Hello, I'm a Progressive Peace Activist

[Nuclear Unicorn]

I believe in peace because I believe in people.

I believe there is too much murder and mayhem in this world.

I believe the global wars we are involved in are not a sinister conspiracy but the result of imaginations starved of ideas. When terror leaders are recruiting kids to blow themselves and other innocents up for a few thousand dollars in the most poverty stricken parts of the world it doesn't make sense to drop tens of billions of dollars in bombs on those kids.

I believe much of the violence in society is the result of a lack of education and opportunity.

I believe anger and animosity only set us back and hold us from developing who we are as people. We are after all merely neighbors of one stripe or another.

I believe the killing has to stop, either because we grow out of it or we will simply run out of people to kill.


Pleased to meet you. :hi:


I came to this site because I was hoping to find people of similar mindsets.

Sadly, that does not appear to be the case.

I thought this site would promote peace and seek things other than war, violence, hatred and all the poisons of the soul that destroy our bodies.

Yet, I see in thread after thread DU'ers wishing for the violent deaths of people. Granted these are bankers or the execs of BP or the PM of Israel but the level of vitriol is stunning.

Many will say, "Yes, but look what they're doing!"

Yes, but when does the hatred stop?

So you feel threatened. So you believe the threat to be existential. Guess what?

So does the other side. Whatever we may think about them, conservatives feel genuinely threatened by socialism and militant jihadism.

Guess what? I'm a socialist. I think people should look at "socialist" nations like the former USSR and Mao's China and they SHOULD be scared shitless; 100 million murders is no joke. But I also know the men and women of the US military are nothing like those of the USSR's KGB or Mao's Cultural Revolution and the conservatives will be the first ones to tell you our troops would never support oppressive regimes. That is why I believe socialism in America can actually work...because we have a nation full of great, hard-working people.

But just because someone looks at the track record of socialism and naturally go pale at the thought of it coming here doesn't mean I reflexively hate that person. I certainly don't wish them harm or hope they die of a bowel obstruction.

Guess what else? I said I don't support the "war on terror" but I cannot deny the fact that extremists are cutting off heads and blowing up innocent civilians. And I cannot deny that normal people are horrified by that and want to react as best they know how. I just happen to believe that better social support systems, opportunities and dialogue will starve those violent few of their recruits.

Supposedly the tea party is bad because they hate. Supposedly Rush Limbaugh speaks in code to incite his audience.

But some here want to publically lynch the BP execs. Others wish Netanyahu would shoot himself in the head. A terrorist organization that even our president admits murders its own citizens is viewed with sympathy.

Are we saying some forms of hate are better than others? Some forms of hate are more justified?

If so then maybe wars are justified and I have to rethink my place as a peace activist.

But I don't think so.

Let the unrecs commence.

[leftstreet]

1. DUers are wishing for the violent deaths of people?

I thought we could only do that on Fridays

[Mari333]

3. now you just made me choke on coffee

[NightWatcher]

2. never ever post a poll about the death penalty

this place will froth at the mouth. more than 50% are pro "kill the bastards"

[mike_c]

4. context matters, I'm afraid....

I'm a lifelong peace activist too. Frankly, I don't wish the chief executives of BP any harm, nor do I want Netanyahu to endure even a minute of the suffering he has visited on others. But I'm also a justice activist, and I recognize that peace is rare without justice. So while not wishing harm for BP execs or Israeli oppressors, I do want justice for the people they have harmed.

How can that be achieved without reciprocal suffering? I don't know. I wish I had an answer to that one. I've been a strong advocate of reforming the U.S. justice system precisely to avoid its focus on punishment and reciprocal harm, yet we seem even further from progressive approaches to international justice. If you have any suggestions, please share them. The world needs more justice. Peace can only arise naturally in a just framework, I think.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. Method matters as well.

Peace must be met with peace.

For opportunities to blossom seeds must be planted and nurtured but predators must be held at bay.

Israel may be blockading people but it believes there are those within the confines of that blockade who would do them harm...

...and they are right.

Remove the threat and the blockade goes with it.

African Americans suffered immeasurably in this country but Dr. King called on this nation's conscience.

Sometimes he was met with firehoses and police dogs.

He sure as hell didn't lob rockets into Washington DC.

He had vision, courage and charisma.

The PA needs an MLK.

[mike_c]

10. ah, now you've gone from seeking peace to justifying oppression...

...under the banner of seeking peace, a cynical tactic with a long and dishonorable history. And to think that I took your OP seriously. Oh well.

I suspect that the Ignore button will be your best resource in this matter.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. And how does one justify Hamas' wholesale murder of civilians

Both Palestinian and Israeli? Yes, it is possible to murder Israeli civilians.

If I support the idealism of MLK and reject violent acts from others seeking to end segregation et al that doesn't mean I support the segrationists; it means I support MLK and his ideals...period.

That's a false dichotomy and its the black and white world view that feeds wars because no one has the imagination to stop shooting.

[Scullystrouble]

13. I almost fell for it too...lol

Until the comment about letting people starve in Palestine woke me from the peace loving cooing. :puke:

[LiberalVoice]

18. I'm curious as to what you mean by...

..."Peace must be met with peace". Can you clarify that? It sounds like you're implying that one side has brought peace and the other side is rejecting it with violence. To be honest I'm not even sure what "sides" you're talking about.

Can you name one single city on the ENTIRE PLANET that doesn't include a single person that would do harm to another? Sounds like you're advocating for some kind of ridiculous world blockade system.

Using your rational the previous administration shouldn't have bombed Iraq BUT INSTEAD built a wall around the entire country and make sure they only had 25% of what the people needed to survive. On penalty of death.

PA needs an MLK. Israel needs an MLK. The U.S. needs another MLK.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. I'm not sure about your Iraq analogy

I agree with your "PA needs an MLK. Israel needs an MLK. The U.S. needs another MLK."

I'd be happy to go first in the race to see who stops shooting first.

But I also expect the other side to say, "I look forward to living beside you when we set aside our weapons. How are you for a BBQ next Sunday?"

[zipplewrath]

6. Pragmatic pacifist

I don't believe many of the things you do. That doesn't stop me from drawing similar conclusions, i.e. that violence rarely "solves" anything.

Strangely, it is because we are so powerful in our ability to commit acts of violence, that I come to the conclusion that we should be especially restrained in doing so.

And don't confuse hyperbole, or metaphor for actual advocacy of violence.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. tl,dr

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. But I have a flowing and easy going writing style.

My daddy told me so!

[Lerkfish]

9. I'll rec a fellow pacifist.

and you're right, we're seemingly outnumbered here.
I believe it has a great deal to do with ....well, I'll stop there.

[MindandSoul]

12. I like your style and your ideas. . .do you think you may be too quick to judge???

I agree with a lot of what you stated. But this world is not "the garden of Eden!" It is REALITY. . ."EAST of Eden!"

So, yes, I agree we need to continue striving for peace. . .but we can't let everyone who is thriving in war and power hype steam rool us into shutting down!

I hope you stick around and share your views. . .we need those!

[Pyrzqxgl]

14. Us Peace agitators & Red Diaper Babies need all the support we can get here!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. Thank-you, you're very kind

I know the world can have bad people in it but the good people far outnumber them.

I just don't want to be angry.

I look at people who are angry all of the time and it makes me sad. There are so many things to be happy about.

If we can't focus on the things that make us happy then what are we getting angry about?

And if we can focus on the things that make us happy--well--what are we getting angry about?

IOW: anger can only be good if it is meant to remove a bad thing but if you stay angry or find something new to be angry about then you aren't fighting a good fight, you're just angry period.

But even if you're fighting for something good then why be angry? Be determined. A person can be determined without being angry.

You can't screw for virginity. You can't fight for peace. You can't protect love with a wall of hate.

I'd rather convince my political opposites I have good things to offer. I certainly do not believe I can win them over by hating them and I will never do anything to harm them because then I will not have killed them but rather everything I believe in.

[LiberalVoice]

19. "You can't protect love with a wall of hate"

Just a population of people who's minority you feel threatened by. :sarcasm:

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. Are you justifying violence?

And if not what are you justifying?

[LiberalVoice]

23. What?

I was simply pointing out the irony in your statement. Justifying the blockade and then saying you can't protect something precious with a "wall of hate".

I have no idea how you think what I said justifies violence. Explain that to me.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. Except I'm not justifying the blockade.

I'm saying both sides feel they have grievances.

Unless we ackowledge and examine those grievances nothing moves.

Do Palestinians have a right to a home? Yes

Do Israelis? Yes

Do BOTH have a right to feel secure without fear of rockets, blockades etc? Yes

The question is: who goes first? Does Hamas stop shooting rockets or does Israel lift the blockade? Or both at the same time? What if one side reneges?

[LiberalVoice]

30. Your EXACT quote:

"Israel may be blockading people but it believes there are those within the confines of that blockade who would do them harm...

...and they are right."

"Remove the threat and the blockade goes with it."

That first sentence imply's nothing. However in the second sentence you expressly say that if the threat is removed then the blockade will be removed. Thereby justifying the blockade.

Of course everyone has a right to a safe home and environment to live in. The argument is whether the steps taken by both sides are helping or hurting the creation of such a place.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. There are people who would do Israel harm.

Those people say so themselves. That cannot be denied. Either they are wrong or they are justified.

But like with America, Israel is painting itself into a corner. We're bombing in the name of ending bombing; just like my OP I said if we can remove the motivators for common people to sign on with the agitators then the agitators will have only themselves.

Bigotry used to be THE LAW in this country but now it is a disgrace before the entire nation to be called a bigot. Things can change. People are good. Those who still want to be bigot are isolated, alone and mocked.

Both sides are shooting. Both sides have to stop.

If we say, "yes, but..." then we aren't working for real peace we are simply taking sides and rationalizing our own preferences for war.

Palestine deserve to be free of threats.

Israel deserves to be free of threats.

[Taverner]

15. You are absolutely right, as much as I hate to admit it

Hate against people is not the solution

Even if it is righteous anger

Hate is never the path anger should take

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. I know I don't want anyone to hate you.

Let's return the favor.

:toast:

[USArmyParatrooper]

22. Though I disagree with some of what you said...

I think this is a very nice post and you really appear to be quite genuine. Often pacifists and peace activists go about their advocacy with anger and spite. With some I get the impression that their advocacy is really about the fight itself, and not the ends they claim to want accomplished. Note: I am NOT broad brushing all of them.

But I get the distinct impression that you truly care about people and you really do care about the ends, and that's commendable. I also totally agree with you that the final end state to terrorism will come from non-military means, but in the short and medium term military means are a necessary part of the equation. I do know that the US military is also pursuing many of the means you speak of, building infrastructure, schools, etc. There is an entire branch of the Army dedicated to such things - Civil Affairs.

But then we run into problems like this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/28/taliban-takes-battle-to-schools/
Taliban kill Afghan students, burn schools

In the real world sometimes violence can only be fended off with violence. This remains true on a micro level, like fending off an mugger, as well as at the macro level - fending off invading armies and militant organizations.

On Socialism the problem you have here is there are no real-world examples of success. Every country with a high quality of life runs on a well regulated, capitalist system of commerce.

On lynching BP executives, I suspect members of DU don't really mean it literally. Perhaps they shouldn't even say such things jest.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. Thank-you

I understand where you're coming from about the seeming short-term necessity for a military response to 9/11 etc.

Still, I can't help but wonder if maybe we didn't paint ourselves into a corner with past behavior. I'm not saying we earned 9/11 because those poor people didn't deserve to burn alive or jump to their deaths and no one had a right to do what they did but maybe al Qaeda etc would have been rejected by their peers if the US hadn't backed some real losers.

Our realpolitik may have seemed vital in its day but we eneded up with a reputation of just back any asshole for the sake of convenience. I'm no military expert but I remember reading how getting a population to trust you is essential in countering a guerilla war.

We should have started that policy in 1953 not 2003. That way we would be half a century ahead of the game by the time bin Laden came along. Now we're just starting.

And I know what you mean about how the US tries to build schools and stuff. It's very good of you to remind folks that while we make mistakes we also try to do good. I believe that is because the American people are basically good and our military comes from these good people (although I wouldn't mind seing the military out of business for lack of interest in war).

[USArmyParatrooper]

26. You are absolutely right...

What you said:

"I'm no military expert but I remember reading how getting a population to trust you is essential in countering a guerilla war."

Put that in extra large font, bold and underlined and you still can't stress it enough.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. Which part was I absolutely right about?

Getting the population to trust you or me not being a military expert?

:P

:toast:

[USArmyParatrooper]

33. lol Check my edit above n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. self delete

self-delete

[proteus_lives]

25. Well said.

It applies very well to the I/P situation.

[jp11]

29. Thanks for saying it.

I'm new and was 'surprised' to see much of what you posted about here, and other things, I know it is in my nature to expect more than there is in the world so part of that I know is *my* problem.

[MindandSoul]

34. I wish more people had "your" problem. . .it might safe many of us from much worse "problems!"