Is Violence The Only Thing That Breeds Violence?

We received an email that said, essentially, violence can only breed more violence. Citizen Warrior replied:

I don't know if it's true that violence can only breed more violence. I think earlier, preemptive violence could save an enormous amount of suffering. Hitler's Germany would be a good example. Everyone could see many years ahead of time what Hitler was up to, but nobody wanted to go to war because war is ugly and horrible and people die. So the nations of Europe and the U.S. ignored it, stuck their heads in the sand, and allowed Hitler to expand his powers almost past the point of no return.

Should we ignore cruel dictatorships like Saddam's or Pol Pot's? Should we ignore the subjugation of whole populations? What do you suggest as an alternative to war? Appeasement? That's what the countries of Europe were doing with Hitler, but he didn't play by normal rules (as most dictators don't), so he made agreements and allowed people to appease him, and then he stabbed them in the back. Should we have let Saddam continue to rule? Is that "right?" Is that the moral choice? What about trade embargoes and talks. They were tested. Nothing worked. Saddam was not a sane man and he didn't play by normal rules. And he wouldn't allow his people to revolt. What alternative to violence do you have?

He wrote back and said several things. First, he doesn't have an alternative to violence. He wants his elected officials to make those decisions. Also, the war in Iraq is only about oil. He said we abandoned Afghanistan and ignore Palestine because there is no oil in those places. He also said maybe we should stop this discussion because our minds are made up already. Citizen Warrior replied:

Okay, so you have no alternative to violence. It sounds like you're not so much FOR anything as against what you don't like. That's the easy way out. It is easy to criticize what others are doing. It is much harder to offer a better alternative. At a company I worked for, it was policy that if you had a complaint, your complaints were welcome as long as you also presented a possible solution. It was very productive.

Oil is only one of the things this war is about. Yes, it will probably be in our oily interest to create a democracy in Iraq. As you can see from gas prices right now, we are clearly not taking any of their oil. But it will also be in our safety interest (less money going to finance suicide bombers, for example), and it is also in the interest of the Iraqi people. What are they to us? They are human beings and deserve human rights. I understand about the oil. But I don't think it would be right to refrain from liberating Iraq just because they have oil. The fact that it is also in America's best interest doesn't cancel the fact that replacing a brutal dictator with a democracy is in EVERYONE'S interest (except Islamic terrorists, of course).

We have not abandoned Afghanistan. We still have a considerable military presence there, and we have soldiers actively fighting and dying today ridding that country of the remnants of the Taliban. Where did you get the impression we had abandoned them?

And the U.S. has been intricately involved in the Palestinian question for a long time. It is a very difficult issue because many the Islamists just want all the Israelis dead and they are willing to blow themselves up to take some Israelis with them. They don't want to negotiate. They don't want to compromise. They want the Jews driven into the sea. How do you "take a positive role" in something like that other than kill them all, which of course we can't do? Do you have any ideas? This is a serious, complicated, difficult problem that will only be harmed by glib answers.

The most dangerous thing that has happened in the last 30 years is the increasingly negative influence of mainstream media. Other media sources are available, and other facts are available, but many people, maybe a majority of people, do not ever see these sources. You apparently haven't. I don't blame you. I feel we've been hoodwinked by the mainstream media. They have gotten so good at what they do they've got us almost brainwashed.

And finally, one of the things that is really bad about what's happening is that people don't discuss this stuff. So everyone stays in "their" camp, reads and watches only "their" sources, and they let others argue it out on television. It sounds like it would be good for both of us to have this kind of dialog. All we've done so far in this discussion is make our opening remarks. Now that we know where we stand, we are ready for dialog. If you want to stop, I'm okay with that. But it seems a shame. Maybe you could open my eyes, and visa versa. Since when it is a good idea to stop learning? When did it become wise to have your mind made up? What is the point of free speech if people don't argue with each other, try to persuade each other, and try to work out compromises?

I invite you to counter my arguments with sound reason, good examples, and evidence. Let us begin now to enlighten each other.