Cynd, I had to click back upstream to see what triggered my comments. I tend to make a meal of things as I think the issue through and get side-tracked onto a bunch of other things.
Thanks to the wonders of cyberspace, here's what got me going <<I do agree that force should be met with force.> >
As you pointed out, the USA is not exactly Ghandian when it comes to the USA's use of violence to resolve conflicts in who bosses whom and who owns what.
Good point on holding feelings of empathy and sympathy simultaneously. People do tend to have sympathy for others when they understand their situation more closely. That's why big anonymous cities are less pleasant than small towns, where people might not all know each other, but they surely know somebody who knows the other person. Waving fists at people from the car because they've committed some trivial traffic error isn't done in Tauranga, where it's probably aunty Mary, but in Auckland, people just let rip.
I just meant there are sometimes other ways of dealing with the use of force, which might have been more of a casual arrogant attitude, which can be rolled back with a more reasonable approach than pulling out a six gun.
My experience is that most people are amenable to being treated with respect, and a reasonable and determined approach. The PNAC pre-emptive approach to foreigners lacks respect and reasoning, as shown by the Abu Gharib photos. Being less bad than Saddam isn't quite good enough.
The attitude to the UN shows the same approach. None of that International Criminal Court stuff for Americans, just others. None of that Geneva Convention nonsense either. Human rights? That's for China, not off-shore foreign prisoners who are guilty as charged [well, not charged and you can forget that habeas corpus drivel too] - "If they aren't guilty, then why are they in prison?"
Over decades, I've watched as the USA has used force to sort things out which to me could be dealt with in the way the British used to capture IRA terrorists. They'd surround them, send in some breakfast while negotiations for surrender proceeded and wait until everyone calmed down. Then, several days later, the IRA criminal would come out without being killed and without killing anyone else. Later, the British went onto killing IRA in the street [in Spain] - I suppose that was after the Brighton bombing. I forget the details. Google would know.
In the USA, the armed mob surrounds the intended prisoners and attacks. One of the first incidents which amazed me was the guy in the clock tower who killed a whole lot of people. The crowd of police surrounded him and the turkey shoot began. A similar process has played itself out for decades since, with schools now having metal detectors to prevent more of the same.
Same again at Waco, which wasn't even downtown and could have been surrounded for 6 months without a problem. Instead, the children were killed to be saved. The USA military were used against Americans [which actually breaks USA law].
Same again with "Move". mindfully.org Google is great. I couldn't even remember that name, but gave Google a few aspects I could recall; philadelphia fire police roof and Bingo! Up came a good source.
Same again with so many instances. It's out with the guns in an instant instinctive perception of danger and a huge shoot 'em up, which must be a lot of fun, if very fatal for a lot of people.
As you say, being in the front line is a lot different from Monday morning quarterbacking from the safety of an armchair with a nice cup of tea while hours are spent figuring out what was best to happen when the person involved had perhaps 2 seconds to decide what to do. Or less.
For example, a young and very strong man went on a night time rampage in Waitara, breaking windows with a baseball bat and golf club. A couple of police went to deal with the situation. He wasn't shot for breaking windows, he was walking quickly, bat at the ready to kill, towards the walking backwards policeman who had a pistol and was warning him to stop. I'd have started shooting too! nzherald.co.nz
But New Zealand culture is so against shoot 'em ups that it's a big deal every time anyone is shot, whether the shooting is done by police or a criminal. There are investigations and trials. Usually, situations are defused without the criminal being killed. Sometimes that's not possible.
<I don't think we're more trigger happy than many other nations > That's true enough and a lot less so than many.
A New United Nations would help with the bigger conflicts. A PNAC and side-lining the UN isn't a good idea. If China just sees the USA holding the line over Taiwan, it's not as convincing as seeing the whole world arrayed against them. Democracy and reason are great arbiters of human interaction; much better than shoot 'em up.
Softly, softly, catchy monkey,
Mqurice
PS: I'm glad you like my rants. The feeling's mutual. |
