In the latest episode of The Sitter Downers, I thought it was interesting that Tom had to come up with a legitimate reason to invade the US before he could postulate his actual question. I'm not entirely sure what Tom's question was, so I'll come up with my own after using the following scenario to help suspend Adam's disbelief.
I think Tom was going to try to ask about the principle of invading another sovereign country that didn't pose a threat. And what gives any country a right to impose its beliefs on any other country?
Adam's objection was that Tom didn't account for the fact that the American invasions are noble. So in order to address that, here's my analogy.
Suppose...
- ... a superpower invaded America and continued killing Americans who fought back and resisted the occupation to the tune of between 4,000 to 15,000 each day (depending on the day of the week).
- ... the invading superpower is a relatively small, relatively militant nation who recently became a superpower due to the discovery of a powerful new energy source called AQS (artificial quantum singularity) which now makes this superpower very rich and very dangerous.
- ... the superpower invaded America because it had a moral objection to the killing of 3,000 to 5,000 people every single day (depending on the day of the week).
- ... the 3,000 to 5,000 people America kills are unborn babies.
- ... this superpower isn't part of the UN, but if it were, it would just ignore the UN.
- ... this invading superpower also made an alliance with Mexico for logistic purposes.
- ... Mexico sides with the invaders and creates an alliance in exchange for support and protection.
We know that not all Americans personally kill unborn babies. But that distinction is relatively unimportant to the invaders. To them, all Americans have the potential of becoming abortionists either by performing abortions or by fighting the occupation. They make no distinction between the abortionists and those who harbor them.
Since the Americans voted for the "abortionism" regime for 35 years on end (republicans and democrats are both abortionism regimes), all Americans are to blame to some extent. The occupying nation also takes issue with Christianity, claiming it promotes abortionism. Although this is a false claim, the citizens of the invading superpower can't be bothered to check the facts.
So with the above analogy in mind, my main question is, do you think it's ok to call all the Americans who fight back abortionists?
Also, does it seem a little strange that the invaders are against abortionism but don't mind killing many times more Americans to stop them from being abortionists?
It is also very convenient that abortionists come to America from other countries to get killed. That way, the invading superpower is itself safe from abortionism since they are fighting them "over there."
What was the alternative? Assuming such a superpower came into existence, does it not have a moral obligation to stop the murder of these innocents by any means necessary? Should the superpower just stand by and allow the Americans to kill these people when it has the power to step in and stop it? Should the superpower really just rely upon "talks" to try to convince the Americans to stop their abortionist regime?
Or in fact, is there a principle at work for respecting the borders of other nations and avoiding entangling alliances instead of invading nations that do things we don't approve of?
Shouldn't the new superpower respect the borders of the abortionist nations and set an example by not itself engaging in abortion? Setting an example for other nations establishes a moral high-ground for them to follow.
If you're having trouble seeing the parallels in my analogy, I'll break it down for you:
- America is analog to Iraq, therefore
- Abortionism is analog to Terrorism, therefore:
- Abortion = Terror
- Abortionist = Terrorist
- Abortionist/ism Regime = Terrorist/ism Regime
- War on Abortionism = War on Terrorism
- The invading superpower is analog to America, therefore
- AQS is dual analog to America's rich resources and military industrial complex.
- There are definitely other parallels, I just didn't fully document them all.
No analogy is perfect. For example, Iraq didn't have any known Al-Qaeda terrorists until we invaded, but my analog America has abortionists, just like in real life. But I hope someone will answer a few of my questions. Please stick to the overarching theme and try not to knit-pick my analogy too much. Some knit-picking is in order, but there's no reason to allow it to short-circuit the original point.
No comments:
Post a Comment