“To be or not to be,” …
why is that the question ?
By WJ Anthony
What would you call a person that is much admired or of great courage, who can conquer fear or despair? Is that what ‘we the people’ look to find in those we elect to leadership positions in our government? Does it sound like the definition for a hero – bold, fearless, distinguished by valor, undaunted?
When we hear those words and see the efforts of the officials that we elect, is that the image that comes to mind when we vote for the people we want to serve this nation in Congress? Is that the image of the men or women that are chosen by the President to carry out the responsibility as members of the Executive Cabinet? Is that the image that we the people have of the person we elect as President?
Do we think our elected or appointed officials handle the powers of government, as the Declaration of Independence tells us? Do those officials secure our unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? Do those officials agree on what the pursuit of Happiness means? Does the President and the officials agree with what the people think it means? Do the people agree with each other on what anything means?
Wars, like the new one now in Libya, have engulfed the American people for the past 71 years and have killed and injured millions of people in other countries, but rarely have those wars victimized more than a few elected officials who supported the wars. Their children were protected and never touched as victims of war.
The media and the schools portray war officials as leaders, without revealing why those officials support the cruel and vicious process of using total warfare to accomplish the death and destruction of enemies. Instead of using negotiation to resolve conflict and achieve peace, they support the terror, because war is the most profitable business of all.
Years ago, I saw one of the most gripping movies of all time: “All Quiet On The Western Front.” It was made in Germany during the 1930s, depicting the German side of World War I. It started with a scene in a school for boys, in a class with a teacher who lectured the boys about the greatness of German history and patriotism, praising the valor of German soldiers as the greatest of all Germans.
The teacher encouraged the boys to enlist in the infantry to experience the admiration of being a uniformed soldier and a hero, but after their enlistment, the front lines of military combat soon shocked the naivety of the schoolboys with the carnage and gruesome reality of killing and being killed. The most impressive point of the film for me was the scene when some of the boys were resting during a break in the front line conflict. The boys asked their crusty sergeant “Who is the Kaiser?”
The sergeant answered, “The Kaiser is the man that the bullet never reaches.” They asked who starts wars and is there an alternative for war, to which the sergeant suggested a solution: “Fence off an area and put there the leaders of the countries who are at war, from all sides; give them each a club and demand that they fight each other inside that fenced area; whoever is the last man alive, his country will have won the war.” As I recall, I think the sergeant said that once the leaders were forced to enter the fence with clubs to kill each other, they would look at each other and quickly agree to an understanding that they didn’t need to kill each other to solve the dispute between their countries; they could negotiate a peaceful solution that would not require war.
If we bring that lesson to our present day with the US carrying on four wars, what could we expect to happen if the UN agreed to establish a rule that required a fenced engagement confrontation between rulers of nations in settling disputes? If Obama or Sarkozy were to meet Muammar Gaddafi in a fenced engagement area, would they likely ask to negotiate a peaceful resolution immediately?
Neither Obama nor Sarkozy have military battle experience. Sarkozy escaped probable death, when a friendly French officer chose to not send him to join a French Foreign Legion that would be killed at the battle of Dien Bien Phu in Vietnam.
Obama never served in military duty; mentored as he apparently was from childhood to emerge to the presidency. He had no need to kill or be killed or ever face that situation.
Gaddafi, in contrast, has had fierce military experience, similar to many African freedom fighters and leaders, who fought to free their people from Europe’s brutal colonial military powers that had subjugated the people of Africa for generations. Gaddafi knows what was required to free people from colonial rule. As a young man, Patrice Lumumba of the Congo gave his life to free his people from the cruelty of European colonialism. Gaddafi also put his life on the line to keep Libya free from colonial domination.
In a fenced engagement with Gaddafi, would Obama or Sarkozy choose to resolve a dispute peacefully and save their lives instead of declaring war?
If a fenced engagement confrontation had been adopted years ago as a world law, would American presidents from FDR to Obama have deceptively contrived those wars?
FDR and Truman never faced front line combat. Eisenhower never had to dodge bullets; he was appointed to command the allied invasion of Europe. The bombs and bullets of the D-Day invasion and other fierce battles that followed, never reached “Ike”.
John Kennedy was involved in a battle as an officer in charge of an attack boat but was rescued after his boat was damaged and about to sink. LBJ and Nixon never saw combat. Carter served as a submarine commander, but there was no combat during The Cold War.
Ronald Reagan was dressed occasionally in a military uniform for a movie role, but saw no combat or military service. His Vice-President, George H. W. Bush was a fighter pilot in the Navy, but fellow servicemen in his squadron saw him deliberately ditch his fighter plane in a dive to the sea, then bail out, deliberately causing his navigator and gunner to die in the crash. It is suggested in an article on the Internet that their deaths were necessary, because they knew Bush’s background as a German spy, and the plane that he was piloting had technical gun secrets that the German military had wanted. A German submarine surfaced at the crash site and obtained the plane’s gun secrets.
Two published sources claim GHW Bush was actually a German spy who was clandestinely brought to the US under the cover of being the son of Prescott Bush. Those sources are available on the net: one source is the article in the April 2007 edition of the Idaho Observer, which revealed evidence from Hitler’s bodyguard, Otto Skorzeny’s Deathbed Confessions. It shows a picture of George HW and his true father and others.
A startling CD was available by purchase on the Rense.com website revealing Skorzeny, who lived the remainder of his life in postwar US. He was brought here with hundreds of German intelligence experts under Project Paper Clip by Wild Bill Donavan to help Donavan combine the German Intelligence and US intelligence, which became the CIA.
George HW. Bush instigated a lie, that he had Ambassador April Glaspie tell Saddam Hussein, to mislead Saddam to think Bush would not object if Saddam reclaimed Kuwait as a province of Iraq, which it was before the British separated it from Iraq.
Some researchers say Bill Clinton is the illegitimate son of Winthrop A. Rockefeller who became the Republican Governor of Arkansas 1967-1971. Clinton never served in the military; he lived in Britain and opposed the US in the Viet war. Yet he supported the fierce NATO war in Yugoslavia and the later Bush wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
George W. Bush never saw any form of military combat, but had been arranged by his father to join the National Guard and remain AWOL throughout the war, so he wouldn’t be drafted to serve in Vietnam and risk his life as a combat draftee.
Would we have wars, if there was an international law that required all rulers to negotiate a peaceful resolution of all disputes that might arise between nations; or they would be bodily confined to a fenced enclosure area with the opposing ruler; each of the rulers would be supplied with a hand-held club and be given a designated period of time, during which they would be required to resolve the dispute amicably or settle it by successfully clubbing to death their opposing executive. If they had not peacefully resolved the issue or killed their opponent, the UN would execute them there.
If such a system were enacted that allowed executive rulers no exemptions in their responsibility to peaceably resolve disputes – would rulers support peace on earth?