In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Nothing to Fight or Die For?
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Nothing to Fight or Die For?
David C. Stolinsky
Monday, Sept. 16, 2002
Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do.
Nothing to kill or die for, no religion, too.
- John Lennon, "Imagine" (1971)
John Lennon's song captured the spirit of the anti-war '60s and '70s. Its theme still appeals to many on the Left. They see his desire to abolish nations and religion as a way to prevent strife. But they do not explain how a world government - especially one devoid of religious scruples - could avoid becoming tyrannical.
To others, the words might suggest the famous passage from Isaiah, looking forward to the day when we will beat our swords into plowshares and our spears into pruning hooks.
That's a key concept: looking forward. Isaiah is not describing today's world. He is looking forward to a brighter tomorrow. He is giving us a goal toward which to strive - a peaceful world where weapons are no longer needed. But many people, perhaps most people on the religious or secular Left, think of Isaiah's words as instructions on what to do now.
Isaiah was a prophet. But so was Joel. Yet how many people know that Joel foresaw a time when we will have to do the opposite of what Isaiah described?
Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning hooks into spears. Let the weakling say, "I am strong."
- Joel 3:10
But whether we are talking about the Bible or a popular song, we have to use common sense. We have to decide what is relevant to the current situation. Then we have to figure out how to apply the relevant part in a practical way, so that we are most likely to obtain the desired result.
The desired result is a peaceful world. How are we most likely to obtain it?
What will happen if we decide that nations are obsolete, but our enemies remain fiercely chauvinistic? What will happen if we decide that religion is old-fashioned and divisive, but our enemies remain fanatically religious? What will happen if we select peaceful texts from our holy book, but our enemies select warlike texts from theirs?
What will happen if we beat our swords into plowshares, but our enemies keep their box-cutters razor-sharp? What will happen if we give up weapons of mass destruction, but our enemies continue building up their stockpiles? What will happen if our law-abiding citizens are disarmed, but criminals and terrorists aren't?
In fact, what did happen when John Lennon dreamed of a world free of weapons, but his murderer, Mark David Chapman, had more violent dreams?
A good way to evaluate human beings is to discover what they are willing to speak up for, to fight for, to suffer for, and if necessary to die for.
Lennon's dream was of a world where there is nothing worth fighting or dying for. Some people find this dream beautiful. To me it's a nightmare. What a cold and empty world it would be.
Nonviolence is beautiful only insofar as it produces good results. Gandhi used it successfully against British colonialists in India, and Martin Luther King Jr. used it successfully against racists in America. But they were lucky in their choice of enemies.
Gandhi was a great man, but his error was to generalize his success against the British into a universal principle. Gandhi advised the Jews not to resist the Nazis, believing that their suffering would affect Hitler. It did. It thrilled him.
Gandhi went on to advise the British to surrender to the Nazis when Britain stood alone. This could have allowed Hitler to conquer all of Europe, while Japanese imperialists dominated Asia. The world would have been dragged down into a new Dark Age. If there were a prize for the worst advice in history, this would be a real contender.
Gandhi championed nonviolent resistance, but at least this is a form of resistance. Nonviolence is often confused with pacifism, in which one does not resist evil in any way. Indeed, many people have trouble recognizing evil, much less resisting it.
Many here and in Europe ridiculed President Bush's characterization of terrorist states as an "axis of evil." It wasn't that they didn't recognize these states as evil, but that they couldn't recognize evil itself.
In a few easy steps we go from nonviolent resistance to evil, to no resistance, to not even recognizing evil. And what do you suppose will happen if this view becomes common? What do you suppose will happen if Saddam continues to build nuclear, biological and chemical weapons?
Pacifists tell us to do nothing. Many Democrats tell us to wait for definite proof before we do anything - which amounts to the same thing. We sit and wait until Los Angeles is nuked, or nerve gas is released in the New York subway, or smallpox is spread at the Super Bowl. And then we do something?
And what if this happens? The bomb squad can't examine fragments of a nuclear weapon to determine its origin. There are no pieces of the bomb, the truck it came in, or of anything else in the area. Study of the radioactivity may give a clue about the origin of the uranium or plutonium. Say it seems to have come from a Russian reactor, we still won't know who planted the bomb. We will blame the supplier but ignore the bomber. And what would result if we blamed Russia instead of Saddam?
That is, even if Los Angeles is nuked, critics still may be able to say that we lack definite proof. What do you call those who might allow hundreds of thousands to die, but even then may not be satisfied that force is necessary? Homicidal pacifists?
Opponents of the president complain bitterly that 9/11 wasn't foreseen and prevented. But then they block efforts to prevent another attack. This is not merely hypocritical; it's self-contradictory to the point of being irrational.
In another gigantic contradiction, liberals want to disarm law-abiding citizens, for fear the presence of a gun will turn their neighbors into murderers. But when Saddam builds weapons of mass destruction, they advise doing nothing, in the expectation that he won't use them. This crosses the line into irrationality.
Oh yes, in 1998 President Clinton called for military action against Saddam to prevent him from using weapons of mass destruction. And leading Democrats strongly supported him, including current obstructionists Daschle, Kerry and Leahy.
Why do many Democrats now oppose what they approved in 1998? Because they are so partisan that they oppose whatever a Republican president favors, regardless of national security? Because their motive in 1998 was to distract attention from the impeachment? Or because they knew Clinton wasn't serious, and would at most drop a few bombs and bounce some rocks?
Perhaps it's similar to the avid proponents of separation of church and state, who didn't object when Clinton was often photographed with a huge Bible under his arm - they sensed it was only a charade. But this isn't show business; it's life and death.
Isn't freedom worth fighting for? Aren't the lives of our families and fellow citizens worth protecting? Isn't there anything worth dying for, even human dignity? If our ideals aren't worth dying for, what is? And in that case, what are our ideals worth?
The dream Lennon had was impractical, but he meant well. Are the president's opponents equally well-meaning? After all the evidence of history, particularly of the 20th century, can they really believe that the best response to a dangerous megalomaniac is to do nothing? Can they really expect that his growing stockpile of weapons of mass destruction will never be used?
They want to vote to refuse the president authorization to go after Saddam. Are they merely postponing the vote until after the November election? Do they hope to prevent public anger from being expressed at the polls? Are they betting that we are so stupid that before the 2004 election, we will have forgotten what they did?
No one can see the future. Invading Iraq might provoke the very attack we seek to prevent. We can't be certain. All we have to go on is reason and experience.
True, Saddam isn't Hitler. Hitler led a larger, more technologically advanced nation. But Hitler didn't have weapons of mass destruction. If he had, who can imagine he wouldn't have used them?
Imagination is a wonderful gift. But let us take care, lest we confuse the world we imagine with the real world.
However, if we want to imagine a better world, don't imagine one that is perfect, and thus unattainable. This absolves us of responsibility to do anything at all, except sit in smug self-satisfaction. Instead, try imagining a world that is somewhat better, and thus attainable through our resolute efforts.
Imagine a Middle East with democratic governments, where women have equal rights, and where all people are free to practice their religions, or not practice them.
Imagine a Middle East that is peaceful, because democratic nations rarely make war on one another, and because hate-filled propaganda will no longer be spread.
Imagine a Middle East that is prosperous, because free people are more productive, and because military expenditures will be much smaller.
Imagine a Middle East that no longer threatens the world, because weapons of mass destruction will have been removed.
Now, there's something worth imagining. In fact, it's worth fighting for.
Many people, especially those on the Left, share the ideas of the song that opens this article. But I prefer more traditional music, and more realistic ideas:
Men of Harlech, stop your dreaming.
Can't you see their spear points gleaming?
- "Men of Harlech" (Welsh traditional)
Dr. Stolinsky is retired after 25 years of teaching in medical school. He writes from Los Angeles on political and social issues. He may be contacted at dcstolinsky@prodigy.net.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/16/20644.shtml
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
David C. Stolinsky
Monday, Sept. 16, 2002
Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do.
Nothing to kill or die for, no religion, too.
- John Lennon, "Imagine" (1971)
John Lennon's song captured the spirit of the anti-war '60s and '70s. Its theme still appeals to many on the Left. They see his desire to abolish nations and religion as a way to prevent strife. But they do not explain how a world government - especially one devoid of religious scruples - could avoid becoming tyrannical.
To others, the words might suggest the famous passage from Isaiah, looking forward to the day when we will beat our swords into plowshares and our spears into pruning hooks.
That's a key concept: looking forward. Isaiah is not describing today's world. He is looking forward to a brighter tomorrow. He is giving us a goal toward which to strive - a peaceful world where weapons are no longer needed. But many people, perhaps most people on the religious or secular Left, think of Isaiah's words as instructions on what to do now.
Isaiah was a prophet. But so was Joel. Yet how many people know that Joel foresaw a time when we will have to do the opposite of what Isaiah described?
Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning hooks into spears. Let the weakling say, "I am strong."
- Joel 3:10
But whether we are talking about the Bible or a popular song, we have to use common sense. We have to decide what is relevant to the current situation. Then we have to figure out how to apply the relevant part in a practical way, so that we are most likely to obtain the desired result.
The desired result is a peaceful world. How are we most likely to obtain it?
What will happen if we decide that nations are obsolete, but our enemies remain fiercely chauvinistic? What will happen if we decide that religion is old-fashioned and divisive, but our enemies remain fanatically religious? What will happen if we select peaceful texts from our holy book, but our enemies select warlike texts from theirs?
What will happen if we beat our swords into plowshares, but our enemies keep their box-cutters razor-sharp? What will happen if we give up weapons of mass destruction, but our enemies continue building up their stockpiles? What will happen if our law-abiding citizens are disarmed, but criminals and terrorists aren't?
In fact, what did happen when John Lennon dreamed of a world free of weapons, but his murderer, Mark David Chapman, had more violent dreams?
A good way to evaluate human beings is to discover what they are willing to speak up for, to fight for, to suffer for, and if necessary to die for.
Lennon's dream was of a world where there is nothing worth fighting or dying for. Some people find this dream beautiful. To me it's a nightmare. What a cold and empty world it would be.
Nonviolence is beautiful only insofar as it produces good results. Gandhi used it successfully against British colonialists in India, and Martin Luther King Jr. used it successfully against racists in America. But they were lucky in their choice of enemies.
Gandhi was a great man, but his error was to generalize his success against the British into a universal principle. Gandhi advised the Jews not to resist the Nazis, believing that their suffering would affect Hitler. It did. It thrilled him.
Gandhi went on to advise the British to surrender to the Nazis when Britain stood alone. This could have allowed Hitler to conquer all of Europe, while Japanese imperialists dominated Asia. The world would have been dragged down into a new Dark Age. If there were a prize for the worst advice in history, this would be a real contender.
Gandhi championed nonviolent resistance, but at least this is a form of resistance. Nonviolence is often confused with pacifism, in which one does not resist evil in any way. Indeed, many people have trouble recognizing evil, much less resisting it.
Many here and in Europe ridiculed President Bush's characterization of terrorist states as an "axis of evil." It wasn't that they didn't recognize these states as evil, but that they couldn't recognize evil itself.
In a few easy steps we go from nonviolent resistance to evil, to no resistance, to not even recognizing evil. And what do you suppose will happen if this view becomes common? What do you suppose will happen if Saddam continues to build nuclear, biological and chemical weapons?
Pacifists tell us to do nothing. Many Democrats tell us to wait for definite proof before we do anything - which amounts to the same thing. We sit and wait until Los Angeles is nuked, or nerve gas is released in the New York subway, or smallpox is spread at the Super Bowl. And then we do something?
And what if this happens? The bomb squad can't examine fragments of a nuclear weapon to determine its origin. There are no pieces of the bomb, the truck it came in, or of anything else in the area. Study of the radioactivity may give a clue about the origin of the uranium or plutonium. Say it seems to have come from a Russian reactor, we still won't know who planted the bomb. We will blame the supplier but ignore the bomber. And what would result if we blamed Russia instead of Saddam?
That is, even if Los Angeles is nuked, critics still may be able to say that we lack definite proof. What do you call those who might allow hundreds of thousands to die, but even then may not be satisfied that force is necessary? Homicidal pacifists?
Opponents of the president complain bitterly that 9/11 wasn't foreseen and prevented. But then they block efforts to prevent another attack. This is not merely hypocritical; it's self-contradictory to the point of being irrational.
In another gigantic contradiction, liberals want to disarm law-abiding citizens, for fear the presence of a gun will turn their neighbors into murderers. But when Saddam builds weapons of mass destruction, they advise doing nothing, in the expectation that he won't use them. This crosses the line into irrationality.
Oh yes, in 1998 President Clinton called for military action against Saddam to prevent him from using weapons of mass destruction. And leading Democrats strongly supported him, including current obstructionists Daschle, Kerry and Leahy.
Why do many Democrats now oppose what they approved in 1998? Because they are so partisan that they oppose whatever a Republican president favors, regardless of national security? Because their motive in 1998 was to distract attention from the impeachment? Or because they knew Clinton wasn't serious, and would at most drop a few bombs and bounce some rocks?
Perhaps it's similar to the avid proponents of separation of church and state, who didn't object when Clinton was often photographed with a huge Bible under his arm - they sensed it was only a charade. But this isn't show business; it's life and death.
Isn't freedom worth fighting for? Aren't the lives of our families and fellow citizens worth protecting? Isn't there anything worth dying for, even human dignity? If our ideals aren't worth dying for, what is? And in that case, what are our ideals worth?
The dream Lennon had was impractical, but he meant well. Are the president's opponents equally well-meaning? After all the evidence of history, particularly of the 20th century, can they really believe that the best response to a dangerous megalomaniac is to do nothing? Can they really expect that his growing stockpile of weapons of mass destruction will never be used?
They want to vote to refuse the president authorization to go after Saddam. Are they merely postponing the vote until after the November election? Do they hope to prevent public anger from being expressed at the polls? Are they betting that we are so stupid that before the 2004 election, we will have forgotten what they did?
No one can see the future. Invading Iraq might provoke the very attack we seek to prevent. We can't be certain. All we have to go on is reason and experience.
True, Saddam isn't Hitler. Hitler led a larger, more technologically advanced nation. But Hitler didn't have weapons of mass destruction. If he had, who can imagine he wouldn't have used them?
Imagination is a wonderful gift. But let us take care, lest we confuse the world we imagine with the real world.
However, if we want to imagine a better world, don't imagine one that is perfect, and thus unattainable. This absolves us of responsibility to do anything at all, except sit in smug self-satisfaction. Instead, try imagining a world that is somewhat better, and thus attainable through our resolute efforts.
Imagine a Middle East with democratic governments, where women have equal rights, and where all people are free to practice their religions, or not practice them.
Imagine a Middle East that is peaceful, because democratic nations rarely make war on one another, and because hate-filled propaganda will no longer be spread.
Imagine a Middle East that is prosperous, because free people are more productive, and because military expenditures will be much smaller.
Imagine a Middle East that no longer threatens the world, because weapons of mass destruction will have been removed.
Now, there's something worth imagining. In fact, it's worth fighting for.
Many people, especially those on the Left, share the ideas of the song that opens this article. But I prefer more traditional music, and more realistic ideas:
Men of Harlech, stop your dreaming.
Can't you see their spear points gleaming?
- "Men of Harlech" (Welsh traditional)
Dr. Stolinsky is retired after 25 years of teaching in medical school. He writes from Los Angeles on political and social issues. He may be contacted at dcstolinsky@prodigy.net.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/16/20644.shtml
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878