About "peace purists" and maybe other things...
This thread has started yet another little war (ironic, isn't it) around here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023540036
The salient part of that post, as I see it, is:
"People who are not in positions of governance and power can enjoy the luxury of always opposing any interventions. Leaders of powerful nations do not have that luxury."
Now, we all know that there have been many mistaken and craven interventions for many bad reasons. The Spanish-American war being one of the most craven, and our intervention in WWI being blamed by some historians for the rise of Hitler. Aside from commercial reasons for going to war, having a contingent of blooded troops around who won't be flailing about when first under fire is considered a good idea by military commanders. War for practice.
And there's Iraq, which seems to have fallen into no particular category, but has had the effect of making the public aware of just how horrible, expensive, and useless war can be. For as long as the public remembers, which seems to be not long.
I am a Quaker, a member of the historical Peace Churches, and am therefore by definition a peace purist. The original Peace Testimony, an acknowledgement to the King that Quakers would not support revolution, has been expanded to include absolute nonviolence.
It's never that easy in real life, though.
Violence exists, and what to do when confronted with it? We've been torturing ourselves for centuries with questions like what to do if you have your hunting rifle in the woods with your family and someone pops out of the bushes to rape your daughter.
In some wars Quakers did not abandon their country, but became ambulance drivers and medics. Some thought that would help continue the war effort, so went to jail instead.
Other wars, like WWII, Quakers were split over the concept of the greater evil and "self-defense" in the name of a nation became a viral discussion, with many Quakers signing up, others going to jail. Quaker meetings were split, and some never recovered.
So, yeah, I understand very well what that other poster is getting at.
If I am walking down the street and see a crime in progress, what should I do? What if there are no police to call? What if they can't get there in time to prevent, say, a murder, but I can do something? Even if that something might bring injury or death to the perpetrator?
Any nation, but particularly a great nation, has responsibilities that come with its wealth and power. While we would not want to say the US is the world's police force, how difficult is it to stand by and watch slaughters around the world? As a citizen, I can say anything I want to, but how should a President think. A President who might have the power to stop the bloodshed. With more bloodshed, maybe, but there is that question of the greater evil.
"Heavy lies the head that wears the crown"-- some things don't change.
= new reply since forum marked as read
