Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Freedom isn't free.

William Wallace: I AM William Wallace! And I see a whole army of my country men, here, in defiance of tyranny. You've come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What will you do with that freedom? Will you fight?

Soldier: Against that? No, we'll run, and we'll live.

William Wallace: Aye, fight and you may die, run, and you'll live... at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take away our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!

From the movie "Braveheart"



On Saturday, March 19, the Anti-War kooks decided to gather in recognition of the 2-year anniversary of the Iraq war.

As the leader of the MN chapter of Protest Warrior, a conservative counter-protest organization, I was on the "front lines" in defending the notion of Freedom and Democracy in the Middle East. Naturally, I was met with strong resistance. Oh, the kooks' knee-jerk arguments were perpetuated:

-"Where are the weapons?"

-"Bush lied!"

-"No blood for oil!"

-"The war was paid for by taxing the poor!"

-Finally, the ever timeless "Give peace a chance!"

We all certainly remember the purple fingers displayed by the Iraqis upon voting in their first free election. This will be the enduring symbol of what we all hope is a successful Democracy. Naturally, we at PW had to remind the anti-war crowd of this monumental event. We took purple, foam "We're #1" hands and painted them all white, with the exception of the finger tip. We at least expected some retort like, "Well, I'm glad they were able to vote and are rid of Saddam Hussein, BUT...." Leave it to us to believe that a leftist kook is capable of having even a scintilla of rational thought. Instead, the prevailing rationale was the mere chance of Freedom and Democracy is not worth the 1000+ American soldiers perishing or the loss of several thousand Iraqi citizens. "Oh, I get it," I remarked to the crowd. "You Liberals love to spew your twisted ideology because you're free to do so. But if any other country desires Freedom........"

It was then I was struck, literally and figuratively.

Literally, when I was pushed, spat on and verbally accosted by a leftist kook.

Figuratively, when I realized that the aforementioned anti-war kooks have no concept of the sacrifice required to both establish and preserve Liberty.

Think about it! We lost upwards of 400,000 American soldiers during World War II. It's that enormous sacrifice which allows us all to enjoy the Freedoms and Liberties we have today. Because many of our great WWII veterans are passing on, we take for granted the tremendous price they paid to preserve Freedom and Liberty. The concept the leftist kooks need to grasp is under the Hussein regime, Iraqis signed their own death sentence if they dare oppose their leaders. Even with Saddam out of power there was still tremendous risk when Iraqis went to the polls in late January. Yet oppressed people who yearn for freedom are willing to put their lives on the line. The Iraqis have seen a first hand account of the carnage in the effort to instill a democracy.

As a result, there weren't a lot of voting Iraqis with their hands in their pockets on Iraq election day.

1 comment:

odograph said...

I also want to think "no blood for oil" is a knee-jerk response ... but I was surfing war blogs yesterday and I ended up at this amazon entry for The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced By War.

This is a book by a serious military guy, not some fringe hippy.

The interesting thing was that after reading a long review (the first one, by William Brennan) I hit this paragraph:

Bacevich clearly links our present predicaments both at home and abroad to the ever greater need for natural resources, especially oil from the Persian Gulf. He demolishes all of the reasons for our bellicosity based on ideals and links it directly to our insatiable appetite for oil and economic expansion. Naturally, like thousands of writers before him, he points out the need for a national energy policy based on more effective use of resources and alternative means of production.

Again, this is one of those things I don’t really want to believe. I want to think that the “no blood for oil” folks are around the bend, and that this war is not simple resource greed … but then you come up with a historian of American militarism who agrees.

I think we have to face this as a real posibility, even if it is very distasteful.