Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
My sister just got back from the peace march in D.C. and my parents thought it was great that she went. She just seemd confused why I had such a problem with peace marches and peace in general. This is what I told her.
From my point of view there are two types of political systems. Might is right or might for right. There are no other options. If there is no law enforcement then then you get anarchy and the rule by the strong. So in my opinion you can't get justice without the use of force. In order to enforce the law and insure order (which is the only way to insure justice) you need to arrest people and lock them up. That is violence. If you don't use violence against people that do acts of injustice, you will end up with a system where might is right and there is no justice. In other words Justice and violence are inextricably linked.
So when I see people saying they are against law enforcement or say we don't need a police force, then, in my opinion they are promoting a system in which the criminals rule. Like Chicago in the 1930s. Once law enforcement breaks down the biggest and strongest thug takes control.
On the international stage justice and violence are also inextricably linked. Either might is right or there is might for right. So when I see peace marches, and people arguing to give peace a chance, I see people who want a world where might is right. A world in which people like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot etc are allowed to do whatever they please.
I have said this before, but more people were killed in the last century by the governments that ruled them than died in war. Some poeple dispute that but in my mind if only half as many people died at the hands of their own government than died in war it still makes the same point. In many cases peace is the worst option.
When I hear people say the US cannot be the worlds policeman, that to me says, the US should allow might to be right. What is wrong with promoting justice throughout the world? Every recent war the US has fought has been aginst incredible evil. Hitler, Kim in North Korea, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot Saddam Hussein etc. All these men were responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions.
In my opinion the idea of a peace and justice organization is a joke. You can't have both. You only get one. I choose justice. When I heard people say "Give Peace a Chance" I hear let injustice reign.
I understand the idea when people are against wars because it is being fought for an unjust reason. Our involement in suppressing the Phillipine insurrectino was an unjust war. But I think every war the US has been involved in since 1941 has been on the side of justice. Peace just for its own sake in my opinion, promotes injustice and encourages evil.
You can't have justice without using violence to create it. If you are against all forms of violence, you are against justice. It is that simple.
|
You're being oversimplistic. I agree that most peacenicks are naive and have their heads up their asses, BUT they do serve a purpose. They are part of the natl conscience. They keep us from becoming too violent in our pursuit of law and order. They are necessary (even the guy quoting Noam Chomsky and the really baked kid in the Cat in the Hat costume screaming about how Bush is a fascist).
I also don't think peaceniks are against all forms of violence. Today, most of them are aginst the Iraq War - something many law and order types even agree is unnecessary violence for no good reason.
Threaded Mode