Nancy L. Meek


Oh yeh, Uncle Sammy rolled up his sleeves alright;
but, instead of hitting bin laden standing in front of him
… the real cause of all the death, tears and mayhem,
Uncle Sammy turns and sucker punches the guy next to him…
namely saddam hussein; who had not a thing to do
with those attacks upon our people and our nation
(not that he didn’t deserve his eventual destination)
as bin laden, in his corner, prepares for round two.

A response to the poem, “Roll Up Your Sleeves” ~ ©Copyright September 2001 by Gary Jacobson

Author’s Commentary
(addressed to Gary Jacobson)

Your excellent poem [Roll Up Your Sleeves] conveys all the reasons our leader should be concentrating his efforts on tracking down that heinous and devious mass murderer. It is truly a shame that our prez has wasted so much time in a country where bin laden isn’t hiding. It is also a shame that Bush could not envision the chaos which would result from attempting to oust a president in a Middle Eastern country. Even I, a virtual layperson concerning Middle Eastern affairs, could see that he would be opening up a hornet’s nest.

It still irks me that he keeps saying it’s better that we fight the terrorists over there, rather than on our own soil. Can you imagine how such a statement is perceived by anyone living in another country? If I was one of them, this is what I would be thinking:

“Should Bush believe that any terrorists are hiding out/training in my country then there is a real and true possibility that my country will find itself in the same predicament as the one in Iraq. It is mighty arrogant of Bush to believe that American lives are more valuable than the lives of people living in other countries. Better here than there? I don’t think so.”

Yes sir, that’s what I would be thinking if I was a foreigner.

I have entertained the thought that perhaps Bush is afraid for his own hide, knowing that if our country was crawling with terrorists, they would surely be trying to return the favor he has vicariously inflicted on their own loved ones. It’s been said he avoided going to Vietnam. If that is true, it would explain at least one reason why he would not want war to come to him? I think, though, that he’s merely postponing the inevitable.

It’s hard thinking of terrorists as having loved ones, though. But, they are still humans; and as such, they must surely feel love for their own families and friends, don’t you think?

We tend to refer to them as terrorists, rather than criminals. I think that is odd, since we are not technically in a war, but rather in a police action, like Vietnam. But, no matter how heinously one person murders another, or how many people that person murders, it is still a crime committed against human being(s). Regardless of how people are murdered, they are still deprived of life. I think some people are more offended by “how” a person is murdered rather than by the fact that the person has been killed and is dead. Is there ever an acceptable method/reason to murder someone?

Apparently so, according to some, what with lethal injections for death-row inmates, abortions, assisted suicide, pulling-the-plug on terminally-ill people on respirators, as well as via wars for perceived good causes. The difference between those methods/reasons which are acceptable and those which are not, is the willingness factor. That’s why there is so much heated debate concerning the killing of our own species, not to mention killing lower forms of life, like cows, chickens and alligators. When murdering another human being is performed “without killing public opinion”, you won’t hear much flack. Nowadays, the same public approval applies to killing lower forms of life, as well.

If a farmer takes one of his cows to the butcher, to have it cut up into steaks, it is perfectly acceptable to the farmer’s peers. But, if that same farmer was to kill his cow in anger over the cow’s natural inclination to wander onto the neighbor’s pasture, then the animal rights activists will throw a big stink. In order for the farmer to avoid being punished, all he would need to do is to not tell anyone about his anger towards the cow and then take his cow to the butcher, to have it cup into steaks. In either scenario, the cow is still dead. To my way of thinking, there is something terribly wrong with this mentality, in that it promotes deceit and lies. It appears that “the reason” is perceived as more important than the fact that the cow is deprived of its life… aka a “just cause”. Apparently the need to ease hunger (the just cause in this case) takes precedence over killing out of anger. But, still, the cow is still dead.

So, do you think the terrorists who murder others of their own species out of anger consider themselves to be promoting truth? They make no bones about the fact that they hate us. Such hate appears to be a good enough “just cause” for them, especially since we keep straying over to their side of the pasture. This leads me to think that perhaps we should keep our hides in our own pasture. And, consider building a higher fence (defense) to keep them out of ours.

The above poem and the accompanying commentary inspired the response, “IWVPA”: ©Copyright September 22, 2008 by Colin F. Jones