If this article doesn't embarrass you as a liberal...then I don't know what to say.
According to "60 Minutes" last week (quoting the Pentagon), more than 5,500 servicemen have deserted since the beginning of Mr. Bush's war.
That's an amazing number. And it offers hope that perhaps not all our young people are locked into caveman mentality. At least 5,500 of them have advanced to the level of thinking demonstrated at Nuremberg, Germany, in 1945.
Nuremberg is where the Nazi war criminals of World War II were tried. Their common defense was that they were just following orders. The court refused that defense, suggesting that soldiers never have an obligation to follow illegal orders.
If he really believes what he says - that the US Army and Bush are equivalent to the Nazi army...he shouldn't be writing about it - he should be fighting tooth and nail against it. But the truth is, he doesn't believe it, and he shouldn't be writing for a newspaper. Thanks for interpreting Nurenmberg for us...jesus, what an idiot.
1 comment:
I read the article you refer to and, okay, I agree it is controvercial. If you are going to reject it, at least do it with some sense. Let me dissect your response.
1. You accuse him of equating Bush and the US Army to the Nazi army. He doesn't. The author is saying that Nuremberg set a legal precedent that soldiers never have an obligation to follow illegal orders. That precedent applies to the US Army today. Precedent, as a legal concept, equates the circumstances of the cases, not the people involved.
2. You say that he shouldn't be writing about his opinion, he should be fighting for it tooth and nail. His writing is playing a very important role in the fight for what he believes. He obviously is against the war in Iraq and knows one way to stop the war is to turn the majority of the population against it. Writing and publishing is a way to move the national discussion in his direction. So writing is fighting, and there certainly was some tooth and nail in his article.
3. You claim the truth is that he does not believe what he is saying. You sure are insightful, but without stating how you know he doesn't believe it, you just look stupid. It almost seems as if you are saying that anyone who disagress with you is an idiot. This kind of makes you look like an idiot.
Post a Comment