Many moons ago, I too was pro-war. I'd say I'm sorry, but that just doesn't cut it. My former support for war is in one way or another responsible for the loss of many of my American brothers and sisters lives, not to mention countless innocents all across the globe.

You see, I'm pro-life. Not just for the unborn mind you, but pro-life for those already born as well. Spiritually, I roll with the Prince of Peace, not the god of war. So unless a war meets the strict standards of Christian Just War Theory, I will support war no more.

One of the many reasons I refuse to support war is, politicians are liars. Let me say that again for you. Politicians are liars.

And power corrupts.

Power Corrupts (Now With Science!)

The humor site Cracked rounds up some serious social science on the psychological effects of power and authority. The results are sobering—if not entirely surprising. When people in experimental environments were made to feel as though they were powerful—either by recalling actual instances for their lives or by being placed in simulated positions of power for a few hours—researchers found that they became less compassionate, less prone to take the perspective of others, more able to lie without feeling guilty about it, and more prone to consider themselves exempt from the rules and standards they righteously insist apply to others. What’s striking is how quickly and easily the experimenters elicited dramatic behavioral differences given that (unlike people who actively seek power) their “powerful” and control groups were randomly chosen.

The Ruling Class, your "leaders," treat soldiers not like people, but like pawns. Just listen to President Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright discuss the killing of Iraqi children for which U.S. sanctions were directly responsible.

She doesn't even blink! The "price," 500,000 Iraqi children, is worth what?

Now, we can debate the details instead of the substance (Albright didn't), but the lowest number I've seen is "only" 100,000 dead Iraqis. Yeah, I know, I know ... They Hate Us Because We're Just So Nice.

But let's be clear here ... The CIA brought Saddam to power, Iraq has never declared war on us, and certainly Iraqi children have never attacked us. Besides, one innocent child's death is unjust. Hey, I'm pro-life ... remember?

Back to Madeleine Albright ...

Gen. Hugh Shelton: Clinton Official Suggested Letting U.S. Plane Be Shot Down To Provoke War With Iraq

In the publicity sheet that St. Martin's Press has been sending out to spur interest in General Hugh Shelton's new memoir, Without Hesitation: The Odyssey of an American Warrior, the last highlight is a doozy: "A high-ranking cabinet member suggests intentionally flying an American airplane on a low pass over Baghdad so as to guarantee it will be shot down, thus creating a natural excuse to reltaliate and go to war."

At one of my very first breakfasts, while Berger and Cohen were engaged in a sidebar discussion down at one end of the table and Tenet and Richardson were preoccupied in another, one of the Cabinet members present leaned over to me and said, "Hugh, I know I shouldn't even be asking you this, but what we really need in order to go in and take out Saddam is a precipitous event -- something that would make us look good in the eyes of the world. Could you have one of our U-2s fly low enough -- and slow enough -- so as to guarantee that Saddam could shoot it down?" The hair on the back of my neck bristled, my teeth clenched, and my fists tightened. I was so mad I was about to explode. I looked across the table, thinking about the pilot in the U-2 and responded, "Of course we can ..." which prompted a big smile on the official's face.

"You can?" was the excited reply.

"Why, of course we can," I countered. "Just as soon as we get your ass qualified to fly it, I will have it flown just as low and slow as you want to go."

Readers aren't told explicitly who had this particular brainstorm, but ... you're sort of left where Elliott is: with Madeleine Albright.

Of course, as Jonathan Schwarz points out, this would hardly be the first or only time this sort of plan was discussed. Here's a New York Times article from 2006 on the build up to the 2003 Bush-led invasion of Iraq:

During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, [Bush] made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser...

"The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."

And that my friends, is the cold, hard truth about foreign policy. Soldiers are mere Ruling Class pawns. Put frankly, politicians and government bureaucrats don't give a rat's ass about the soldiers, or you for that matter. They're too busy convincing themselves that they are gods.

So, tell me again. What does "support the troops" mean? Because if you support their lives and their families, you certainly wouldn't support the lies and schemes of the Ruling Class "witches at black masses," who have no respect for any given soldier's God-given life.


Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing. -- President and General Dwight D. Eisenhower (aka "Unpatriotic American")

  • republicanmother

    Is Hugh Shelton going to be out modern Smedley Butler? His description of Rumsfeld was pretty brutal.