At long last, at number 309 someone has put forth the most confounding argument that also seems to be an underpinning of why this petition exists at all. And argument so insulting to the intelligence of readers that it hurts a little just to think about it. Zach Sepulveda wrote,
“they really should be removed since the only reason they are allowed to say that is because we provide them with the freedom and liberties they possess…If it wasn't for soldiers, we'd be part of England still, the French would be speaking German, along with the majority of European Nations, and slew of other "saved by soldiers, sailors and airmen" history lessons you might have heard of”
This one is going to take me a couple of paragraphs to unravel.
At the very beginning of his statement—within one sentence amazingly enough—Zach states that the people whose rights are protected by the fighting men and women should be taken away because they don’t deserve them. Apparently the rights and liberties protected by the military are reserved only for those who agree with everything said or done by the government/military. In essence, freedom of speech does not belong to all Americans, simply for being American, but only to those willing to kill for it.
The second part of the statement is more forgivable, although still fairly ignorant of global relations and world history. First statement, “If it wasn't for soldiers, we'd be part of England still…” Which is actually right on the money and I wouldn’t argue against it if I could. The only problem being that our current foreign policy seems to have no interest in letting people of other nations—let’s just say, Iraq, for a convenient example—create their own revolutions and prosperous futures. Instead we do all the ‘dirty work’ for them and then foist upon them a governmental system that they do not seem to want or enjoy. Plain and simple our government is using young American men and women to protect oil and other industrial interests in the middle east, which is fine if you can get behind it. All I ask is that you recognize your part in it. However, the whole ordeal robs the people of smaller countries the opportunity to create a system that is right for them in their own time, organically, and domestically. Basically it comes down to the adage, “Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will never go hungry.” We are giving away fish by the truckload, but not offering any help in others getting their own fish.
Second statement, “the French would be speaking German, along with the majority of European Nations…” This one may be true, barring, of course, that anything in the above paragraph didn’t happen between then and now. However, on a much broader scale one could argue that the only thing accomplished in stopping the German conquering of Europe is that the U.S. and its allies recognized that two wrongs do not make a right. Because the same sentence, with a few changes makes the same amount of sense, “If it weren’t for soldiers…the Navajo would still be speaking Navajo [on their native soil], along with the majority of Native American Nations.” The fact on this one is that Hitler’s rhetoric at the beginning of World War II was frighteningly similar to the idea of “Manifest Destiny” here in America that was used to control, coerce, and all but eliminate the native people of this land. I am not, by any means, defending either practice, just pointing out that sometimes things are done that seem alright at the time, but later turn out to have been a horrible bit of gaffery.
The final statement, “history lessons you might have heard of.” Yeah, I think I’ve heard something about them, here and there. All in all, however it is kind of hypocritical to ask others to support you in the taking away of other’s rights that you have ostensibly been fighting to protect. Is it not?