Why all the idiocy? (Part I)
Imagine you open the paper one morning. The headline tells of more soldiers from your country being killed in a distant land, trying to defeat an insurrection that lurks in the countryside and will use whatever means necessary to gain independence. They prefer to fight your soldiers in ambushes rather than open combat, knowing the inferiority of their weapons and training, and are not above attacking civilians to intimidate them to not cooperate with your government. What year is it?
Most would probably think 2003/4/5, with "your country" being the United States and "distant land" being Iraq. But it just as well could be 1776/7/8, with "your country" being Britian and "distant land" being, yes, the United Colonies of America.
What those who decry the actions of the insurgents in Iraq fail to realize is the strong parallels between them and our beloved patriots of '76. Our brave minutemen hid behind walls and waited for the British to pass to commence firing (that was the entirety if the battles of Lexington and Concord), much as Iraqi insurgents rely on roadside bombs. British supply convoys would be ambushed, the soldiers killed, instead of attacking the main body of the British Army. Those found to be collaborating with the British would be tarred and feathered (which almost always resulted in death from the tar taking the skin with it when it peeled off), or outright executed. Loyalist property was confiscated, the owner being chased out of the country (usually heading to Canada).
While exact parallels do not exist between American militia and Iraqi insurgents, enough resemblance between the two groups exists to question the legitimacy of demonizing our opposition. The Bush Administration frequently refers to Iraqi groups not as "insurgents" or "rebels," but as "terrorists" or "thugs." Legitimate operations against an invader in an effort to free one's county from occupation is being confused with acts intended to destroy order and harm the country.
Basically, all I'm saying is think about our own country's past and where we would be today if it wasn't for our own insurgency.
Most would probably think 2003/4/5, with "your country" being the United States and "distant land" being Iraq. But it just as well could be 1776/7/8, with "your country" being Britian and "distant land" being, yes, the United Colonies of America.
What those who decry the actions of the insurgents in Iraq fail to realize is the strong parallels between them and our beloved patriots of '76. Our brave minutemen hid behind walls and waited for the British to pass to commence firing (that was the entirety if the battles of Lexington and Concord), much as Iraqi insurgents rely on roadside bombs. British supply convoys would be ambushed, the soldiers killed, instead of attacking the main body of the British Army. Those found to be collaborating with the British would be tarred and feathered (which almost always resulted in death from the tar taking the skin with it when it peeled off), or outright executed. Loyalist property was confiscated, the owner being chased out of the country (usually heading to Canada).
While exact parallels do not exist between American militia and Iraqi insurgents, enough resemblance between the two groups exists to question the legitimacy of demonizing our opposition. The Bush Administration frequently refers to Iraqi groups not as "insurgents" or "rebels," but as "terrorists" or "thugs." Legitimate operations against an invader in an effort to free one's county from occupation is being confused with acts intended to destroy order and harm the country.
Basically, all I'm saying is think about our own country's past and where we would be today if it wasn't for our own insurgency.
posted by Jimmy at 12:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home