Camp Casey Detroit

Monday, August 29, 2005

a thought on defense

Dear Readers: I have always been curious of the fact that our general culture seems to think that freedom can only be defended by armed violence. It seems to me that armed violence is the worst possible way of defending a free society. Daniel Duane Spyker

2 Comments:

At 9:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The desire for or the supposed 'need' for violence is an indication of a failure of responsibility, understanding and/or willpower.

Those who brandish various wars as justifications for violence often have very little understanding of history and economics. Even back in Shakespeare's time they knew that wars were fought because those with the money wanted them to be fought - look at Henry V.

Once people gained the awareness and then the power to question this constantly failing economic and diplomatic policy of aggression and control, they had to change the name: Departments of War became Departments of 'Defense.'

Then they had to change the reasons: Once we made people believe that we had to subjegate societies because they were poor ignorant savages and only we were pure and civilized and righteous enough to lead them out of their bestial ways. . . hmmm. . . I guess some things haven't changed. Now we just call it 'freeing' them.

Then when that was too expensive and we had promised people that there would be a "peace dividend" of reduced war spending and increased social spending after the second "war to end all wars" they started privatizing war.

It all comes back to one basic truth. War is more expensive than peace. Peace is a long-range, maintainable plan that increases prosperity for all involved. War is a short-term, unmaintainable set of hypocritical goals that invariably leave all concerned with enormous financial and social debts.

 
At 10:33 PM, Blogger sushiela said...

i was late to the FAME (finding alternatives to military enlistment) workshop this sunday, so i missed most of the discussion on our culture of militarism. still, the little that i did manage to catch has me thinking of this ideal too.

the angle i've generally taken being anti-war or anti this war has focused on the latter part of this idea of defending freedom...the "freedom" part.

i'm an "inner-city" woman of color and most people that i discuss this with have at least one of those labels...so it's generally a discussion of how UNfree we really are that makes our participation in or approval of this war invalid.

but i guess that sort of presupposes that if we all did live in some sort of idyllic world where peace, love, & freedom existed for everyone in abundance that it would actually make sense to defend (using violence if necessary) our way of life it was genuinely threatened.

i've never given much thought to whether or not i agree with the idea of violence when used for a "valid" reason.
i guess i blame the fact that this panglossian world seems so far from the present reality, that it never crossed my mind to consider whether or not violence used as self-defense can ever be valid.

but i'll definitely be thinking about it now.

peace & love,
isis

 

Post a Comment

<< Home