Peace

First we need a working definition of "peace". For many people "peace" is everything that doesn't involve Americans fighting.

For example, when Saddam slaughtered Shiites and Kurds in Iraq, there was "peace", which was ended when the coalition invaded and made the situation into a "war". (Hence you had "peace protesters" protesting the invasion but not Saddam's murders.)

I have also not seen many "peace activists" protesting Lebanese or other Arab attacks on Israel. Shooting rockets at Jewish hospitals does not constitute "war", but Israel shooting back does. This is unacceptable.

Peace is not a tricky thing, but choosing sides is. Many self-proclaimed peace activists are not so much supporters of "peace" as such but are merely supporters of the other side.

It is a universal truth about war that the attackers chooses IF people will die, while the stronger side chooses WHO will die. "Peace activists" usually bicker about the WHO, whereas "warmongers" bicker about the IF.

I, a right-wing "warmonger", protest Hizbullah's attacks. "Peace activists" protest Israel shooting back and killing Lebanese. I know that using human shields is a war crime. "Peace activists" believe that using human shields makes the other side immoral, if the other side is Israel.

I don't think left and right can find a common ground on this "peace" issue, unless we resolve the IF and WHO problem. To me it seems like "peace" is about the IF. But to your typical activist it seems about the WHO. That's why you rarely see "peace activists" demonstrating for Israel's right to exist while many of them demonstrate for others' right to attack Israel without fear of reprisals.

Oh leauki, at it again I see!

"peace" is simple. It means not going to war unless necessary. Many have tried to compare situations throughout the decades after to WW2 in order to justify a "necessary" war. Quite often these comparisons were absolutely ridiculous, but as a species we tend not to be concerned too much with studying history, more in favor of repeating it!

WW2 was a war of necessity. WW1 was not. Korea was not a war of necessity, nor was Vietnam. GW1, was. Kosovo, was not.

But let's go back even further. The American invasion of the Philippines (not WW2, way before that) was definitely not necessary. The Boer war was not necessary. The British adventure in Afghanistan (in which most of the entire British garrison was wiped out in one of their biggest military embarassments of all time) was not. The American invasion of Panama... the one back at the turn of the 20th century, when a U.S gunboat sauntered down, offloaded some troops that killed the Columbian military commander and "convinced" locals to join the U.S.... was not. The crusades definitely weren't necessary. Nor were the wars waged by the Spaniards against the Inca, and all manner of transgressions carried out by colonists in the "new" world (it was "new" to us but to the aboriginals that we killed through disease, coercion, and failing that outright war it was "home"... who'da thunk it?)

While indeed there are the rare and unavoidable instances in which war is unavoidable and must occur, like WW2, in the grand scheme of things much of the wars fought in our history were unecessary.

However, in order for them to be justified, the other side must always be demonized. They must be made out to be less than human, in order that they can be murdered with impunity (we call this collateral dammage in our TV friendly language today)

Once this has hapenned, coupled with an agressive PR campaign to convince people that we are constantly under threat of being wiped out, then you can manufacture the justification to get involved in all kinds of imperial mis-adventures (that is, wars that are not necessary) This then finds you in situations of OCCUPATION.

What is occupation?

Three empires that know much about occupation were the Romans, most recently the British, and currently the U.S. Russia and China also do this, but their occupations are mostly limited to their own geopolitical backyard whereas Rome, the Brits and the U.S all share in common occupations in distant lands far removed from the majority of their citizens.

The Romans lost their empire. The Brits gave theirs up gradually, starting very slowly at the end of WW1 and mostly dissolved shortly after WW2. What will the U.S do?

One of the common side effects of occupations is that there is little killing and much murder. The distinction must be made. "Killing" is ending the life of someone who has the ability and disposition to kill you... ie; shooting an enemy soldier on the battlefield. Murder, is ending the life of someone who DOES NOT have the capacity to harm you. Again, we call murder "collateral damage", and always, always explain it away as an isolated incident that we regret.

You see, that's where we disagree.

For me "peace" is a an absence of war and violence. For me "peace" doesn't have anything to do with one particular party refraining from joining a war.

If people are fighting, there is no "peace", even if the Americans or Britain didn't go to war over the conflict and do not participate.

If people are dying at the hands of their government, there is no "peace", even if that government does never cross the country's borders and violates no international law.

ALL wars were and are always uncessary. It comes down, again, to the definition of war. I count as a war what Saddam did to his people, and I think it is was unecessary (and could not possibly have been necessary). You count as a war the reactions to his actions and judge whether those reactions are necessary.

So while I believe that the Iraq war was unecessary, I do believe that the invasion of Iraq was necessary to end the war that was unecessary. And I think the same about World War 2. World War 2 was unecessary but the invasion of Europe by the Americans was necessary to end it. For me the Iraq war is not (just) the American invasion of Iraq but all the fighting in Iraq, regardless of who is involved. Saddam killing Shiites before 2003 is just as much a "war" as Americans killing Saddam's terrorists after 2003.

All wars are unecessary. However, we, the west, are not making the decision between war and no war. We are asked to make decisions regarding how to react to the existence of wars out there and whether we should participate (hopefully to end them) or not.

And being against participation in a war is not the same as being for peace.

I am against the Iraq war, but in favour of the invasion and occupation because I did and do not see a better way to end the war. (And again, "war" does not start when Americans move in. And "peace" is not the absence of American occupation troops.)

Well, the US doesn't have an empire and what little empire it did have it made into independent countries (Philipines) or associated countries (Micronesia). But if the US had an empire I would hope it wouldn't lose it or give it up, because the results of those empires mentioned were terrible.

The countries formerly part of the Roman Empire became involved in wars for several centuries after the Romans lost control and the Pax Romana wasn't enforced any more. And those British colonies who dissolved links with the mother country, except India and few others, became dictatorships and/or involved in terrible wars. Many of the former colonies could no longer feed their populations due to corruption and experimental idologies practiced by the new (native) leadership.

I do hope the US will not do that to the countries they control to any extent whatsoever. Leaving colonies alone to be run by incompetent and corrupt local rulers is NOT a virtue, even though the UN keeps promoting the idea that it is.

The Roman Empire (and before it the Persian and Greek empires) was the most peaceful time Europe and the middle east ever experienced. Similarly the British Empire brought the world a lot closer to world peace than any other human effort has ever done. The abolition of slavery (attempted by the Persian Empire and successfully done by the British Empire) was, in my opinion, the single greatest success of humanity in its history (and the creation of slavery one of the greatest moral disappointments). Replacing those empires with "free" countries did not in any obvious war promote peace and freedom.

Occupation is an alternative to a local government running the country. It is NOT good or bad per se. Its morality depends on what local government it replaces. In the case of Germany/Berlin until 1990 and Iraq now the local government it replaced was a lot worse for locals and the rest of the world than the occupation.

Actually, it is not "common" and I have never heard of that before. I grew up in a territory occupied by American military. "Much murder" was certainly not a part of my daily life. (Quite in contrast "much murder" was very common in the area BEFORE the occupation. So perhaps you got your "common side effects" wrong?)

I am curious. Would you think that the Muslim invasions of Christian and Zoroastrian kingdoms were necessary?

If they were, Christians trying to take back the lands were certainly unecessary. But if they weren't, wouldn't the Christians have to try to take back the lost land?

I myself, based on my knowledge of history, tend to support the Muslim side because the Christian rulers of Jerusalem were not very tolerant and Umar was. My own religious beliefs also align with Umar's and not with the Christians'.

But I would be curious to learn what your opinion is regarding the necessity of Muslims and Christians fighting over Israel during the time of Islamic expansion and the crusades.

I apologize in advance for the length of this reply!

The American Empire is different from the British Empire, just as the Brits were markedly different from the Romans. The American Empire is based more on economics and ensuring that various nations have governments that will play ball with the U.S in our preferred fashion. If a government or country won't play ball with us, first we try economic means, then we try political "interference". This "interference" involves the arming and support of opposition groups within the country that will play ball with us and try to stage a coup. It involves mysterious plane crashes that kill government leaders or assasinations. If this card fails, the last one is the military card. This is why the U.S has over 800 military bases and installations around the globe that are outside of  U.S borders. How many countries have military bases inside U.S borders??

If a country will play ball with us, even if they are a despotic regime (saudi, for example) we laud them as democratic allies. If a country will not play ball with us, even if the government was democratically elected we state that they are not democratic and something must be done.

We see this playing out in Bolivia right now, with USAID having funneled millions of dollars to militias that are opposed to the legitimate, democratically elected government (who just had a national referendum and won, in which those militias responded by killing aboriginal supporters of the government)

The same goes for Cuba. There was, essentially, a strong-arm dictator running Cuba but he was our man. He played ball with us, allowing United Fruit and all kinds of U.S companies to do whatever they wanted so long as they sent a healthy chunk of their profits to him. The Cuban revolution, succeeded not so much due to communist ideology or support but moreso that most Cubans, at the time, were sick of foreign corporations stomping all over them with the support of a dictators armed thugs using heavy handed tactics to keep them oppressed.

That Castro hapenned to be communist actually hapenned to be a coincidence.... the people would have revolted regardless, and the fact that much of their malcontent was towards corporate crimes helped fuel their turn towards a socialist solution. The Russian aid and support actually had little to do with global plans for expansion and more to do with opportunism- after the Cubans had the gall to kick out U.S corporations they were pariahs to the west and the Russians were the only ones who would play ball, and it was beneficial to both parties- a marriage of unexpected convenience in which, for a change, Russia got a foothold on the U.S border to counter the multiple footholds that the U.S had right on the border of the USSR. Anywho, I digress.

This kind of empire building has been replicated across the world. Why is the U.S allies with a despotic regime like Saudi? (If you think they aren't despotic, walk down the street and try to spark up a conversation with a lady while the religious police are around... or, in the presence of the religious police try having a conversation about who the next king will be...yup, sure are a free society!!!)

The U.S became good buddies with the Saudis because they played ball with us. They allowed U.S firms to come in and build massive cities and infrastructure, trade, oil, economic partnerships galore.

The U.S then tried to replicate this across the middleast with mixed success. They tried this with Saddam (who in his earlier days was in the employ of the CIA) but when he came into power he refused to play ball. He nationalized all of the industries and refused the kind of economic co-operation that was so lucrative for American interests in Saudi. So, they used him as much as they could to counter Iran. When he had outlived his usefulness they decided it was time to get rid of him.

Not too many folks know this, but Saddam was genuinely surprised at the joint reaction to his invasion of Kuwait. He believed wholeheartedly that he still had U.S support, since he had backing for the invasion of much larger Iran, but this was their chance to move in on his regime in a way that would look acceptable on the world stage. After he was driven out of Kuwait and turned into a "very bad man" in the eyes of the world (and he always was a nasty fellow but it was necessary to create this image internationally) many attempts were made at regime change.

Bush 1 encouraged a shiite uprising to see if that would work, turned out to be even more disastrous than the bay of pigs as it was a "least cost" endeavor in which support for the uprising was promised but not delivered. Then various attempts were made over the years to kill Saddam but this was unsuccesful due to the fact that he had near-fanatical support amongst his top military commanders, the republican guard, and a great deal of paranoia involving doubles and all that james bond stuff.

The fact that Saddam slaughtered the Kurds and oppressed his people enmasse, while unforgivable WAS NOT the reason why the U.S invaded Iraq. It was however, very, very convenient as it was used as part of the rationale for the invasion. The U.S is and has been allies with equally nasty dictators in the past, the only difference being that those dictators acted in U.S interests.

In Indonesia the government of Sukarno was overthrown by the monster Suharto (and Suharto was a monster) with full support and blessing of the U.S. The CIA even created and distributed lists with thousands of names on them of targets, almost all left-leaning civillians opposed to Suharto, which his militias then went out and murdered. Funding, weapons and comm gear were also supplied. Almost 600,000 died in the bloodshed, most of them civillians. Why did this happen? Because Sukarno was ardently nationalist and refused to play ball economically with the U.S. Once Suharto took over, he played ball and was greatly rewarded for it although he kept his country oppressed and acted against the best interests of his countrymen.

So, Saddam kills his own people and he's a monster that needs to go. Suharto kills his own people and he's a great friend and ally of the States. Pinochet kills thousands and makes thousands more disapear, but he too is a champion of U.S interests in the region and remains so for years until the depth of his crimes become widely circulated in international media, forcing the U.S to distance themselves and say "yes, well, never really liked him all that much anyway....."

The same is going on in Columbia right this very instant. The current government in Columbia is very pro U.S and is indeed playing ball. For this they are rewarded with all manner of support, military and economic, yet militias tied to them are notorious for making political opponents and labor unionists disapear, often to to be found later with drill-holes in their heads. So, why doesn't the U.S invade Columbia or at least pull back the aid going to the country?

And, who could forget the balkans!!!

Serbia has trouble with a breakaway region and they're bad, bad guys that need to be taught a lesson, so we bomb the crap out of their country, going after such critical military targets as water treatment plants, electrical stations and phone exchanges, all so that the poor, but valiant freedom fighters of Kosovo can be free of Serbian oppression!

Then, Georgia has their own trouble with a breakaway region, but THIS time it's different and it's okay for them to go and bomb the crap out of this bad, bad area of bad people who dare to try and seceede. Oh, and let's not forget that Georgia does this with weapons provided by the U.S.

So, Russia does the same thing to Georgia that we did to Serbia (only they didn't do near as much damage to civilian infrastructure as we did in Serbia) The Georgian army, despite being equipped with the coolest of Tom-Clancyesque war fighting gear drops it all in piles and runs away, and Russia, for intervening in a conflict in their own back yard becomes the bad guy. Hmmmmmmm.......

Yes, there is indeed an American Empire. How long it will live for at this moment in time is anybody's guess.

Furthermore, what about the Norman invasion of England during the middle-ages? Did the brits ever truly get the French back for that? Or going further back, what about the Roman occupation of Britannia? Should england have a resurgence of nationalism tomorrow and bomb the bejeezus out of Italy to set things right?

But seriously, your question is a good one. Considering that Jerusalem has been conquered, what, 18 times in recorded history? (forgive me if that is incorrect) the rationale for invasion vs counter invasion could be traced back to well before the Roman empire and throughout the old testament. Where does it end? That is not a question I can answer. One friend of mine, a fellow from South Korea, was expressing confusion over the ongoing conflicts in the middleast as such a long, drawn out history of misery and bloodshed for all parites involved. His solution (which I ardently disagree with) was to blanket much of the area with a nuclear bombardment and "start over"

Saddly, this always seems to be the rationale; "once we wipe out the guys in the next valley over, we can start over with a blank slate and life will be good!!"

Saddly, we never realize that there is no going back to zero- there is no wiping the slate clean and going for a do-over. When our attempts to do this fail, we state that it is because we didn't fully succeed in wiping the slate clean the last time, something was left over and we have to use more force next time. This could quite possibly end up with the destruction of the human race.

I agree with you regarding Saudi Arabia. For the US to support those criminals is wrong on so many levels. Plus, they are not even that helpful.

They are certainly not democratic. In fact they are nothing positive at all.

Do you have any examples for democratically elected governments the US opposed that do not count as "democratically elected" the winners and perpetrators of putsches?

I haven't heard anything about USAID money being used to fund anti-government militias in Bolivia. The USAID Web site certainly doesn't make such claims:

http://bolivia.usaid.gov/

Cuba's government is hardly democratically elected. I approve of support for anti-government militias in Cuba. I am opposed to any government that has a death penalty for dissent.

That's because you are assuming moral equivalence. I don't.

I argue that whoever captures Jerusalem and governs it in such a way that EVERYONE can live there in peace should keep it and the invasion would be correct.

I told you that I was fine with Umar's invasion because the Christian rulers (under Persian rule) didn't allow Jews in the city whereas the Muslims allowed Christians, Jews, and Muslims to live in peace.

Similarly I disagree with Arab rule over Jerusalem now but agree with Israeli rule over Jerusalem, because Israel allows Muslims, Jews, and Christians to live and worship in the city whereas the Arabs still haven't (officially) given up their wish to exterminate the Jews (I am not exagerating).

It's not tit-for-tat, it's about the type of rule.

Perhaps this is a stepping off point for a definition of peace.  You said peace is not tricky.  I say it is.  Its the notion of tit-for-tat that causes the trickiness.  If we agree that peace is the absence of violence, we only go part way.  I can be in complete turmoil and not cause violence outside of myself. True peace is a peace wherein we are not attached to a particular tit or tat.  We accept or reject them as necessary, but with grace and equanimity. An environment which nourishes this is a peace-loving and peaceful environment.

I do not accept the needless killing of human beings and animals; nor do I accept needless rage and hatred. Yet, these exist.  It is my response to them that I am responsible for.  I should endeavour to create conditions wherein such things do not arise.  Yet to rage against them, or to kill to quit them is not a good course.

On the other hand, if someone is actually trying to kill me, I must support my life by attempting in one way or another to stop him.  The problem is, many people view this "self defense" clause as a rational for killing, but are less willing to explore less violent or lethal means.  We often grow impatient or more fearful and are left with these to boil. Not wise.

My definition of peace is one who is completely at one with the universe.

Be well.

That may be, but those who oppose, say, the invasion of Iraq, DO accept the needless killing of human beings. They decided, willingly, to ignore that that was what Saddam was doing and have decided that by not stopping him we have done our duty because we didn't interfere (and hence didn't kill anyone ourselves) and that is good enough.

And that is fine, to the extent that by not participating, one can escape responsibility. If you don't do anything, you don't do anything wrong; perhaps.

But I do not believe that we can escape responsibility by ignoring violence. And I do not believe that inaction equates innocence.

I find it the height of arrogance to claim that watching violence rather than acting against it (even if such an action must be violent too) constitutes "peace activism". An activist is not "anti-war" just because he prefers watching people die over participating in the war.

The decision the world had to make about the invasion of Iraq was not one about war or peace, because Iraq was already at war. It was about watching or doing. And there were no "peace activists" and "war-mongers", there were only watchers and doers.

And the doers caught Saddam and allowed Iraqis to rebuild their country. THAT might ultimately lead to peace.

The watchers never had a strategt that could lead to peace.

The thing is, doing always has many possibilities. Are you suggesting that the only way Saddam could be replaced was to invade Iraq, devestate the country, then allow it to be rebuilt?  In the long view, every dictator will die eventually. 

I do not accept passivity in the face of violence either, but argue that there are almost always other than lethal responses. We must learn to use the brain God granted us.

Shalom, my friend.

I am suggesting that after watching Iraqis, Kurds and Shiites, try to dethrone Saddam for two decades, with devastating results, it was obvious that Saddam could only be replaced by an invasion.

The invasion did not devastate the country, Saddam did. I saw it. Everything older than 5 years looked like it was in disrepair for a long time.

After three decades of Baath rule Iraq needed rebuilding. And since 2003 the country is being rebuild. Do you realise they don't have forrests? Only now are they starting to plant treest to transform the deserts (sand and mountains everywhere) into green lands. They have enough water, but the dictatorship never allowed them to use it in the Kurdish or Shia regions to transform the deserts into arable land.

See this article of mine (and the next few in the series).

Peace is not about ignoring Kurds and letting Shiites die. In Iraq peace is very much about planting trees now.

And so will hundreds of thousands of his victims. We can wait out the dictators or we can wait out the chaos an invasion brings. But note that Saddam's sons were worse than he was.

What do we need a brain for if we have already decided that the answer is to watch them die and not invade regardless of the situation?

Leauki, it is you who are making this a black and white issue.  I did not suggest standing by watching anyone die.  I do believe we, and the world, had many options other than lethal force.  It still does as regards North Korea, Iran, etc. Frankly, I believe if we are going to intervene militarily whenever some despot is killing people, we will be very busy world police as the world is full of despotism, killing, and other shameful acts.

Be well.

Yes, and I do not advocate going after every such despot.

But when such a despot happens to be an old enemy and some of his victims are old friends...