JohnnyComeLately's Journal: News Flash! War is messy!

The latest from the "Obvious as the nose on your face" department is a report from Toomucha Freetime, who wrote this Insightful Piece *cough*of crap*cough* about the dark side of war.

At the risk of sounding insensitive, just because Michael Berg's son was beheaded doesn't make A: His opinion newsworthy B: Him a foreign affairs/military or domestic policy expert. The fact he is against war and those responsible is not unexpected, given the graphic, public pain he has been exposed.

Such journalistic gems as this could be gleamed, "People like George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld don't see the pain that people have to bear." I can understand attacking their policy, but this is such a fallacy I can't believe it was spoken. Yes, Mr. Berg. Mr Rumsfield theDEFENSE Secretary has no idea what his entire realm of authority (Air Force, Navy, Army and Marine Corp) is capable of inflicting.

Fallacy #2. "News media is ignoring the 'horrible face of war'." What channel is he watching? Disney? I have watched on every news channel a clip of his son, right up to his last moments. I did not WANT to watch it, but if I chose to watch the news in its full length (meaning I was walking around the room and didn't want to be forced to flip channels) there was no way around it. I do not know of a single war where there wasn't graphic, gut-wrenching footage. If you recall, the images of the Highway to Hell out of Kuwait sped up the end of Gulf War I, during Bush-40th's presidency.

"What I'm trying to do is show to the American people and the British people ... that war has a wretchedly horrible face" Honestly, there isn't a single person listening that does not agree. Anyone who does not know war is complete hell is either still in disbelief that we landed on the moon, or less than 10 years old (and never played Sega). But be equally accountable and acknowledge in some cases NOT going to war allows "wretchedly horrible" events to continue.

One last caveat: "Observing someone's pain just makes you think just how can they (Bush and Blair) possibly do this. There isn't enough money in the world that could ever make this worthwhile." Foreign policy is about a great deal more than money. However, he is somewhat correct, but not for the reasons he thinks. There was an interesting, analytical paper written by economists about the subject of war. I can't remember enough about it to accurately quote or find a Google reference, but it basically concluded: A majority of wars are fought over lands containing easily exportable economic goods. This could be diamonds, gold, oil, precious metals, etc. Is it worth it? An idealist would say no, because life is invaluable. A realist would say, obviously many people have decided the answer is yes. Why do you think Saddam invaded Kuwait to begin with?

For further reading on this topic of wealth vs poverty, as they relate to war, here is an intersting research paper written at Harvard.

Well Said

[Red Warrior]

That is all.