This has been a very interesting and disturbing week, to say the least. First, my cable DVD-R did not record the newest episode of House, and then later I find out that the Iranian Government was involved in planning and attempting to implement an assassination of the Saudi Ambassador to the US, here, on American soil, actually in Washington, DC but the attempts were thwarted. Needless to say, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had some strong words for the Iranian Government regarding this flagrant act of terrorism; and, while global politics and diplomacy must calm heated talking heads, to me, this is a barbaric act of aggression and war. However, on the other side of the coin, I believe the phrase is, "turn abouts is fair play."
Did or did we (America) not, a few weeks ago, send an elite special forces team (Navy SEALS) into another sovereign country, without their permission or fore-warning, and kill a foreign, terrorist fugitive, Ben Laden, because we had conclusive proof that he was the "criminal mastermind" behind the 9/11 attack in New York City? Could our actions have been construed by foreign governments and the global community also as a barbaric act of terrorism, aggression and war? Did America take first blood or second blood? Does it really matter?
Should we, as a nation, take the moral high ground and follow the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you?
Was the American Government justified in their decisions and actions, but the Iranian Government not justified?
Are we playing out a set of global double standards?
Is our war somehow a more JUST WAR?
Is there such a concept as a Just War?
I wonder about this, don't you?
No comments:
Post a Comment