The UK Daily Mail posted a story about Rolling Stone placing a photo of Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau and offering the question “why can’t he (Trudeau) be our (U.S.) President. First off, “our!” The Daily Mail is British…so I guess there is some confusion on the writers part, even if the writer may or may not be British. British publication, British authorship.
There were the normal myriad of responses to this, and certainly you should not be surprised by the variations. The left leaning loved it, probably caused may to sit in a corner somewhere dreaming of a Utopian American world in which the President is a dark haired, slim, foreign tongued young fellow, causing some women…and probably some men swoon. The right, of course, outraged and seeing this as yet another liberal media story line in which America and the World are all against the American President for reasons like…well, reasons!
My take on it was more about a certain recent action by the Canadian PM. He unilaterally decided to give $10 Million Dollars, to a man who had, while fighting for the terrorist group al Queda, killed several American Soldiers. The PM is said to have done this out of some form of responsibility to this terrorist person who is a Canadian citizen. Well, aside from all the social and legal issues that were brought up, I just don’t happen to agree with that thinking and action. So I Facebook commented on it, along with many other people.
A short time after my post I got a response from someone who showed as being from a middle east/far east country (doesn’t matter which one). His comment was, in broken English, to reference the American Soldiers killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I find no offense in the comment. As a matter of fact I would respond “yes” American Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen/women fought and killed people in those countries. But I added that this was after what was a significant event in America. We call it 9/11. September 11 was a day when we found our country under attack, and say fellow Americans dying in buildings and airplanes.
We went to war. We sent fighting forces to Afghanistan to find those responsible and end their killing against us. I suggest that without 9/11 America would not have been in Afghanistan fighting and killing. Because of 9/11 we were.
Now, I will admit, Iraq is a slightly, and not insignificantly different story. I am not comfortable with the known rationale behind our time in Iraq. But all things begin at the beginning. I suggest here that without 9/11 there is no Afghanistan and subsequently there is no Iraq. This is not fact, it is opinion.
I think we should all agree that war means killing. Sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, family and friends are forever taken away from us in the act killing and being killed. Everyone suffers. Some more than others, granted. If we want to end killing we can begin, big time, by ending wars. This can mean politicians doing their job. Negotiate issues and resolve them to equitable satisfaction of all aggrieved parties while wearing nice dress clothing and sitting in lovely air conditioned buildings that we citizens pay for, and being paid handsomely by us all for their back breaking efforts.
Citizens ensure that your favorite politician is doing the job you hired them for…in the case of those countries that actually get to choose their politicians. And if they are not, fire them and get better ones.
Make no more wars, make no more killing…it can be as simple as that. Then we can argue about whether Soccer is Football or Football is Football!