Thursday, July 20, 2006

What Responsibility?

I keep hearing it in the news. You have probably heard truck loads of people talk about the poor Lebanese who are suffering under the threat of death from the forces of Israel. We have the PC police talking stupid about civilian casualties and infrastructure. We get to see pictures of destruction everyday on tv and on the front page of our papers.
Hey, at least the UN finally demonstrated a brain by actually condemning the causer of the problem. I was shocked. Good thing I was seated when I heard the news. Of course they followed up with a condemnation of Israel for excessive force, but they at least recognized the problem.
I have heard other commentators put it this way: If the terrorists would lay down their arms we would have world peace, but if Israel would lay down their arms we would have a holocaust. There is a lot of truth in those words.
The real matter (IMO) comes down to personal responsibility for your actions. We in America are not the only ones suffering from a lack of responsibility. We have people who are jumping up and down about how we are treating and reacting to a democratically elected government. This I will point out is true and by definition is the choice of the people. That choice comes with consequences. When you embrace a group who by their actions are terrorists, you also embrace the consequences that come from their actions. You made a choice and now that choice has resulted in bombs and destruction. You could have chosen someone who aspired to peace and the results would have been far more pleasant.
These same people who can’t seem to grasp this are also the ones who are complaining about the destruction of infrastructure. Waging a war demands that you cut your enemy off from supplies and communication, Israel is doing just that. This is a classic strategy of war. We can read in ancient manuscripts how cities were laid siege too. They would cut off the city by surrounding it and allowing no one to come or go. They would have no means to call for help and no method of supplying what has been depleted through battle or civilian use. Can we expect any battle to be waged without using these basic methods proven over the centuries?
The big question has turned to “Should a cease fire be imposed?” If the people and government of Lebanon would like this to stop they will have to change their ways. They will have to abandon Hezbollah and return to Israel what is theirs. They will have to embrace those who seek peace. They will have to change from a people filled with hate. This is a pretty tall order. For more then 50 years the hate has festered and been nourished. They teach children to hate from the youngest ages. How do you turn something so deeply seeded? The seeds have been planted and nourished, who will take responsibility for the fruits of their labor? Who will finally stop the planting and start the healing?


Blogger A Jacksonian said...

I do my best to dig down to some of the roots of the Middle Eastern problems with my peace checklist and faultlines rejoinder.

What it boils down to is this idea that Groups should have rights above and beyond that of individuals and Nations. This is the Transnationalist agenda, which I go through quickly in the checklist. We can directly pin this on President Wilson and his idea for a larger organization of Government cooperation... but never reconciled that idea with the basic concept from Westphalia that the largest organizational unit for International Affairs is the Nation State. Many things have played into this breakdown of the Nation State system, most notably the Cold War, but the active use of terrorism that is not accountable to any State is the worst and most pernicious inter-State problem. These organizations erode the confidence of people within States that the State is fit to protect them. By doing this we get either Authoritarian reaction or the failed/weak State concept. This is worsened as Transnationalist organizations, such as the UN and various NGO's, have come to think of themselves as 'more legitimate' than Nations. Note that most of the erosion of State based diplomacy is in areas where NGOs are abundant, especially Africa and South East Asia. Inside of Nations, Transnational Progressivists and Global Capitalists both purport to demonstrate that the Nation State is unfit to oversee Intenational Affairs and that some 'other' higher good must be given leeway.

The net effect of all of this, as well as the Group Identity that it engenders, is to encourage States away from having a robust defense of themselves and to entrust their security with those Transnationalist and Globalists who seek to meet their 'higher goals', be they further Group Identity or mere profit. Without the feeling that Nation based military systems and State to State diplomacy is a 'legitimate' way to address problems because they are 'biased', we end up in this nasty quagmire where doing anything assertive gets attacked as imperialist/expansionist/uncaring/bad for profits.

This entire Transnationalist/Globalist agenda must end, as the only thing it is doing is destroying the very thing that gives individuals freedom and liberty. And that is their objective - destroy the Nation State system and then the very idea of 'legitimate' Nation State concepts. Only Group Identity matters and all people get equal results, but not equality of treatment. And *that* we have come to know as Tyrrany.

5:33 PM, July 21, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home