Tulsi has served in the army for nearly 22 years and is a lieutenant colonel. She has served in Iraq and elsewhere. It was on her first tour of duty in Iraq that she first came across these words. As she was walking around familiarising herself with the camp, she was stopped in her tracks. On a large sign just inside the main gates, where the security forces came and went each day, there they were, in large capital letters:
IS TODAY THE DAY?
The implication is clear – reminding each soldier that today could be their last day. Is there a more sobering thought than that? You get up in the morning, not knowing if you will be going to bed at night. I think these words, more than any others, serve to instil in our minds the futility of war: the senseless bloodshed, the loss of life and destruction of land and property in the name of either political or religious dominance through misplaced ideology. These threats are real, with us and ever present.
The Christian festival of Christmas is a time when, amongst the joy and significance of the birth of Christ, we should take a little time to reflect on the realities that these threats present and the challenges they present when looking for solutions. On a religious occasion such as Christmas, it is easy to question that, if there is a God then why these wars and hatred in our midst? Why is He allowing this to happen?
The answer is quite simple. God is not responsible for these happenings. He gave us all, as human beings, a free will. How we use that power is up to each and every one of us. Most decide to use it for the betterment of themselves and others. Love thy neighbour as thyself. The trouble arises when the opposite is the case. Individuals and groups, for either political or religious reasons, use their God-given free will to do harm to others in pursuit of, often, fanatical goals.
In today’s world, too many politicians are averse to tackling these problems. Their politically correct thinking leads them to identifying the defender as the problem rather than the aggressor. Israel is a case in point: outrageously accused of genocide. These politicians, born in a generation far removed from war, show little understanding that their actions, far from ending wars, are ensuring their longevity.
Tulsi, although serving in the military, is no fan of war but realises the only way to stop these terrorist groups is to defeat them militarily. That is correct: genocide or not. In fact, that is the only path to peace. People, through their ideologies and radicalisation on social networks, are the problem. It is not guns, but the people who use them. Tightening the gun laws is not the answer: the terrorists will always find a way to get them.
Same with free speech. As Tulsi said, free speech should be protected and encouraged, even if we disagree. But we must always be prepared to debate what we disagree with and show up the weakness in the opposing view. The answer is not to have people arrested for speaking out in a way that offends or to arrest someone for choosing to pray in public.
These are the actions of politically correct politicians who need to understand the stupidity of what they are enforcing. By clamping down on free speech and the like, they are doing harm to our democratic way of life. They think, while accusing Israel of genocide, the answer lies in recognising a non-existent Palestinian state. No it doesn’t and such actions only serve to embolden the terrorists.
Military action is the only answer. Israel must go back into Gaza and complete the eradication of the terror groups. Like Putin, who has no intention of stopping the war or stopping at Ukraine, so too the terror groups that are spreading their tentacles beyond the Middle East and into America. There are a couple of states, Democrat obviously, who are very much in sympathy with the goal of implementing Sharia Law.
In the UK, far too much consideration is given to unvetted immigrants who have no intention or interest in becoming a respectful citizen of the country or its laws. They are there for quite the opposite reason. Their aim is to make the country the way they want it to be and a large number are young men who should be booted out. They are there solely to cause chaos.
The leaders of the world are not solving the problems and the will to use the military is not there, with the exception of America, whose president is the only leader taking meaningful, if at times somewhat misguided, steps to stop wars.
I’m reminded of the old saying often attributed to the Irish statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke:
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
That, in my view, is very relevant to many of today’s leaders. Their actions will ensure wars will continue and those serving in the forces will continue to be faced with, “Is today the day?”
JC is a right-wing crusader. Reached an age that embodies the dictum only the good die young. This article was first published HERE
IS TODAY THE DAY?
The implication is clear – reminding each soldier that today could be their last day. Is there a more sobering thought than that? You get up in the morning, not knowing if you will be going to bed at night. I think these words, more than any others, serve to instil in our minds the futility of war: the senseless bloodshed, the loss of life and destruction of land and property in the name of either political or religious dominance through misplaced ideology. These threats are real, with us and ever present.
The Christian festival of Christmas is a time when, amongst the joy and significance of the birth of Christ, we should take a little time to reflect on the realities that these threats present and the challenges they present when looking for solutions. On a religious occasion such as Christmas, it is easy to question that, if there is a God then why these wars and hatred in our midst? Why is He allowing this to happen?
The answer is quite simple. God is not responsible for these happenings. He gave us all, as human beings, a free will. How we use that power is up to each and every one of us. Most decide to use it for the betterment of themselves and others. Love thy neighbour as thyself. The trouble arises when the opposite is the case. Individuals and groups, for either political or religious reasons, use their God-given free will to do harm to others in pursuit of, often, fanatical goals.
In today’s world, too many politicians are averse to tackling these problems. Their politically correct thinking leads them to identifying the defender as the problem rather than the aggressor. Israel is a case in point: outrageously accused of genocide. These politicians, born in a generation far removed from war, show little understanding that their actions, far from ending wars, are ensuring their longevity.
Tulsi, although serving in the military, is no fan of war but realises the only way to stop these terrorist groups is to defeat them militarily. That is correct: genocide or not. In fact, that is the only path to peace. People, through their ideologies and radicalisation on social networks, are the problem. It is not guns, but the people who use them. Tightening the gun laws is not the answer: the terrorists will always find a way to get them.
Same with free speech. As Tulsi said, free speech should be protected and encouraged, even if we disagree. But we must always be prepared to debate what we disagree with and show up the weakness in the opposing view. The answer is not to have people arrested for speaking out in a way that offends or to arrest someone for choosing to pray in public.
These are the actions of politically correct politicians who need to understand the stupidity of what they are enforcing. By clamping down on free speech and the like, they are doing harm to our democratic way of life. They think, while accusing Israel of genocide, the answer lies in recognising a non-existent Palestinian state. No it doesn’t and such actions only serve to embolden the terrorists.
Military action is the only answer. Israel must go back into Gaza and complete the eradication of the terror groups. Like Putin, who has no intention of stopping the war or stopping at Ukraine, so too the terror groups that are spreading their tentacles beyond the Middle East and into America. There are a couple of states, Democrat obviously, who are very much in sympathy with the goal of implementing Sharia Law.
In the UK, far too much consideration is given to unvetted immigrants who have no intention or interest in becoming a respectful citizen of the country or its laws. They are there for quite the opposite reason. Their aim is to make the country the way they want it to be and a large number are young men who should be booted out. They are there solely to cause chaos.
The leaders of the world are not solving the problems and the will to use the military is not there, with the exception of America, whose president is the only leader taking meaningful, if at times somewhat misguided, steps to stop wars.
I’m reminded of the old saying often attributed to the Irish statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke:
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
That, in my view, is very relevant to many of today’s leaders. Their actions will ensure wars will continue and those serving in the forces will continue to be faced with, “Is today the day?”
JC is a right-wing crusader. Reached an age that embodies the dictum only the good die young. This article was first published HERE
3 comments:
As is the case for any higher form of life, human beings are driven by both competition and cooperation. The former exists both within and between groups, and in the former instance is regulated by social rituals and interactions arising from the hierarchy within the group. The latter in the primitive state is exclusively within-group but as the groups grow larger and bonds within groups become more abstract and less personal, include cooperating with other groups for mutual gain.
Religion is a cultural phenomenon which includes displays of good will such as we see in Christmas, Eid or Diwali, but contrary to propaganda that aims to glamourise these ritual events, is aimed largely (if not entirely in practice) at within-group relations where it has a function of strengthening the bonds that operate within the group. "Good will to all men" in reality comes down to "good will to all men of my crowd (tribe or persuasion)" most of the time.
What is it, then, that makes people desist from mass violence against "other crowds"? Good will? Dream on. History suggests that the prospect of large-scale butchery and suffering is not much of a deterrent, except for the weaker side where the struggle is so unequal that the weaker side has to come to terms with the stronger one before being totally wiped out through paying homage or some such arrangement.
"Is today the day?" has been asked by many since the advent of nuclear weapons. But despite every indication of the imminence of WW3 - a nuclear WW3 - being present since about 1960, "the day" never arrived. The principal belligerents were prepared to step back from the brink, and/or foster proxy wars in which their proteges slugged it out minus the nukes.
I recall the acronym 'MAD' (Mutually Assured Destruction) hitting many a panic button back in the 70s. I thought then, as I do now, that MAD is the best thing that happened to humanity for a long time. There can be no winners in a nuclear war, only losers. And that is what makes the world's superpowers step back again and again from that brink and follow Churchill's advice that "Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war" (often misquoted as "jaw-jaw is better than war-war").
I personally only started worrying about there being "the day" when third-world powers got "the bomb", especially those with theocratic governments run by people who think their god will protect them from nuclear strikes. As long as the rest of us make sure people like that never have a 'red button' to push, "the day" should never come.
"Military action is the only answer. Israel must go back into Gaza and complete the eradication of the terror groups. Like Putin, who has no intention of stopping the war or stopping at Ukraine, so too the terror groups that are spreading their tentacles beyond the Middle East and into America."
This is a very poor analogy for the point the author is trying to make: if anything Israel is analogous to Russia (i.e. the invading party possessed of far greater strength) while Gaza is analogous to Ukraine (i.e. the invaded territory fighting for its sovereignty against the stronger neighbour).
The difference is, Russia's case for invading Ukraine if much stronger then Israel's case for its invasion, because a nuclear-armed-US-backed Ukraine is clearly more threatening to Russia's security posture than are the Palestinians vis a vis Israel (whether "sponsored" by Iran or not).
We've seen this clear contradiction frequently over the last few years, wherein those who most fervently dived in to the "free Ukraine" rhetoric also seamlessly adopted the "Israel has a right to defend itself" dogma, clearly unaware (or perhaps perfectly aware but perfectly willing to be hypocritcal) of the complete double-standard they espoused.
If you advocate that a nation has a right to invade another territory due to the threat posed by its neighbour, you must advocate both Israel's invasion and bombing of Gaza as well as Russia's invasion and bombing of Eastern Ukraine, purely on the principle of the thing. If you support one but not the other, then you aren't thinking in terms of principles but in terms of something else entirely.
I C Clairly is a confused thinker. There is no possible moral equivalency between Israel's action to stop militant Islam's attempt to wipe them off the face of the planet, and Putin's deliberate murder of innocent Ukranian citizens in pursuit of extending his own power. Israel is fighting for national survival. Putin is fighting for his own corrupt aggrandisement. Morally, it's perfectly reasonable to support Israel and not Putin. In fact, morality aside, it's essential if you believe in preserving the international rules-based order that has prevailed for the last eighty years and which has allowed New Zealand to prosper and grow. Neither militant Islam, nor a rampant Russian dictator, align with the values, and therefore the interests, of this country. Accordingly there is no inconsistency in opposing both because, following the wisdom of the ages, the enemy of our enemy is our friend.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.