Let’s not abandon our ideals for ‘peace’
Re: We were attacked (Daily Mail, Dec. 20)Mr. Cook, with regard to your response to my letter (“name calling,” etc.), I of course recognize the need for national defense. That however is not the case in our invasion of Iraq. It is common knowledge that the Bush administration was planning to attack even before 9/11, without just cause, as can be clearly seen in hindsight. Further, there are usually several possible methods of settling disputes other than using violence, which may have worked to a degree in the past, but which has the effect of fomenting hatred, which leads to more violence; and in today’s world of ever more obtainable weapons of mass destruction, the consequences of that course of action will be immensely more severe than in past times. This decreases the long-term efficacy of using violence as a means of protection, and increases the benefits of alternative attempts of dispute resolution exponentially. Also, the “reality” of human events to which you refer is in many ways actually created by the moment-to-moment consensus of what we as a society choose to believe. There are always extant in each moment several possible “realities” dependent for their manifestation upon the choices made by we humans in the aggregate at that moment. If we choose violence, then we shall have it. Conversely, the only way we can ever attain peace is to make it our policy and our stated goal, even if we have to defend ourselves from those who would attempt to keep us from it, be they terrorists or presidents. But, they win if we abandon our ideals, adopt their world-view and live by their rules, i.e. become the violent aggressors. And if we prohibit or discourage public comment on the decisions being made in our name, by our public servants, that endanger us by committing our nation to that dangerous, wrong-way policy. None of us, liberal or conservative, wants to see our nation attacked, endangered or threatened, Mr. Cook. The fact is, the risk of that has increased tremendously due to the mistakes of the current administration. Therefore, an intelligent, concerned citizen must voice their objection, in the strongest possible terms, precisely because the stakes are so high, as you yourself have pointed out. If that’s “name calling,” then so be it. When the reason for it stops, then it will stop, but not before. Therefore, an intelligent, concerned citizen must voice their objection, in the strongest possible terms, precisely because the stakes are so high, as you yourself have pointed out. If that’s “name calling,” then so be it. When the reason for it stops, then it will stop, but not before.
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
As a Summit Daily News reader, you make our work possible.
Your donation will be used exclusively to support quality, local journalism.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User