Our current wars, while perhaps they might need to be fought now, were preventable, argues Asymptotic Life.
Similarly, if the brutality of Al Queda perhaps cannot be countered with nonviolence (and I am not completely convinced of this), it nevertheless could have been prevented. While we were playing chess against the Soviets with pawns in the Middle East, people there grew resentful. While we were squeezing oil from their sands and supporting favorable dicatatorships that left their people in poverty, they grew mistrustful. When we overthrew their democracies in order to increase our profits, they came to see us as the enemy.
Obama’s Nobel Prize speech seems just more of the same American exceptionalism that continues to blunder mindlessly into war – and could have been delivered by George Bush.
One genuinely upsetting thing here is that many liberals and progressive appear to be sort of ok with this. So, I guess the Iraq antiwar protests of recent years were much more about opposing George Bush than opposing the wars. Apparently war is ok as long as your side favors it.
The Nature of War: they never need be fought.
Why isit these day’s the only peace-freaks I know are old combat vets?
A read through history tells us that all wars could have been prevented but vested interests with lots to gain or lots to lose call the shots, not the people that eventually are sent to fight those avoidable wars. That’s the nature of the system we have created. However it is a man made system and not written in tablets of stone. It can be destroyed and something more humane, just and sustainable created in its place. We have the resources and the power, it is just the will that is lacking. Of course time could be another fact, as I fear time is running out quite rapidly.
I think we’re heading towards some kind of flash point, and the disillusionment with Obama may open doors for real change and organizing. Hope so.