Commentator- Okay- I realize that the Crusades aren’t as one dimensional as I made them out to be, but religion was used as the catalyst to bring the hordes of warriors into battle.
But the conflict today is also centered in religious difference or intolerance, at least from a recruitment standpoint.
Of course, the real questions, to me, aren’t really about religious difference as they are about influence and control, not just of land and resources and money, but people, their minds and deeds too.

And while from a historical perspective, one can infer that mankind is moving progressively towards a more peaceful nature, one has to wonder when that nature will more fully manifest itself. True that structures are prone to change, even necessarily so, why must they change through violence and conflict?

Iraq may have moved the conflict to other shores than America, and the possibility of social change in the Middle East is tantalizing, but is this really the best way to achieve that goal? True, America was attacked from outside, but as with the Crusades, what other actions have precipitated such anger?

Honest flaws can be forgivven…but purposely misleading people into an act of war, using ratioanle that may not be true, belies the notoion that people are too dumb to grasp the intricacies of life and politics. Let’s face it…we face them everyday, just not on a geopolitical scale.

Can America achieve something grand? Perhaps so. But first she must clean up the mess at home, sweep clean her own corruption, and lead by example. The era of do as I say, not as I do has lost its effectiveness as the disparity grows between nations and people.

Thanks for the though provoking comments.

Windspike- Thanks for the cross promotion. Always helps you know.
While I agree that it is appalling the lack of remorse or even sadness that these people display for the people they sent off to die, I hardly expect much else. And those who continue to chant that we must keep fighting THIS particular war ad naseum should have their heads examined. We need to end the Iraq debacle and get back to the real problem of ideological terrorism.

You blog on too!

Jack’s Mommy- Basically, I just added the Haloscan code next to my blogger commenting code and republished. It wasn’t all that difficult. Thanks for dropping by.

Shea- Defense is at least more defensible, and less reprehensible.
I really like that logo. That’s why I borrowed it from you!

Doug- Rather a pessimistic approach to peace, isn’t it?

Jamal- yes, yes, and yes.

Liam-Yes, it seems more and more that we were led to war to consolidate power rather than for real reasons of security, at least so far as Iraq is concerned. As far as changing horses mid-stream…if the horse I’m on is swimming TOWARDS the waterfall, I’m more than willing to jump to one heading the other direction, or swim alone if need be.
Thanks for coming by again.

Of course, in our personal lives, we’re expected to work out our differences with our neighbors WITHOUT going to war, killing their sons and daughters and demolishing their home.

Regardless, the shame of the current war, in my opinion, is that we entered into it not for any real or even honest reason, but in order to keep the citizenry in a state of fear, so they will not question the leadership, bad as it may be.

This seems to be the basis for just about all of our current leadership’s behavior. Pick some words which, to adults, are as frightening as “bogeyman” is to children, and repeat them often. “9/11”. “WMD”. “Terrorist”. “Raised alert level”. Add in new ones as the old ones become stale and less effective, such as “avian flu”. Keep the citizens in a state of barely controlled panic so that the subconscious feeling is that the times are too unstable to be “changing horses in mid stream”.

Thanks for a great post, Ken! (And thanks for stopping by my blog, it’s been too long since I came by to read your stuff, I’m glad you stopped in and reminded me!)

Liam.

Off topic: Ken, that “coexist” logo is starting to pop up in the mainstream media. I saw a T-shirt with it in People magazine, and another sighting somewhere equally mainstream. Maybe someday we’ll find out where it came from!

In the end, what I find even more reprehensible than the willingness to send troops into harms way for no reason other than profiteering, the shifting (like sands in the desert) rationale for the Iraq conflagration, and the lack of remorse for leading us astray – what is truly reprehensible is the lack of respect the W, Rove and Co show for the KIA and wounded by using them as leverage and buttons to push swinging our emotional psyche toward thinking maybe we are wrong for not supporting the war.

In essence, ever time a politician stands up and suggest that we should continue to fight the war to validate and honor those who have already died suggest a disrespect beyond compare. Reprehensible, to say the least, suggesting that we continue to toss good lives at an illegitmate war [Iraq] seems – well, a bit insane, if you ask me.

Blog on brother.