<< At the risk of sounding like an apologist for a despicable act, I would
like to provide some possibilities for understanding the roots of this
tragedy:
1. We Americans, comprising some 4% of the world's population, consume
approximately 40% of its resources. We appear to assume that the
resources found in other parts of the world are somehow our birthright.
Imagine how this is experienced in third world countries, many of whom
have been the recipient of United States military attacks.>>
If we assumed the resources of other countries were our birthright, we would
use our military to conquer these countries, set up a puppet regime and take
the resources for free as taxes---as the Roman Empire did. Are we getting the
oil of the Mideast for free or even at reduced prices because we fought in
the Gulf War? Are we getting fruit from Guatamala or San Salvador for free or
at reduced prices because we fought there? Etc.
<<2. We maintain this consumption, in large part, because we have the most
powerful military in the world, and since WW II we have not hesitated to
use it for political and/or economic gain in places like China (1945-46),
Korea (1950-53), China (1950-53), Guatemala (1954), Indonesia (1958),
Cuba (1959-60), Guatemala (1960), Congo (1964), Peru (1965), Laos (1964-73),
Vietnam (1961-73), Cambodia (1969-70), Guatemala (1967-69), Grenada
(1983), Libya (1986), El Salvador (1980s), Nicaragua (1980s), Panama
(1989), Iraq (1991-present), Sudan (1998), Afghanistan (1998) and
Yugoslavia (1999). We have bombed each of these countries in turn, and in
NO case did a democratic government, respectful of human rights, occur as a
direct
result.>>
In most of the major wars mentioned the war was against Communism. Would
these countries have been better off under Communism? The economic and
political backwardness of China vs. the prosperity and freedom of Taiwan
argues otherwise. Similarly, N. Korea vs. S. Korea.
<< Through our weapons and/or proxies, innocent civilians of
Indonesia, East Timor, Chile, Nicaragua and Palestine have also been
victims of the United States. Is it any wonder that the level of hatred
of the United States is so high? Former President Jimmy Carter stated,
"We have only to go to Lebanon, to Syria, to Jordan, to witness firsthand
the intense hatred among many people for the United States, because we
bombed and shelled and unmercifully killed totally innocent villagers,
women and children and farmers and housewives, in those villages around
Beirut...as a result, we have become a kind of Satan in the minds of
those who are deeply resentful. That is what precipitated the taking of
hostages and that is what has precipitated some terrorist attacks." (New
York Times3/26/89)>>
Lebanon, Syria and Jordan have been shelled to protect the state of Israel.
Some of it was justified--in spite of the unevenhanded support for Israel vs.
the Palestinians.
<<3. Forty-nine percent of our income tax dollar goes for present and past
military-related activities. On April 16, 1953, former President Dwight
Eisenhower noted that "Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who
hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed." For the
cost of a Stealth bomber, we could put an additional teacher or social
worker in every middle and high school in the United States. The cost of
the proposed missile defense shield would add several more. Which of
these options would add most to our national security?>>
In the imaginary world of liberalism, this would make sense. But, it is the
kind of thinking that left us unprepared for WWII, a war which was closer to
being lost than many realize (and I don't think quoting a politician, even an
ex-general, is the same thing as providing valid reasons.) And who knows what
the future holds? Russia may be subdued, but China is on the rise. Does this
preacher of Non-violence really believe that Gandhi type sit-down strikes
would have worked against Hitler, Stalin or Hussein? Did they work at
Tinnamin Square? Defense today is a matter of employing the latest
technology. Fall even a decade behind, and you are in danger.
<<In short, I believe that we are paying a terrible price for a very
shortsided and egocentric American political and economic worldview, and
unless we change this worldview, I am concerned that yesterday's tragedy
will be only a down payment on the retribution yet to come.>>
Change to what worldview? What real alternative, that is, what policies that
will leave us safe, free and productive would he suggest? Never oppose
communist expansion? Let Hussein have the oil fields? Without a positive
program that has been proven to work elsewhere, his complaints mean very
little.
***************
<<Bill Thomson is a clinical psychologist in private practice and a faculty
member at the University of Michigan/Dearborn, where he teaches a course
in Nonviolence and Violence. >>
I suggest he go to see bin Laden. I am sure he will get a genuine hearing for
his course in Nonviolence and Violence. And, if by some chance his message is
not received, perhaps bin Laden can teach him some of the lessons he has not
learned from history.
No doubt the U.S. could do an even better job in its international relations,
and if the professor's comments provoke some positive change, it will be for
the good. But, by and large, I see his comments as too divorced from reality
to be taken seriously.
Paul S.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 18 2001 - 20:11:55 EDT