Blog
Better them than us
Better them than us. This is the philosophical outlook of a friend of mine. His logic is that it’s better that Middle Eastern countries are at the blunt end of the blade than ourselves. It would be hard to disagree with him. I certainly wouldn’t want to become one of the most recent NATO air-raid victims or have my face blown off by the Israeli Defence Forces. But extend his logic a bit further, and his opinion really dives off into the deep end.
His premise is that war is necessary to stabilize the population. The global population would know no bounds if it weren’t for the occasional genocide, Iraq or global food crisis. Devout Ron Paul supporter Heather Saarela fueled the conversation, citing The Report from Iron Mountain as written proof of my friend’s filthy philosophy.
A brief but useful side note, Ron Paul is clearly a bit of a mixed bag. He has previously barred funding for the International Criminal Court jurisdiction over the U.S. military and any funding toward a UN global tax. Yet he was also one of six Republicans to vote against the war, and he’s a staunch opponent of the undoubtedly regressive Patriot Act.
The Report from Iron Mountain is another muddled story, but basically claims the consequences of peace would be utterly devastating for the world. This is the argument my good buddy stands behind, and it had me utterly infuriated.
I would rather learn the consequences of peace first-hand than hypothesize about them when people are being killed in the thousands. I would most certainly rather find a means of “dealing” with peace than a means of dealing with war. And above all, any hypothetical death and destruction caused by of peace is certainly more palpable than watching a life get taken too soon by another human’s hands. These should be fundamental principles of humanity, but it seems the message needs to be repeated to those unconcerned with the suffering of others.
And they are unconcerned because the affects of war, thankfully, aren’t affecting them. Better them than us. What an irresponsible outlook on life. Reducing the concept to your local street corner, why intervene if a car is being broken into? Why not turn your head when someone is being beaten? Raped? Or how about having your entire country invaded, bombed and controlled while everyone looks on or lends a hand in the occupation?
Another fundamental principle of humanity is raised here - one of equality. Ignoring the stolen car now, should you expect someone to stop a criminal from stealing your car? Would you not be upset if a passer-by ignored your pleas for help while you’re beaten to a bloody pulp? No, not if we maintain the concept of “better them than us.” To each his own, my friend says. A dog eat dog world. Darwinianism applies to humans as well.
No one should have to know what life is like on the receiving end of a war in order to denounce it, regardless of what hypothetical affects peace may have on the planet. I don’t think anyone will be worrying about peace when and if it comes. And until it does, there is absolutely no better cause worth fighting for. On this, the absolute majority of humanity would agree, misguided friends aside.
Matthew Brett is the Canadian Dimension weblog manager. The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily represent his own. Read more by Matthew Brett.
Better them than us to any moral, traditionally ethical person sounds inhumanly unsympathetic, however, it is a realistic perspective. For death and dying are as natural as breathing. This is not to say that the thousands of innocent lives being destroyed every year is not tragic, but in this dog eat dog world, I am thankful that terrible acts such as war are not happening to my loved ones or I. Ignoring a car jacking is hardly comparable to holocausts or capital-driven wars, as after all, we’re not talking about numerous lives at stake. Additionally, witnessing a car jacking is well in our hands to influence, war, while the simple man can get involved, cannot truly stop a war unless the desired results of the war are accomplished.
What is peace? Most would say that it is the nonwarring condition of a nation, group of nations, or the world or even a state of tranquillity or serenity, but that philosophy tries to detach, or elevate humans to an almost god-like status. We are after all still only animals and thus will always behave like animals, mind you, extremely intelligent animals, but still only another species in the world’s varied array of nature. Do animals know peace? One thing most would agree upon is that darkness brings appreciation for light, and similarly, War brings an appreciation for Peace.
#1. Posted by Misguided Friend on July 22nd 2008 at 11:39am
They carry on because of the governments that impose them. It’s a system humanity has been trying very hard to overthrow for years.
#2. Posted by Matt Brett on July 22nd 2008 at 8:05pm
Hi Heather,
I made the changes you requested, and sorry about the confusion.
I don’t know enough about Ron Paul to debate with you about his platform, but I believe he is a supporter of the occupation in Afghanistan, an equally unjustifiable war.
I’d also gladly talk about the merits of social health care and education, the federal ban of personal arms, and general market regulation, not to mention UN-led efforts and international law.
#3. Posted by Canadian Dimension on July 23rd 2008 at 2:57am
We do not innately care for humankind. The proof is in the wars that carry on.
#4. Posted by Misguided Friend on July 23rd 2008 at 6:33am
For answers to your two above paragraphs see above article!
Better them than us may be realistic, but is it really the way you want to go about living? Is it really the way you want your country to “develop?”
And you’re talking to the wrong group of readers in writing that “while the simple man can get involved, [he/she] cannot truly stop a war unless the desired end results of the war are accomplished.”
Start by running a search on David Langille’s brief and excellent article “The Long March of the Canadian Peace Movement.” I have utter conviction that the “simple man” can not only end wars but bring about a revolution.
And this whole animal business is nonsense. Yes, we’re animals. We have legs and arms. But were humans. By no means is that a god-like status, it’s simply human. And as humans we innately care for humankind.
This is really not a debate I intend to carry on - it’s a load of nonsense in my opinion. But if you feel these very basic points are still open to discussion within the parameters of present reality, be my guest. If you do want to carry on, see above for my response.
#5. Posted by Canadian Dimension on July 23rd 2008 at 8:37am
The idea that capitalism and war are somehow natural, according to Darwinian laws of competition, is absolutely false.
If we really pay attention to the complex ecology around us, it is clear that nature puts co-operation and co-existence before ‘king of the jungle’ competition.
Wars have always benefited the ruling classes and any argument that that is somehow the natural course of things is indeed very misguided.
#6. Posted by Chris Webb in Toronto, ON on July 23rd 2008 at 12:37pm
Matt,
For the record, I never said I supported either stance. I am a researcher. I was giving references for you to look at regarding his stance. Please revise this blog to reflect that. Thank you.
Heather Saarela
#7. Posted by Heather on July 24th 2008 at 8:15am
Matt,
For Ron Paul’s platform, I recommend picking up his New York Times best seller “The Revolution: A Manifesto” for some of these topics. If you had followed the entire campaign, as I did, you would have seen the blatant display of fear and bias by the US corporate media and the GOP and the complete blackout of his candidacy. Even so, the grassroots effort (1 million voters) raised him more money on one day than anyone in the history of the US, but did you hear about it? No. He has also has received more military support than any other candidate.
See his questioning of General Petraeus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlcpnY5AIRk
He is the ONLY one who would have really done anything about getting our troops, now stationed in 130 countries, home.
I’d gladly talk whenever you want regarding the other topics. Austrian economics is particularly interesting to me right now regarding market regulation. World government and international law are also interesting as well…
#8. Posted by Heather on July 24th 2008 at 3:03pm
Furthermore, the fact that I voted for the one candidate, Ron Paul, who voted AGAINST the war and have been campaigning tirelessly for him should speak volumes as to if I am trying to be that change.
Heather Saarela
#9. Posted by Heather on July 24th 2008 at 11:01pm