 |
|
| Violence with violence will not
equal peace |
Sam Calhoun
Academic Affairs Beat
|
The global community
is in grave danger.
It is obvious to those concerned that U.S. foreign policy will shortly
show the consequences of its corrupt actions. Yet, the logic demonstrated
by the supporters of war hold that violence is the only answer.
I am scared. I’m scared that these might be the last days of
what we consider to be peaceful. I’m scared because this is
just the beginning, and so many will die.
From my fear, I return to logic. It comes down to a simple question:
Do two wrongs make a right? Can we fight fire with fire?
In a Feb. 13 letter to the editor, a disheartened student voiced
his changing definition of peace on account of the peace protest
against war with Iraq in Boone Saturday. Respect must be given to
this student regarding the horrors that he seems to have known,
but the logic on which he built his theories scares me.
His definition of peace seems to include allowing U.S. foreign policy
to run its course, thus allowing the United States to kill innocent
Iraqi citizens as opposed to Saddam doing so himself.
This logic is based on fighting fire with fire; violence with violence,
not peace. Furthermore, it blatantly shows that U.S. foreign policy
feels it has the answer to all the world’s woes in the name
of violence.
Hey, this same world-peace logic has proven successful before for
U.S. foreign policy; they call it ‘war.’ And yes, innocent
lives are lost this way too, and very few moral people will agree
that this way is peaceful.
This seems to make perfect logical sense to me, that killing people
will not show people who are killing people that killing is wrong,
but once again the logic of my superiors has let me down.
Our country seems to be content with violence solving violence,
but I am not, and I’m not the only one. So the question is
posed: Can we use a right to solve a wrong? Can water fight fire?
Yes, it can. Peace is possible, yet it cannot be done when our country
feels superior to all others.
Many believe that violence cannot be crushed by peaceful means.
Many have no concept of what our country does to other countries
if they don’t see it on the news. Many don’t realize that
from 1945 to 2000, the U.S. attempted to overthrow more than 40
foreign governments and crushed more than 30 populist movements
fighting against insufferable regimes. This does not count the over
25 countries that we have bombed and the millions of people’s
lives we have ended.
Do you remember learning that in high school, or do you remember
learning about the evil leaders of other countries threatening our
survival?
Our country is about to add to the death total, yet there is another
way to remain safe and maintain world peace: change U.S. foreign
policy.
To help answer and explain this in a straightforward manner, I look
to William Blum and his speech “American Empire for Dummies.”
“If I were president, I could stop terrorist attacks against
the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize—very
publicly and sincerely—to all the widows and orphans, the tortured
and impoverished and all the millions of other victims of American
imperialism. Then I would announce that America’s global interventions
have come to an end and inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st
state but—believe it or not—a foreign country. I would
then reduce the military budget by at least 90 percent and use the
savings to pay reparations to our victims and repair the damage
from our bombings. There would be enough money. Do you know what
one year’s military budget is equal to? It’s equal to
more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was
born.”
The U.S. war machine has been turned on, and in the near future,
innocent people will die because of it.
I’m scared of our government and the grim picture that our
foreign policy paints for the future, yet we cannot give up the
fight for peace when the answers lie in our logic. |
|
 |
 |
