Subject:
|
Peace! (was Re: Some other perspectives on the tragedy)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Sep 2001 20:34:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
632 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave:
I think some of you may be confusing "give peace a chance" with doing
absolutely nothing and taking it on the chin. I am not advocating that at all.
I absolutely think it's time we take a long hard look at the air
transportation industry and beef up security measures considerably. I
certainly think that TOO Many items are brought within the passanger area to
make things completely safe. At the same time I think the industry has to
take far greater responsibility for items that are checked in rather than
just the usual complete denial of any liability for anything you give into
their hands. I mean, if Fed Ex can tell me where my stuff is almost all the
time and insure it besides -- so can American Airlines, right? So great,
here's my laptop and other stuff --if you damage it, I get compensated.
Also much greater security around the cockpit would mean less or no access
to the flight controls. There is no reason for Tuesday's tragedy to ever be
repeated if we are vigilant.
As to everything else, I would simply say this: nothing we do now will
rebuild what was savagely torn down -- it's gone; nothing we do now will
bring back those we have lost -- they are gone from this world for good. I
mourn them all, we all mourn them together.
If we can find those truly responsible, and not just some convenient patsy,
I say let's round them up and make them pay for what they have done with
life in prison. For once, let's be an example of civility -- and not just a
wannabe. If you or I do not individually have the right to kill each other,
then there is no basis for thinking that the state as a collective has in
any way been bequeathed such a power either. Justice demands prison terms
-- not the hooliganism of war abroad. I want to be stainless before the
world and show them they we can bring those who are guilty to justice
without having to resort to the low violence of those who have so
egregiously wronged us as would be the case with indescriminate bombing. I
don't want to create martyrs -- I want to catch murderers. Of those who
might peripherally be the support group or relatives of the guilty, I would
suggest we engage them in a dialogue and find out what they think is wrong
that some of them are so vehemently opposed to the U.S. I would suggest we
try to arrive at some kind of policy of "live and let live", if not actual
friendship, with such people that future violence and terrorism may be
forestalled. Hey, I am just saying that sometimes its hard to see our own
faults and that they have to be pointed out to us. It's not okay to point
out our faults by killing our people -- surely there must have been another
way to get our attention. But too, let's be sure they get our attention
before they feel more desperate and that there must needs be violence.
The U.S. is a great country. Many of us honor the idea of the U.S. as it is
supposed to be, and what it may some day become. Many of us defend the
ethics and republican ideals of it's founders. Many of us hold almost as
sacred the much emulated U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights --
documents whose creations stand as triumphant moments in human history. We
have a long way to go before we can truly be thought to have fulfilled the
dream of what the Untied States may be and was intended to become. We will
not arrive there by being the bullies of the world. We will arrive there by
being the most civilized, peace-loving people on earth.
Peace is not something that happens by itself -- it must be actively worked
on! If we applied the same dedication that we have for our interpersonal
relationships to foreign affairs, things like Tuesday just wouldn't happen.
We wouldn't be mad at others in the world -- they would be our friends and
nieghbors. We would have a forum for settling disputes without war. We
wouldn't let our neighbors and friends kill each other over issues like
where the fence can be erected, we would have a dispute resolution
methodology in place to stop such things. Hey, people get on each others
nerves -- but must it end in bloodshed?
Giving peace a chance might mean something like turning over 1/2 of what we
spend on the military and giving it over to education (I have the insane
belief that educated people tend to shy away from violence as the only
solution). Giving peace a chance might mean engaging "third world"
countries in a meaningful share of the riches of the world, instead of just
bleeding them for cheap labor. Maybe peace might mean a computer in every
human dwelling -- so that no one feels left out -- everyone can dialogue
with anyone else in a time of need (Motherbox anyone?). There simply must
be a way to create peace, rather than simply allowing hatred and murder to
continue because of our indifference.
Do we want peace or do we want to move forward as brutes? That's the
choice. If all we do is keep enacting the Hatfields and McCoys in the
world, who then is the first to put down their sword or drop their gun?
Shouldn't the strong yield to peace first?
I say we are the strong and that we may yield to peace first.
-- Richard
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Some other perspectives on the tragedy
|
| (...) Let's see...1993-attempted bombing of WTC. Our Response: give peace a chance. 1999-twin bombing of US Embassys in Africs Our response: give peace a chance. 2000-The wanton destruction of the USS Cole Our Response: give peace a chance. (...) (23 years ago, 13-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
66 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
