Someone wrote this letter to the editor at the Intelligencer:
Will someone please tell me who we are planning to attack with these state of the art fighter jets the government wants to purchase?
There's already enough collateral damage being hoisted on our fellow human beings by man-made nuclear accidents, global warming, earthquakes and tsunamis.
If we're really interested in democracy, let's do it by example. We are in an election campaign right now because or democratic process was threatened by a Conservative leader who has set himself up as an aggressor both at home and abroad.
Peacekeepers and people with a moral conscience do not refer to human life as collateral damage.
Let's look at the civilian members we have killed, worldwide, in the name of democracy and then maybe we'll be able to put a moral price on jets that are supposed to be worth $1 billion.
God help us all.
A. Meyers
Belleville
I replied:
I wonder if the people whom we have saved from the Taliban and Ghadafi would agree with A. Meyers?
This person's grasp of world affairs and history seems weak, as many of the millions who've died in Cambodia's killing fields, Mao's manufactured famines and anti-intellectual purges, and myriad other cases of genocide and government mass murder in the last 50 years would probably have celebrated an interested world acting on their behalf. And of course their was the western intervention in the Balkans in the '90s for just that purpose.
Consider, too, that the intervention in Afghanistan was a direct result of the 9/11 attacks, which led to the first ever invocation of Article V of the NATO treaty - the Article that states an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. As a result, the crude method of response would have been a simple brute force attack on Afghanistan, as it's government was complicit in the attacks. Instead, NATO aided the Northern Alliance to overthrow the Taliban, and has since aided in the suppression of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Have there been civilian casualties because of Allied action? Of course, but the Afghan peoples have consistently stated their preference for accidental casualties from Allied action to the deliberate brutality and murder of the Taliban. Girls having acid thrown in their faces for going to school ring any bells, Meyers?
Your comment, "Peacekeepers and people with a moral conscience do not refer to human life as collateral damage," is entirely out of line. Once you get down off your moral high horse you might check to see how the term "collateral damage" is used and what it means. Collateral is a term referring to things of value - such as your house which might secure a loan. It is not something anyone would allow to be damaged without grave concern.
The term as used in describing civilians killed during military action refers to losses which are always concerning to military planners and soldiers on the ground. These soldiers, who are also the ones called upon to be peacekeepers, have a much stronger moral conscience for you, as unlike you they put their lives on the line every day to protect people they've never met, have no vested interest in, and may never see again. They are willing to put themselves in the line of fire to create a peace in the first place. When these men and women return, they bring with them memories of battles, of friends lost, of seeing the horrors of war and the brutality of an enemy who does not hold human life to be as valuable as we do. These are your people without a "moral conscience". The reality is sometimes the recognition that civilian casualties were unavoidable is the only thing allowing soldiers to have any peace after being involved in a battle that included 'collateral damage'.
"Let's look at the civilian members we have killed, worldwide, in the name of democracy..."
And let's ask those who risk death every day in Syria, seeking democracy in the face of a brutal dictatorship how valuable, how worthy of sacrifice, democracy is. Or how about Iran, Bahrain, Tunisia, Egypt, Burma, Russia, and the former Warsaw Pact states - those now free because people risked death or died, while those still under the heel of dictators risk their lives to hopefully achieve freedom in the future.
Your statement implies that in the pursuit of democracy the west has discounted the value of civilian lives. The opposite is true - when the west has acted, with a rogue exceptions, it has acted in a manner consistent with minimizing civilian, and sometimes even enemy, casualties.
Sir or Ma'am, I think you ought to give your head a shake - to start. Then you ought to apologize to our military. And finally, you ought to seek to educate yourself on the issues before applying pen to paper in the future.
Sincerely,
James Phieffer
True peacekeepers don't need more fighter jets - Belleville Intelligencer - Ontario, CA
This person's grasp of world affairs and history seems weak, as many of the millions who've died in Cambodia's killing fields, Mao's manufactured famines and anti-intellectual purges, and myriad other cases of genocide and government mass murder in the last 50 years would probably have celebrated an interested world acting on their behalf. And of course their was the western intervention in the Balkans in the '90s for just that purpose.
Consider, too, that the intervention in Afghanistan was a direct result of the 9/11 attacks, which led to the first ever invocation of Article V of the NATO treaty - the Article that states an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. As a result, the crude method of response would have been a simple brute force attack on Afghanistan, as it's government was complicit in the attacks. Instead, NATO aided the Northern Alliance to overthrow the Taliban, and has since aided in the suppression of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Have there been civilian casualties because of Allied action? Of course, but the Afghan peoples have consistently stated their preference for accidental casualties from Allied action to the deliberate brutality and murder of the Taliban. Girls having acid thrown in their faces for going to school ring any bells, Meyers?
Your comment, "Peacekeepers and people with a moral conscience do not refer to human life as collateral damage," is entirely out of line. Once you get down off your moral high horse you might check to see how the term "collateral damage" is used and what it means. Collateral is a term referring to things of value - such as your house which might secure a loan. It is not something anyone would allow to be damaged without grave concern.
The term as used in describing civilians killed during military action refers to losses which are always concerning to military planners and soldiers on the ground. These soldiers, who are also the ones called upon to be peacekeepers, have a much stronger moral conscience for you, as unlike you they put their lives on the line every day to protect people they've never met, have no vested interest in, and may never see again. They are willing to put themselves in the line of fire to create a peace in the first place. When these men and women return, they bring with them memories of battles, of friends lost, of seeing the horrors of war and the brutality of an enemy who does not hold human life to be as valuable as we do. These are your people without a "moral conscience". The reality is sometimes the recognition that civilian casualties were unavoidable is the only thing allowing soldiers to have any peace after being involved in a battle that included 'collateral damage'.
"Let's look at the civilian members we have killed, worldwide, in the name of democracy..."
And let's ask those who risk death every day in Syria, seeking democracy in the face of a brutal dictatorship how valuable, how worthy of sacrifice, democracy is. Or how about Iran, Bahrain, Tunisia, Egypt, Burma, Russia, and the former Warsaw Pact states - those now free because people risked death or died, while those still under the heel of dictators risk their lives to hopefully achieve freedom in the future.
Your statement implies that in the pursuit of democracy the west has discounted the value of civilian lives. The opposite is true - when the west has acted, with a rogue exceptions, it has acted in a manner consistent with minimizing civilian, and sometimes even enemy, casualties.
Sir or Ma'am, I think you ought to give your head a shake - to start. Then you ought to apologize to our military. And finally, you ought to seek to educate yourself on the issues before applying pen to paper in the future.
Sincerely,
James Phieffer
