Posts
I haven't written about the occupation in Iraq for awhile, so I thought I would post this article that I found a couple weeks ago.
Peace WorksThe last sentence is what fundamentally separates Democrats and Republicans like Steve King and probably the 32% of Americans that are still supporting Bush.
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" - Mahatma Gandhi
When is it right to use military action? I have read a lot about pacifism, the just war theory, and the ethic of reciprocity. I have come to the conclusion that war is a fundamentally flawed principle. It is a bloody and inhuman path which eventually must lead to an agreement in paper anyway. War does not heal wounds, but, rather, only progresses them and makes new ones. For, surely, in response, if neither side is willing to admit defeat, the only way of winning is complete destruction.
I cannot, as a person, or as a Christian, or whatever, bring myself to destroy human life. I could never join the military because I could not bring myself to kill another person. Therefore, I would not, and will not, commit other people to a fate which I would never choose.
If we justify one war, who is not to say that someone else will jusify another war? The only answer to this vicious cycle is to declare war as unacceptable. War brings us to our most primitive states, when we would kill others for a piece of meat. Now, we are killing others for a piece of land or for an idea.
One of the reasons I could never kill anyone is because I believe that all human beings are inherently good. And, despite their hatred, no person can be totally bad. Therefore, that spec of goodness in them is worth preserving their life. That is also why I don't believe in the death penalty because we should never end a person's life, especially if they have, or have the possibility to, find themselves, God, or their central being so that they are at peace with themselves and the world.
The definitive principle of human morality is to understand our obligations, not only to ourselves or those we love, but also to those we hate.
The definitive principle of human morality is to understand our obligations, not only to ourselves or those we love, but also to those we hate.It is a strong statement that gets to the core values of fairness, equality, opportunity, and compassion that makes up what the Democratic Party is all about. Please post your thoughts.
9 comments:
You say there's a difference between Dems and Republicans on the issue.
Can you prove it with voting records?
I am talking about regular people who are Democrats and the 32% of the American population that say they still support Bush.
Interesting. Does that mean you are pro-life?
The part of that article that I focused on was the last sentence... "The definitive principle of human morality is to understand our obligations, not only to ourselves or those we love, but also to those we hate."
I see that as it takes more than just being pro-life to be a moral person. Too many republicans stop their pro-life stance once the child is born. Denying prenatal health care, cutting health care for children, under funding education, getting rid of financial aid for college, harming the environment, preemptive war, tax cuts for the wealthy while the nation is at war, thinking of immigrants as people and not cattle is not moral.
Um... what makes a person regular?
I don't know what you're trying to say.
Haha, okay I think I get it.
By "regular people" you mean non-politicians. In your post, you wrote:
The last sentence is what fundamentally separates Democrats and Republicans like Steve King and probably...
That's the source of confusion. By naming a politician by name, I thought you were talking about Democrats and Republicans who are politicians -- hence my "voting records" request.
Yeah, you're right, there's a gulf between non-politician Dems and Repugs. Too bad it isn't reflected electorally.
Really, peace is a moral issue? How would you bring about peace?
Leave Iraq right away I presume. Kind of like VietNam, massacres of genocidal proportions would follow, but hey-there wouldn't be war. Is that your view of peace?
Pull the chain on Israel before the exterminate Hezbollah also, I'd guess. Leave Hezbollah empowered and entrenched to rain terror in Israel, but at least the Israelis are the ones doing the dying. Is that your view of peace?
Dems and libs are great at repeating pacifict slogans that have nothing to do with the real world. Real peace is only achieved when one's enemies forbear warfare.
The saddest thing of all is the most despised of Americans by the Islamofascists are liberals. The Taliban didn't debate homosexual marriages, they burned homosexuals at the stake, while planning mass murder on the heart of American liberalism, NYC-the Big Apple.
Think two words, Neville Chamberlain. He wanted peace also, wanted it so bad he was willing to pretend Hitler wasn't a madman bent on global conquest. Well, we finally got peace in Europe after we killed 5-7 million Germans. But, you'd have preferred the alternative I'm sure.
"...nothing to do with the real world."
...like Saddam's connections to 9/11, the WMDs, mushroom clouds, democracy washing over the region, etc.
It's also fantasy to think that the Iraq occupation is reducing the threat of terrorism. How is launching an aggressive war (a war crime according to the Nuremberg trials) and killing a minimum of 39,000 Iraqi civilians helping our global image?
How is a massive army in Iraq supposed to disrupt decentralized terrorist cells each consisting of a handful of people? The rationale "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" makes no sense. For example, see the London bombings of 7/7/2005.
And the claims about bringing democracy to Iraq are dubious too. If that goal was pure, we would declare that we have no intention to maintain permanent military bases there. As far as I know, Congress has not yet banned permanent bases. Iraqis and others will logically assume that we're trying to control the region and its resources.
Osama bin Laden had 19 guys attack the heart of American capitalism (the World Trade Center) and other sites. Now we've lost more than 2500 soldiers, and we're burning through $2891 per second. Is it really worth it?
I'm not opposed to dealing with reality, but I am opposed to dealing with someone's distorted view of reality.
I am fine with going after the terrorists, which would include Hezbollah. However, Israel doesn't need to kill innocent Lebannese citizen while they are doing it. The Iraq War is a totally different situation since there were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded the country.
I go back to the last sentence in this peice that caught my eye: "The definitive principle of human morality is to understand our obligations, not only to ourselves or those we love, but also to those we hate."
To me that means to save innocent civilians, not kill them. Don't torture prisoners and don't hold prisoners without charging them for anything.
Post a Comment