pacifism vs. extremism

mike j michaelmailing at yahoo.com
Tue Oct 16 11:57:57 CDT 2001


the argument is not between pacifism and 'extreme
military action -- those aren't the only choices.
what's been going on in afghanistan seems pretty
restrained actually, considering the oil-hawks we have
in office. the non-military casualties may not have
been surprises, but they weren't targets either.
computer said 'hit point A,' and missile hit point B.
collateral damage is a fact of war, just like friendly
fire and alot of other crap we'd all rather not think
about.

pacifism is not only not the issue, it's besides the
point. i would however suggest the drs w/o borders
speech ---

The Humanitarian Crisis in Afghanistan
A Congressional Briefing Delivered in Washington,
D.C., October 10, 2001
by Nicolas de Torrente, Executive Director, MSF-USA
 
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/publications/speeches/2001/ndt_afghanistan.shtml

-- as a good starting point for discussing the need
for an *active* delineation between NGO humanitarian
aid (which i'm for) and government peanut butter
flying outta airplanes.

--------------

mike j wrote:
"seems to me the pacifist's real solace is in knowing
that it just won't fly -- he gets all the self-serving
benefits of a warm, gooey idealism without ever
actually having to employ his ideals to try and
achieve it. 

"so long as there's someone else out there guaranteed
to do the wrong thing -- say, actually *fight*
terrorism in this instance -- the bleeding heart wins
big at a crooked table, benefitting from the ends
while washing his hands of the means."

This is neither true nor fair.  Generalizations like
this do not
represent any understanding of what it means to
advocate the use of any
and all efforts to resolve problems without the use of
extreme military
action.  As I have written before, there is a
difference between
justice and vengeance.  The unnecessary and
"accidental" loss of life
from military attacks (AKA "collateral damage") is
inexcusable, but
military targets, including personnel within the
vicinity of these
targets, even pacifists must admit, were identified
before the military
actions were taken.  A pragmatic approach would, I
believe, tend to
describe any loss of life within identified targets as
something like
suicide.  Call this a rationalization if you want, but
the attacks that
did not claim non-military casualties were not
surprises.  In addition,
though the humanitarian efforts may be ineffective or
even
counter-productive, the most constructive reaction
would be to help or,
at least, advocate helping to set it on the right
direction or, if
possible, attempt to persuade responsible parties that
their efforts
may be made more effective with some adjustments. 
Self-satisfying
criticism like self-satisfying feelings of vengeance
are extreme
reactions, not those of someone who has called upon
reason to react to
the recent tragedies.

Michael

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com



More information about the Pynchon-l mailing list