*NOTE: All quotations will be rough paraphrases, doing as much justice to the original comment as possible.
So I’m flipping around the TV tonight, and I happen upon PBS, who is running a series on Conscientious Objector’s in the United States, relating to the Iraq War (from what I saw). Now not everything I saw or heard I disagreed with. They touched on Abu Ghraib, and basically that relegating an enemy to sub-human status leads to atrocities. I agree with the gist of what they said relating to those topics.
However:
I came away from this show very pissed, if not angry. My conclusion, based on the comments of the COs (Conscientious Objectors) was that they were idiots. This may sound disrespectful, and it probably is. But I speak plainly, and it’s how I feel. They live in the dream land of Utopia. They think they can “abolish” war, regardless that the desire to do violence upon others is inherent in human nature. One fellow said he was asked “What about Nazi Germany? If there were too many COs, then Hitler would not have been stopped.” The CO responded that “If there were enough COs in the German Army, then there would have been no more Hitler. You have to simply believe that we can abolish war.” What? Do you really think Hitler and the brainwashed SS would have allowed dissent, even if the German people felt like it? They would have been executed, like any other Enemy of the State, and the Nazi War Machine would have ground on.
One CO served at Abu Ghraib, and described his meeting with a self-avowed jihadist. The jihadist described his peace within Islam, and if it was Allah’s will for him to be in prison, then the Jihadist was content. The Jihadist challenged the now CO, and said “You’re not living up to Christianity, because Jesus said turn the other cheek.” The CO said on camera, that this statement offended him, because the Jihadist stated also that “I will kill you any chance I get.” Despite this statement, the CO was “rocked to his core” and realized he didn’t have a response to that. This is what I would have said:
“Jesus was the Son of God, and is a far greater being than I will ever manage to become. He lived out the life of a perfect Christian. Well, my jihadist friend, I have news for you – I am not a perfect Christian. I never will be a perfect Christian. Therefore, I accept my current condition as reality, and will act upon it. To quote General Mattis of the United State Marine Corp (speaking to Iraqi Tribal Leaders):
“I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.”
Survival – kill or be killed. In this war against Jihad, where we face an enemy who embraces and welcomes death, that is what we face. They have no qualms about killing a Conscientious Objector. Indeed, they would relish it. They tape themselves beheading defenseless men, who are bound, and cannot fight. Such an enemy is not worthy of my sympathy or my understanding. As a U.S. Army soldier pointedly said on camera “Their right to lay down their arms – that is protected by the ones who stay and fight.” Damn straight – peace can only occur if BOTH sides desire it, and can be brought to a truce. In this war, I have yet to see the Jihadist desire peace. Therefore, one who lays down his arms will be butchered by the enemy he so valiantly protects.
Another CO made comments to the effect of “Humans figured out human sacrifice was wrong, and that slavery was wrong, and we stopped doing that. Maybe one day we can figure out war is wrong as well.” What this CO fails to comprehend, is the Roman Legions burned Carthage to the ground, thus ending the Phoenician religious rite of sacrificing human children to Moloch. The motto of Rome was Delenda est Carthago – Carthage must be destroyed. The Conscientious Objector did not force Carthage to heel – the military might of Rome did. The Aztecs did not magically stop believing in the validity of human sacrifice, until they were wiped out by the Spanish. Once again, force of arms ended a barbaric practice. As for slavery, the British and Americans (surprise) fought long bloody wars to abolish slavery, and even then it persisted (legally) in some Islamic countries until the 1970s. Even today, human trafficking across the globe is pervasive.
In short, and again excuse a few moments of irreverence, I was left thinking to myself “What ******* idiots. Can they not comprehend the dangers we face, and the unchangeable qualities of human nature that drive us to war? These COs, in sufficient numbers, would be the death of us all.” Case in point is Germany in 2004 – 150,000 men and woman were called to mandatory service, whereas 80,000 used the CSO to evade a combat role. If this were ancient times, and placed in Greece, they would have easily been wiped out by the Persians.
The program itself I found to be fairly neutral (as neutral as PBS can be anyway), though it was slanted in favor of the CO. By far the most camera time was given to showing COs, and their opinions. There were rebuttal opportunities for other voices, but not much. Additionally, the program focused on showing US troops and Humvees stalking Iraqi neighborhoods, and dead bodies of Iraqis, which the viewer presumes to casualties inflicted by the US military. Not once did they show carnage inflicted by the Jihadist adversary. Not once was the pervasive evil which we fight shown to viewers.
As a last add on, one CO – after escorting Iraqi Army POWs to a camp – decided he could not fight anymore, and turn in his SAW (M249) to his command and said “Put me in non-combat role.” He was moved to the motor pool, and the Army also took his ballistic plates, to give to another soldier. At this, the CO took umbrage, and the Army replied “Well you won’t be in combat, so you won’t need them.” Damn straight – you turn your SAW in – which can be integral to the survival of your men, and then whine when they your body armor? Remember, this was at a time when not all soldiers had body armor. This was right after the invasion. I would have done the same thing – give the plates and the weapon to someone whol will use them!
In short, I was left puzzled and angry.
I simply cannot fathom how Western Civilization will survive, as we continue on the path to self-destruction.
Mike Grant — Samnite Gladiator
Do people read this blog? Crap, it thinks.
Conscientious Objectors, as Michael Grant’s approach makes eminently clear, have to evaluate the real nature of the enemy. If the ‘enemy’ means no legitimate harm, the he should not be harmed. But what of the enemy who means REAL harm, and who is unrelenting in that goal?
The Unrelenting Enemy is BENT on YOUR destruction. He is not merely a case of, “Let’s talk this out.” Talk is irrelevant, except as his tool to buy time so he can regroup and attack you yet again.
Such an enemy is not open to negotiation, his only rules of engagement are his destruction or yours. To entertain him is to give him time for further preparation for your destruction.
So it is with the Islmofascists.
The only proper response of the West is the utter destruction of the Iranian and Saudi military and government. This can be done without one American foot touching Middle Eastern soil.
It should have been done by 9/11/2002!
Conscientious Objectors were never needed.
egardless that the desire to do violence upon others is inherent in human nature.
peace can only occur if BOTH sides desire it, and can be brought to a truce
“even then it persisted (legally) in some Islamic countries until the 1970s. Even today, human trafficking across the globe is pervasive.”:
Slavery continues in Islamic countries! It includes the repeated rape of young girls by Imams.
“the unchangeable qualities of human nature that drive us to war?”
Human nature is NOT inherently violent. Anyone who has raised children knows this. Children generally drive their parents ‘nuts’, but violence towards them is, overall, rare. If human nature was naturally directed towards the violence of war, mankind would long ago have become extinct. War is a consequence of conflicting moral ideologies. Those ideologies are routinely wrong, sometimes from both sides, sometimes from one side. When a side is RIGHT, the enmey MUST be vanquished.
Mankind must find the proper ideology, regardless of race, religion or nation. That ideology was first identified by the Founders of The American Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. It has been further *verified* by the inescapable reasoning of Ayn Rand.
Grasp the right ideas, and get on board with the only route to peace and prosperity. Read, and grasp, Ayn Rand.
P.S. I hope that did not come across as harsh, it was not intended to be.
No worries. I didn’t view it as harsh. I am writing a post clarifying my position on human nature. I made the mistake of writing this while actually watching the program, and as you could guess, some strong emotions were running through me at the time.
Also, I meant to include this.
Legal slavery ended in Islamic countries, but it still continues today, as you said. An example of this is the treatment foreign workers receive. To use Saudi Arabia as an easy example, maids (from the Philippines for instance) are often abused by the WIVES of Muslim men, because of polygamy. The wife doesn’t want to run the risk of being replaced, so he attacks (physically and mentally) anyone she perceives as a threat to her status.
But this really is a whole other topic in and of itself. “Now They Call Me Infidel” by Nonie Darwish was an excellent book which covered this issue, among many other problems with Islamic society.
I have just finished reading “Infidel” by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. What a brilliant woman.
One thing her story makes eminently clear is the NON-negotiable nature of Islam. They have a “take no prisoners” view of the Infidel, and the Infidel is us.
There is not the slightest chance of discussion to achieve a rights respecting government in which Muslims can live peacefully among other religions and atheists. It just cannot be, except for those lapsed Muslims who are also viewed as kafir by the greater Ummah (Islamic society) and its leaders.