Red Cross Foolishness

Red Cross Foolishness

First of all I was not going to write the article, but the Red Cross is kind of forcing it, and my wife is pushing me, Rosa. I mean, they got their say, now leave it alone, it is old business, and the Red Cross on the man’s sleeve may have saved the lives of fifteen people, in what is considered a war zone. You can’t get anything better than that.

The question comes up: Was the Red Cross emblem used with improper intent?
Perhaps it was, and I’m sure it is not the first time this has happened, but it looks like you got some professionals up there without much sympathy, in the high offices that can’t put it to rest. They say look at the future of the Red Cross! It damages the potentiality of helping others. The media and the Red Cross themselves are doing more damage than Colombia had ever intended to do, if indeed they had intent of using the emblem at all in the first place.
The President of Colombia, whose father was killed by these terrorists, and the man who wore the arm emblem by trying to make the point of their mission, an internationally mission and Red Cross supported, did what most folks would have done, had they been put into such a position. But now these so called good folks up in the high Red Cross offices, are calling it a war crime.
First of all I praise Colombia for such a daring feat, second, the terrorist got what they deserve, third, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe is my hero now; forth, is not the INRC, suppose to be helping the sick? These fifteen hostages they had were not the healthiest birds in Colombia, and these folks making the biggest noise, I bet ate a fat breakfast, and had their eight hours of glorious sleep, so they got to get off their high horses and look at what was achieved. Actually they need to look at it from a different perspective: had one of those hostages been their mother, father, child, husband, wife, would they be making such a big gripe over spilt milk? I don’t think so, and if they would, I’d not want them in my family circle.
From another vantage point, if that man who wore the emblem saved your son’s life, or family member’s life, or the mission’s life, what then? Is the Red Cross saying, he needed to take off that emblem, and say “Come and Kill us all now, because we are fooling you folks?”
I saw that happen, when the United Nations would not send in a helicopter to save their own team in Africa years ago, because it violated protocol, and I wonder now and then how their families think about it; when it would have been a simple task, because the helicopters were close by. They asked the US to do it, and the US said, if we did, you folks will insult us internationally, again for violating your standards, so the folks cried and screamed over the phone as they got slaughtered, cut to bits and pieces by the machetes of the black antagonists.
In conclusion, let me say this, right or wrong, every law has their exceptions to the policy, depending on the circumstances, we are not robots. If we limit ourselves to such standards, we become limited not only in war, but in saving lives. After the conflict, or after the war is won, no one asks, especially the losers, “Did you fight fare?” Winning means life or death, and remember we each only have one.