Skip to main content

View Diary: Getting in touch with my inner rage and finding room for hope. (167 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Do you really believe anyone could get (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    capelza, bigchin, NuttyProf, SoCalSal

    elected in the US today if he or she did NOT believe in using military force?  Only in my wildest dreams.  The entire consciousness of the country needs to be elevated, and I have no idea how to do so except via personal connections and through my art, though most of my personal connections agree with me and art does not have much power with most of the people in this country.  I do believe Obama's example of continuing respect for others, even his opponents, is a beginning and should not be underestimated.  But we live in a country in which most of the people and all of the government seems to believe that America's view of things is the correct one and we have a right to impose this on others, via force if necessary.

    •  I would hope (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      brooklynbadboy

      That no one would ruled out the use of force under any circumstances would not even come remotely close to being elected. That would mean that this person does not even believe in self-defense or the defense of the people who  he or she is constitutionally charged with defending. It would also mean doing nothing about stopping genocide in other nations.

      •  Self-defense can take many more forms than (0+ / 0-)

        violence, and who's to say some of them wouldn't be even more effective, since they are usually not attempted?  Is it because of our invasion of Afghanistan that we have not been attacked again or is it because we have become more vigilant?  And how many of our own citizens attack one another each year?  Far, far more than died on 9/11.  Is that surprising when violence is sanctioned on a national level?  As for stopping genocide, we don't really do that, do we, despite all our force?  

        •  it can (0+ / 0-)

          But sometimes it is required. There are certain threats that cannot be dealth with non violently.

          And yes, we  have indeed stopped genocide. See, e.g., Bosnia,

          The point is not that every stituation can or should be solved with force. But to take it completely off hte table is both unrealistic and immoral.

        •  well (0+ / 0-)

          violence, and who's to say some of them wouldn't be even more effective, since they are usually not attempted?

          History says this. Appeasement didn't stop Hitler, for example.Sanctions and negotiations did not end the genocide in Bosnia.

          •  But, if violence actually worked to stop violence (0+ / 0-)

            in the long run, we should be an entirely peaceful planet by now, considering all the violence perpetrated here over the years.  Wouldn't it be most effective to attempt to find new ways of dealing with these old conflicts?  Nonviolence does not have to translate to appeasement.  I don't have the answers, though I have read enough history to understand that most wars could have been averted before they began had different actions been taken by all the participants, but that is asking us to be far more enlightened than we are, though I think it is a goal to work toward.  Even in my personal life, I attempt to get control of situations before they reach crisis point, and though I am not always successful in thinking ahead in this manner, I can always see, after the fact, what might have been done to avert negative experiences.  We can all see the seeds of Hitler's ascension in the treatment of Germany after World War I.  This is not to make excuses for the German people's collaboration with this maniac, but enlightened leaders who actually treated everyone with respect would be a good beginning.  Hate bounces but love spreads.

            •  violence can work to stop violence (0+ / 0-)

              There are numerous examples of this both on the macro and micro levels. It doesn't always work and it isn't always pretty, but it can work. It doesn't mean other means might work and should never be tried. For example, consider US ivolvement in WWII. We were attacked by Japan. What else would have worked AFTER that?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site