[thechat] Powell & Blunkett

[Bob Haroche]

Erika Meyer wrote:

> I think it is a correct assessment that the current leadership of
> US sees this country as unanswerable to anyone.  Bush
> administrations answers to no one but to very wealthy Americans,
> like himself.

Right on the money, Erika -- as well as most of the rest of your post.
I for one think that a great deal of the passion of the anti-war
movement stems from the feeling, often un-expressed, that the US
government has been hijacked by an un-accountable administration.
Starting with the 2000 election, the hugely destructive and unfair tax
cuts, the wholesale assault on the environment, the arrogant,
self-defeating dismantling of international treaties and institutions,
[bunch of other stuff], and finally this invasion.

And, I'm afraid to say, I think it might be time for those of us on
the left to start printing "No war on Iran/Korea" bumper stickers. I'm
serious.

I also seriously wonder whether, if Bush gets re-elected, we might see
an increase in home-grown, radical movements. Not terrorism per se
(which I think of as intentional targeting of non-governmental
civilians) but more like the Weather Underground, SLA and other
radical movements of the '60's. When government continually and
consistently ignores the will and aspirations of the general
population, people tend to feel the futility of working within the
system and resort to violence to oppose the system. Naturally, I'm not
advocating that, but it's a dark wondering I have.

> That is what happens in a War.  That is why I stand with Howard
> Zinn (WWII vet and US historian) in my belief that when innocent
> people suffer die as a result of war (and they always always
> do)--there is simply no such a thing as a "just war."  War by its
> nature brings out the very worst in human beings.

There may be no such thing as a "just war" (I don't know what that
means) but I do believe there's an appropriate use of violence in
society. On a micro level, for example, if someone is in the process
of assaulting/raping/attempting to murder someone, I do think it's
okay to use violence to stop it -- whether that be fists, a nightstick
or if necessary a gun.

On a more macro level, if a society is setting up death camps to
commit genocide, I think it's okay to use violence to stop that -- be
it ground troops or bombs. On this point, I recently heard that the
Allies in WWII had refrained from bombing the Nazi concentration camps
for fear of killing the prisoners. After the war, a number of former
prisoners said they would have preferred that the bombing took place.
"We might have died, but that would've been okay if we knew it would
have stopped the killing."

My point simply is that, at least for me, the analysis in this or any
conflict does not stop with "people might get hurt, so don't use
force." To return to Howard Zinn, hundreds of thousands of people have
suffered and died under Saddam's boot. And even if the UN sanctions
were lifted, people would have continued to suffer and die under that
regime. In my opinion, that reality doesn't justify this particular
war but it's something that shouldn't be ignored or remain
un-acknowledged.



-------------
Regards,
Bob Haroche
O n P o i n t  S o l u t i o n s
www.OnPointSolutions.com