"I think of a hero as someone who understands the degree of responsibility that comes with his freedom." ~ Bob Dylan
I mentioned in a post well over a year ago, that I listen to NPR on weekends. I enjoy "A Prairie Home Companion" hosted by Liberal Garrison Keillor. The program has a variety of musical acts and comedy skits that I enjoy, since I like a variety of music from bluegrass to opera. And I like comedy.
It is a funny show, but it wasn't so funny when Keillor sang an Americanized version of an Eric Bogle song called "The Band Played Waltzing Matilda". The original song is an anti-war anthem, and Keillor sang his version, unashamedly, as a condemnation of the Bush administration's prosecution of the war in Iraq.
I think singing that particular Americanized version of the song to commemorate Memorial day was in bad taste.
Now, I have mentioned several times that I am anti-war myself, but that I recognize sometimes, that war is the only option we have in certain circumstances. I believe the war in Iraq is a necessary evil, and that we need to win it, and win it convincingly.
There are some particular lines in the original song, about an Australian "swagman" who is drafted to fight in WW I, and loses his legs at Gallipoli, that Keillor didn't change.
The lines that condemn war.
Throughout his version, he simply changed the nationality of the narrator from Australian to American, and the band didn't play "Waltzing Matilda" but "The Star Spangled Banner".
But there are some significant differences between Keillor's version and reality. The narrator of song was drafted against his will into the army. Today's fighting men and women were not drafted. They volunteered.
In Bogle's original version, the narrator fights for his life, there being no indication that he fights for any cause other than a selfish one. In reality, our soldiers fight for freedom, often times sacrificing their own lives for the Iraqi people.
In both versions, the narrator laments that none of his countrymen seem to care about his personal sacrifice. In reality, there are millions of people across America who pray for and honor our soldiers for their tremendous sacrifice.
About the only ones that don't are the anti-war leftists, (Like Garrison Keillor) and Democrats. To them, that sacrifice is pointless and a waste.
Then there is the verse that asks, "The young people ask, What are they marching for? And I ask myself the same question." In my opinion there is no doubt that they march in pride of their heroic battle for the freedom of the world.
I find myself asking, particularly because this is the day in which we memorialize the heroes of American freedom, the question, "Why does the American left continually condemn what is obviously a just and unavoidable war?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
Because the Iraqi Occupation is an unjust, and avoidable. You're analysis is incorrect. What the US needs is redeployment, to hunt down Bin Laden. Now that would be just.
In addition, Waltzing Matilda is one of the most beautiful songs on the face of this beautiful earth.
Mark asked:
"Why does the American left continually condemn what is obviously a just and unavoidable war?"
And the answer? Because we don't think this is an obviously just or unavoidable war. Instead, we think it is a horribly unjust, avoidable and wrong-headed war.
It's as simple as that.
I love that song, too (I missed Garrison's version of it, but I'd probably have liked it as well.)
Which war do you mean again?
You mean the one in Iraq made unavoidable by our starting it rather than finishing the one in Afghanistan, which is justified?
Or just the one in Afghanistan? I don't think very many people, left or right, is against that one.
Or -- wait! -- you mean the GWOT, which is real but questionable from the very use of "war" to describe it, to its conflation with the other two, to its execution?
We need to redeploy to Afganistan and Packistan. But we can't now, thanks to the quagmire in Iraq.
Quagmire: Something that, once you're in it, it's very difficult to get out of. It was predicted, and predictable. And Bush lied us into this quagmire. Now we don't have enough troops to focus them in a legit theater of battle.
erudite--
I love it when leftist neanderthals talk about surrender.... ahem, redeployment. How do you expect to bring soldiers home if they are redeployed? Who cares-- leftists change their positions with the wind.
The same myopic arguments you guys make for pulling out of Iraq can be used for Afghanistan-- Afghanistan didn't attack the United States, Democracy will never work for brown people, our presence is creating more terrorists, yadda yadda yadda.
Osama bin Laden, given he is even alive, is most likely in Pakistan. And killing him will not stop the Jihad that has been taking place from Kashmir to the Philippines to Sudan to Russia.
Democrats *still* don't understand what we're up against.
Gallipoli was a disaster. It was the brainchild of Churchill in 1915 and ended his first career.
There is a bit of ironic logic in Waltzing Matilida that bears on current events, which Keillor identified and put to music.
Jason:
What?
"And the answer? Because we don't think this is an obviously just or unavoidable war. Instead, we think it is a horribly unjust, avoidable and wrong-headed war."
And we think you are...well...wrong.
I can't believe that after all this time there are still those who don't understand the list of reasons making our incursion into Iraq necessary and justified. No. I will not list the reasons yet again. But we are there and we need to be triumphant. Whatever our reason for engaging in war, we must always be triumphant. Should we be wrong, which in this case we are not, we can punish the guilty after the war. Until that time, we must win. Period. I have confidence that we will never see a US president act criminally in order to involve us in war. No. George W. Bush has not acted criminally and no one has any intelligent argument to support such an accusation. The radical Islamists will not surrender without relentless pain to encourage it. This they prove over and over again. (This is part of what Jason is saying.)
Marshall said:
I can't believe that after all this time there are still those who don't understand the list of reasons making our incursion into Iraq necessary and justified.
There's a name for THOSE type of people, Marshall. It's "The American Citizenry."
Your team has made their case but it was so mistake-, error- and mistruth-ridden that it was rejected by your fellow citizens. So, no, don't bother writing the list again. We've read it, considered it and rejected it as immoral and just plain wrong.
Marshall also opined:
"I have confidence that we will never see a US president act criminally in order to involve us in war."
It's already happened at least once or twice. Johnson - Viet Nam. Reagan - Nicaragua/Iran/Iraq.
History. Read it.
erudite--
Again, if the liberal argument is correct, the United States has no business even being in Afghanistan. The government of Afghanistan did not attack the United States.
dan--
Fighting the Cold War was righteous, not criminal. In the 1970s, the west showed weakness of nerve, and the dominoes began to fall in Mozambique, Angola, Chile, Yemen, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Persia, and Cambodia. And leftists have the audacity to bitch that the West kept Chile a free country.
We should all be thankful Reagan stood against this orgy of self-hatred and held the line in the 1980s.
The example of revolution in Persia is the most relevant to our time. It shows what happens to leftist radicals when they try to stand against the West by making friends with suicidal religious fundamentalists. It also shows the catastrophic consequences of noninterventionism, as if Pearl Harbor and 911 are not proof enough. Seriously, if Carter gave the Shah our full support, we never would have had to support Saddam in the 80s to keep the Ayatollahs from exporting their evil theocratic revolution.
History. Read it.
Which version, dan?
The true perversion of Memorial Day is the war on Iraq, itself. The invasion and the occupation of Iraq keeps us from being able to defend our Nation here.
Our enemies are using your own flypaper theory on our troops. And you guys don't get it. To fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here is nothing more than using our troops as bait. That's dumb from a military perspective. A waste of recourses in the wrong theater.
Look at the picture of "DaddyOh"...
He's a finger pointer! What do you expect?
He thinks anyone who disagrees with him politically, is an enemy traitor, and he'll point the finger right at you! Even if that person who disagrees is a fellow American.
No one escapes the wrath of Big Daddy-o's finger.
Finger pointers are the male equivalent of old lady finger waggers, and "get off my lawn" guys.
Dan,
My history book says we were already involved in Viet Nam when Johnson became president. But nice of you to point to a Dem to prove me wrong. If you did.
As for Reagan, we've been through this. His plans were in place before the Dem Congress undercut him with their legislation regarding Nicaragua. So his "crime" is on the order of a Rosa Parks. I meant criminal in the sense of immoral. Reagan's motives there weren't immoral anymore than Rosa's was.
Excellent Post, Mark. History will surely note the noble sacrifice of America to eradicate the Godless Jihadists who threaten the human race.
But soldiers don't fight for "freedom" or any other abstract idea. Ultimately, in the moment, They fight for each other.
"Soldiers fighting for each other..." Man if that isn't a reason to let gays serve openly in the military, I don't know what is.
The greatest armies in history were known for it.
"The greatest armies in history were known for it."
Sez you. Just throw out any old comment. At some point, have the courage to back it up with some proof. NO. I will not look up anything based on your self-serving nonsense. Call it lazy if you like. I call your tactic, dishonest.
For M. Art's benefit regarding gays in military, the commentator
perhaps was referring to the Israeli Defense Force, see:
http://www.glbtjews.org/article.php3?id_article=361 as well as the more famous types, Alexander the Great, Richard the Lionhearted, Lawrence of Arabia...see:
http://www.trivia-library.com/a/a-list-of-famous-gays-and-lesbians-in-history.htm
Men have always fought for other men...a brief glance at history will tell you that poor phobic Marshall. Many of the greatest warriors throughout history have been gay. Get real people.
OK BB,
I'll check out your links, particularly the second one. But I expect to see incontrovertable proof of their homosexuality, not just conjecture, projection and hopeful assumption based on some obscure statements that carried an entirely different meaning back then than they would now. This is too often the case. I do know the Greeks were up in arms over the latest Alexander the Great film as they insist all accusations of ole Al being a homo are unfounded. Get back to ya later.
BB,
Checked out your links. As I suspected, no proof on the historic figures. No. I don't for a moment trust the Gay and Lesbian Task Force to research such a topic objectively. In fact, they're known liars. So a list from them is worthless. As to the Israelis, let them mess with their military readiness.
Mudkitty,
Who's phobic about what? The only people I fear are the stupid ones. That's why seeing you posting gives me the willies. I'm always confident you'll say something stupid. I'll keep waiting for you to come up with real proof of your outlandish statements. Good luck with that.
Oh brother, Marshall, you don't even have a passing familiarity with history, do you?
Get serious, Scumpuss. Hey, guess what? I started a list of people who smear themselves with cat droppings. Your name is on it. So if anyone needs proof, they need only look at my list. Because a list is all the proof needed apparently.
I asked for proof, I get a list and I'm supposed to believe the list is accurate about who is a homo in history because a homo group put the list together. That makes perfect sense. Well, ya want some history? Here's some history for ya:
Homo groups have a history of making crap up to support their lies about homosexuality. Their lies are legion. They'll take the least little snippet and twist it to create more evidence for support since they have so little, if any, without doing so. My personal favorite is their attempt to portray David and Jonathan from the Old Testament as homos, just because of a description of the depth of their love for each other. The homos naturally insist it's an erotic love as opposed to a brotherly love.
So, since you are the history expert (*snicker*), prove your assertions. I'll neither hold my breath waiting nor stifle my laughter when you come up with lame examples. You're a sad case.
"Homo groups have a history of making up lies about their history?" Pray tell, how do you know? What's your "special" insight, Marshall?
And I've never claimed to be a history "expert" but then at least, I am a buff, and have a passing familiarity with it.
No Cat,
That's gas you're passing. Your handle on history is pretty weak. At least it seems so since you only say stuff that is contrary but never offer any support for it.
As to their lying, we hear it anytime they hear a conservative or Christian disagree with them. They immediately speak of bigotry and hate, when rational observers would see only disagreement. They lie about those who have left the lifestyle and about whether it's even possible to do so. They lie about the comparison of them to blacks and women. And they use research, none of which has ever been conclusive or, in many cases even duplicated, as "proof" of their claims. We have a guy here in Chicago named Garcia who is constantly calling the Cardinal a bigot and a hater, when it's a blatant lie and smear job. Keep in mind, I'm not referring to each and every homosexual, only the advocacy groups pushing the agenda. Liars all.
According to Marshall all gays lie. That's genius in reverse at work. It's also a blatant display at bigotry.
Mudkitty,
Does this look at all familiar?
"Keep in mind, I'm not referring to each and every homosexual, only the advocacy groups pushing the agenda. Liars all."
It's not bigotry to present the truth, my dear. It only sounds like it to those for whom the truth is inconvenient.
Advocacy groups? Last I looked at the constitution, there's something about freedom of association and assembly. The freedom to petition the government...what you republicans call "lobbying."
What evidence do you have Marshall, that any pro-equal rights for gays group lied about anything, and how would you know?
Mudkitty,
You're coughing up furballs again. I never said they don't have the right of free association or to petition the governement or anything like that.
But you're asking ME for evidence to support my statements? ME? I SHOULD tell you to go scratch your post. But I don't think I have to bring up special links to remind you of their penchant for accusing priests and ministers of bigotry when all they are doing is preaching the Word and giving their opinions of homosexual behavior. So that's a lie. It's also pretty prevalent, the message that they try to send the kids of the world, that there's nothing wrong with what they do and that there's nothing wrong with engaging in homosexual sex, when in fact there's little about the various sexual practices that any doctor wouldn't agree is patently harmful. Another lie. Then of course there's the standard crap about being just like blacks and women in their struggle, which, based on the numbers of homosexuals who have left the lifestyle, is simply another lie. There is no such thing as a former black (not counting Michael Jackson).
So YOU look it up Kat. As you say, I'm not going to do your research for you.
Post a Comment