Posts Tagged ‘Antiwar’
A Person’s a Person No Matter How…Foreign
Posted on January 22, 2012 at 9.38 pm
Q. Since you’re someone who is both pro-life and pro-peace, I was wondering what you thought of the idea of the “consistent life ethic” which is a political philosophy that opposes all forms of legalized homicide such as abortion, war, capital punishment, euthanasia, etc.?– nrneal, from tumblr.
A. It is perhaps appropriate that I should be delayed in answering this until today, as I understand from church this morning that today is Sanctity of Human Life Sunday. It is especially fitting, I suppose, as my answer to your query is essentially positive.
Nonetheless, it is at best a state of extreme misinformation which can lead someone to claim the pro-life title and yet “refuse to extend their pro-life sentiments to foreigners already out of the womb.” Laurence Vance puts the dilemma this way:
Why is it that foreigners don’t have the same right to life as unborn American babies? There should be no difference between being for abortion and for war. Both result in the death of innocents. Both are unnecessary. Both cause psychological harm to the one who signs a consent form or fires a weapon. Why is it that to many Christians an American doctor in a white coat is considered a murderer if he kills an unborn baby, but an American soldier in a uniform is considered a hero if he kills an adult [not to mention a foreign child]? In January of every year, many churches observe Sanctity of Human Life Sunday. Fine, but we need ministers who are as concerned about killing on the battlefield as they are about killing in the womb.
Vance is using his characteristically strong language, but don’t let that cause you to miss the point: If we claim to care about life as inherently valuable — no matter how young…or old, or rich, or poor, or of any skin color, ethnicity, or nationality — if we claim to care about life at all, we must care about all of it.
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright famously told CBS that it was “worth it” for 500,000 Iraqi children — all civilians, all innocent by the standards of “civilized” warfare and pro-life arguments against abortion — to die as a result of American sanctions against their nation in the 1990s. Since then, the War in Iraq has resulted in as many as one million civilian deaths in Iraq, many of them by violent causes. Keep in mind this is just one country of the many now at war.
Yes, abortion is horrible. But so is being mowed down by gunfire while making dinner or watching your five-year old slowly starve to death. To be consistently pro-life, we must oppose both of these terrible occurrences.
Ron Paul: The Progressive Peace Candidate
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 3.41 pm
From Dissident Voice, “a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and justice,” comes this truly excellent piece explaining why principled progressives who are actually interested in peace should support Ron Paul over Barack Obama:
Ron Paul is far from perfect, but I’ll say this much for the Texas congressman: He has never authorized a drone strike in Pakistan. He has never authorized the killing of dozens of women and children in Yemen. He hasn’t protected torturers from prosecution and he hasn’t overseen the torturous treatment of a 23-year-old young man for the “crime” of revealing the government’s criminal behavior.
Can the same be said for Barack Obama?
Yet, ask a good movement liberal or progressive about the two and you’ll quickly be informed that, yeah, Ron Paul’s good on the war stuff — yawn — but otherwise he’s a no-good right-wing reactionary of the worst order, a guy who’d kick your Aunt Beth off Medicare and force her to turn tricks for blood-pressure meds. By contrast, Obama, war crimes and all, provokes no such visceral distaste. He’s more cosmopolitan, after all — less Texas-y. He’s a Democrat. And gosh, even if he’s made a few mistakes, he means well.
Sure he’s a murderer, in other words, but at least he’s not a Republican!
….
[I]t seems to me that if you’re going to style yourself a progressive, liberal humanitarian, your first priority really ought to be stopping your government from killing poor people. Second on that list? Stopping your government from putting hundreds of thousands of your fellow citizens in cages for decades at a time over non-violent “crimes” committed by consenting adults. Seriously: what the fuck? Social Security’s great and all I guess, but not exploding little children with cluster bombs – shouldn’t that be at the top of the Liberal Agenda?
Over half of Americans’ income taxes go to the military-industrial complex and the costs of arresting and locking up their fellow citizens. On both counts, Ron Paul’s policy positions are far more progressive than those held – and indeed, implemented – by Barack Obama. And yet it’s Paul who’s the reactionary of the two?
If you’ve ever voted Democrat, liked Obama, or considered yourself antiwar — or if you just want a really good read — find the whole article here.
Justin Raimondo: Rand Paul Proved Me Wrong
Posted on November 22, 2010 at 10.52 am
Well, I still think it’s a little too early (since no actual voting the in Senate has yet occurred) to claim victory for Rand Paul’s foreign policy views, but Justin Raimondo of AntiWar.com is making some very hopeful — and indeed encouraging — noises:
A few days after his slam-dunk election victory, Senator-elect Paul appeared on This Week with Christiane Amanpour and not only came out for cuts in the military, but also made the case that a decade of war and occupation in Afghanistan may indeed be enough. For that he is being attacked by the War Party, as well as the administration loyalists among the liberals, and you can bet the smears have just begun. He has so far shown that he is every inch his father’s son, and I very much regret implying – or, rather, openly stating – otherwise. Rand Paul proved me wrong, and I have never been happier to make a public contrition.
The movement of which Rand Paul is a leader has the potential to turn American politics – and American conservatism – upside down, and pull off a fundamental political realignment in this country. No amount of smears and jeers from the upholders of the status quo is going to stop them, at this point: only they can stop themselves, by failing to follow through on the bright promise of their pledge to cut the American State down to its proper and constitutionally-mandated size – both at home, and abroad.
His whole article is here, and definitely worth a read…if only for its indictment of John McCain’s itchy trigger finger.
