Time's Arrow

[khaosworks]

It's been six months since 9/11? Christ.

Well, my feelings about it haven't changed since September - you can read about it in my LJ entries then. A senseless waste of human life, which has begotten even more senseless waste of human lives. Someday, we'll learn that the cycle of violence can only be stopped with us.

Comments

Yes and No

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

I agree that it is not possible to prevent violence by committing violence. I do not agree that it *is* possible to prevent violence by any other means. I do not think there is a cycle of violence; I think there are individuals, or individual groups, each of whom choose to commit violence, and neither of which is caused by the other, or by any force except their own private choice and judgement.

Would things be better if one side, any side, chose to accept what violence is done to it without committing any? Maybe, in the sense that there is only so much America's current adversary has the power to do in this instance, and so there would be fewer total deaths. Maybe, in general, in that accepting genocide (which I'm not saying is necessarily the goal of anybody here, just the natural logical extention of What Is The Worst Possible Outcome Of Lying Down And Shutting Up) at least puts closure on the problem and a homogeneous society which has eliminated all its rivals usually lives in relative peace for a while until it divides and therefore creates new rivalries. But don't kid yourself into thinking that if we refrain from violence, so will they. Never happened, never will. If we refrain from violence, nothing more or less will happen than that we will be nonviolent and they will be exactly as they are... just as if they were suddenly to refrain from violence it would not stop us from being violent. Nobody in history has become peaceful because of anything the other side did -- at least not short of killing them off entirely. You've accepted that nonviolence must come from the inside in the case of America and the west... don't forget that it must *also* come from the inside in the case of the Muslim extremists, never from a response to somebody else.

Re: Yes and No

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

Solutions, of course, come from within. The response, perhaps, is not retribution, but simple quarantine.

If they want America to leave them alone, then perhaps America should leave them alone. Pull out of the Middle East entirely (the majority of oil these days comes from outside that region anyway), forget Israel, which doesn't cooperate with American foreign policy and spies on it, forget Palestine, which doesn't seem interested in any peaceful co-existence. Leave them to blow themselves up. A curse on both their houses.

Is there anything to be benefited from a US presence in the Middle East? The real benefit is that the Israel and Arab sides have a dampening rod to keep each other from escalating the conflict into mutual armageddon. What if the US did indeed threaten to pull out entirely from the Middle East and leave them to stew in their own juices? Maybe they'll rethink their positions. Maybe they won't. In any case, the question remains - what the Hell is the United States doing there?

Believe me when I say that on occasion, this looks more and more appealing to me.

Re: Yes and No

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Speaking as a passionate Zionist, I would be more than delighted if the United States left the entire region alone. Israel's wanted a western non-intervention policy for decades. We forbid them from defending their own territory against direct invasion, promising instead that we will protect them, and then don't even try, we lie about the delivery of weapons purchased and paid for while missiles rain down on civilian targets in Tel Aviv, we demand that they accept the loser's side of every conceivable double standard. The only thing American alliance is good for to Israel is offsetting the equally noxious behavior of the western European "allies." And they're easier to deal with when they don't have America tacitly holding them up.

That said, I wasn't arguing for or against war in the middle east, only saying that anyone who believed in the sentimental crap that if only one turned the other cheek the enemy would melt at one's goodness, see the light, and turn to peace, was bound to be rudely disappointed. If you want to refrain from striking back because you think that striking back wastes our time and resources and does no good, then that's entirely reasonable. If you want to refrain from striking back because through our example we will erase the hatred in their breasts and they will cease to be a danger to us, you're missing a few marbles.

Re: Yes and No

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

No, but I don't advocate disproportionate responses, either. I don't advocate wider "wars against terror". I don't advocate the United States suddenly deciding to be the world policeman. I don't advocate an administration based on fear and paranoia. I don't advocate doling out a five thousand dollar fine for a fifty buck crime. They can hate. Let them. Do we need to give them more reason to?

Re: Yes and No

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Whether we give them any reason to is utterly unrelated, pro or con to whether or not they do. This is probably more of a reason to leave them alone than a reason to go after them. I don't treat it as either, myself, and make my decisions regarding the advisability of aggressive response on grounds totally other than whether or not it will have any effect.