Arundhati Roy: "How dare the Democrats not be anti-war!"

[Q]

Published on Monday, August 23, 2004 by the San Francisco Chronicle

Arundhati Roy:
Life Comes Between a Firebrand and Her Fiction
by Jonathan Curiel


The applause started at 7:40 p.m., when she was first introduced to the overflow crowd at the San Francisco Hilton. By the time Arundhati Roy finished an hour later -- by the time this novelist-activist-public intellectual completed her speech titled "Public Power in the Age of Empire" - - the audience had given her two standing ovations, 20 more rounds of applause and countless variations of more personal salutations like, "That's right!"

Roy says she doesn't want to be "iconized" by the public, but it's happening anyway. After readings and speeches, she's mobbed by people seeking her handshake, her signature in a book or a photograph to prove they got close to this firebrand from India. Firebrand may be an understatement. Last Monday at the Hilton, where she addressed the American Sociological Association, Roy generated some of her biggest responses when she urged the United States to immediately pull its troops from Iraq and "pay reparations" to Iraqis, criticized John Kerry and other Democrats ("How dare the Democrats not be anti-war!") and described President Bush's Cabinet as "thugs."

Two days later, at a KPFA fund-raiser in Berkeley, Roy energized the sold- out crowd within minutes of taking the stage by saying, "We have to strategize and take our struggle forward."

It's been seven years since Roy burst onto the international literary scene with "The God of Small Things," her semiautobiographical novel about a hard-luck family in southern India. Roy could have been content to stay within the confines of fiction -- and some critics say she should have -- but she was too restless for that. Her first big project: fighting dam building in India. Roy's celebrity helped generate media coverage of India's anti-dam movement, which objects to the way New Delhi's water projects have displaced millions of poor people. Roy has also opposed India's nuclear weapons capabilities and its embrace of capitalism -- issues that connected her with international human rights groups such as the World Social Forum.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0823-05.htm

[kimchi]

1. An incredible woman.

No one speaks the truth like Arundahti. Every accolade is deserved.

[burythehatchet]

5. I'm gonna marry her.

[Bhaisahab]

31. get in line buddy...

.... i was here before you, long before she wrote "Instant Mix Imperial Democracy".

:)

She also makes my nation proud. Go Arundhati go! Nevermind if they think you're a "snob" out here in Insourcing Lala Land, there are many of us right behind you girl!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

2. Who the fuck is Arundhati Roy?

And why should I give a shit about her opinion?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[burythehatchet]

9. During periods of crisis in the history of humanity

there come along artists. These are people who possess, in equal portions, vast amounts of intellect, wisdom, eloquence, (and IMO she's is gorgeous as well).

She is one who history will record as having led the march for truth in world economic affairs

[madfloridian]

12. She is so kind and sensitive, your remarks did not seem right.

That is why I said that. Read some articles by her, do a search.

[jonnyblitz]

7. because she is RIGHT ON

that is why...

[CHIMO]

11. Boy Have You

Ever let yourself open!
But I will be kind.

Today we spend the hour with famed Indian author and activist Arundhati Roy.
Roy was born in Shillong, India in 1959. She studied architecture in New Delhi, where she now lives, and has worked as a film designer, actor, and screenplay writer in India. Her first novel, The God of Small Things, won the 1997 Booker Prize, Britain's most prestigious literary award. It has sold six million copies and has been translated into over 20 languages worldwide.

She is also the author of several non-fiction books: The Checkbook and the Cruise Missile, The Cost of Living, Power Politics and An Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire.

Last week, she addressed the American Sociological Association in San Francisco. She spoke to an overflow crowd about war, resistance and the Presidency. Her speech is entitled "Public Power in the Age of Empire."

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/23/1239219

Watch or listen to the 40 minute presentation and then say the same thing.
One wishes that they would have the same singeing and scintillating (along with good looks) way of analysis and presentation.

I guess if you don't live in the US of A you are correct in your statement.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[scarletwoman]

14. Did you learn how to be so charming from a book, or did you take classes?

Somehow, I find that I simply don't a give a shit about answering your query.

sw

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

18. Then why did you bother to answer?

All you've done is respond with a personal attack. I can at least respect those who've provided some links to this person. But personal attacks? They just make me laugh.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CHIMO]

22. Then Don't

Take such a negative aggressive way to respond. Her perspective is from the outside looking in.
Her book "The God of Small Things" takes one into the personal life of everyman. Her analysis of what is happening is and will affect you. If one wishes to learn then sit at the feet of those who have the knowledge. You won't get there with you're attitude.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

70. Sorry

I don't sit at anyone's feet. I'll apologize for my language but my question was a relevant one. It should not be met with personal attacks. That's a tactic of the right wing.

[scarletwoman]

27. Your post was vulgar and boorish.

And certainly did not come across as a sincere request for information.

sw

[anarchy1999]

28. Couldn't have ever said it better!!!!!!

n/t

Thanks for putting it so eloquently!

[drdigi420]

69. o lighten up

Better yet, buy a t-shirt:

Outsource Bush T-shirts!!!!

[Q]

36. You should take the time...

...to read or listen to Roy. And THEN if you don't like her...that's quite alright. To answer your question...'why should I care?': You don't have to care. Just pass this thread on by and don't bother with finding out about one of the greatest forces for peace and justice.

[ConsAreLiars]

15. She is a truthteller

(Thanks for the rude phrasing of of your question - it will keep the topic kicked for a while.)

Here is a general intro: http://aroy.miena.com/

Here are a couple dozen interviews and such to study:
http://www.democracynow.org/search.pl?query=Arundhati&op=stories&tid=§ion=&sort=1&boolean_type=or

Then you should be in a good position to answer your own question.

[kimchi]

17. If you had read before you posted, you'd know.

Luckily DU seems eager tonight to educate you.

[Kenneth ken]

21. feh

If you can't be bothered to read the essay at the link, you really don't need to know who she is. If the excerpt from the original poster didn't pique your curiosity you probably never will know who she is.

If you were adventurous enough to read the essay, you could get a sense of who she is, and from that determine for yourself if you might be interested in her opinions. Then, if you thought you might be, you could search for other of her writings on the net, or *gasp* go to a book store and buy something she had written; and thereby form your own opinion.

It's all well and good to be a Democrat, but it's even better to be someone who gathers facts and forms their own opinions. You might try it some time.

[donheld]

29. just give the lady a chance.

you will find her charming, witty as well as very inteligent,
well read, and caring.

:spank:

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[the_outsider]

34. She is an Indian writer and political activist

She has been actively involved in global democratic movements and organizations, anti-globalisation and anti-privatization movements in India. In India and abroad, her opinion is prone to be marginalized as a far-left marxist radical voice.


Her writings and speeches bring a different and fresh perspective and insight into political and economic issues which only an outsider can offer. This pov could be useful to understand how the rest of the world views US corporate and military power. Those two are the most visible faces of USA and their victims are mostly voiceless and powerless. An outsider who can articulate this point of view to the English-speaking people of US and UK who actively or passively enable inhuman forces and policies is doing an important job IMO and should be listened to.

[Q]

37. Well said...

...and thanks for your interest. Roy needs more exposure in the US...beyond Democracy Now and her speeches...which are mostly limited to non-commercial television.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truth2power]

55. Yo Mama....Here's something she said

She has a way of cutting thru the BS and getting right to the point of what this despiccable administration is all about.

From: Do Turkeys Enjoy Thanksgiving

http://www.thehindu.com/2004/01/18/stories/2004011800181400.htm

" Let's look this thing in the eye once and for all. To applaud the U.S. army's capture of Saddam Hussein and therefore, in retrospect, justify its invasion and occupation of Iraq is like deifying Jack the Ripper for disemboweling the Boston Strangler. And that -- after a quarter century partnership in which the Ripping and Strangling was a joint enterprise. It's an in-house quarrel. They're business partners who fell out over a dirty deal. Jack's the CEO. (Emphasis added.)

That's the kind of thing that Roy writes. On-target, as always. Please read some of her writings, Yo Mama, before you make a judgement.

[goodhue]

59. First Indian to win Booker Prize, among many other things

http://aroy.miena.com/

The first Indian citizen to win the prestigious booker prize and a million dollar book deal has made Arundhati Roy, a celebrity and a tall literary lioness persona. Now in her late-30s, living in Delhi, Arundhati Roy (One of People Magazine's "50 Most Beautiful People in the World 1998") grew up in Kerala, in which her award winning novel "The God of Small Things" is set. The novel is a poetic tale of Indian boy-and-girl twins, Estha and Rahel, and their family's tragedies; the story's fulcrum is the death of their 9-year-old half British cousin,Sophie Mol, visiting them on holiday.

[cprise]

62. Roy was one of the biggest anti-Enron activists

...before most DUers even heard of the company.


How Arundhati Roy Took Back the Power in India
She Won the Booker Prize for The God Of Small Things, Then She Helped Author Enron's Downfall

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0120-03.htm

[coalition_unwilling]

71. She's helped me keep my sanity

on more than one occasion during the past 3 years. You can hear her speak on Democracy Now from time to time; her writings are clear, easy to read and non-bombastic.

IMHO, she does an excellent job of de-mystifying neo-imperialism and showing us what it's like to be on the receiving end of BFEE's evil.

[ConsAreLiars]

3. You can read-hear-watch this speech at

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/23/1239219

It is being replayed on Democracy Now! on FSTV (Dish Network) at 10PM PST. and possibly on Link TV (Dish and DirectTV) at other times. Well worth watching and recording for your friends,

[berry]

10. Roy's talk at the ASA was on c-span2 a few days ago.

Keep an eye out for it--they may show it again. It was indeed electrifying. And heartening.

Thanks for posting this article--I do check out Common Dreams regularly, but I might have missed this. Glad I didn't.

on edit: Ah--I see someone has a link. Even better.

[Q]

38. Note:

That they're also showing it on FREE SPEECH TV - DEMOCRACY NOW.

[CaTeacher]

13. I would travel a hundred miles to

hear her speak! She is a treasure!

[burythehatchet]

16. Have you read/listened to Vandana Shiva?

from the standpoint of brilliance in the sciences, she is a superstar.

[CaTeacher]

20. I am familiar with the name--and I know that she is very well

respected, but unfortunately, I have never had the opportunity to hear her.

Thank you for reminding me of her works--I will definitely make a point to read some of her stuff! From what I have heard, she is absolutely brilliant! So it should be a real treat.

[burythehatchet]

23. sampler, from a Bill Moyers interview

BILL MOYERS: What do you mean by globalization?

DR. VANDANA SHIVA: It is rules written into the World Trade Organization. It is rules that say you cannot decide the agriculture policy. You cannot decide your tariff structures. You cannot decide to make sure your people have food. You cannot decide that people in your country have jobs. The market will decide it and the market will be favored on the basis of unfair asymmetric rules of trade.

BILL MOYERS: Who writes those rules?

DR. VANDANA SHIVA: Unfortunately, it wasn't governments even though they're the members of the WTO. The rules of WTO were written by corporations. There were four new areas brought into trade that never belonged to trade: agriculture, intellectual property, services and investment. Now, each of these four areas had a treaty in the general agreement on trade and tariffs in the Uruguay Round.

Every one of those treaties was driven by a particular group of companies. The agricultural agreement driven by Agri-Business. The TRIPS agreement, the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights agreement driven by the pharmaceutical industry, the biotech industry and the entertainment industry. The services agreement driven by the financial interests, the banks. And now increasingly driven by the water companies which want to treat trade in water as a trade in services.

When I was in Tehri last week... Tehri is a town, it is the capital of our region. And it's been dammed on the Ganges to supply water now through Suez to Delhi.

BILL MOYERS: This is a project by the big French company, Suez.

DR. VANDANA SHIVA: Suez, this world's biggest water company, wants to privatize the Ganges. One hundred thousand people were displaced. And the women started to talk about how many women are starting to commit suicide. Because they can't walk the water and the government has canceled every local water scheme saying, "Now all the money, all the public wealth has gone into these mega-projects." So not only are rural communities denied the water, they are denied the public investment to bring water if their own village has run dry. So we have women jumping into the Ganges because now the Ganges instead of being their mother for life has become a graveyard. So it is, in a way, a system of dispossessing the poor.

Coca-Cola, South India, just been there on Earth Day. I celebrated a year of protests with tribal women who are fighting Coca-Cola, which is sucking out 1.5 million liters a day of water for the bottling of what is called India. And the Coca-Cola bottled water. Interestingly, two miles radius, every tank, every well is dry. Women have no drinking water. That's how it plays out.

BILL MOYERS: You're saying this is depriving the people at the grassroots of the water they need just for the sustenance of life? Is that the point?

DR. VANDANA SHIVA: Absolutely. Women in the hills are being denied water so that every drop of Ganges water can flow down to be sold. So globalization commodifies what the resources that are necessary for survival.

more here.....

[CaTeacher]

25. Thank you!!!

Yes--absolutely brilliant!

I intend to go to the bookstore this weekend--I will buy anything they have that she has written so that I can support her! I am looking forward to reading more of her stuff--she is very insightful!

[ConsAreLiars]

26. I think it was she I heard speak at the Seattle WTO Labor rally.

If so, you are right about her being worth hearing. Some of her writings are on her homepage:
http://www.zmag.org/bios/homepage.cfm?authorID=90

[the_outsider]

30. She is an Indian writer and political activist

She has been actively involved in global democratic movements and organizations, anti-globalisation and anti-privatization movements in India. In India and abroad, her opinion is prone to be marginalized as a far-left marxist radical voice.


Her writings and speeches bring a different and fresh perspective and insight into political and economic issues which only an outsider can offer. This pov could be useful to understand how the rest of the world views US corporate and military power. Those two are the most visible faces of USA and their victims are mostly voiceless and powerless. An outsider who can articulate this point of view to the English-speaking people of US and UK who actively or passively enable inhuman forces and policies is doing an important job IMO and should be listened to.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

32. Every time I hear Arundhati Roy on the radio (Pacifica) I'm stunned.

I'm stunned by her informed, articulate, eloquent and impassioned condemnation of global abuse.

And she makes it sound like mere recognition of basic humanity and common sense.

Which, of course, it is. Only malice need be tangled.

[lostnfound]

47. Her eloquence feels to the ears what chocolate mousse is to the tongue

A pleasure to the mind and to the ears.

She is one terrific individual.

[Q]

35. Roy...

...has become one of my favorite writers and 'activists'. And it's great that she's tugging at the conscience of the Dem party.

[Q]

39. "Progressive" interview with Roy (for those interested)

Excerpt: David Barsamian interview with Roy


Q: Your mother was an unconventional woman. 

Roy: She married a Bengali Hindu and, what's worse, then divorced him, which meant that everyone was confirmed in their opinion that it was such a terrible thing to do in the first place. In Kerala, everyone has what is called a tharawaad . If you don't have a father, you don't have a tharawaad. You're a person without an address. That's what they call you. I grew up in Ayemenem, the village in which The God of Small Things is set. Given the way things have turned out, it's easy for me to say that I thank God that I had none of the conditioning that a normal, middle class Indian girl would have. I had no father, no presence of this man telling us that he would look after us and beat us occasionally in exchange. I didn't have a caste, and I didn't have a class, and I had no religion, no traditional blinkers, no traditional lenses on my spectacles, which are very hard to shrug off. I sometimes think I was perhaps the only girl in India whose mother said, "Whatever you do, don't get married" . For me, when I see a bride, it gives me a rash. I find them ghoulish, almost. I find it so frightening to see this totally decorated, bejeweled creature who, as I wrote in The God of Small Things, is "polishing firewood."

Q: Tell me a little more about your mother. 

Roy: She is like someone who strayed off the set of a Fellini film. She's completely nuts. But to have seen a woman who never needed a man, it's such a wonderful thing, to know that that's a possibility, not to suffer. We used to get all this hate mail. Though my mother runs a school and it's phenomenally successful--people book their children in it before they are born--they don't know what to do with her, or with me. The problem is that we are both women who are unconventional in their terms. The least we could have done was to be unhappy. But we aren't, and that's what bothers people.

By the way, my mother is very well known in Kerala because in 1986 she won a public interest litigation case challenging the Syrian Christian inheritance law that said a woman can inherit one-fourth of her father's property or 5,000 rupees, whichever is less. The Supreme Court actually handed down a verdict that gave women equal inheritance retroactive to 1956. But few women take advantage of this right. And the churches have gone so far as to teach fathers to write wills that disinherit their daughters. It's a very strange kind of oppression that happens there. 

Q: Since you wrote your novel, you've produced some remarkable political essays. What was that transition like? 

Roy: It's only to people in the outside world, who got to know me after The God of Small Things, that it seems like a transition. In fact, I'd written political essays before I wrote the novel. I wrote a series of essays called "The Great Indian Rape Trick" about a woman named Phoolan Devi, and the way the film Bandit Queen exploited her, and whether or not somebody should have the right to restage the rape of a living woman without her consent. There are issues I've been involved with for a while.

I don't see a great difference between The God of Small Things and my works of nonfiction. As I keep saying, fiction is truth. I think fiction is the truest thing there ever was. My whole effort now is to remove that distinction. The writer is the midwife of understanding. It's very important for me to tell politics like a story, to make it real, to draw a link between a man with his child and what fruit he had in the village he lived in before he was kicked out, and how that relates to Mr. Wolfensohn at the World Bank. That's what I want to do. The God of Small Things is a book where you connect the very smallest things to the very biggest: whether it's the dent that a baby spider makes on the surface of water or the quality of the moonlight on a river or how history and politics intrude into your life, your house, your bedroom. 

http://www.progressive.org/intv0401.html

[Quahog]

41. What a woman

I can't think of enough things to say about Arundhati Roy. She is wicked smart, sensitive, intuitive, straightforward, and utterly unafraid. Oh, and drop-dead gorgeous (I know, I know... that shouldn't matter, but I'm a straight guy and she drives me mad!).

She can have me if she wants me.

[LWolf]

42. Thanks for the link.

This was well worth reading. Every time I find a human being who is courageous enough to publicly stand for social and economic justice, for right over might, it gives me hope. Hope that my nation can evolve.

[peekaloo]

43. Amy Goodman gives her lots of air time. Straight shooter

with a very wry sense of humor.

I love her "Boo$h the Lesser" reference(s).

[telamachus]

44. Does she care

about what would happen to the average Iraqi if the troops up and left? The war in Iraq was a big mistake but the repercussions of an immediate troop withdrawal would be inhumane in the extreme. Ideologues from the left are as narrow-minded and dangerous as those on the right. Condemning thousand of innocent Iraqi's to death in a civil war is real nice! This is as bad an idea as 10 years of sanctions that killed 1/2 million civilians.

Peace is a great (probably the greatest) goal but peace will only come from justice and sometimes justice requires force. Pacifism is death.

[Q]

45. Giving lip service to peace and justice...

...is what Iraq is all about. The Iraq 'war' is the poisoned well...and everything that flows from it is tainted.

- There seems to be a disconnect about what's really happening in Iraq...and one can only believe that some have swallowed Bush's* 'let freedom reign' bullshit without looking at reality. The Bush* Cabal doesn't give a shit about democracy...here or in Iraq. They are conquerers...not 'liberators'. They've killed more Iraqi civilians than Saddam ever dreamed of and they continue to kill them in the name of 'freedom'.

- Nothing good can come from our occupation of Iraq...unless you count the war profiteering and corporate greed. There will never be 'peace' in Iraq as long as they're occupied, tortured and killed for simply being in the path of America's righteous crusade.

[telamachus]

46. Missed the point...

Of course the occupation is a crock but to pull out without some sense of stability could very well send Iraq into a civil war that would kill many more that have died in the war. Her statement does not take into consideeration that possibility.

"They are conquerers...not 'liberators'. They've killed more Iraqi civilians than Saddam ever dreamed of and they continue to kill them in the name of 'freedom'."

I tend to agree with the first part of that statement but the last part I do not belive at all..show some evidence.

[DUreader]

48. you suggest no plan for stability, only a continued 'crock'

occupation=instability

[telamachus]

51. Once again ....

I am faced with responses that do not answer my original claim but..

Here is an idea: Continued support and training for Iraqi troops. Get UN troops into Iraq. Hold elections ( as fair as possible) . As UN troops arrive then US toops leave. Pretty simple in theory and more realistic than up and leaving.

I would love to see a proof of your equation.

I wonder how people feel about Kerry's plan to keep troops in Iraq for the near future?
When (hopefully) Kerry is elected he will NOT be pulling troops from Iraq.

No one said change was not painful. Think about our own history of separation from England.

Saddam + Invasion of Kuwait/American Support +1/2 million dead from sanctions+War+Occupation/Time for transition=justice for Iraqi people

[Q]

49. There are no exact numbers of Iraqis killed...

...because the Bush* cabal doesn't do body counts. The real numbers are probably staggering. Just the 'shock and awe' bombing must have killed thousands of innocents in a city of millions.

- You have no way of knowing that pulling out of Iraq would mean the deaths of more Iraqis. That's just nonsense rhetoric by those who can't admit that the US committed the ultimate war crime of aggressive war.

[telamachus]

52. I have seen (edit)

reported numbers as high as 40 thousand INNOCENT Iraqi civilians killed during the bombings. The UN's numbers on deaths during(as caused by) sanctions was on the order of 500 thousand.

This is a way of knowing that Iraqi troops and the leadership of Iraqi is having a difficult time dealing with violence in Iraq from soem in Iraq who coose to use violence to get their way.

I agree that the war was unjustified but that does not mean that we are not responsible for the outcome.

When Iraq asks us to leave we should leave. But we should tell them that we are leaving soon so they should get their shit together.

edit: IBC says 13000+ http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

I can't find the 40000 numbers....I will keep looking

Sanctions:( Higher numbers than I quoted)

http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm
http://www.iacenter.org/rc12600.htm

[goodhue]

60. stop believing "pullout" equals more deaths meme

there is no evidence to support it

[telamachus]

63. Do you

actually believe that the Shia radicals or the Kurds will just play nice when we leave? There is plenty of historical evidence to support the idea that hundreds of years of turmoil will end in more violence if there is no stabilizing force to keep the peace at least long enough for some form of government to take hold try some googling of Iraq history.


PS I am sick and tired of the and overuse of the 'theoretical' term meme!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

65. So tell me...when does the "peace" begin in Iraq?

[telamachus]

66. Good question

who knows? Peace is a byproduct of justice and that in itself is subjective.

[LWolf]

50. That's bullshit.

Pacifism is death.

You can disagree about how to handle the mess in Iraq, and you've made a point; that you think withdrawal will not solve the problem.

That has nothing to do with pacifism. Pacifism is a commitment to achieving goals through non-violent and/or non-aggressive means; it isn't about abandoning goals.

Of course, to achieve a goal in Iraq, that goal would have to be clearly, and honestly, defined. At that point, you may find that many pacifists (and others) don't share the goal. At which point, walking away is not a solution, but an indictment of the goal.

[telamachus]

53. A pacifist

as I understand it, would choose death over justice for others. Would a true pacifist let their child be murdered in front of them if without trying to save them with violence? Pacification lead to the deaths of 1/2 million Iraqi children and women over ten years of sanctions. This is a fact that pacifists can't seem to understand. If the War in Iraq killed 40 thousand and over another ten years could have saved another 500 thousand I say that the numbers ( as cruel as they are) speak for themselves.
No one wants war ( maybe sadists/anarchists and war profitieers) but sometime it is the last resort. I DO NOT think that the unilateral war in Iraq was justified but we are now dealing with the aftermath and must not fail again.

I am not sure where the abandoning goals part fits in??

I can tell that you are NOT a pacifist through your aggressive vulgarities.

[LWolf]

56. heh.

I guess "bullshit" is an aggressive vulgarity. In the singular, not the plural. My apologies if I was too blunt; I'm notorious for calling it as I see it.

I'm not sure how to soften it without adding to the BS meter; how's this:

"Pacifism is death" is a false statement. It indicates a misunderstanding of pacifism, or a deliberate mischaracterization for the purpose of "spinning" a particular POV.

I'm an evolving pacifist. That means that I will always choose, whenever possible, to use non-violent means to solve disagreements. It does not mean that I would let my child, or any child, or any human, or any innocent life at all, be murdered in front of me without intervening.

There is a lot of word play here; I don't equate what the U.S. has done in Iraq as "pacification," or as any honest attempt to resolve a dispute. We had an agenda. It was an agenda built on self-interest. We allowed atrocities because we were furthering our agenda, not because we were negotiating for social justice. That's not pacifism.


As for "abandoning the goal:"

It's crystal clear that our government lied and spun their way into war. What, exactly, was the goal? The "democratization" of Iraq, the "freeing Iraq from that evil man Saddam who we put into place and legitimized;" was that really the goal? PNAC says otherwise.

If our goal in Iraq is to help the Iraqi people, then we don't need to leave. We need to help them rebuild their infrastructure and begin to govern themselves. Do we need troops for that, or other sorts of workers? Can we pay Iraqi people to do the rebuilding themselves, rather than paying our own corporations for that work? We don't have to tell them how to do it; we just need to clean up our mess. That would not include placing more US puppets in to replace the old US regime. Is rebuilding Iraq "war?" I don't think so.

If the goal is global hegemony, then many of us don't share it, and we won't support U.S. presence there.

In reality, governments and politicians are not nearly as blunt as I am. They will not operate honestly, leaving the rest of us to "call it as we see it."

[telamachus]

64. You have

your own definition of pacifism I have mine that does not mean that mine is incorrect. The statement 'Pacifism is Death' is based on a philosophical absolute. To be a true pacifist one would adhere to the root of the non-violence of the philosophy and thereby they would submit to death rather than use violence to defend justice.

I was going to add that I really do not believe that anyone is true pacifist in their actions. When it comes down to it most would use violenc eas alast resort. The goal of non-violence is one that most people would rationally accept as the best course of action.

I admire your position on violence as it mirrors my own but I would disagree ( on purely hairsplitting issues) that you are not a true pacifist. Taking a stand against violence is great as long as situations are assessed in broad terms. The 'defending one's child' example is quite clear but it gets a bit dicey when assessing more complicated issues such as pulling out of Iraq or the use of sanctions.

For your information I spent a great deal of time protesting the current Iraq war before it began and protesting the sanctions before the war. I fully agree with those who want to remove our troops from Iraq but would like it done in a manner that is best for the Iraqi people.

[LWolf]

67. I'm interested in this:

The statement 'Pacifism is Death' is based on a philosophical absolute. To be a true pacifist one would adhere to the root of the non-violence of the philosophy and thereby they would submit to death rather than use violence to defend justice.

I don't live by absolutes; they are so black and white, while the world has so many other layers. This is an interesting philosophical concept though, and worth time spent pondering. I'll do so, and thanks.

I can also agree that the U.S. should be acting in the best interest of the Iraqi people at this point; I just don't know what that best interest is. I don't trust my government to be that altruistic, and I don't know if military troop presence and action serves the best interest.

[GreenArrow]

68. submitting to death can be a means to defending justice

there are worse things than death.

[LWolf]

72. There certainly are.

Becoming what you are resisting or opposing might be one.

[Monte Carlo]

54. IMO, 'anti-war' is just as mindless as 'pro-war'.

There is a time for each, so the song goes, turn, turn, turn.

I can certainly sympathize with her case, but pacifists rarely win elections.

[Q]

57. Sure there's time for war...in DEFENSE OF A NATION

....Is one of those times. Aggressive wars are illegal and immoral...which makes the case that attacking Iraq was not one of these 'times'.

- Roy isn't running for office...so your argument that 'pacifists' don't win elections is moot.

[goodhue]

58. she rocks

[Q]

61. There needs to be a distinction made between a pacifist...

...and anti-Iraq war activism. Many are against the Iraq war BECAUSE it's not a just war in defense of our nation. Wars based on lies and deception can never be just...nor can they bring peace or justice.

- There can be no rational justification for putting ONE American in harm's way for a lie...or the taking of ONE Iraqi civilian life who had absolutely nothing to do with the 'attack' on the US.

- Hell...even Rumsfeld called it a 'law enforcement issue' in response to a question about why he didn't get off his ass and respond to the Saudi hijackings. It always HAS been a law enforcement/intelligence issue...not a cause for a worldwide war against faceless terrorism. This 'war on terrorism' was an invention of the Bush* admin. and nothing more.