| |
Hey Y'all:
In the wake of the enormous human tragedy of last Tuesday there is little
that can be said to assuage the justified anger, sadness, bewilderment, and
deep conflict that many of us are feeling. I think it's important to give
into these feelings and experience them fully -- ventilating the bottled-up
anguish we are feeling is a healthy thing and no one should be ashamed of
their feelings. Tears are becoming on a person filled with sadness.
Feelings of rage and anger are perfectly justified too. I hope that no one
thinks I have criticized their feelings.
But here is the thing, intelligent people do not act upon their feelings
without careful reflection.
In this time of warmongering by our highest elected officials, I was at
least heartened by the news that some are granting their support to military
actions with the proviso that they can choose to cut off the funding for
such programs at a later time if these actions prove misguided or
ineffective. Given that congressional support is almost unanimous, I can
only hope that we REALLY have the evidenciary goods on our proposed targets
-- otherwise we will have been duped by our leaders into another military
fiasco of untold proportions.
What disturbs me about what is going on is the rhetoric of our current "war
on terrorism." Bush Jr. has used terms like "Dead or alive" (dead men tell
no tales, and neither do dead defendants, right George?) and Powell is
running around telling world leaders that they are either for or against us.
Great, no middle ground. Yeah, we are looking good and standing tall --
like Wild West styled gunslingers. Too bad this isn't a Hollywood movie,
because it plays like a b-grade western.
Have many of you stopped to consider how a "war on terrorism" sounds a lot
like a "war on drugs." My guess is that we will be as successful with the
former as we have been with the latter. Why don't we just call it "Jihad"
as they do, and be done with it? It's all empty words as far as I am
concerned. Where will we find these faceless enemies? What evidence is
being profferred against them, or are we way beyond that now? How do we
expect to forestall retaliatory actions? What are the numbers of acceptable
losses in terms of human lives, individual rights, and economic costs?
Warmongering feels good when you are giving into your anger -- it makes less
sense after you have allowed yourself to cool down enough to think more clearly.
War is not a solution, it is merely another reactionary symptom of a greater
human problem [Q: "Why did you hit me?" A: "You're stepping on my toes."].
What's more, war in this case may be symptomatic of missing the point just
as in the case of the "war on drugs." Given the pure capitalism of the
black market, you can eliminate the importation of drugs into the U.S. be
eliminating demand. Eliminating demand has nothing to do with treating
people like criminals -- it has to do with treating their addiction problems
medically, it has to do with education and economic parity for the
disadvantaged. Are none of you amazed that we cannot even stop the flow of
drugs into environments as "controlled" as our prison systems? So much for
handcuffs, cages, and guns...and it's not even as if these prisoners have a
lot of individual rights they can stand on -- they're prisoners for crying
out loud! Still, drug marketeers manage to fulfill the demands of the
incarcerated anyway. Do you imagine that marginal individual rights
sacrifices on our part can stem the progress of terrorism? It just isn't
so, and I would think it would be obvious on its face.
I looked up the name "Osama bin Laden" in my copy of MS Bookshelf 2000, it
gave me:
"November 4, 1998
The U.S. State Department announces it will offer a $5-million reward for
information leading to the capture and conviction of Osama bin Laden, a
wealthy Saudi Arabian accused of masterminding the August 1998 bombings of
the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania."
Y'know, "capture and conviction" sounds very reasonable to me -- it sounds
like the actions of reasonable men. And if it was good enough for us in
1998, what is different today? [Don't even try telling me that the U.S.
military is incapable of finding this guy and capturing him if it wants to.
They could have done so at any time. If they did not, ask yourself, "Why
not...?"] Once we are in the thick of an actual war such reasonableness
will be lost in the overwhelming emotions felt as we take more losses in
terms of young American lives.
Some have suggested that now is not the time to talk of peace or
alternatives to war. But if now is not the time, when is the time? It is
easy to talk of peace in a time of peace because it requires no effort. I
ask those inclined to war to consider their better natures and to look for a
more generous alternative. I ask this generosity not so much for the sake
of our possible enemies, as for ourselves. Perhaps you have heard it said
that "Vengeance cuts both ways."
Warmongering in a time of war feels like patriotism. But believe me, true
patriots also talk of peace and love their country no less for it.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
| (...) I try to be a pacifist: as Richard says, it's a position that's only really challenging when war looms. The more I think about it the more I am convinced that any military offensive in the Middle East will be a grave mistake, morally as well (...) (23 years ago, 18-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
55 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
