October 2013, America erupts into another bloody civil war. We’ll keep it very simple; two well-armed factions vying for control over the landmass once known as the United States of America. Suppose that you and your family are caught in the middle. Imagine that you don’t necessarily agree with the intentions of either armed faction, and that you only desire peace and stability. Imagine that you possess neither the weapons necessary to defend yourself from the war that edges ever closer to your home, nor the means to flee. In essence, you’re trapped. NOW, imagine that the world’s “super power”..let’s say Greenland..decided that it was in YOUR best interest if it intervened in the conflict. Its proposal is to launch cruise missiles into your country, to teach one of the factions a lesson for killing some innocent people, while simultaneously arming the other faction (also guilty of slaying innocents). You pause, and reflect. You recall that for as long as you’ve been alive (~25 years), “Greenland” has continually asserted itself in the affairs of other nations/peoples under the pretense of “humanitarian” aid, often with consequences that speak to the opposite. You recall that Greenland employed brutal sanctions aimed at harming the Iraqi regime that instead resulted in the death of between 500,000 and 1,000,000 children under the age of 5. You recall that you occasionally hear reports of Greenland’s ongoing drone bombing campaign in the Middle East, and the scores of innocent men, women, and children that are decimated by errant bombs, or misguided intelligence reports. You pause, look at your young family, and ask yourself: “will a guided missile solve my problems?” “Will a guided missile solve ANY of the problems for any of the millions of people caught between the brutality of two armed factions intent on killing?” You’re suddenly struck with the realization that bombs and missiles don’t discriminate, and that innocent people will surely be killed by this proposed “humanitarian” intervention. You huddle your young family together and ask yourself: “is more death really our best and only solution?” “Am I willing to sacrifice my innocent family so that others might live?”
If your answer is “no” – If you determine that you’re unwilling to sacrifice your wife..or husband…or children to a brutal, seldom-questioned euphemism like “collateral damage”…WHAT BUSINESS do you have “authorizing” your government to “resolve” conflicts while wantonly slaughtering innocent wives..husbands..or children? This ethically-consistent concept might sound more familiar under its oft-appropriated title — the “Golden Rule.” While central to all major world religions, the “Golden Rule” transcends religion. Though occasionally rejected in theory, it’s practiced daily by quite nearly every human being on this planet. Quite simply — it’s common sense! Somehow, through the perceptual magic that is “authority,” masses of otherwise “Golden Rule” abiding humans become conducive to the suggestion that there are indeed extenuating circumstances which justify the abandonment of our largely innate code for peaceful living. While unquestionable (and justified) outrage would befall a police officer were he to, in the line of duty, indiscriminately discharge his weapon among a crowd of innocent people, nary a peep is heard when our nation drops cluster bombs or disperses radioactive munitions amongst a civilian population in some “far off” land.
Why? How could we possibly propagate/perpetuate such a blatantly hypocritical reality? While scores of victims and surviving family members of American “collateral damage” might suggest that we’re heartless, uncaring, or evil — I contend that we’re simply ill-informed, and over-trusting. We’re “informed” via a largely corporate media machine, interspersed with commercials promoting our unending military adventures as those of a “global force for good.” We naively surmise that our governments actions MUST be moral..prudent, and so “right.” Like the trusting, ill-informed humans we are, we go about our day, earnestly treating others the way we’d like to be treated — while tacitly endorsing the “humanitarian” shedding of innocent blood throughout the world. When our victims seek retribution we call it “terrorism,” and clamor for our government to complete the tragic circuit that’s become American foreign policy.
While outright military intervention in Syria appears to have been (temporarily?) averted, the “humanitarians” at the helm will no doubt make future requests against your better judgment. You needn’t question what you know in your heart to be true. Daily life as a genuine, peace-loving human being has equipped you with ALL the information you could ever need as pertains non-defensive foreign policy. Whether it’s the “necessity” of intervening in the Syrian civil war — drone bombing suspected “terrorists” in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen — or preemptively eradicating the “threat” of a nuclear Iran — you have ALL the information necessary to make an conscious, informed decision. Simply ask yourself: “As an innocent human, would I mind if I or my family was killed as “collateral damage” in this proposed military or “humanitarian” intervention?”
If you’re honest, the antiwar message will surely go “viral.”