Memo to the “Antiwar” Left and “Prolife” Right

You’d be more credible if you didn’t clasp hands in warm agreement and support for your candidates as they both celebrate drone strikes on civilians and children.

No. Really. It’s our policy, warmly agreed upon by both candidates at the debates and studiously not discussed by our hard-hitting investigative state-run media.

One of many reasons I refuse to give either of these people the pinch of incense called a “vote”. I will not consent to this filth.

  • http://losthunderlads.com Acilius

    Well put. The National Review posted a piece the other day including this sentence:
    “Reason persuades us that it is wrong to will the death of human beings, regardless of their age, location, or state of dependency; and wrong, as well, to withhold legal protection on such bases.”
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/331575/reading-god-s-will-indiana-editors#
    Those are stirring words, or would be if they didn’t come from a magazine that has consistently supported drone strikes and other policies that result in the indiscriminate killing of human beings in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mali, Mauretania, and other countries. “Location” makes a great difference in the degree to which the magazine is willing to recognize the right to life among the populations of those countries. Likewise “state of dependency”; the countries where Mr O and his recent predecessors have done most of their killing are countries like those four, and like Yemen and Serbia and post-2003 Iraq, where the ruling elite is too deeply vested in the Western-led financial and commercial order to organize effective resistance to the US-sponsored violence within the country’s borders.

  • http://losthunderlads.com Acilius

    Oh, and also “age”; the very young and the very old are among the groups least able to escape war, and are always disproportionately represented among its victims.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X