Comments on In Answer to "A Bit One-Sided

Go to STOP THE WARS!! - Add a comment - Go to In Answer to "A Bit One-Sided

The Debate Continues!

Let me say first up that I tried not to put you into a category, and I apologise if that came across somehow. Also, though I feel passionately about these issues (far more so than any previous international event ever outside of the environmental stuff) I am enjoying this debate with you. You are challenging me to go ever deeper in my thinking around this crisis, and that can never be a bad thing. If barbed comments or sarcasm creep in at times, it’s all part of the banter, and definitely not meant as a personal attack.

 

OK. Is violence ever justified? Yes, sadly, I have to concede that it is, at times, justified, or even the only way out of a situation. (However, I would remind you of the Dalai Lama’s non-violent stance on the occupation of his country by China. He genuinely, smilingly forgives the Chinese every day for the suffering they cause to his people, and works every channel hard, other than violence, to bring the situation to a satisfactory conclusion. There are lessons there).

 

However, I disagree with your idea that if violence can be justified against one person, it can be justified against a group, especially when the group you are referring to is a country of, as I said earlier, largely ordinary, everyday people (as are all countries). In the days of WWI there was one group (government / military elite) waging war on another group (ditto, on the other side). Rarely, of course, did members of these two groups ever even hear a bang, let alone get into danger or, god forbid, take a bullet ‘for the good of the country’. No. That ‘honour’ was left to the hundreds of thousands of young men (mainly) who were drafted and sent out to fight a proxy war on behalf of the two groups that couldn’t agree. All right – massive simplification, I know. But my point here is that wars of the past were fought with armies, against armies, with mainly military casualties. Sometimes, sadly, members of the civilian population got caught in the crossfire. Today is a whole different ball game. The weapons are more destructive, can be fired from longer ranges, meaning the military can largely stay out of harms way. Civilians, however, are always caught. By some measures, fully nine out of every ten war casualties is a civilian. Many of them a Mali, or her brother.

 

So the question of whether or not violence and war is ever acceptable is slightly off the mark. The real question is, at what point does it become acceptable for a ‘civilized’ country to effectively go to war with an unarmed civilian population and kill nine times more of them than of the military and leader types that are actually the target. For me, in the case of Iraq, that point is still a long, long way off, because it is so drastic, so destructive, so cruel, and so indiscriminate. 

 

Can I accept there are alternative viewpoints? Absolutely! My anger and frustration is, I think, about 50% with the actual situation as it unfolds, and 50% with the incredible bias being shown in the media as the propaganda machine grinds on, and the way in which it (and, by extension us) is cynically, dishonestly and deliberately manipulated to serve the questionable ends of those running the show. (Though here in the UK I’m increasingly hearing and reading journalists who are clearly very opposed to war, and they are starting to let it show in their language and tone of voice). It's alternative viewpoints that I'm trying to voice here, because there's so much power and influence and money being thrown behind the Bush / Blair 'party line' right now that alternative viewpoints are being squeezed out.

 

I also take issue with you over the main ant-war arguments being circumstantial or coincidental. Look deeper. Research a little. Click some of the links in my previous posts. You’ll find they have much more substance than anything the Bush administration is trawling up right now.

 

Finally (for now), what will it take for me to change my viewpoint? Let me sleep on that one….

 

To Be Continued...Safe travels, Vroom!

posted by DamonLeigh on February 6, 2003 at 7:53 AM | link to this | reply

Quick Note

I have to travel today, so don't have much time to think and respond, but hopefully I can a bit later.  However, the big issue out of my comment was whether or not violence can ever be justified and if so under what circumstances.  Another issue was about discussing alternative viewpoints.  You seem to be suggesting that because you feel the administration presentations are one sided that so should be your own?  I'm not sure that is a valid conclusion.  I'm also not sure you are presenting anything beyond circumstantial evidence or coincidence even though you are not willing to accept that type of evidence in return.

Finally, don't lump me into any category.  I haven't said anything that places me into any camp at this point.  I'm simply looking at the arguments and trying to get down to root issues and rational discussions.  I think that any conclusion that violence can indeed be justified in some circumstances is significant.  Perhaps over the next weeks the UN inspectors will find proof of malfeasance.  Perhaps the UN will unite behind the US and suggest military action.  Will you then start to change your standpoint or will you simply reject anything that is reported by either the UN or US?

If violence can be justified against a single person, then it might follow that it can be justified against a group of people.  Seriously, if it can be justified, then what believed story will it take before you would start to consider it a valid option?  That is the direction I am trying to move.  I want to find out when you would be willing to consider changing your mind on this topic, if ever.

posted by vroom on February 6, 2003 at 6:52 AM | link to this | reply