Certainly, it's a given that Bush will not
respond to the loss of life, any more than the Diem regime
in Vietnam responded to the loss of life
when Buddhist monks committed suicide to protest that
corrupt and unpopular administration. What
those suicides did was far more important than
changing the minds of Diem and his cronies:
they changed the minds of the American public.
It was the beginning of the end of U.S.
support for the South Vietnamese government.
But weren't those monk suicides filmed or taped? I never
meant to imply that footage of
a suicide isn't a attention-grabber, but who will see O'Keefe
and his followers die?
It would not be the first time in history
that brave souls willing to lay it all on the line changed
the course of a nation. You ask: what will
the deaths of those people in Baghdad accomplish?
Maybe nothing, maybe everything. I ask
you: if nothing is important enough to you that you
would be willing to lay down your life
for it, then what is your life really worth?
ha ha
That's a trick question.
Asking an agnostic what he's willing to die for isn't fair.
Besides Mrs. Bart, the list is very, very short.
I mean, there's always a chance that if I found myself in some
spectacularly unique situation
where my death meant America could continue to exist, I might
do the right and noble thing,
but O'Keefe isn't in that situation. He's volunteering to die
for a hopeless cause, in my opinion.
Saying the deaths of the Human Shields will
accomplish nothing not only misses the point of what they
are doing, it may not even be true. When
Gandhi led the nonviolent resistance to the British salt tax,
dozens, maybe hundreds of people died.
That is when the British began to lose their grip on India.
Gandhi didn't commit suicide - he was murdered. I didn't say it
was wrong to fight for a cause,
or to risk death for a cause. I'm saying it's wrong to murder
yourself for a hopeless cause.
O'Keffe won't be around to resist Bush when he invades Iran,
or Columbia, or whatever.
As for your comment that Ken O'Keefe's "leading
others to die in Iraq is [an] extremely
irresponsible thing to do": I think that
remark demeans and patronizes those who have
made the decision to go to Baghdad.
I agree that it's odd that I want him to go on living more than
he does. If the situation was different,
maybe I could support him. But the unelected idiot is kill crazy,
and getting in the way of the B.F.E.E.
when they've got a oil hardon will do nothing but add to the
death toll.
You seem to think Mr. O'Keefe is some Pied Piper leading a mass of deluded people to their doom;
Yes, his motives may be pure, but he's leading people to their
deaths.
I think you do not give those who have made
this decision enough credit. It could not have been easy
for them to decide to do this, any more
than it was easy for those who went to Mississippi in 1964 for
the "freedom summer" knowing they faced
the guns of the KKK and the police.
Disagree.
There's a world of difference between "facing" a gun and having
yourself murdered.
If the marchers in Missisippi were guaranteed to die,
how many would've shown up?
I've said it a hundred times - I'll fight (but not die for) free
speech, civil rights etc.
Schwerner, Cheney, and Goodman knew they
risked death; so did Viola Liuzo, and so many others.
You seem to think there is a difference,
but I think the Human Shields' convictions spring from the same
well that nourished those who fought in
the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 1960s. I think the
Human Shields know they may die, but I
do not think they feel their potential sacrifice to be a vain one.
Ann from Philly
Ann, I realize you haven't had a chance to respond to my central
point. O'Keefe is not risking death.
He has strapped himself into a kamikaze plane with only enough
gas to make it to the American carrier.
He's not coming back. If, by some miracle he survives our missles
and bombs, surely Saddam will have
him killed just for the hell of it.
I support and applaud those who risk death.
Those who go halfway around the world to seek out death do not
have my support.
Remember, in the original story, O'Keefe said he was doing this
because he refused to be "complicit"
in the deaths of innocent Iraqis. He's not complicit in anything.
His heart might be in the right place
but I'm glad he's not in charge of making life-and-death decisions
for me.