Monday, November 24, 2008
The Ultimate Irony
In our first few classes we discussed the different reasons for war. The reason that was most compelling to me was the claim that to make peace, we must wage war. We encounter odd ironies every day. Not to dampen the mood, but just today my mother called me telling me she had been in a bad car accident. She told me where she was and immediately I was off to the races. I was going a good 20 miles over the speed limit, which ironically is the very act that causes car accidents. Again, we experience ironic situations every day, but no situation, no action is more ironic than the claim that to make peace, we must wage war. Not surprisingly, I have a difficult time finding the moral logic in this. From a strictly strategic point, this makes perfect sense. If a country or group of people with conflicting ideas becomes threatening enough to disturb peace, we must kill them. But from a moral and human standpoint, is there really a legitimate chance that these people can harm me. Is it necessary to kill the people who are opposing us, and even more, is it necessary to kill innocent people who have no control over the situation into which they have been thrusted. Thus the question arises, and I think we got to it in class, where do we draw the line?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I completely agree with your perception and logic behind the concept that the only way to guarantee peace is through war. I have never quite understood why it would be necessary to break peace, which is currently established for the hope in creating a longer period of peace in the future. To me it does not seem that logical because you are doing the exact opposite of what you ought to be doing, indeed it is extremely ironic.
Your analogy about the speed limit was a good one, i must say.
You're right--from a strictly strategic, tactical THEORETICAL standpoint, it makes perfect sense. But i think again, you're right in saying that theoretical ideas don't always prove to be reality. More often, they don't.
As for killing innocents--that's the whole thing about "we don't kill civilians!" Unfortunately, two issues arise. 1. How can we avoid it when they're in the way? (A harsh way to put it, i know, but it's true.) 2. How can we tell who are the civilians and who aren't, especially in wars like this one?
I agree with your assertion that from a theoretical standpoint we must kill someone or some group that threatens our safety, our lives, and the peace we hope to have. But somehow you tried to relate killing people who threaten us to killing inoccent people that somehow have become involved in the conflict. I can understand this if you are trying to relate this to the conflicts in the Middle East but on a wider basis, if we know who the enemy is and who is threatening to us, how are innocent people getting thrust into the situation? Thought provoking blog, I really liked it.
Safety is a very important issue for the American people today. Does this give us the right to kill any possible threats? I think after the events of 9/11, America has become overly aggressive in ensuring security for its people. I don't think it is fair or ethical to kill innocent people in Iraq, because of the actions of a small minority from that region. Sometimes we forget to give outsiders the same right to live as we have. Humans exist outside the borders of the United States and I think we sometimes forget about this.
How would we react, if a more powerful country saw America as a POSSIBLE threat and they began attacking us? There is a difference between security and revenge.
Ultimately, I think your post shows how much the US is in a loose-loose situation. If we want to secure peace in a country (Iraq, Afghanistan, and perhaps Iran), we think we have to go to war, and as a product innocent people die. If we do not go to war, we are either continue to allow danger and anti-American groups to brew, jeopardizing our security.
In reality, I think that war causes more threats. For example, in Iraq, there was almost no terrorist groups who targeted the US. Now, after 5 years in the nation, there are terrorist groups in many different areas. The irony is that when the US tries to create a steady government for the Iraqi people, terrorist groups move in, hurting our efforts to influence democracy. It seems that the real way to avoid this awful irony is to not wage war in the beginning by working with hostile nations.
I really like your example and I agree completely. By killing people who disrupt our "peaceful world" aren't we then being hipocrits? (sp?) Engaging in war to try and make peace makes very little sense. I think you said it all.
I agree with Will in the fact that if someone is threatening my country or my idea of peace, then if push comes to shove someone will pay for their actions and if it comes to it death. Also innocent deaths are apart of war's nature, it is a disturbing idea, but it happens. I thought you had good points and a great question at the end of your blog.
I agree that from a strategic standpoint peace is only brought about through war, but I think the point goes deeper than you say. The reason (I believe anyway) peace is required for war, is because there are those out there who do not want peace. Examples: The government of Darfur refusing UN peacekeepers, a collection of middle east nations that want to exterminate Israel and call the US "the great satan". How do you make peace with someone like that? It's not easy, and frankly I don't think it's possible.
However, I don't think total peace is as good or as realistic as many idealists say. I think truce's are better. With the way the world is now, there's no way we're going to get some eternal peace. The best we can hope for is a time of peace, and I think that's what we should work for. Build up weapon supplies to scare others into peace. Do the best we can for peace, but don't sacrifice everything on some alter to peace.
I liked the way you transitioned into the final question "where do we draw the line?". I think that the line needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. The line cannot be black and white because there is so much grey area. Drawing a line in war also brings up ethical dilemmas such as the use of torture. Is the use of torture to possibly save other lives ethical? I agree that it is tough to determine where the line is, but there needs to be one.
To your question I would answer: yes we do have to kill people that threaten us. Why? Because humans are innately stubborn and viewpoints of cultures and countries do not change easily. Therefore, talking does not usually work with one's enemies. What about killing people who do not even directly threaten us? For example, do we have the responsibility to initiate a violent conflict against the genocide in Sudan?
I like how you mention that involving ourselves in a conflict is a pretty odd way to achieve peace but we have to remember that we're only people. When someone is hit, they hit right back with all they've got. It's rare to just stand back and try to talk it out. If most people are like this how do we expect our own country to be much different when attacked?
Post a Comment