Since I don't want to leave a long comment on his journal, I'll just post my own response like Libertad.

Firstly, before I get into it too far, Hezbollah isn't "correct" about anything. They are stone cold killers. They famously devalue the lives of the people they purport to represent by using them as shields. Their chief goal is to kill Jews and destroy the Jewish state, and their supporters wholeheartedly agree. They are not a good example for anyone who wants peace.

I agree that our abuse of the UN hasn't helped things. They are a corrupt and ineffective organization when it comes to keeping people alive and fed. The UN is famous for not being able to enforce law they write. Today millions are being destroyed, starved, persecuted and tortured, right under their nose, and all we see them doing is sitting at a table with fine china and wine, smiling. The newest resolution is probably the best the UN can do, and it is horribly inadequate. I think (and I've been guilty of this in the past) that the UN doesn't need to be piled upon, rather we should have been more "diplomatic" with our complaints, and worked harder to restore the UN, to make it better. Our choices have not been wise.

I wish that we could live in a world without war, but I am realistic in the sense that war will never cease to exist as long as someone has it in them to spill the blood of another in anger. More importantly, as long as there are people who pooh pooh, make excuses for, and mitigate terrorist bombings and killings there will always be a violent response because people resort to violence especially when the world ignores their dead, looking the other way.

In other words, I think the left has to take terrorism seriously, you have to be appalled by it, as much as the Israel bombings, if you want to see peace in our world. Nobody should make excuses for them. Nobody should gloss over despicable terrorist butcher jobs. If we want to see the end of war we also have to see the end of terrorism as well.

As much as it's the en vogue thing to do in some circles, it isn't correct to say that Bush is responsible for the world's violence. He in fact did not give anyone incentive to kill Jews, Indians, Muslims, Christians, or anyone else - people who hate do not need incentive. People kill Jews because they have gone through decades of indoctrination and hate training. Pakistanis kill Indians because of a long, ongoing territorial feud, among other things that I'm sure Ajay can elaborate on. To suggest that Bush is responsible for all of these things is only an exercise in blind partisan politics, something we all should be above if we really want to solve these problems. Now, if you want to say that the US and others fighting back would cause a bloody response from the Islamofascists, I could agree with that.

The problem for the Democrats is that they really don't have an answer for terrorism. People may not like the Republican response, but what the Republicans are offering (fight over there instead of over here) is a whole lot better than a vaccuum of ideas. I do have my quibbles, especially concerning Iraq, which was only attacked because it was an easy mark instead of a very important terror target. This Gore/Hillary (which I regret, ugh)/Shumer voter can be convinced to vote for a Democrat, but they have to have something other than some kind of vaporware "plan" they talk about (Kerry is famous for this) while bashing Republicans.

The Democrats are largely bullshit artists, doing what is politically convenient, to the anger and frustration of Democrats and Liberals everywhere who want a real anti-war candidate, and also to the frustration of other Americans who see them as appeasers and weak concerning our safety. They need to take a stand and stick with it. If all the left has to offer us is "Well, we're not Bush, we would be doing things differently" then they could very well crash and burn, despite the outrage against Republicans. I want to know what course is going to change. I want to know what Democrats are going to do about terrorism other than complain about every last thing the Bush Administration does. I am sick and fucking tired of this posturing and faking - I want a real plan from them if I'm going to give them my vote. I don't think it's too much to ask for. You, David, in this respect are 1000 times better than the politicians.

Anyhow, the real point here is that in order to see the end of war and terrorism, we need to be realistic in our approach, and we do need to convince the rest of the world that it is a serious problem that everyone on earth has a vested interest in. Us because we don't want our civilians getting slaughtered, and them because they definiitely don't want to experience a "real" assault on their populations as a result of terrorist bombings. It is good for nobody. We can talk honestly about our own policies that exacerbate the problems we see. We can change things. We can be better. We can ensure that we give the Islamofascists little to no excuse for their awful killing sprees. Do I think it is realistic to see the end of war, the end of violence? No, not in our lifetimes, but we can, no we must be honest about all of the problems and replace partisan hackery with ideas that set the end of violence and war in motion. We are the world's leaders, and it is our responsibility to show the world a better way. If we quit and resign war and terror to be utterly unsolvable, we can be sure that our days are numbered. Our lives depend on it.

Anyone else think this "war resister" (COUGH) is going to be featured soon in an issue of our beloved Artvoice?



Jason