| GREG-STRANGE.COM |
"If you haven't found something strange during the
day, it hasn't been much of a day." -- John A. Wheeler
day, it hasn't been much of a day." -- John A. Wheeler
PROVIDING SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTARY ON THE
PEOPLE, POLITICS, EVENTS AND ABSURDITIES OF
OUR TIME. SERVED UP WITH ACERBIC WIT, YOU
SHOULD FIND IT QUITE SATISFYING.
PEOPLE, POLITICS, EVENTS AND ABSURDITIES OF
OUR TIME. SERVED UP WITH ACERBIC WIT, YOU
SHOULD FIND IT QUITE SATISFYING.
In The Rall World
You’ve heard the expression “Support the troops, oppose the
war.” It’s generally used by antiwar types who wish to convince
mainstream Americans that while they oppose the war in Iraq,
they’re just gaga over and have nothing but respect for the
troops who were, through no fault of their own, hoodwinked
into an illegal and immoral military action. It’s all about
avoiding -- or at least giving the appearance of avoiding -- the
excesses of the antiwar protests of the Vietnam era which
involved branding returning soldiers as “baby killers,” etc.
While that’s so very thoughtful of them, extreme left-wing
columnist Ted Rall says poppycock, piffle and balderdash to all
that. In a recent column he advised lefties to just “drop the
‘support the troops’ shtick” already. Why? Because, in his
words, “These individuals, who enjoy free will, fire the guns and
drop the bombs. If personal responsibility is to have any
meaning, the men and women of the armed forces have to be
held individually accountable for the carnage.”
Excuse the bad pun, but that makes about as much sense as a
screen door on a submarine. If a person had free will in the
context of the military, he could just walk out of basic training
and file a harassment suit the first time a D.I. raised his voice
or issued an unpleasant order, such as, “It’s time to get out of
bed, soldier!” But as anyone knows, soldiers give up their free
wills for the length of the contracts they sign when they join the
military. There couldn’t be a military if all its members had
free will and could refuse to take orders on the addlebrained
pronouncements of Ted Rall.
His column continues: “Soldiers, they say, must obey orders.
However, ‘just following orders’ wasn’t an acceptable excuse at
the Nuremberg trials, where the charges included waging a war
of aggression.”
You know, like the one in Iraq? I mean, really, what’s the
difference between that war and Hitler’s war against
civilization? And if “just following orders” wasn’t an excuse for
Nazis, then it ought not be an excuse for Americans fighting an
illegal war in Iraq.
Rall is all over this military legalities stuff like white on rice:
“Do our government’s poorly paid contract killers deserve our
‘support’ for blindly following orders?
“Not according to the military itself. The U.S. Army’s ‘Law of
Land Warfare,’ taught in basic training, says that U.S. troops
must always refuse an unlawful order -- one that violates the
Constitution or . . . is not reasonably linked to military
necessity or is issued by someone without the proper
authority.”
And guess what? Since, according to Rall, the war in Iraq is
illegal, then any and every order given within the context of
that illegal war should be disobeyed by American soldiers if
they are to be deserving of our support. Otherwise, they’re no
better than Nazis and, presumably, can burn in hell for all Rall
cares.
If your incredulity has been pushed near to the breaking
point, just wait because we’re going to go through Rall’s pat
little list of reasons for why he believes the war in Iraq is
illegal. But maybe, just maybe, they won’t hold up to scrutiny.
Rall’s first reason: “Congress never declared war against
Iraq.”
So what? They had a vote in Congress and the president was
given approval to go into Iraq if he deemed it necessary. It
wasn’t an official, notarized, gussied-up declaration of war, but
those went out with bobbysocks and the jitterbug. It was
certainly enough to meet the requirements of the War Powers
Act of 1973 which was designed to balance the military powers
of the President and the Congress. Well, except that in this
case, according to Rall:
“As an unelected imposter, George W. Bush did not enjoy
authority under the War Powers Act to commit American
forces abroad.”
Ahem. Actually, George W. Bush was indeed elected, and by a
healthy margin at that. Don’t know how Rall missed it -- it was
in all the papers. Oh, wait a minute, was he referring to the
“stolen” election of 2000? Shoulda realized that right off. Rall
and many others may not be able to get beyond this stolen
election claptrap, but even the rabidly anti-Bush New York
Times got over it long ago. Here’s what the paper of record said
on November 12, 2001:
“A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots
from last year’s presidential election reveals that George W.
Bush would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court had
allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the
Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.”
For Rall and millions of others to continue to believe that
Bush stole the 2000 election is no more rational than the belief
of Islamic suicide bombers that voluptuous virgins await them
in paradise. In fact, it’s less rational since it has been
demonstrably proven that Bush won, whereas it is impossible
to disprove the religious beliefs of suicide bombers.
Continuing with Rall’s illegal war arguments:
“Concentration camps at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere violate
the Geneva Conventions, which as treaty obligations are
binding under U.S. law.”
Even if that were true, it has nothing to do with the overall
legality of the war.
“Iraq is not the subject of a UN-led international police
action.”
This is perhaps the most clueless argument of all. It reeks of
the idiotic notion that no war can ever be justified, either
legally or morally, and no dangerous tyrant ever removed,
without the official sanction and 100 percent backing of the
UN. But what in the world could possibly give the UN such
status and authority? The UN doesn’t do anything to promote
freedom (meaningless and interminable talk doesn‘t count).
Nor does it do anything meaningful to thwart dictatorial
regimes or to discourage states that sponsor terrorism. In fact,
it welcomes such regimes wholeheartedly into the community
of nations by granting them seats in its club of gentlemen
debaters, giving them a degree of legitimacy they would not
otherwise have.
Nonetheless, Rall concludes his list of supposed illegalities
by saying: “Thus, by several measures, the war is illegal. Every
order to deploy a soldier, aviator or sailor to fight in Iraq is by
definition an unlawful order, one that he or she is legally and
morally bound to refuse.”
Hear that, American soldiers? Rall is basically calling for a
full-scale mutiny. And that's what passes for reasoned thought
in the Rall world. In the real world, however, things are a bit
different and every piece of evidence Rall offered of the war’s
illegality is either, at the very least, debatable, or, in actuality,
demonstrably bogus.
Rall’s assertions are not based on logical interpretations of
Constitutional and military law, but rather are symptomatic
manifestations of a virulent mental pathology which has as its
primary feature a perverse psychological need to believe that
Bush, in liberating a country from the murderous tyranny of a
madman, is the world’s real evildoer.
Rall really ought to see someone about that nasty condition,
though the cause is indeterminate and there probably is no
cure. But at the very least, how about a round or two of group
therapy with some of America’s “poorly paid contract killers?”
You’ve heard the expression “Support the troops, oppose the
war.” It’s generally used by antiwar types who wish to convince
mainstream Americans that while they oppose the war in Iraq,
they’re just gaga over and have nothing but respect for the
troops who were, through no fault of their own, hoodwinked
into an illegal and immoral military action. It’s all about
avoiding -- or at least giving the appearance of avoiding -- the
excesses of the antiwar protests of the Vietnam era which
involved branding returning soldiers as “baby killers,” etc.
While that’s so very thoughtful of them, extreme left-wing
columnist Ted Rall says poppycock, piffle and balderdash to all
that. In a recent column he advised lefties to just “drop the
‘support the troops’ shtick” already. Why? Because, in his
words, “These individuals, who enjoy free will, fire the guns and
drop the bombs. If personal responsibility is to have any
meaning, the men and women of the armed forces have to be
held individually accountable for the carnage.”
Excuse the bad pun, but that makes about as much sense as a
screen door on a submarine. If a person had free will in the
context of the military, he could just walk out of basic training
and file a harassment suit the first time a D.I. raised his voice
or issued an unpleasant order, such as, “It’s time to get out of
bed, soldier!” But as anyone knows, soldiers give up their free
wills for the length of the contracts they sign when they join the
military. There couldn’t be a military if all its members had
free will and could refuse to take orders on the addlebrained
pronouncements of Ted Rall.
His column continues: “Soldiers, they say, must obey orders.
However, ‘just following orders’ wasn’t an acceptable excuse at
the Nuremberg trials, where the charges included waging a war
of aggression.”
You know, like the one in Iraq? I mean, really, what’s the
difference between that war and Hitler’s war against
civilization? And if “just following orders” wasn’t an excuse for
Nazis, then it ought not be an excuse for Americans fighting an
illegal war in Iraq.
Rall is all over this military legalities stuff like white on rice:
“Do our government’s poorly paid contract killers deserve our
‘support’ for blindly following orders?
“Not according to the military itself. The U.S. Army’s ‘Law of
Land Warfare,’ taught in basic training, says that U.S. troops
must always refuse an unlawful order -- one that violates the
Constitution or . . . is not reasonably linked to military
necessity or is issued by someone without the proper
authority.”
And guess what? Since, according to Rall, the war in Iraq is
illegal, then any and every order given within the context of
that illegal war should be disobeyed by American soldiers if
they are to be deserving of our support. Otherwise, they’re no
better than Nazis and, presumably, can burn in hell for all Rall
cares.
If your incredulity has been pushed near to the breaking
point, just wait because we’re going to go through Rall’s pat
little list of reasons for why he believes the war in Iraq is
illegal. But maybe, just maybe, they won’t hold up to scrutiny.
Rall’s first reason: “Congress never declared war against
Iraq.”
So what? They had a vote in Congress and the president was
given approval to go into Iraq if he deemed it necessary. It
wasn’t an official, notarized, gussied-up declaration of war, but
those went out with bobbysocks and the jitterbug. It was
certainly enough to meet the requirements of the War Powers
Act of 1973 which was designed to balance the military powers
of the President and the Congress. Well, except that in this
case, according to Rall:
“As an unelected imposter, George W. Bush did not enjoy
authority under the War Powers Act to commit American
forces abroad.”
Ahem. Actually, George W. Bush was indeed elected, and by a
healthy margin at that. Don’t know how Rall missed it -- it was
in all the papers. Oh, wait a minute, was he referring to the
“stolen” election of 2000? Shoulda realized that right off. Rall
and many others may not be able to get beyond this stolen
election claptrap, but even the rabidly anti-Bush New York
Times got over it long ago. Here’s what the paper of record said
on November 12, 2001:
“A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots
from last year’s presidential election reveals that George W.
Bush would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court had
allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the
Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.”
For Rall and millions of others to continue to believe that
Bush stole the 2000 election is no more rational than the belief
of Islamic suicide bombers that voluptuous virgins await them
in paradise. In fact, it’s less rational since it has been
demonstrably proven that Bush won, whereas it is impossible
to disprove the religious beliefs of suicide bombers.
Continuing with Rall’s illegal war arguments:
“Concentration camps at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere violate
the Geneva Conventions, which as treaty obligations are
binding under U.S. law.”
Even if that were true, it has nothing to do with the overall
legality of the war.
“Iraq is not the subject of a UN-led international police
action.”
This is perhaps the most clueless argument of all. It reeks of
the idiotic notion that no war can ever be justified, either
legally or morally, and no dangerous tyrant ever removed,
without the official sanction and 100 percent backing of the
UN. But what in the world could possibly give the UN such
status and authority? The UN doesn’t do anything to promote
freedom (meaningless and interminable talk doesn‘t count).
Nor does it do anything meaningful to thwart dictatorial
regimes or to discourage states that sponsor terrorism. In fact,
it welcomes such regimes wholeheartedly into the community
of nations by granting them seats in its club of gentlemen
debaters, giving them a degree of legitimacy they would not
otherwise have.
Nonetheless, Rall concludes his list of supposed illegalities
by saying: “Thus, by several measures, the war is illegal. Every
order to deploy a soldier, aviator or sailor to fight in Iraq is by
definition an unlawful order, one that he or she is legally and
morally bound to refuse.”
Hear that, American soldiers? Rall is basically calling for a
full-scale mutiny. And that's what passes for reasoned thought
in the Rall world. In the real world, however, things are a bit
different and every piece of evidence Rall offered of the war’s
illegality is either, at the very least, debatable, or, in actuality,
demonstrably bogus.
Rall’s assertions are not based on logical interpretations of
Constitutional and military law, but rather are symptomatic
manifestations of a virulent mental pathology which has as its
primary feature a perverse psychological need to believe that
Bush, in liberating a country from the murderous tyranny of a
madman, is the world’s real evildoer.
Rall really ought to see someone about that nasty condition,
though the cause is indeterminate and there probably is no
cure. But at the very least, how about a round or two of group
therapy with some of America’s “poorly paid contract killers?”
