Conquering at Home
Thomas Paine was a British author who stood up (against his King and country) in open support of the French and American Revolutions.In his famous book 'Rights of Man' he challenges the status-quo (hereditary succession) and calls for a representative form of government.
Some of it is tough reading, some boring (especially when he rehashes specific details that go right over the head of a non-history major like myself), BUT it is sprinkled with great jabs and passionately written. It's a good pick-me-up and a great kick in the ass. Paine's writing is at times a perfect combination of rage, poetry, logic and hope.
Here is just one of Mr. Paine's keen observations:
"War is the common harvest of all those who participate in the division and expenditure of public money, in all countries. It is the art of conquering at home; the object of it is an increase in revenue; and as revenue cannot be increased without taxes, a pretence must be made for expenditures.
In reviewing the history of the English government, its wars and its taxes, a bystander, not blinded by prejudice nor warped by interest, would declare that taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to carry on taxes."
This leads me into my question: Why was our War in Iraq raised?
We have now had two and a half years to reflect and reevaluate.
Gimme your best, one-sentence synopsis (Winner gets a cookie).
By Robert - 8/28/2005
9 Comments:
"If we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets" -Bush (in a recent speech)
We went to war in Iraq because the Bush administration saw an opportunity to sell a war of choice to a trusting public.
Alright, maybe that Bush quote isn't 'why we needed to go' but 'why we need to stay (circa 05)'
I guess I just threw it up cause, in my opinion, it's the ugliest color of the justifications-for-the-war chameleon.
Paine's book is actually a response to a man named Burk who had earlier written a book in support of the crown and against the American and French Revolution.
Throughout 'Rights of Man' Paine deconstructs Burk's arguments piece-by-piece. Explaining Mr. Burk's inability to justify the aristocracy he said:
"When a man in a long cause attempts to steer his course by anything else than some polar truth or principle, he is sure to be lost. It is beyond the compass of his capacity to keep all the parts of an argument together, and make them unite in one issue, by any other means than having this guide always in view. Neither memory nor invention will supply the want of it. The former fails him, and the latter betrays him."
Sound familiar?
UNITED WE STAND. I think Bush had a good idea and statement here. We, americans, worry so much about other countries and working out other countries problems but i think they we do need to work as a unit/ take care of our shit and protect what we have. Once we have this covered we can start worrying about the Whole, right now we need to be one and work as a force together.
Furj,
No one is arguing that we shouldn’t “take care of our shit and protect what we have.”
Despite the upbeat, patriotic tone of your comment, I am at a loss to salvage a single piece of practical advice (not to mention that your post doesn’t answer the question at hand).
It seems to me that you're saying that the best course of action at the current time is to all hold hands and dance in a circle.
Did I miss something?
I guess i was commenting more on the posts rather then the article that was written (sorry about the drift of concept, i tend to do that at times).
As for the question about why was our war in Iraq raised. My opinion is: In order to protect our country and fix the problems within we also need to have confidence in our leaders. In order to unite as a country we need to trust them. With this in mind, Bush is trying to show this country that he will provide security and he will make things right for the citizens.
I understand that there are split ideas about why we went to war. Ill be honest, there is always something in it for us, an alterior motive, perhaps. The idea of gaining trust through security and going to the measures for protecting us from countries of a threat. Iraq was a threat to the US and he wanted to show the citizens that there will not be another 9-11, he will stop a problem before it even starts.
They say that time travel isn't possible...
and yet here I find myself back in 2003 debunking the same 'Saddam is an imminent threat' hogwash. The only difference is that the events that have transpired since have made a strong argument into an undeniable one. THEY ARE:
(1) We lost less than 100 soldiers from the moment of invasion to the end of major combat!
(2) The independent, bipartisan 9-11 Commission found no link between Saddam and the terrorist network we are at war with!
(3) After two and a half years the huge arsenal of WMDs was never found!
...and STILL this completely illogical party-line will not die!
What would it take I wonder for all Americans to admit that Saddam was not an 'imminent threat' to the Homeland?
Only the gravest of threats would call for spending a billion tax dollars a week, diverting funds from the hunt for Osama and suffering 50 American casualties a month indefinitely.
Furj, I'm all for uniting behind good policy. But uniting behind bad policy?! I won't. Our role as responsible citizens is not to trust our politicians, but to challenge and criticise them, to watch their every move and hold them accountable with our voices and our votes.
Bob.. you raise alot of good points, you really make someone see a larger picture and the other side, you are a very smart guy.. i think the chief source is wonderful and i enjoy reading the posts of you, kyle and chuck.. keep up the good work guys.
How about this Bob...Saddam's regime was the largest source of financial, tactical and moral support for Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, and since he was already in violation of countless U.N. resolutions, Iraq was a logical place to move the front line of the War on Terror to.
Post a Comment
<< Home