Unspun Logo

The American Sacrifice

Posted by Bob · June 1st, 2004 · 1 Comment

“Sacrificing human rights in the name of national security, turning a blind eye to abuse abroad and using pre-emptive military force where and when the powerful choose to act has damaged justice and freedom, and made the world a more dangerous and divided place.”

So who is this opinion from? There are so many opinions out there, what does this opinion matter anyway? I mean every opinion has a hidden agenda so what’s the agenda for this group? It must be something obviously liberal and anti-administration, probably well-funded by the Left.


The voice belongs to Irene Khan, secretary general of Amnesty International. The country she is referring to is the United States.

Does it bother anyone else when our country is referred to in these terms?

Khan condemned terrorist assaults by groups such as al Qaeda but said the response to those attacks by the U.S.-led “coalition of the willing” was driving the most sustained erosion of human rights and international law in 50 years.

So the war on terror is a dirty war. It’s a war with a new shadowy opponent who doesn’t fight fair and seeks to create terror and havoc pursuant to their political goals. This enemy can hide anywhere and we’ve declared to the world that we will hunt down this enemy wherever he resides.

But does this enemy hold a power to change us into them?

Asked about the Amnesty report, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, “I dismiss that.”

When we look at prison photos from Baghdad, do we see the America we once saw? When a country as powerful as ours invades alone, without world support, do we see the America we once saw? Didn’t we have a sense of pride when we were a part of a coalition to liberate Kuwait? Where is that pride now?

“The war on terrorism has protected the human rights of some 25 million people in Afghanistan, and some 25 million people in Iraq,” McClellan said in Washington. “The war on terror has led to the liberation of some 50 million people in those countries, and the United States is a leader when it comes to protecting human rights, and we will continue to be.”

Mr. Bush has said his concern for human rights was one of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq. In an interview published earlier this year, the president is quoted as saying “No president has ever done more for human rights than I have.”

This argument has some merit. It can be argued that the average Afghan is better off without the Taliban. The same can be said for the average Iraqi and the regime of the sadistic Saddam.

But this is not just about our human rights record, it’s about what we have become since 9/11. What will the future say when it considers this time in America?

Will it believe that finding and engaging this enemy was worth the erosion of our domestic rights via the USA PATRIOT Act? Will our children understand the reason we’re handing them record deficits? Can America be trusted again when it was caught spinning intelligence to justify an invasion? Can we repair our relations with allies where we’re trusted again or will we always be feared as the superpower bully of the world? And can we ever be a part of bringing resolution to the Middle East when we’ve alienated Muslims and Arabs worldwide?

The American Sacrifice that I am referring to is that of reputation, of integrity and of purpose. The world’s only remaining superpower cannot be seen as ultimately self-serving. As the last superpower, if we can stay a superpower through all this, we have to wield power with great thought and an almost sacred intent. We should care about our human rights record. We should care about world opinion because we may find ourselves isolated and adrift from the world otherwise. If our goal is to create world stability then we have to consider the thoughts and opinions of these peoples and countries. As benevolent as we may think we are, the world will not voluntarily agree to be a part of an American Empire.

The only way to world stability is to give voice to other countries and not dictate terms to the planet. “For us or against us” is unenforceable and filled with duplicity. Example: one country rattles a nuclear saber and one country funds a majority of the terrorists that wish to destroy us. The first country is North Korea and the second is Saudi Arabia. “For us or against us” seems to be applied with more than a few blind eyes.

The war on terror is not small or trivial. It is worthy to be fought tooth and nail but without losing our identity. That would be the ultimate American sacrifice — ironically, to save America. And we have to keep one more thing in mind. It’s only human for peoples to ally themselves against a common enemy.

It is conceivable that someday that common enemy could be us.

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/26/world/main619622.shtml

Categories: The Bush Regime


1 response so far ↓

  • 1 Mark // Jun 2, 2004 at 6:23 am


    Your concerns echo statements I have read recently from ultra-right-winger Patrick Buchanan. Buchanan says that as a nation, we need to choose between being a republic and being an empire. He says we can’t be both. Buchanan thinks being a republic is more moral and vastly less expensive.

    While I disagree with many of Buchanan’s views on a wide range of issues, I have to agree with him on the republic vs. empire issue.

Leave a Comment