03 May 2006

letters to family and friends

dear steve--

let me reiterate: this gentleman prosposed nuclear genocide, the armed appropriation of others' resources, the merciless execution without trial both of "terrorists" and their innocent families, all for the sake of a more comfortable and prosperous American existence with no regard to the expense the rest of the world is forced to bear in order to make that existence comfortable.

that is neither acceptable, practical, nor tenable. its only tenuous connection with the term "solution" is that which can be drawn to ideas such as "The Final Solution."

also, as Tegan put excellently and I shall briefly reiterate, the "problem" is not bad guys fighting bad guys, but the attendant famine, disease, rape, pillage, slaughter, conscription of children into armies, and horrible cost borne by those who have conflict thrust upon them.

this is not a war of armies. this is a war of mobs of men (and children) with guns. there is no optional involvement: you don't choose to lose access to medical care, food, your own land, your life, your family. the people with the guns chose for you. fight and die, or run and die, there are you options. the world is not as pretty and safe as life in America. they can't "just get a job" over there.

so, "tying up our military to solve other people's problems" is more like "sending our armed forces into harms way to protect those who cannot protect themselves" and takiing an effort to tend to the helpless and suffering--sounds a bit like widows and fatherless that the old testament prophets got all bent out of shape about. refugees and malaria patients and the like.

your militant liberal brother,
dan



jeffrey--
thank you for some salient points. as usual, while i remain in the realm of rhetoric and theory, you actually have some concrete historical data. bravo, I shall have to tame my biting criticism of the evil American capitalists for the moment.

and good thought about that ticket...

your sheepishly militant liberal brother,
dan



dear self--
the most amazing conclusion that i have drawn from this little exchange is the revalation that this blue-collar American advocated a morality that was actually more despicable than that of a standard jihading terrorist. let me reiterate: death squads, summary execution of family members, nuclear warfare...

at least a suicide bomber has some notion of self-sacrifice for a greater good while defending home and country. at least he claims some sort of moral code.

perhaps the logic of a terrorist is not that difficult or alien to our civilized way of life as we would like to believe. I may be "peevishly self-involved," but I also may be closer to genuine evil that I'd like to believe.

self



and finally, on a lighter and more important note

dear gustav and fellow pennsylvanians,

i extend my sincere condolences for the psychological trauma you must have experienced last night. while it was my hope that our own Buffalo Sabres would find victory in your hallowed arena last night, we did not in our wildest dreams anticipate the most humiliating drubbing your Philadelphia Flyers were made to endure in their own horrifyingly hushed stadium last night. three unanswered goals in the first fifteen minutes of game time was really a tough blow, but when your first goal of the night, just before the end of the second quarter, was immediately answered with our sixth of the night, that was just cruel. to lose 7-1 on your sixth, and unfortunately las game of the playoffs, must be an unbearable agony in light of the hope rekindled by your recent victories.

it must have been difficult. i wince imagining it. in your honor i sall contain my gleeful grinning for five minutes of somber silence and petition our father in heaven to restrain his partying as well and grant you some respite for your troubled souls.

-now-a-sabres-fan-cuz-the-wings-just-got-knocked-out-of-the-playoffs-by-some-two-bit-canuck-team,

dan

6 comments:

tskd said...

but Daniel, the one thing the canucks DO have is ice...let them have THAt at least! :)

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the responses, Dan and Jeff.

I can now count myself among the educated who know that in the case of Darfur/Sudan, it is Chinese (and other) nations that are currently involved.

Perhaps I should begin again: How do you stop two belligerent peoples/nations/cultures from fighting? What if you have nothing that they want (except the fact that your army isn't in the area)?

On the other hand, this looks like a re-enactment of a piece of history that is as old as the hills. A long-simmering dispute between two tribes/nations/cultures erupts into violence. It's not necessarily organized violence, with a military that has a clear command structure and a political leader who has command and control of the situation.

Often, it's the kind of violence like the kind seen in the Sudan right now--small groups of men with weapons roving about, preying on each other's fighting men, and any helpless children/women that get in the way. Along the way, they wantonly ignore any semblance of property law and do their best to discourage business/commerce in the region, until they've established the right to kill as many of the Other Guys as possible.

With that in mind, can any outside pressure on the political leaders of either side stop the violence entirely? They might be encourage or discourage it, but are they issuing direct orders that get passed down the chain of command and are ramified in the violence seen in the villages?

At which point, a cynical man might quite easily say "let them kill each other."

I am (hopefully) less cynical, but I don't see many options that don't involve using force to encourage the belligerents to stand down.

How to structure that application of force so that the Concerned Nation don't fall prey militarily to cynical nations is an important question.
(Every nation has finite military resources, and any nation that has a significant chunk of its military in one place can't use it to defend against another nation in another place. This is doubly so for nations that can threaten the Concerned Nation, and get concessions without going to war--because they know that the Concerned Nation won't be able to defend itself from agression.)

The leadership of the Concerned Nation must take this into account--whether it is the Chinese government trying to build hospitals and put down brush fires, or the US trying to do the same. If the UN gets involved, that won't stop member-nations from picking on each other when they perceive weakness (in the form of considerable military manpower tied down as part of a UN mission).

I think I will agree with Jeff in this--your conversation partner was an example of people who don't think about other nations, and have no idea how interconnected the national interest of the U.S. is with the national interests of all the other nations that America does business with.

--Steve

Anonymous said...

What an exciting discussion to have around the kitchen table! I can hear it now!! I won't wade in. I'll let you young adults hash this out. All good points, but there are some basic ideas you may want to consider as you develop responses to the world you are in and the culture you are inheriting from those who have gone before you. Consider mankind's basic sinful nature and God's Word and His redeeming work.
Mom

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the update on the Wings, sad though it is, Dan. Does ice really exist? Just wondering... It's aroung 60 F here, and I'm cold. I've changed.

Just had a great weekend in a cabin up the mountain - pulling a friend out after getting stuck on the way up (my strapping British lass and stellar tow rope), playing cribbage (nod to Steve), eating lots and enjoying the downpouring rain. Wish you were here... I think you might like it:)

Notice the blogging is up. Less overtime recently? How do we open the eyes of most American Christians to truly become World Christians? It's a lot less confident, a lot more messy, Christianity... but real. Sign me up.

Peace,

Jeff

Ben said...

Although I don't like hockey I can say that if I did I would be a Sabres fan and I'm from PA. I keep hoping that the Sabres will win because if they don't then all of buffalo has no real reason to keep on hoping and living.

Anonymous said...

What's with this recurring theme that because we in America have it good someone else has to be getting the short end of the stick? I never understood that thought process and still don't.

Also I think getting into situations in other countries militarily, providing the situation isn't really effecting the US, is getting into a fight that was never ours in the first place. Personally going and trying to help solve the problems that these troubled peoples have is the best way to show compassion in my book.

It's just too easy to sit back and say, "that's too bad, we should send the government in to fix it . . ." Especially when there is plenty of junk going on here at home that needs fixing.

Anyway, my two bits.

David