Love is the way!
I read on iht.com this morning that Bush is not going to withdraw his troops from Iraq anytime during his presidency, placing that event some point after '09 apparently. One of the chief reasons for this is of course, to "prevent insurgencies". Well, I don't understand what else his cabinet would have expected. Short of nuking Iraq's entire population I couldn't imagine what else would prevent such insurgencies - the country's unrest stems from much deeper issues than Saddam, but Mr. Hussein was the only one that fulfilled Bush's agenda.
Seems like a catch 22 to me - the U.S. won't remove its military presence until it believes it'll leave behind civil harmony, and yet I find it hard to imagine Iraqi's waking to a harmonious environment with U.S. military presence in their streets. To give Bush the benefit of the doubt, let's say he genuinely is more interested in the prevention of insurgencies rather than simply covering his backside in preparation for the resurgence of strife when US troops finally lift their thumb. After all, like he's said, he's leaving that to the next Mr. President.
I tend towards thinking that the civil unrest is going to be inevitable until people find a solution to our own differences - its nothing that the US or any other nation can effectively control in the long term. Its not that I don't recognize that Bush might be preventing much greater disasters like a nuclear melee that could send the planet up in poofy mushroom cloud. I just feel in my idealistic ways as I type at my little laptop that world peace is never going to come with the help of any military, other than for them to rest arms. I feel like civil relations don't come from one person strong-arming another. I don't believe that one country's peace is going to come from another one policing it. Is it too far fetched to believe that governments would find their solution with a softer approach?
If religion is the planet's solution, its the religion of love.
If democracy will maintain world peace, then its the democratic right of each person to be respected as part of the community of the world.
The meek will inherit the planet after all.
Seems like a catch 22 to me - the U.S. won't remove its military presence until it believes it'll leave behind civil harmony, and yet I find it hard to imagine Iraqi's waking to a harmonious environment with U.S. military presence in their streets. To give Bush the benefit of the doubt, let's say he genuinely is more interested in the prevention of insurgencies rather than simply covering his backside in preparation for the resurgence of strife when US troops finally lift their thumb. After all, like he's said, he's leaving that to the next Mr. President.
I tend towards thinking that the civil unrest is going to be inevitable until people find a solution to our own differences - its nothing that the US or any other nation can effectively control in the long term. Its not that I don't recognize that Bush might be preventing much greater disasters like a nuclear melee that could send the planet up in poofy mushroom cloud. I just feel in my idealistic ways as I type at my little laptop that world peace is never going to come with the help of any military, other than for them to rest arms. I feel like civil relations don't come from one person strong-arming another. I don't believe that one country's peace is going to come from another one policing it. Is it too far fetched to believe that governments would find their solution with a softer approach?
If religion is the planet's solution, its the religion of love.
If democracy will maintain world peace, then its the democratic right of each person to be respected as part of the community of the world.
The meek will inherit the planet after all.
posted by paul at 1:05 AM
2 Comments:
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
http://www.kickstart.org/
justin
Thanks for the link dude, that's an inspiring business to read about.
Post a Comment
<< Home