Wednesday, April 13, 2005

A pacifist post and my comment:

The Lone Codeman's post

and my comment:
[Äh! Needs editing.]
I don't buy pacifism as a primary principle, but I buy self-defense and self interest, and persuasion as the means of aquiring assistance in those matters. Government is a short-cut in persuading others, but it's not [a] primary [principle either].

I'm afraid that none of that convinces me Bush was absolutely wrong to do what he did, but I'm never surprised to find people who disagree.

Good thing we have a voluntary Military.

But will their [the volunteers] joining in with the Collective solve our problems [in Iraq and with terrorism around the world] or make them worse?

I'm afraid that the way the world is now (and the way America has been since Theodore Roosevelt), Bush's way is as good as it gets.

I want to get back to Grover Cleveland's vision, but there'll be a great deal of hard work to get there, and it won't be simple or bloodless.

Cleveland was a Democrat.

2 comments:

Al said...

Jackie asked:

Hey, maybe you've written about this already and I missed it, but what do you think about the Minuteman Project? (MMP). Google it if you haven't heard anything...

Since you're my source for politics, etc, I would like you to weigh in on this one.

Jackie.
....
My response:

I'm all for private action on things that individuals personally care about.

Get together. Organize. Get into action.

But don't risk death. Don't get violent. Except in self-defense. They have a right to be there, and to defend themselves if attacked... but they need to avoid "incidents" down there.

Oh. And people who want to cross the border need to do it legally. And without violence. Our standards aren't that tough.

If they were, the illegals might have a case.

I speak as a person who has [discovered after the fact that he has] harbored an illegal alien. A person, I might add, that I care for and would vouch for in court.

Anonymous said...

My main point was not so much of being a pacifist, but more why people tend to use violence instead of solving it through communication. He had the best support from other countries to do so. He had inspectors, speciallists from all over the world. This is what foreign politics is all about? Work together against threats, terrorism etc. You can never solve violence with more violence.

The actions from Bush was completely dead wrong (fitting expression). I guess he is not the brightest and therefore had to use the means he best understand - violence. See the end result (even though it's not the end. Trust me!), weapons of mass-destruction were never found, Bin Laden is still not found, the situation is still not in control... One of the worst actions ever.

Bush's act of violence will feed more violence as response.