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.
