Yesterday, 2014.07.17, Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 lost contact with flight controlers over Ukraine because, as we have learned, it was hit by a ground to air missile, exploding in a fireball mid-air before crashing to earth killing 298 civilian passengers abroad.
Passengers and crew included citizens of at least 10 nations, including 2 members of an Australian family that lost other family members in the crash MH370 and up to 100 AIDS researchers on the way to a symposium in Melbourne, Australia.
Around the world, people have reacted in shock to the tragedy and outrage at the prospect that innocent people in a civilian aircraft have become the latest victims of the conflict in Ukraine, whether by design by deliberate targeting or by “misadventure” by mistaking a civilian plane as a military aircraft of an adversary.
Quite rightly, people and governments around the world are calling for accountability for those responsible including whomever provided the weapons used.
Many, it seems, have already decided who is responsible and that the path leads to Vladimir Putin’s door (a strong possibility), some, angrily accusing him of crimes against humanity and demanding he face charges in an international court.
Even here on Daily Kos.
What I find troubling is this: it was not very long ago that some of these same people were calling for the US to supply military aid, weapons and even boots on the ground in this most recent of proxy wars waged between world powers including the Russian Federation and USA, opposite numbers in the New Cold War.
After the fold, I should like to ask some questions.
Which are the nations who promote and benefit from international arms sales and distribution?
Who are the people who support this promotion of militarism, always with a political or even “humanitarian” justification for bringing more tools of destruction into the world?
Who pays these masters of war and votes into office their political client/retainers?
What becomes of the weapons produced by these militaristic nations once they pass to the hands of others, whether they are at peace or at war when they purchase or receive them?
Which of these militaristic nations do NOT have client states with adversaries that are parties to regional or global conflicts?
Which of the world leaders or politicians now calling for accountability have themselves promoted the use of arms and supplied them either to this region or elsewhere?
Who actually believes weapons intended for “combatants” never kill civilians when the statistics of modern warfare suggest civilian casualties are almost universally greater?
How will sending in more weapons in response to this tragedy lower the risk of more civilian casualties?
What is the moral ground any parties to this conflict stand on when they continue to supply or employ the means to the end before our eyes?
Why are we surprised and shocked MH17 was shot down?
As a lifelong pacifist and student of war, I’m still looking for answers.
I appreciate you answering if you can.