When representatives of the United States speak, they should command an audience. The country is, after all, the most powerful nation to this point—Sunday morning, January 14, 2024 at 9:30 AM Eastern. Somehow, over the course of the last fifty years, the words have had little effect, and only military action has garnered the world’s attention. This seems to have been the recent case of the bombing of western Yemen’s Houthi stronghold. In case you haven’t been paying attention, note that western Yemen has a strategic location for anyone wanting to stop a large portion of world trade, and the Houthis, at the behest of Iran, have used their location and Iran’s weapons to attack shipping. When the attacks began, the US said, “You better stop that.” Then louder, “You better stop that or else….” Finally, the US and the UK bombed Houthis (who had virtually nothing to gain by the attacks).
I’m thinking that Uncle Sam needs some calling. I mean a Calling, Biblical Like, something like the call Samuel got in the dead of night. The First Book of Samuel, or the First Book of Kings as it is also known, relates that Samuel was asleep when he heard his name. He went to Eli (or Heli) to say, “Hey, whad-you-want?” Eli said, “What? Go back to sleep; I didn’t call you.” Story goes that this was repeated until Eli said, “I haven’t been waking you and calling you. It’s gotta be God. So, next time, say, “Whad-You want, Lord? I’m your servant.” (I have no idea what the dialect would have sounded like, sorry; don’t take this for an exact translation)
But the big point here is what comes in Chapter 3, verse 19. In the Douay version of the Bible, the passage reads, “and Samuel grew, and the Lord was with him, and not one of his words fell to the ground.” Kind of an odd idiom, but the Douay version predates our modern idiom. Instead, think “and not one of his words was without effect.”
Without Effect
Words alone don’t do much to quash the actions of bad actors. Words supported by actions do have an effect. Words supported by actions do not “fall to the ground.” They linger as long as the actions linger and maybe longer if the actions are very decisive.
The problem appeasers have is that their words typically fall to the ground. They have no effect. The most famous instance of ineffective language is that of Neville Chamberlain, whose “peace in our time” statement after a meeting with Hitler proved to be worthless. The bad actors acted in spite of the words. Hitler invaded Poland, and, well, the rest is as they say, history.
For days, and luckily during those days without much effect, the Houthis launched drones and missiles at ships passing their way—even mistakenly at a Russian vessel. The “words” of the West fell to the ground, just as the words of the West fell to the ground prior to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and previously of Georgia.
Uncle Sam has under the leadership of appeasers become a target for terror and disruption by foreign agents, the Houthis being one group of such agents.
Some Action Is Better than No Action, but Does It Garner Attention?
So, the US and UK have bombed Houthi encampments and weapons. Do those acitons speak louder than words? Have the falling bombs kept the words from falling? Will they keep future words from falling on the ground?
Apparently, the secular leaders of the US don’t put much faith in a divine calling. And that, I suppose is all right in a humanitarian philosophy sort of way. Whose “divine calling” would whisper in Uncle Sam’s sleeping ear? What if, for example, the divine calling came through an Imam? A Buddhist monk? A Satanist? Obviously in a plural society there wouldn’t be much agreement on the nature of the calling. “You were just dreaming, Sammy." Or, "What you heard was just a random blending of sounds from the local highway or road construction that “sounded” like your name. There’s nothing divine in your calling. You know, that separation of Church and State thing.”
But if we are governed by the ethics of humanitarianism and not religion, don’t we still have an obligation to speak and act on behalf of the people threatened by malevolence for what seems to be malevolence’s sake? What purpose do the Houthi attacks serve except to further the will of Iran and disrupt civilization? Do the attacks further the Houthi cause? Consider that in light of the Houthis being a military force so inferior to the military powers of the West, that they could only suffer grave consequences by continuing their attacks on western interests. Like bullies, the Houthis have acted without considering the possible consequences, but who can blame them? They heard repeatedly “If you don’t stop these attacks” without any followup response. Bullies and bad guys seem to respond only when they suffer some punishment, if not the wrath of God, then certainly the wrath of the offended.
These Aren’t Biblical Times, Obviously
When the Book of Biden is written, will it note, “And no words of his were without effect” or “Nothing Biden said ever fell on the ground”? Has Joe been called in the middle of the night, when he’s sleeping during the middle of the day, or when he’s been wandering aimlessly waiting for someone to usher him off the stage? (Well, I suppose the last one, maybe a call from an assistant: "Mr. President, this way, Mr. President; walk this way)
Uncle Sam needs a Samuel to voice its interests. it needs a strong voice that will be heard before there's a need to act.
I’m thinking that Uncle Sam needs some calling. I mean a Calling, Biblical Like, something like the call Samuel got in the dead of night. The First Book of Samuel, or the First Book of Kings as it is also known, relates that Samuel was asleep when he heard his name. He went to Eli (or Heli) to say, “Hey, whad-you-want?” Eli said, “What? Go back to sleep; I didn’t call you.” Story goes that this was repeated until Eli said, “I haven’t been waking you and calling you. It’s gotta be God. So, next time, say, “Whad-You want, Lord? I’m your servant.” (I have no idea what the dialect would have sounded like, sorry; don’t take this for an exact translation)
But the big point here is what comes in Chapter 3, verse 19. In the Douay version of the Bible, the passage reads, “and Samuel grew, and the Lord was with him, and not one of his words fell to the ground.” Kind of an odd idiom, but the Douay version predates our modern idiom. Instead, think “and not one of his words was without effect.”
Without Effect
Words alone don’t do much to quash the actions of bad actors. Words supported by actions do have an effect. Words supported by actions do not “fall to the ground.” They linger as long as the actions linger and maybe longer if the actions are very decisive.
The problem appeasers have is that their words typically fall to the ground. They have no effect. The most famous instance of ineffective language is that of Neville Chamberlain, whose “peace in our time” statement after a meeting with Hitler proved to be worthless. The bad actors acted in spite of the words. Hitler invaded Poland, and, well, the rest is as they say, history.
For days, and luckily during those days without much effect, the Houthis launched drones and missiles at ships passing their way—even mistakenly at a Russian vessel. The “words” of the West fell to the ground, just as the words of the West fell to the ground prior to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and previously of Georgia.
Uncle Sam has under the leadership of appeasers become a target for terror and disruption by foreign agents, the Houthis being one group of such agents.
Some Action Is Better than No Action, but Does It Garner Attention?
So, the US and UK have bombed Houthi encampments and weapons. Do those acitons speak louder than words? Have the falling bombs kept the words from falling? Will they keep future words from falling on the ground?
Apparently, the secular leaders of the US don’t put much faith in a divine calling. And that, I suppose is all right in a humanitarian philosophy sort of way. Whose “divine calling” would whisper in Uncle Sam’s sleeping ear? What if, for example, the divine calling came through an Imam? A Buddhist monk? A Satanist? Obviously in a plural society there wouldn’t be much agreement on the nature of the calling. “You were just dreaming, Sammy." Or, "What you heard was just a random blending of sounds from the local highway or road construction that “sounded” like your name. There’s nothing divine in your calling. You know, that separation of Church and State thing.”
But if we are governed by the ethics of humanitarianism and not religion, don’t we still have an obligation to speak and act on behalf of the people threatened by malevolence for what seems to be malevolence’s sake? What purpose do the Houthi attacks serve except to further the will of Iran and disrupt civilization? Do the attacks further the Houthi cause? Consider that in light of the Houthis being a military force so inferior to the military powers of the West, that they could only suffer grave consequences by continuing their attacks on western interests. Like bullies, the Houthis have acted without considering the possible consequences, but who can blame them? They heard repeatedly “If you don’t stop these attacks” without any followup response. Bullies and bad guys seem to respond only when they suffer some punishment, if not the wrath of God, then certainly the wrath of the offended.
These Aren’t Biblical Times, Obviously
When the Book of Biden is written, will it note, “And no words of his were without effect” or “Nothing Biden said ever fell on the ground”? Has Joe been called in the middle of the night, when he’s sleeping during the middle of the day, or when he’s been wandering aimlessly waiting for someone to usher him off the stage? (Well, I suppose the last one, maybe a call from an assistant: "Mr. President, this way, Mr. President; walk this way)
Uncle Sam needs a Samuel to voice its interests. it needs a strong voice that will be heard before there's a need to act.
RSS Feed