Today's 'anti-war' marches
Jan. 18th, 2003 09:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
framlingemA friend of mine bumped into (literally) someone carrying a
'peace' poster today - and the marcher promptly turned around and cursed her - which rather defeats the point of supporting peace.
My dad brought up the point that people seem to be confusing 'lack of war' with 'peace'. He considers that the people protesting against attacks on Iraq are people who (if unknowingly) support Saddam Hussein, who is starving his people and is certainly not a good leader for Iraq. He believes that if the US attacked Iraq and succeeded in driving out Hussein's government and installing a democratic one in its place, that would be a good thing. I picked the opposite tack (even though I don't really agree with either strategy).
Em: Couldn't they just send in someone to assassinate Hussein, without involving innocents (because no war has no innocent victims)?
Dad: They already have. It's not do-able. They're going to try to starve him out, take over the oil fields.
Em: But will he not then ensure that every last one of the people of Iraq starve before he does? He'll take their food to ensure his own survival.
Dad: He's already doing that - they're all dying while he builds palaces.
There were a few other points, but those were the main ones.
I wish there was a third option, but I can't seem to find one that works (if i do, I will email Dubya immediately!). The general concensus in my household is that we should be worried more about North Korea anyway, given that they've actually fired weapons over Japan.
I support peace - but not the kind of peace that currently exists. There have been many occasions in history where it has been deemed necessary for peace to break some eggs (Sudan, for one. Most political revolutions, including the most recent Russian one which took place over a period of three days - I seem to remember that innocent people died then, too).
My dad also brought up the point that if this was Nazi Germany we were talking about instead of Iraq, how many people would still have the 'hands-off' viewpoint? There are a lot of parallels one can draw - we have an ultimately powerful dictatorial government which enforces a class system
under which there are a few very rich and many very poor, depending on how much you agree with the gov't, and under which it is almost impossible to switch classes; people are dying needlessly regardless of whether we do anything are not; hate is being taught; a large proportion of the population
fears the government's officials (I'm very sorry, but the day I'm afraid of a Canadian policeman - and have not committed a crime - is the day Canada is no longer a good place to live). Added to which, Hussein controls much of a resource which is pivotal to the economy of every industrialised nation.
There is oil elsewhere, true - but not in the same quantities.
I thought he brought up some valid points, which express a view I'm pretty sure few of you share, so I posted them - I personally always find it interesting to hear the less 'accepted' views. I choose to sit on the fence
until I am convinced I have at least twice as much information as I do now (keeping in mind that all the information I have now is what I have heard on the news or from people I have spoken with, both secondary and tertiary sources at best).
Interested in hearing everyone else's opinions and the reasoning behind them.
'peace' poster today - and the marcher promptly turned around and cursed her - which rather defeats the point of supporting peace.
My dad brought up the point that people seem to be confusing 'lack of war' with 'peace'. He considers that the people protesting against attacks on Iraq are people who (if unknowingly) support Saddam Hussein, who is starving his people and is certainly not a good leader for Iraq. He believes that if the US attacked Iraq and succeeded in driving out Hussein's government and installing a democratic one in its place, that would be a good thing. I picked the opposite tack (even though I don't really agree with either strategy).
Em: Couldn't they just send in someone to assassinate Hussein, without involving innocents (because no war has no innocent victims)?
Dad: They already have. It's not do-able. They're going to try to starve him out, take over the oil fields.
Em: But will he not then ensure that every last one of the people of Iraq starve before he does? He'll take their food to ensure his own survival.
Dad: He's already doing that - they're all dying while he builds palaces.
There were a few other points, but those were the main ones.
I wish there was a third option, but I can't seem to find one that works (if i do, I will email Dubya immediately!). The general concensus in my household is that we should be worried more about North Korea anyway, given that they've actually fired weapons over Japan.
I support peace - but not the kind of peace that currently exists. There have been many occasions in history where it has been deemed necessary for peace to break some eggs (Sudan, for one. Most political revolutions, including the most recent Russian one which took place over a period of three days - I seem to remember that innocent people died then, too).
My dad also brought up the point that if this was Nazi Germany we were talking about instead of Iraq, how many people would still have the 'hands-off' viewpoint? There are a lot of parallels one can draw - we have an ultimately powerful dictatorial government which enforces a class system
under which there are a few very rich and many very poor, depending on how much you agree with the gov't, and under which it is almost impossible to switch classes; people are dying needlessly regardless of whether we do anything are not; hate is being taught; a large proportion of the population
fears the government's officials (I'm very sorry, but the day I'm afraid of a Canadian policeman - and have not committed a crime - is the day Canada is no longer a good place to live). Added to which, Hussein controls much of a resource which is pivotal to the economy of every industrialised nation.
There is oil elsewhere, true - but not in the same quantities.
I thought he brought up some valid points, which express a view I'm pretty sure few of you share, so I posted them - I personally always find it interesting to hear the less 'accepted' views. I choose to sit on the fence
until I am convinced I have at least twice as much information as I do now (keeping in mind that all the information I have now is what I have heard on the news or from people I have spoken with, both secondary and tertiary sources at best).
Interested in hearing everyone else's opinions and the reasoning behind them.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Peace & fights
Date: 2003-01-18 09:19 pm (UTC)On a Monday night, just as we were putting the weekly paper to bed, members of this "peace" coalition marched into the newspaper office and told us to not print the story (I can't recall their reasons or why they thought they had a right to say it) but when our editor refused, the leader of the "peace" group tried to throw a punch at him.
So much for peace.
Re: Peace & fights
Her friend just happen to be yours too....
LOL
Ariel