Conservatives: since you call for a war abroad to spare us from death domestically, how many U.S. soldiers’ lives equal one U.S. citizen’s life?
Not a fair question, right? I say it is and how about these:
Can any conservative or their political Republican representatives guarantee that if the U.S. took a more expansive role in Syria to combat Isis and Bashar al-Assad, that we would be able to bring stability in Syria?
Can any conservative or their political republican representatives guarantee that if the U.S. took a more expansive role in the middle east and expanded our drone strike program that we would not kill more innocent non-combatants than we would kill enemies?
Can any conservative or their political republican representatives guarantee that if the U.S. took a more expansive role in Syria to combat Isis, and expanded our drone program that we would not create more enemies than we would kill Isis members and other terrorists?
Can any conservative or their political republican representatives guarantee that if the U.S. took a more expansive role in Syria to combat Isis, that we would not end up in a war with Russia?
Can anyone guarantee that if the U.S. took a more expansive role against Isis, that we would not cause the entire region to devolve into instability and war?
Can anyone guarantee that if the U.S. armed other forces in the middle east and in so doing installed its preferred government in Syria that they would not become as unsavory a choice as Bashar al-Assad and not use those same weapons against the U.S. or our allies?
Can anyone guarantee that if Turkey goes to war against Russia and thereby called upon NATO, as is its right, to defend it against Russia, that this would not cause a third world war?
Can anyone guarantee that if we do not aid Syrian refugees to relocate to the U.S. that many of them will needlessly die?
Can any conservative or their political republican representatives guarantee that they know how to bring peace in the middle east, they know who our allies are in Syria, and they know some risk free solution to all foreign policy issue facing the U.S.?
The answer to all of these questions, of course, is no. No option in the middle east is risk free, yet many Americans can’t come to grips with the irony that while they beat the war drums and clamor for the U.S. to take a greater military role in Syria, the middle east and against Isis, they can’t tell you what our goals should be nor how many U.S. Soldiers’ lives it would take to reach those goals or to destroy Isis. They can’t tell you how many lives could be saved in the U.S. by investing the money such a war would cost in better health care, safer infrastructure and a cleaner environment. They can’t guarantee that such a war would not cause a second recession or depression since 2009, nor that it would not again balloon deficits and increase the national dept.
And you know what, liberals, progressives and their allies and political figureheads cannot guarantee that if this country admits Syrian refugees that there will never be among them any criminals nor individuals that would seek to do the U.S. harm. But this is what liberals, progressives and their allies and political figureheads can guarantee, that if we do extend a hand of welcome to those desiring to come here, proportionate to the extent our NATO allies do, that there will be many among them that bring invaluable gifts of ingenuity, enterprise, resilience and muscle that will make this country better. Among them will also be many who well bring the U.S. intel that will allow us to better understand the middle east, including our enemies, and thereby allow the U.S. to have greater insight and to advance the march toward peace for all in that region. This has been the case with all people that have come here. We can further guarantee that if we do not, that many will be killed, many will unnecessarily suffer, and many will become radicalized and conscripted into terrorist groups while languishing in refugee camps. So why do so many conservatives want our military to have a greater role in Syria and the middle east? Because while they care about our security here at home and claim to be patriotic, they seem not to care about how many U.S. Soldiers will die engaged in such a greater military role. Why don’t they care? It is likely that many of them see the U.S. military as a tool to be used, as an abstract thing, like their toaster, lawn mower or car. That’s what it's for right? To exercise our military might abroad? They don’t understand it means the expenditure of U.S. lives, probably more than we ever have to worry about regarding any radicals that may be among the refugees. They don’t understand this because neither they nor their children are going to be sent into Syria to fight Russia, Syria and Isis.
Moreover, truth be told, until both Republicans and Democrats get serious about border control, any feared Syrian terrorists can get here with or without the U.S. admitting Syrian refugees. In that case, we will gain more by charitably picking our Syrian neighbors, showing them our goodness and thereby making them our allies–as we have–eventually–with all who have come here. I favor such a path, not because it is risk free, but because it is the right thing to do. And yes, just like the abundance of guns in our country subject us to greater gun violence, I accept the risk to my family and me of admitting Syrian refugees because I think the good that comes from it is greater than any risk.
Loren M. Lambert, November 27, 2015 ©.
Not a fair question, right? I say it is and how about these:
Can any conservative or their political Republican representatives guarantee that if the U.S. took a more expansive role in Syria to combat Isis and Bashar al-Assad, that we would be able to bring stability in Syria?
Can any conservative or their political republican representatives guarantee that if the U.S. took a more expansive role in the middle east and expanded our drone strike program that we would not kill more innocent non-combatants than we would kill enemies?
Can any conservative or their political republican representatives guarantee that if the U.S. took a more expansive role in Syria to combat Isis, and expanded our drone program that we would not create more enemies than we would kill Isis members and other terrorists?
Can any conservative or their political republican representatives guarantee that if the U.S. took a more expansive role in Syria to combat Isis, that we would not end up in a war with Russia?
Can anyone guarantee that if the U.S. took a more expansive role against Isis, that we would not cause the entire region to devolve into instability and war?
Can anyone guarantee that if the U.S. armed other forces in the middle east and in so doing installed its preferred government in Syria that they would not become as unsavory a choice as Bashar al-Assad and not use those same weapons against the U.S. or our allies?
Can anyone guarantee that if Turkey goes to war against Russia and thereby called upon NATO, as is its right, to defend it against Russia, that this would not cause a third world war?
Can anyone guarantee that if we do not aid Syrian refugees to relocate to the U.S. that many of them will needlessly die?
Can any conservative or their political republican representatives guarantee that they know how to bring peace in the middle east, they know who our allies are in Syria, and they know some risk free solution to all foreign policy issue facing the U.S.?
The answer to all of these questions, of course, is no. No option in the middle east is risk free, yet many Americans can’t come to grips with the irony that while they beat the war drums and clamor for the U.S. to take a greater military role in Syria, the middle east and against Isis, they can’t tell you what our goals should be nor how many U.S. Soldiers’ lives it would take to reach those goals or to destroy Isis. They can’t tell you how many lives could be saved in the U.S. by investing the money such a war would cost in better health care, safer infrastructure and a cleaner environment. They can’t guarantee that such a war would not cause a second recession or depression since 2009, nor that it would not again balloon deficits and increase the national dept.
And you know what, liberals, progressives and their allies and political figureheads cannot guarantee that if this country admits Syrian refugees that there will never be among them any criminals nor individuals that would seek to do the U.S. harm. But this is what liberals, progressives and their allies and political figureheads can guarantee, that if we do extend a hand of welcome to those desiring to come here, proportionate to the extent our NATO allies do, that there will be many among them that bring invaluable gifts of ingenuity, enterprise, resilience and muscle that will make this country better. Among them will also be many who well bring the U.S. intel that will allow us to better understand the middle east, including our enemies, and thereby allow the U.S. to have greater insight and to advance the march toward peace for all in that region. This has been the case with all people that have come here. We can further guarantee that if we do not, that many will be killed, many will unnecessarily suffer, and many will become radicalized and conscripted into terrorist groups while languishing in refugee camps. So why do so many conservatives want our military to have a greater role in Syria and the middle east? Because while they care about our security here at home and claim to be patriotic, they seem not to care about how many U.S. Soldiers will die engaged in such a greater military role. Why don’t they care? It is likely that many of them see the U.S. military as a tool to be used, as an abstract thing, like their toaster, lawn mower or car. That’s what it's for right? To exercise our military might abroad? They don’t understand it means the expenditure of U.S. lives, probably more than we ever have to worry about regarding any radicals that may be among the refugees. They don’t understand this because neither they nor their children are going to be sent into Syria to fight Russia, Syria and Isis.
Moreover, truth be told, until both Republicans and Democrats get serious about border control, any feared Syrian terrorists can get here with or without the U.S. admitting Syrian refugees. In that case, we will gain more by charitably picking our Syrian neighbors, showing them our goodness and thereby making them our allies–as we have–eventually–with all who have come here. I favor such a path, not because it is risk free, but because it is the right thing to do. And yes, just like the abundance of guns in our country subject us to greater gun violence, I accept the risk to my family and me of admitting Syrian refugees because I think the good that comes from it is greater than any risk.
Loren M. Lambert, November 27, 2015 ©.
No comments:
Post a Comment