Here’s a comment from Kathleen Johnson, who founded the Military Atheists and Freethinkers and is now serving in Iraq. She’s reading this blog when she gets time, so feel free to say Hi back!
I’ve learned real quick that no place here is truly “safe”. We’ve been hearing constant gun fire and explosions since we got here, but just a few days ago, our base was on the receiving end of a rocket attack that impacted in an area that myself and coworkers had occupied just a few minutes before. We were darn lucky, too – that particular attack hurt a bunch of people and killed at least one. And then a couple of nights ago, myself and another soldier got pinned down outside our building when we received machine gun fire from outside the fence (my building is close to the wall with the city of Baghdad on the other side), and I can tell you that having bullets whizzing over your head for several minutes definately gets your attention (it was night, too, so we could actually see tracer rounds). Unfortunately, we didn’t get to return fire because it wouldn’t have done any good – all we had on us were our pistols, and the fire was coming from an area that was simply too far to hit with a pistol. But, I’m happy to report that I never once felt any compulsion to call on any mystical man-in-the-sky for assistance!
THANKS KATHY!
HeatheNZ,
I think you meant “imbroglio” not “embroilio”. Anyways, I agree with your statement that a ‘blanket application’ of the word hero should never be given to any group by simple virtue of them putting themselves in harm’s way. However, I believe that Kathy and anyone else who has risked their lives for my country in any way is a hero to me. They know who they are and that’s really all that counts. So there.
3E8,
Quite right! Utmost apologies for my lexicographical lassitude. I will however note that the term is also spelled “embroglio”. It is this I was stretching for but as you note, fell short of the mark.
I also concur that the usage of the term “hero” as suggested by you, being of a personal nature is just fine. This however was not the implication of the posts to which I referred. these were more in the vein of “You are a hero (and I dare anyone to suggest otherwise)”. It is to this inflection I address my disquiet.
To your modification, I offer no comment other than to point out that I can consider my pet goldfish a “hero to me” and in doing so have no expectation that you should share – or even care in my opinion.
So there
I think Bush made a mistake by going into Iraq _when_ he did, and for the _reasons_ that he did (I think religion played a big part in his decision).
The military has done a good job. There have been small groups that have caused some big problems but, knowing that the military cannot be viewed as a democratic entity, that is, with one vote for each soldier, they have done very well given the conditions they have to deal with.
The civilian “leadership” (meaning bush and those agreeing with his tactics) has been an astonishing failure. They were unprepared and wrong in almost every way.
The “who” that is providing the trigger points for increasing the religious division, that is fueling the violence, doesn’t matter. The problem is that the emphasis is on the religious division and to some extent bush’s requirement of a democracy while emphasizing the religious division. The religious divide is too great to be bridged within any reasonably short time frame, without providing the Iraqis with a way to do it.
The Iraqis should be asked if winning a religious advantage is more important to them than living in peace. That is, if all religious bias is removed from their government could they accept that? The decision and government of their country needs to focus on what is good for Iraq not what is good for religion. It will never work the other way around.
I think a temporary solution needs to be put into place to remove the religious predjudice, from the Iraqi government. Maybe they should only be able to interact through interpreters that are required to remove any religious justification or reasoning. Whatever it is the religious divide needs to be deemphasized.
Those Iraqis that believe it is more important to force their religious beliefs on others need to be separated from those that believe peace in Iraq is most important.
Starting impeachment hearings for Bush is important to the whole process because that will show the Iraqis that we acknowledge the very real problems that have been caused.
Religion is a personal choice not an acceptable form of government.
Kathy,
Please come home soon! We know how bad it feels for anyones life that is being threatened, especially in any war. Just about an hour ago, someone drove by and shot a pistol across our back yard, typical xtian hate groups in Louisiana. If this will help, my Father and my Uncle are BOTH Atheists. My Father fought in WWII and my Uncle fought in Korea.
Please come home soon! Take care.
SunbeamAtheist
Kathy,
Great Post! You’re a hero in my book. Best wishes for a safe tour, and return home.
As for other news from “the war” . . .
I don?t want to hear it!
Or, more exactly, I don?t need to hear it because I?ve already heard it. What is the ?it? that I don?t want to hear? ?It?, as used here, refers to news about the middle east. For as long as I can remember, (65 years, or so – I was about six years old the first time I heard about the ?troubles in the middle east?) the topic of the middle east has been part of the ?news?.
What news?! Haven?t we heard it all before? Hasn?t anyone been paying attention? Hasn?t anyone ever read about the crusade launched by Pope Urban II in 1095 that started it all, and the subsequent debacles resulting from western European powers trying to spread ?our way of thinking?? Some have been paying attention. Modern fiction writers, including James Michener (the Source) and James Clavell (Whirlwind), among others, could have told our fearless leaders that the ?spread of democracy and freedom? in the middle east was not going to work.
I would like to think that the folks running our country are at least as smart as I am, but I?m beginning to have my doubts. Indications are that they have had their collective heads somewhere that the sun don?t shine for quite a while now.
Well, maybe not.
Perhaps I simply don?t understand what their objectives are.
For the sake of argument, let us assume that president Bush knew what he was talking about in the ?mission accomplished? speech aboard that aircraft carrier. This would mean that ?the mission? was to arrange conditions in the middle east that would stoke the profits of the military-industrial complex for years to come, thereby guaranteeing continued profit accumulation in their already bloated bank accounts.
Is there anyone on earth who doubts this mission has been accomplished?
(Maybe ?the mission? had something to do with securing a supply of oil for the U.S., but let?s leave that for later; see below.)
OK, so what do we do now?
We should withdraw and let the folks in Iraq, and any neighboring countries so inclined, have their revolution/insurgency/ or whatever you want to call it, then deal with the ?winner(s)?.
There are those who argue that we can?t do that because of the dire consequences.
What consequences?
People in the middle east have been murdering each other for centuries; its what they DO. I think, perhaps, this may have something to do with their religion(s).
?But? (you might ask) ?what will happen to our supply of oil??
Good question, and I suspect the answer is: nothing, much.
The oil will still be there, and we can still buy it, at least until it runs out.
Which brings up another subject that deserves comment.
Few would doubt that the oil is, indeed, going to run out one of these days (with the possible exception of those who doubt global warming). That means that, sooner or later, the world must convert to alternate sources of energy. Why not sooner?
The last estimate I?ve heard regarding the projected cost the American taxpayers for the war in Iraq is in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars, give or take a few billion.
I suspect that, for the price of a war in Iraq, we could develop several ?alternative sources?. And, the good news is that the same companies that are making all that money in Iraq would be the ones who would be making tons of money developing alternative sources.
It would be a win-win situation!
It?s something to think about.
Good luck, Kayhy!
w6bky@att.net