|
Your comments are welcome at wtcthoughts@hugeworld.com
reply:
-----Original Message-----
From: J. Chalmers Browne [mailto:chal@hero.com]
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 11:04 PM
To: charlie.wilcox@checkspring.com
Subject: RE: sharing some ideas RE: thoughtful conversation
When did I say it didn't? I'm moving toward the conclusion that only by
depriving one or more leaders of possession of a sovereign state can we makethe statement we need to make. I just hope we don't kill a bunch of people
who would welcome our Levis and CD players before we take over.
reply:
Chal-
Your petition does imply a certain level of pacifist intentions on the behalf of its signers, while not out and out calling for laying down arms. You specifically state that violence only leads to more violence, and speak of an inability to even the score, both of these lines lead readers to associate pacifist ideas with your statements. It is the use of strategic ambiguity in your petition that I disagree with. You do not say that you support the current constraint, you do not say that you believe that a military option (or at least a violent option) might be
appropriate. I think your petition muddles the picture because it calls for a thoughtful creative response, but offers no forum, instead it draws some lines and divides. This is a classic political move, but one that I feel is inappropriate to the situation. I don't like your assumption that these things need to be said to 'balance' the angry ideas you are hearing. You set up a false balance between:
'Let us go kill Arabs' and;
"We are afraid of just killing Arabs and don't like violence, WE think THEY ought to come up with non-military (and implied non violent) means of fixing the problem. The government better listen to us cause our opposition is the voice that makes America great"
This balance is false because there has been very little official call for 'Let us go kill Arabs', and you aren't really opposing what is happening. Our subsequent conversations show that we both understand that the world is a violent awful place, and will be so for the foreseeable future. Even now I'd bet that we have similar conclusions about what we would do if in the hot seat, but we appear to be arguing across a divide. That divide is characterized by the ambiguity of your petition, where you define much of what you are against, without stating much about what you are for.
If what you really wanted to say was "Let us strive to kill no innocent people, while removing from power those people who show no respect for the sanctity of life and power, in as clean and efficient a manner as possible, with a preference toward non-violent means", I wish you had said that without adding the divisive demands regarding "all of our objectives", or the implication that you are hearing our government clamoring for an eye for an eye, or the implication that what the state is currently doing is not in line with how "This country was made great". American society represents a pretty damn good compromise between individual freedom, opportunity, and societal security demands, but these demands do compete. In times of crisis it is important to focus on societal security. I find your petition is divisive at a time when our society needs to be unified. I wish that you had included a more balanced perspective in your petition, instead of drumming on fear and pacifist rhetoric. I would have appreciated a line that said "Let's not kill
'em all and let god sort it out, Let's kill the right ones and let the devil sort them out."
In the spirit of our likely agreement, and as an interesting illustration about how people can come to agree through dialogue and consideration (which is what you call for), I'd appreciate it if you would post my reply , or even an edited text of our discussion on your petition site.
Thanks for the discussion,
C
Your comments are welcome at wtcthoughts@hugeworld.com
[ Back ] [ Home ]
|