Saturday, August 26, 2006

If Not War, Then What?

As I post this, I've been considering whether or not to remove some bloggers from my blogroll. I am always thrilled to speak with those with whom I have disagreements and frequently bounce back and forth between here and there.

However, here lately, some of those linked have been endorsing war crimes, insofar as they're seriously endorsing the use of nuclear weapons on civilian populations. This, to me, is traitorous and, frankly, just plain insane talk. I understand where they're coming from - these nuclear holocaust advocates are afraid that if we don't do something, then "they" (terrorists, communists, boogeymen of whatever sort) will think we're paper tigers and attack us first.

I have no doubt that those who are endorsing war crimes are doing so thinking of their countryfolk, because they live in fear that if we "don't do anything" then They will attack us.

But by so doing, they are indicating not only that they are endorsing war crimes, but they're seeming to indicate that they're letting their fear make them crazy. And I am unsure as to whether such folk are the best to communicate with or to give any credence to. They clearly represent a minority in the US and their ideas will never take hold because, as they like to point out, the citizens of the US are not monsters. Still, I don't want to be connected with their dangerously delusional ideas.

But I will leave them on the list to keep the lines of communication open and to let their own fear and terror speak for itself. Sometimes, nothing speaks so eloquently against a horrific idea so much as letting those who'd endorse it speak their minds.

On the flip side of things, Michael currently has an outstanding series of essays going on Peace and War topics, including this piece on Just Peacemaking - it is one answer to the question: If not war, then what? Many of those who live in fear of "doing nothing," ought to read it and understand that, as I have to repeat constantly, no one is talking about doing nothing. There are quite pragmatic, proven and workable solutions out there that, even if you don't want to give up war as a possible tool, ought to be considered if you truly want war as a last resort.

8 comments:

Michael Westmoreland-White said...

That post is long for a blog. I still write like I am writing magazine or journal articles and fail to realize how long something looks on screen until it is posted. So, I will write meditations/explanations on each of the 10 practices. I welcome feedback, questions, reasonable challenges, etc.

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

Oh, come on Dan. You're whining!

Can't you come up with a good argument against what some of us are suggesting? This is war-time, dude. You really need to stop denying that fact. We have a bitter enemy that has displayed their complete disregard for civility otr helpful discourse. We have a God-given means of ending this by dis-proving to the enemy its belief that we would never dare use those God-given means!

He's given us the victory--all we've got to do is go!

Read Judges 4.

Personally, I don't think there is a "leader" who has the balls to do the right thing and place a nuke strategically that would shut our enemies and the leftist whiners who have encouraged thier disdain for American resolve.

Do the right thing! Drop the dang bomb!

A little terroristic threatening at the top of the post, Dan?

Dan Trabue said...

"The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited."

Section II, Article 25

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

We're not afraid of the terrorists, Dan. We--as you described your feelings towards us--are afraid of your philosophy.

Because your philosophy is dangerous to the world. It disarms the good guys, Dan--whether you think the US is the good-guys or not.

I do!

I fail to understand how someone could not face the truth of the current world situation--it is os obvious.

A nuke is the answer. But it won't happen--too late. The left has managed to declaw us by making the use of nukes politically taboo even though nukes are largely responsible for the prosperity of Japan and Europe which was constantly at war with others or between themselves until two nukes were detonated.

We've talked about perception before. I don't think you're evil or anything like that, I just think you are not looking at things clearly.

I would hope you don't think me evil for trying to make sure millions of my own countrymen are not vaporized. Surely you MUST know that we truly have an enemy who is determined to make that horror a reality!

I'm disappointed in the constant branding of those of us who view decisive military action as a solution to this present world situation as "targeting civilians".

It's a false charge that should not be offered by any honest contributor to a debate on how best to bring this situation to a reasonable close.

Perception, Dan.

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

"The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited."

BTW, Dan--have you seen all the footage Iran has put out on the wire in the past few months? I'd say--with all that military hardware and the threat of nukes--Iran is pretty dang-well defended!

We wouldn't target their civilians and you WELL know it!

Dan Trabue said...

"The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited."

When a nuclear weapon is dropped on a city, you are, indeed, attacking and bombarding undefended towns and dwellings. War crimes. You're advocating terrorism. Inciting violence.

Take care, what you're doing may well be illegal and is almost certainly enough to get you investigated under the auspices of the PATRIOT Act.

Tim Sean said...

I am fully aware there is an enemy that is plotting to do us harm and I support covert "surgical" operations that expose those plots. I have two teenagers from my work with youth over the years who grew up to do covert work and they are intelligent and thoughtful people in regards to this kind of thing. I am still a bit ambivalent to the Patriot Act but certainly think that errors in that direction are more palatable than the use of nuclear weapons.

Our enemies wanting to kill 5000 innocent lives at a time does not lead me to want to kill 300,000 of them to prevent it, or even in repsonse to it, particurally when i do not begin to believe it would bring a cessation of terrorist attacks. The rules have changed, these attacks will go on whether we slaughter hundreds of thousands of lives. In fact, they would increase if we acted in a such a way.

Our repsonse to terrorism has to be intelligent and covert, done with a scaple, not a blunt stick.

If my child or wife were killed in a terrorist attack I know I would have feelings of revenge, but I still would not want the same devastation perpetrated on 50,000 families across the pond.

And if Iran obtained a nuclear bomb and used pre-emptively? Then God's judgment will be upon their heads. But I cannot buy into the logic that we need to pre-emptively use nuclear weapons in the possible event they would do such a thing.

Michael Westmoreland-White said...

Tim said, "If my child or wife were killed in a terrorist attack I know I would have feelings of revenge, but I still would not want the same devastation perpetrated on 50,000 families across the pond."

Tim are you aware of the group known as September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows? They formed even before we invaded Afghanistan and are composed of family members of the 9/11 victims who seek to honor their loved ones deaths by working for world peace. They have been involved in food aid and rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan--although prevented from out government from going into areas needing help the most for "security reasons," and with Iraq and have joined Veterans for Peace in many joint projects.

There is a way to defeat terrorism and it partly involves those scalpel actions you speak about. But it also involves working to remove the ability of terrorists to recruit. Poverty, for instance. Osama bin Laden is wealthy and poverty is nowhere a direct cause of terrorism. But extreme poverty makes people vulnerable to easy answers ("Its all the fault of the Great Satan, America!") as does watching the group punishment of the many for the sins of the few.

Terrorism is normally attractive only to a few fanatics. It becomes more attractive to larger masses of recruits when folk are desperate and afraid. Terrorism is the weapon of the weak. Give people other options and the masses will abandon terrorism (it's happened before), leaving only the few fanatics--now quite vulnerable to those scalpel-like actions you've suggested.