Should we be at war?
By Jon J. Brooks
I want to share some observations of one who has experienced war.
I can understand why so many demonstrate against the action in Iraq. It does seem unfair as Saddam hasn't a chance.
May I take you back to my childhood. I was born in London in 1933. I was seven when the horror of Hitler's buzz bombs began to fall. Many nights we wondered if we would survive.
In 1937, a politician named Winston Churchill strongly urged us to stop Hitler "before it is too late". The peace activists rose up and viciously demeaned Mr. Churchill as a war monger. They persuaded our Prime Minister, Mr. Chamberlain, to make a deal with Hitler. Many of you have seen the video of Chamberlain deplaning while brandishing a contract. "I have Herr Hitler's signature. We will have peace in our time." Seven million corpses later revealed his action to have been a tragic mistake.
If we followed the peace activists and continued to negotiate with Saddam, and, one day a nuclear device goes of in New Your City killing a million innocent people, I wonder what their position would be. Anyone who would gloat over 9/11 would delight in using a "WMD" in our major cities.
A good friend and colleague is a very prosperous surgeon. He can hardly wait to give up a lucrative practice and return to his beloved homeland.
Remember the Mayaguez incident? Our ship was seized on the high seas by terrorists. President Ford did not negotiate. He sent in the Marines and blew the bastards away. That was over 20 years ago. Have you noticed that people think seizing one of our ships is a bad idea?
Remember when Amin's thugs seized an El Al airliner. Israel sent in the commandos. Not many seizures of El Al airplanes since.
You can be sure that North Korea is rethinking their nuclear production after seeing what is happening to Iraq.
There are times when the "end" justifies the "means" whatever they may be. In this case, the "end" is our very survival in a very dangerous world.