Keep Yourself Alive
November 16th, 2007 at 10:54am Mark Noonan
The phrase is the title of a song by Queen - sung, of course, by Freddie Mercury who is, alas, dead. In that song, it is opined that it may take us all our time and money, but that is just what it takes to keep ourselves alive, and that is the important thing.
Gotta be one of the most stupid sentiments I’ve ever come across.
What brings this up is this bit noted over at NRO’s The Corner:
One American Death is Too Many
So says Richardson. I understand the sentiment, of course. But when you think about this, isn’t it the essence of Carterism on steroids? It’s terrible to lose a soldier. But I think most soldiers would be the first to agree that having a national security policy premised on the idea that the moment an American soldier dies your policy is automatically a failure would be absurd.
True, but the more absurd thing is the concept that death, in and of itself, is a bad thing. To hold that is akin to holding that breathing is inherently bad - we all must breath, and we all must die. No question about it - eat right, exercise…die anyway. If you put all your time and money into keeping yourself alive, then all you’ve done is waste every minute of your life, and every penny of your fortune.
Now, each human life is unique and inherently valuable - each life more valuable than all the money and things in the world, combined. But a life is something which is meant to be spent. We are supposed to do things with our lives - even, and especially, when the doing puts our life at risk. If you live to be a 100, and have done nothing, are you better off than the man who dies a hero at 25? True, better to die a hero at 100, but we can’t plan out our lives like that - we have to take each day as it arrives and make our decisions based upon the need to confront the problems of the day, not our worries about whether or not we’ll be here tomorrow.
When someone like Richardson says that in the achievement of a goal, the loss of a single American life is “too many”, he’s speaking utter nonsense. Oh, I imagine that it did well in focus-groups, but do we really want to live in a nation which is guided by the concept that the loss of a single life is “too many”? You’re not going to have a military with such an attitude - nor will you have a police force, or a fire department…or, indeed, any sort of activity going on which implies risk of death; shortly thereafter, you won’t have a country - because someone more disdainful of death will come along and conquer you.
The death of a single innocent is too many; as is the death of a single child; of course, it is also “too many” if people die because gutless politicians refuse to confront the necessity of war and leave us vulnerable to attack. Life is the most glorious and wonderful thing we human beings know - but life requires that we live like men and women; not unafraid of death, but unconcerned about it - hoping for a long, peaceful life, but willing to give it all away at need. Richardson’s attitiude is not just a fear of death, but a nagging concern that it will happen…it is a desire for a long, peaceful life coupled with an unwillingness to put life at any risk. It is a coward’s attitude, plain and simple.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Life Issues, War on Terror
19 Comments
1. Won | November 16th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
How about his statement that national security take a back seat to infringing on human rights? Oh how we suffer the blathering fool.
2. danielle | November 16th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Great post!!!
3. Ricorun | November 16th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Mark: You’re not going to have a military with such an attitude - nor will you have a police force, or a fire department…
Frankly, I’ve never met a military commander (and I’ve met quite a few) who doesn’t believe that the loss of even one troop under his command is too many. Sometimes that’s an impossible goal to achieve, but I can’t say I’ve ever met one that doesnt’ attempt to minimize casualties while still achieving the desired objective. And I believe that is Richardson’s sentiment as well.
I have to say that if there were a Democratic candidate I’d feel comfortable voting for, Richardson would be the one. I think he has a very good head on his shoulders. His big problem is that he’s a terrible campaigner. He suffers from a severe case of foot in mouth disease.
4. Retired Spook | November 16th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
He suffers from a severe case of foot in mouth disease.
I think that’s because, under the facade of his extensive political experience, he’s just not very bright.
5. Mark Noonan | November 16th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Ricorun,
I know a lot of commanders say things like that - we’ve been carefully instructed to be very, very afraid of dying in our modern world…that death is the very worst thing that can happen to us. Such a belief is central to a post-Christian view of the world.
Trust me on this one - death is not something I want to do. I want to live healthy and wealthy and with no troubles at all for a long time…but I will die and I must be willing to give it all away at need. What worth would be an extra year of life if purchased at the price of dishonor?
6. Mark Noonan | November 16th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Won,
Democrats, for all their talk of walking the middle ground, have a habit of taking it to extremes - I want national security, I want respect for human rights…I’ll never get the perfect mix, and I will ultimately have to rely upon the good will and good sense of my fellow men on these matters. Certainly, all actions of government must be carefully checked by an informed public, but we also have to realise that it isn’t a perfect world - and therin lies the fundamental problem of the left: they want a perfect world, and act as if its already here and we just have to conform to it.
7. Zach | November 16th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
” they want a perfect world, and act as if its already here and we just have to conform to it.”
Well stated Mark.
8. Bull | November 16th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
when it comes to the number of deaths of soldiers during wars and battles we should all be amazed at how many men and women have given their life for this country. not just in this century or even the last. but from the moment we first got here in trying to establish a new nation.
please read the book, DON’T TREAD ON ME, by H. W. Crocker III. it is an amazing look at the history of our military.
9. Ricorun | November 16th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Spook: I think that’s because, under the facade of his extensive political experience, he’s just not very bright.
Are you talking about Bill Richardson or George Bush? Lol! I kid, but remember — that was a charge leveled against W.
10. AgentFear | November 16th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
I just love Blogs for Victo(r)y.
Where else can you enjoy the musings of the two moderators extraordinare.
You have Mark, pious, humble, brave, and self sacrificing and monogamous.
You also have Matt, brave, humble, self sacrificing, and gifted.
I don’t know if you two have children, but, what a glorious world you mold for them.
A world where George W. Bush is the greatest American President ever. How proud you must be at this juncture of his tenure in office.
How proud you must be of his administrators past, and present.
People like Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfield, George Tenent, Condi Rice, Paul Bremer, Brownie, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Miers, Fieth, I have to stop, I’m becoming overwhelmed.
I am lucky enough to read your comments on death now. It’s nice to see you ready, willing and able.
“Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: For thou art with me”.
How pious, how humble. I’m moved.
OK, that’s over with…
NOW LET’S ATTACK IRAN!
11. Mark Noonan | November 16th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Fear,
Did you have a point?
12. AgentFear | November 16th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
My comment was just a comment.
What I took from Richardson’s comment was. An American death in vain is too many. My take. My view.
Spout all the nonsense you want about the brutal dictator, about saving the Iraqi people.
The United States of America gave Saddam (Ed. Note: known lie deleted).
The U.S. did nothing, NOTHING, when he was gassing the kurds. Rumsfield shook his hand. He was (Ed. Note: known lie deleted). It was OK then.
We put (Ed. Note: known lie deleted). We looked (Ed Note: known lie deleted).
We did not listen to the Commanders on the ground when they matter of factly stated how many troops would be needed to secure Iraq.
We did not prepare for the post Iraqi occupation. The disbanding of the Army was a terrible idea. If there ever was a idea.
We we “fight with the army we have, not the army we want”.
We do not ask the American people to really sacrifice for the “war” effort. We ask them to go SHOPPING.
We pour soldiers unto the Iraqi battlefield like gasoline unto a fire.
This occupation is no where near over. Yes, there is a quell in the violence, but, the quiet is deafening.
When asked, the American people will understand, DO NOT TAKE US FOR RUBES.
To blame everything on “faulty intelligence” is just not true and not right.
In this case Mark, in this military action, one American life IS TOO MANY.
13. Ricorun | November 16th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Mark: I know a lot of commanders say things like that - we’ve been carefully instructed to be very, very afraid of dying in our modern world…that death is the very worst thing that can happen to us. Such a belief is central to a post-Christian view of the world… What worth would be an extra year of life if purchased at the price of dishonor?
Very true. So let me ask you, should that be a mandate only for our fighting men and women or to all? Perhaps it’s my New England heritage, but I take the phrase, “Live free or die” very seriously. A viable rephrasing would be, “Live with honor or die.” To me there’s not a whole lot of difference. Back during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq I made the point to a friend of mine that historically the US has had its most influence when leading by example first and foremost rather than force first and foremost. To me the notion of preemptive war puts the cart in front of the horse — it puts force in front of honor, and puts honor on the backs of our fighting men and women exclusively rather than on our nation as a whole. IMO, we need to have more faith in our nation as a whole. America is better served if we represent the conscience of the world first and foremost rather than as the policemen of the world first and foremost.
14. CallMeTeach | November 16th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Oh look, censorship at it’s finest. I would like to know what these lies are so that I could discover the truth for myself but apparently the conservative dogma does not include objective and rational thinking. Now I know where the slogan “Patriotism means keeping your mouth shut” comes from. Anyways…
I find it rather irritating when people say things like “Our soldiers are dying over there to protect us here”. Irritating because one, our generals and Secretary of Defense keep telling us our forces are overstretched and will be unable to respond to a crisis if one were to occur; two, we have this irrational assumption that some how we are preventing them from coming over here. Like all of a sudden there is some compelling force or some imaginary 20 foot wall that blocks them from doing so. We had this saying in the Army that perception is reality - but we knew it was complete bullshit. Perceiving that we are safe doesn’t mean we are.
As far as this need for sacrificing freedom for security is concerned; ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MINDS. When you sacrifice your freedom for security you loose both and I didn’t say that, Benjamin Franklin did. It is however horribly obvious that we have a blatant disregard for the words of the founding fathers and assume they no longer apply to us.
One last thing, please, please tell me there are people that are rational enough here to realize that we can not wage and win a war against an idea (terrorism). Ideas are intangible and can not be defeated so please can we get past this rhetoric. The problem is, has been, and will continue to be this idea that we can defeat an insurgency with military might, something no country in Middle Eastern history has EVER been able to do. I don’t know what the answer is. I don’t advocate pulling out and leaving people to their own devices but I also don’t advocate doing the same thing over, and over, and over, and over again expecting different results (also the definition of insanity). There is a way for us to protect ourselves, repair the countries we broke, keep our dignity, and perhaps even restore our rights, but we first have to stop advocating this failed foreign policy. We are a country of some of the most intelligent, wise, and creative people on this planet, please tell me we can come up with something better than what we have right now. Thank you.
15. searp | November 17th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Mark: if you are so concerned about honor and so unconcerned about your life, then… enlist!
Your vaporings don’t impress me, I’ve been there for real and you and your ilk haven’t.
16. searp | November 17th, 2007 at 8:09 am
I see that you have served, so I will amend my comment:
You would have to go as a civilian. No harm in that, sign up for a provincial reconstruction team or something else. Plenty of opportunities to go live your words. I know this because I am a decade older than you and managed to do it.
Isn’t it, ahem, a bit cowardly/dishonorable to sit on the sidelines cheering and calling others cowards?
17. neocon | November 17th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
What would the world do without the brilliance, compassion, and above all the tolerance of liberals as evidenced by CallMeTeach and searp?
18. searp | November 18th, 2007 at 5:32 am
Where would we be without the stupidity and ignorance of some of the people who love war but somehow never get to the fight?
19. American Singles » &hellip | November 18th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
[...] Mark Noonan wrote an interesting post today on Keep Yourself AliveHere’s a quick excerptWhen someone like Richardson says that in the achievement of a goal, the loss of a single American life is “too many”, he’s speaking utter nonsense. Oh, I imagine that it did well in focus-groups, but do we really want to live in a … [...]