Eff's Rambles (Archive)


I wish I could remember things and had patience, then I might try to do something with the html on this page.

Well, one of the reasons for the war, at least later, and morally, was to liberate the Iraqi people. Few doubt they lived poorly under Saddam, abuse is abuse regardless of the infrastructure the madman perpetrating the abuse provided. Even the argument of inconsitency rings hollow to me. Is it consitency or just agreement the critics want? The inherent problem with arguments have always been the lack of a viable alternative. So the questions are, did the coalition do the right thing and was there a realistic alternative? Going by my impression of one perspective, it would seem no.

Here are the problem as I understand them:

Religion, nationalism and the pride inherent in the followers of both make for a dangerous combination. It's made worse by poor conditions and dissapointment over unmet expectations.

But what is the solution?

What are the alternative?

One could probably refer to dozens of non-violence advocating websites, journals and leaflets and get answers, some of which may be highly intelligent and pragmatic. But for all the aftermath of chaos and terrible destruction before hand, the advantage of war and victory therefrom is its potential level of great control. I am not putting war before diplomacy, but without complete control, it makes it harder to assure the improvement of a bad situation. Diplomacy seeks cessation through negotiation. It's best when aggessors cede control. But how likely that is without the threat or display of force is probably low when they believe they have a chance, or are determined to fight until the end. When they are allowed to maintain control, they still hang like leeches on the minds of the peoples of regions they're, putting the people in constant fear of what items may have been slipped past the watch of the monitors. Leaving some regions to their own devices seems to net nothing impressive. War should be a last resort, but still, when successful, control goes to that of the liberators. The tyrants becomes a nussiance more than a great threat because of the loss of their authority. But a major problem in regions like that of the Middle East seems to be the pride of its peoples. When under the yolk of evil, one can understand why there are expressions of hate against them, but at times these expressions stem from pride, not oppression, and this begs the question, "who else was going to do it?" Was Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt? Were any of them about to stand up and say no more? In a culture that seems to want to scratch its backs and keep silent in return for silence, and with the neighboring continents arguing for diplomacy and caution, how realistic is liberation? Is there any obligation to even try to liberate people? How long should diplomacy be given? Pride is not always a bad thing, but maybe this time it may ruin what may be the best chance for something better. Is avenging of offenses more important than trying to improve the lives of that of your neighbors or yourself? If one truly believe the US is evil, what can I say to change his mind? I do not think I will say anything. But if one is not certain, his attempts to force the coalition to leave is arguably selfish. Does brotherhood really justify the suffering of some of those brothers until one brother stands up and ends it? Do they believe some of their brothers could do it alone?

Continue your attacks and the coalition may leave, and in its place may be who you want. But the same people may suffer, or a new group may be targetted. Is this what you want? I hope not. You have to be realistic if you truly care about people, not strict religious adherence and nationalism. If you cannot say that you would have freed them, or that they could have done it by themselves, than are you right to attempt to force out those who have done what you were failing to do?

Pride cometh befoe the fall.


Post a Comment

<< Home


Online dictionary at www.Answers.com

Concise information in one click