No matter how well intentioned, I think military interventions nowadays that aim to dethrone an authoritarian regime are practically guaranteed to fail.

Modern combat is fought through surgical air strikes with a limited ground force. It minimizes invading state casualties but poor intelligence from limited local manpower inevitably leads to mass civilian casualties. This progressively undermines local support. Fostering a vibrant democracy or training a self sufficient military and police force, hell, let alone rebuilding the infrastructure from the initial invasion cannot be done quickly. As has been seen from Afghanistan especially, this allows insurgencies to organise and further air bombing simply adds to their recruitment numbers.

Removing totalitarianism also reveals long-held grudges and power imbalances such as how removing Saddam's minority Sunni Ba'ath Party fermented a civil war with the oppressed Shi'ite majority. Local revolutions on the other hand, without intervention create a sense of solidarity regardless of past differences. A foreign coup d'état does not.

States that have democracy thrust upon tend to squander them or relapse back into authoritarianism. Often this is from a lack of established and respectable candidates to choose from, haphazard transition to a market economy (e.g Russia) or a lack of consistent ground level demands from the people resulting in simple pandering by politicians to secure votes with no intentions of governance. Democracy is only able to work effectively when individuals with growing affluence over time begin to demand better infrastructure, services and generally representation of their interests.

Not to mention, especially in Africa, many countries were wished into existence by exiting colonial powers with no logical cultural, religious or ethnic links among them. There is simply no genuine sense of national unity. This is arguably what caused the violence in Kenya in 07-08 following the disputed election. Foreign interventions in ex-colonial countries also inevitably leads to the perception of renewed imperialism, not matter how pure actual intentions. This is why intervention in Zimbabwe to remove Mugabe is inconceivable unless it by the African Union, which is far too weak and unwilling. Even now, Mugabe has considerable support by his colonial independence credentials.

Other countries simply have never had a legitimate and effective government in generations. The Taliban did not so much rule Afghanistan as loosely impose Sha'ria law on individual tribes who otherwise had signficant autonomy. Now that representational democracy has been imposed, there is simply no willingness on the part of an individual tribe to work together to improve the livelihood of all, but merely their own people. Politicians and officials are not corrupt because they are immoral but because political survival means following this creed.

Point is, military interventions don't work in removing despotic governments simply because something can and will go wrong. The only place they are appropriate is preventing genocide or aggressor nations. NATO was correct to intervene in Kosovo, the UN was correct to prevent Iraqi aggression into Kuwait (ignoring Iraqi invasion of Iran was not). Intervention should have occurred in Rwanda and equally in Sudan.

The Powell Doctrine more or less sets out what I wrote above concisely. In short, intervention should occur only with mass popular local support, and be undertaken swiftly and effectively with overwhelming force with a clear exit strategy established.

Thanks to Bush though, the US is overstretched militarily and lacks the moral authority to incite other nations into intervening where necessary. More importantly it's lost the deterrence its successful interventions in Kosovo and Kuwait created.

>> ^bcglorf:

Hurray for anything bringing some attention to the situation over there, particularly in correctly referring to it as Burma and not the Myanmar moniker imposed by the military dictatorship.
RedSky said:
For countries that have essentially had institutionalised repression for a generation or more like North Korea and Burma, I honestly think that the best way forward is to encourage trade with some restrictions in the hope that some of it filters through to the people.
I completely agree with your feeling conflicted on how best to help the poor people imprisoned in these countries. Honestly, I think using a foreign military to remove the regime followed by a nation building program on the scale used in post war Germany and Japan is the best way forward. But no nation on Earth has any reason to spend that enormous amount of money and political good will on something that in essence gains them nothing in the end anyways.
I do dearly wish that when Burma was hit so bad by natural disasters a few years ago the world have reacted more appropriately. Instead of allowing the ruling military to refuse and block any aid from going in, the world should have come in by force with as many soldiers and weapons as needed to deliver the volunteered aid to the devastated areas by force, then simply withdrawn after the aid had been delivered and provided. Sure the military would come and take it all for themselves after anyways, but the people there could've seen for a few months that the outside world actually cares about them and would gladly treat them for better than the junta is. Maybe allowing a base of resistance and opposition to gain wider support.

Hurray for anything bringing some attention to the situation over there, particularly in correctly referring to it as Burma and not the Myanmar moniker imposed by the military dictatorship.

RedSky said:
For countries that have essentially had institutionalised repression for a generation or more like North Korea and Burma, I honestly think that the best way forward is to encourage trade with some restrictions in the hope that some of it filters through to the people.

I completely agree with your feeling conflicted on how best to help the poor people imprisoned in these countries. Honestly, I think using a foreign military to remove the regime followed by a nation building program on the scale used in post war Germany and Japan is the best way forward. But no nation on Earth has any reason to spend that enormous amount of money and political good will on something that in essence gains them nothing in the end anyways.

I do dearly wish that when Burma was hit so bad by natural disasters a few years ago the world have reacted more appropriately. Instead of allowing the ruling military to refuse and block any aid from going in, the world should have come in by force with as many soldiers and weapons as needed to deliver the volunteered aid to the devastated areas by force, then simply withdrawn after the aid had been delivered and provided. Sure the military would come and take it all for themselves after anyways, but the people there could've seen for a few months that the outside world actually cares about them and would gladly treat them for better than the junta is. Maybe allowing a base of resistance and opposition to gain wider support.

*promote

I'm honestly very conflicted about the best way to move towards a democracy in a country like Burma or North Korea. I understood the principle of boycotting the financing of a repressive regime, but sanctions if not aimed specifically and only against the ruling junta especially against Burma cannot work.

Burma is simply too replete with timber, gas, fishery reserves and ultimately tourist attractions to avoid finding a willing financier whether it be through a surreptitious company or a country like China with an equally repressive political record.

A country like Iran is different in that it's people are far more wealthy ($4540 per capita income, versus $1100 in Burma) and have a far more developed education system.

For countries that have essentially had institutionalised repression for a generation or more like North Korea and Burma, I honestly think that the best way forward is to encourage trade with some restrictions in the hope that some of it filters through to the people.

Similarly, I read an article a while back also suggesting that foreign exchange trips for North Korea even if only for the elite and privileged would at the very least see good economic policies and understanding of western governance seep through.

When it comes down to it though, people need a baseline of subsistence, education and wealth to be able to protest or to be able to stage strikes, without that they'll simply wallow in poverty forever.

http://www.lyrics007.com/Scott%20Miller%20Lyrics/Red%20Ball%20Express%20Lyrics.html

I jumped at it when I had the chance,
I joined the army and I went to France
At Roosevelt's request.
Two weeks of sitting in the mud
Made me lie to the man that I could drive a truck
For the Red Ball Express.

All we do is keep it rolling on
Trading bodies for petroleum
Heating rations on the manifold
And never sleep enough to dream about home

Benzedrined and looking through cat eyes
Of a deuce and a half and a days supply
Of jerry cans in back
Ain't no secret how the generals felt.
"Fuck the men they can eat their belts
but the tanks they must have gas"

All we do is keep it rolling on
Trading bodies for petroleum
Heating rations on the manifold
And never sleep enough to dream about home

The gears are sticking and the pressure's low
I felt the bump that means its time to go
Another twenty miles.
Thirty-six hours and I still ain't slept
I'm hearing voices talk inside my head
In Burma Shaving rhyme

All we do is keep it rolling on
Trading bodies for petroleum
Heating rations on the manifold
Even now I've never felt that old

Because fifty years later and you don't forget
Being eighteen and scared to death
In a world that's changing fast
Now my own son sends his own son off
To fight the next fight to be fought
And the Red Ball brings me back

>> ^HaricotVert:

Old Spice has turned themselves into the brilliant, modern day advertising equivalent of Burma-Shave.

I remember receiving Burma-Shave products as my very first shave kit. Back when I only had one little hair on my chin...last week.

Old Spice has turned themselves into the brilliant, modern day advertising equivalent of Burma-Shave.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'survival, ocean, ice box' to 'survival, ocean, ice box, myanmar, burma, burmese, fisherman' - edited by kronosposeidon

@rottenseed, there are numerous cases of Monsanto doing some really shitty things.

An estimated 17,000 cotton farmers in India killed themselves because they could no longer afford the Monsanto seed that they had been cajoled into buying. That's pretty recent.

A guy in Canada is getting sued because Monsanto found some of its seed in his field. They've done that to a lot of people in the USA and all over the world.

Bremer passed a rule in Iraq that forced people to pay for Monsanto seed, and they go to great lengths to make sure that the Iraqi's have little or no choice in the matter.

I think it was in Burma or some SE Asian country where they flooded the marked with a new kind of rice that was genetically designed not to reproduce. As a result, people are starving and going broke, because the seed that was native to the area is now largely gone if not completely.

Monsanto is basically trying to corner the market on the world's food supply.

They are literally trying to make it so that everyone in the world has to pay them if they want to grow food.

They are sinister sons of bitches, and I've only touched on the tip of the iceberg.

>> ^choggie:
^some can't live without it...others, can stand no confrontation whatsoever- still others, would like to see unicorns and rainbows fly out of their asses instead of the pooh gas-....When I was in Burma, there was a man stealing rubies.....


unicorns flying out of someone's ass would probably be pretty painful, given those horns... ;

^some can't live without it...others, can stand no confrontation whatsoever- still others, would like to see unicorns and rainbows fly out of their asses instead of the pooh gas-....When I was in Burma, there was a man stealing rubies.....

The so called "free market" hates democracy every bit as much as Kim Jong Ill. Corporate totalitarianism is no better than government totalitarianism, and both have the ability to create wealth for the few and poverty for the many. Also, failed state Somalia embodies two of the principals you hold dear: Small government and low taxes. I hear real estate is very inexpensive there at the moment.

>> ^10128:
>> ^Trancecoach:
Anyway, this girl is preaching to the choir. There doesn't seem to be any corporate executive, any industrial CEO, privy to such a speech (or prepared to receive the message), who is also in a position to do the things that she calls on him or her to do. Nevertheless, the power is in the hands of the individual, the consumer, to abstain from participation, from voting with their currency, and stop encouraging malpractice with their purchases.

Why are you blaming the marketplace for poverty, are you freaking nuts? Look at any country like Burma or North Korea or Somalia, and I gaurantee you find that the problem lies in the system of government..............

Transcript:

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations — that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize — Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela — my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women — some known, some obscure to all but those they help — to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 43 other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict — filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations — total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations — an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize — America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide and restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts, the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies and failed states have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed and children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: It merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other people's children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another — that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths — that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions."

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations — strong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates — and weakens — those who don’t.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait — a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention — no matter how justified.

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America’s commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries — and other friends and allies — demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali — we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant — the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior — for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure — and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo or repression in Burma — there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point — the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists — a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.

I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please, choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests — nor the world’s — are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side.

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach — and condemnation without discussion — can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable — and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights — it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that is why helping farmers feed their own people — or nations educate their children and care for the sick — is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action — it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more — and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination, an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are, to understand that we all basically want the same things, that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities — their race, their tribe and, perhaps most powerfully, their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint — no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith — for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The nonviolence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached — their faith in human progress — must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith — if we dismiss it as silly or naive, if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace — then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago: "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."

So let us reach for the world that ought to be — that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he's outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that — for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
>> ^bcglorf:
War is bad, but sometimes in our world not fighting a war is worse. Like ignoring dictators that have repeatedly committed genocide against their own people, annexed their neighbors and absorbed them as part of their state, provided international terrorists with not only safe haven, but government offices, and have actively pursued and established WMD programs and successfully hidden them from international inspections. Sometimes not going to war is worse than going to war.

So, in that case the US should unilaterally invade:

North Korea
China
Iran
Syria
Cuba
Burma/Myanmar
Most of Africa, including Sudan

It seems to me that it isn't the US's responsibility, nor within the US's authority to be judge, jury, and executioner for the governments of other nations.

In theory, I'm not opposed to using our military to fight injustice, I just don't think what we did with Iraq ever had anything to do with liberating the Iraqi people. I also don't think terrorism is something you use the military to fight, nor do I think our main focus should be toppling the governments of other countries -- it seems that's more likely to create the kind of violent chaos that terrorism thrives on.

I'm a bit more sympathetic towards using military to police the creation/sale/use of nuclear weapons, but I'm not sure in the long run how effective we're going to be at keeping nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands (i.e. the hands of anyone who would use them), even if we blow up every suspected nuclear facility in the world. But that's really an aside, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan have any nukes.

I find the argument of 'why not country x' to be completely lacking in relevance. I'm not arguing that America chose to remove Saddam because it made the world a better place, especially for Iraqi's. I'm arguing that for whatever unknowable reasons America really chose to remove Saddam, that an Iraq free of Saddam is better for the region and the Iraqi people. So much better in fact that you'd be hard pressed to screw such a war up badly enough to make things worse when you were done. Now the Bush admin certainly tried very hard to screw it up, but thanks in large part to the Kurds the situation in Iraq today IS much brighter than it would have been with Saddam still in power.

Would it be 'better' if America had put the same effort into Sudan or the DR Congo? Maybe, the atrocities in the Congo shock the conscience, but it would also be harder to stabilize than even post-Saddam Iraq. I find it hard to use that as an argument against what America did in Iraq. To play that argument out in a fair way, I would point the finger at the whole 1st world and blame them all for doing nothing to help the people of Sudan and the DR Congo. I would give a slight nod to the Americans though in understanding that they were tied up in Iraq and that their actions there had at least helped a different humanitarian disaster.

>> ^bcglorf:
War is bad, but sometimes in our world not fighting a war is worse. Like ignoring dictators that have repeatedly committed genocide against their own people, annexed their neighbors and absorbed them as part of their state, provided international terrorists with not only safe haven, but government offices, and have actively pursued and established WMD programs and successfully hidden them from international inspections. Sometimes not going to war is worse than going to war.

So, in that case the US should unilaterally invade:

North Korea
China
Iran
Syria
Cuba
Burma/Myanmar
Most of Africa, including Sudan

It seems to me that it isn't the US's responsibility, nor within the US's authority to be judge, jury, and executioner for the governments of other nations.

In theory, I'm not opposed to using our military to fight injustice, I just don't think what we did with Iraq ever had anything to do with liberating the Iraqi people. I also don't think terrorism is something you use the military to fight, nor do I think our main focus should be toppling the governments of other countries -- it seems that's more likely to create the kind of violent chaos that terrorism thrives on.

I'm a bit more sympathetic towards using military to police the creation/sale/use of nuclear weapons, but I'm not sure in the long run how effective we're going to be at keeping nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands (i.e. the hands of anyone who would use them), even if we blow up every suspected nuclear facility in the world. But that's really an aside, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan have any nukes.

Bodacious

by Primus


Who's gonna ride Bodacious?
Who's gonna tame him down?
Look out for Bodacious,
he's bound to hold his ground.
Here comes Bodacious,
ya'll just step aside.
Big and bad Bodacious
takes a toll from those who ride.

Bodacious am a whole lotta' bull
over nineteen hundred pounds.
He's born in Galry, Oklahoma
and he's the baddest sonsabitch around
if a Burma bull ever were a super star
then Bodacious just might be.
He's a cream colored, beefy brawn,
full-fledged, four footed bovine celebrity.

Who's gonna ride Bodacious?
Who's gonna tame him down?
Look out for Bodacious,
he's bound to hold his ground.
Here comes Bodacious,
ya'll just step aside.
Big and bad Bodacious
takes a toll from those who ride.

Young Bo met a man named Tuff Hedeman
at the start of his buckin' spree
and Tuff became one of the few to make the whistle
back in Nineteen Ninety Three.

Tuff tried to ride Bo again at the finals
in Nineteen Ninety Five.
Bodacious had got a little older and wiser
Tuff barely came out alive.

SOLO

Bodacious am a whole lotta' bull
over nineteen hundred pounds.
He's born in Galry, Oklahoma
and he's the baddest sonsabitch around
if a Burma bull ever were a super star
then Bodacious just might be.
He's a cream colored, beefy brawn,
full-fledged, four footed bovine celebrity.

Who's gonna ride Bodacious?
Who's gonna tame him down?
Look out for Bodacious,
he's bound to hold his ground.
Here comes Bodacious,
ya'll just step aside.
Big and bad Bodacious
takes a toll from those who ride.

Who's gonna ride Bodacious?
Who's gonna tame him down?
Look out for Bodacious,
he's bound to hold his ground.
Here comes Bodacious,
ya'll just step aside.
Big Badass Bodacious
will take a big hunk outta your hide