Papantonio: Obama’s Choice -- Peace or Violence

[GoLeft TV]

This week, President Obama spoke in Washington on behalf of the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington, which saw Martin Luther King, Jr. deliver an emotionally charged speech that centered on non-violence. That same week, discussion of a possible war with Syria began to erupt. Ring of Fire’s Mike Papantonio and GRITtv’s Laura Flanders discuss how President Obama is simultaneously dictating two messages of peace and violence.

More at Ring of Fire.

[frazzled]

1. Peace for whom?

One could make a strong argument that by no action, we in the US would have peace (though others would argue that the unfettered use of chemical weapons could have deleterious effects in the long term for citizens here and elsewhere).

But no matter whether we intervene or not, there will be no peace in Syria. 100,000 dead thus far.

To talk about peace in this fashion is to ignore the violence that befalls others. That is fine, but it must be recognized for what it is: both self-interested and isolationist.

I say this not as an argument for or against some short-term military action. I say it as a member of the human race. Whatever the US chooses to do, we cannot say we have chosen "peace" unless we harden ourselves to the violence that others endure.