which has been on the streets since 2002,
Your group seems to disapprove war in general. Do you'all approve
of any of the wars fought. Korean War, Vietnam War, Falkland War,
Reagan destabilization of Poland, the Contra-Sandinista Nicaragua
war, Panama War 1989 (Noriega), Reagan bombing of Lybia, 1983
invasion of Grenada to oust Communist regime, Reagan support of
Afghan rebels with heat seeking anti aircraft stinger missiles,
1996-1999 Kosovo war, First Iraqi War and Second Iraqi war...? Did
any of these wars serve peace and stability? Took me a long
time to write this... Would love an answer... [more at bottom]
The biggest problem with OJ's analysis is comparing
wars between states, with the sorts of two-bit aggressions and
one-sided slaughters by the United States since WW2
(generally traced to industrialists or financiers-special interests-
inside the US.)
We all tend to use the word "war" pretty carelessly, when we
are referring to different armed conflicts, that have very
fundamental differences. Think of the US wars. The revolutionary
war, civil war, invasion of mexico, invasion of cuba and philippines,
WW2, invasion at normandy, invasion of Okinawa, etc. These
have such massive differences, why do we use the word "War"
at all? Each of these revolutions, separatist movements, invasions,
etc. are different... Why lump them together?
I think the key question is the efficacy of violence. I'm not even
going to talk about morality, since OJ's discourse reveals
that he doesn't have a morality problem with arming 1 million
teenagers and other Americans to go 10,000 miles away
to kill a million Iraqis or Vietnamese... So let's talk about simple
pragmatism, simple efficacy.
I reckon there is nothing at stake in Iraq worth the cost of war, period.
War is so massively costly. There is a population that will fight back,
for example. And our injured vets will suck up resources for the
next 50 years.
no matter whose company sells it. Saddam, or otherwise.
Even if it goes straight into some nonwestern block, those
buyers demand, then, will be absent in Rotterdam or NY,
making our oil cheaper.
US oil companies will not sell this oil 1 penny below market,
to Americans, as a result of the war. They will sell it at the
"world price". Why are we fighting for them?
But I digress from the basic position that violence is anyways,
*never efficacious*. While it is true, force and violence can expel
opposing people or kill them, and it can configure the material
world in some desired way, there are several big problems.
One is the blowback, the material costs-- the karma. But the more
important one (for a humanity of 7 billion) is "What kind of a
world do you want to live in?" This population is so immense,
and its education and resources so immense, we can build
nonviolent futures. Force can bring about a profitable
and prosperous materialism, generally for a small number of people.
That's true. Such as the genocide of native Americans.
Let's even concede, for the sake of argument, it might even be
over 50% of the winning population.
But the problem is, you can't really enjoy your dinner,
knowing you exterminated a native population someplace,
just to fatten yourself on this food, consume this oil, or
in the case of US 2007, consume goods manufactured by
millions of Chinese laborers who are being screwed out of
their money. You can pretend to be satisfied but the
knowledge of it, will eat away at you. Sorry. That seems to
be the human design.
In the case of the Persian Gulf, the Carter Doctrine fulfils our
middle level of Maslow's Hierarchy-the oil- but denies us peace of
mind, mental harmony or a sense of spiritual wholeness--
the upper levels of Maslows Hierarchy. It denies us the pleasure
of arab and persian culture and intercourse, instead, giving us
nightmares and guilt, and a lifetime of disturbing reports and
encounters with the victims of our killing and violence, with
crippled US veterans, disfigured Iraqis, hate-filled xenophobic
neighbors, hypertrophic weapons industries, etc.
Literally we would be happier without the oil. Everybody knows this.
......................................QUOTED MATERIAL FOLLOWS
From: Ordinary Joe
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 7:55 PM
War is a horrible thing.... Each war since WWII involves the
general population less and less. We lose the immediacy and
connection with the war when we don't have friends and family in the
war. Further, there is a descending level of American casualties with
each new war. Does this further reduce the concern of the general
population. Alex DeTouquville wrote the best book on the strengths
and weaknesses of American Democracy. Americans take longer to "get
on board" with a war but then fight well. He suggested that success
requires that most citizens see the need for the war and support it to
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).