|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 1 user and 25 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Fri, 11/30/2007 - 10:48pm.
This article can be found on the web
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Now playing at: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
 
|
|
|
More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington" OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
In war time
Submitted by security_six on Fri, 11/30/2007 - 10:49pm.Good Point
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Fri, 11/30/2007 - 10:51pm.It's a bit disturbing
Submitted by security_six on Fri, 11/30/2007 - 10:55pm.This whole "Homeland Security" crap has weirded me out from the get go. Blackwater should be outlawed. There is no need for private armies in this country.
I seldom agree with anything you post,
Submitted by Mike on Sat, 12/01/2007 - 8:52am.So far
Submitted by security_six on Sat, 12/01/2007 - 8:30pm.Very little. I routinely let my elected officials know how I feel about the so-called "Patriot" Act, and am researching mercenary armies and democracies. I hope to prepare an essay and post it online, and copy it to the same elected officials.
I suspect some will say I haven't done enough. Sorry, but I have a lot of advocacy issues on my plate, some of them local and I am addressing those with most of my energy right now, plus work is placing a lot of demands on my time. Suffice it to say, I do voice my opinion in one fashion or another.
I just finished reading
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 12/03/2007 - 2:05am.I just finished reading Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army. Definitely recommend it.
I'm not really huge on mercenaries and outsourcing military-related responsibilities, but how else are you going to fight a conflict if people aren't willing to sign up for the Armed Forces without instituting a draft? And who is the government to tell people how they can or cannot earn a living, especially outside its borders?
Although I understand the reverse: If the people don't want to fight an armed conflict (or conflicts), is it still a democracy if the government simply uses "hired guns" to fulfill the mission?
Another interesting point raised by the book is that while the German government doesn't want to participate in Iraq, numerous German citizens are more than happy to be employed by Blackwater.
I don't fully agree with the idea behind Blackwater
Submitted by Norm on Mon, 12/03/2007 - 6:22pm.I agree with security.
Submitted by wilson on Sat, 12/01/2007 - 7:09pm.No wonder Republicans are "happier"
Submitted by jlw on Sat, 12/01/2007 - 7:57pm.Peace became pizza. -- Guglielmo
Dear Janet
Submitted by wilson on Sat, 12/01/2007 - 8:01pm.Oh, silly me
Submitted by jlw on Sat, 12/01/2007 - 8:08pm.Peace became pizza. -- Guglielmo
you took it completely out
Submitted by wilson on Sat, 12/01/2007 - 8:11pm.I did misunderstand you, I see now
Submitted by jlw on Sat, 12/01/2007 - 8:33pm.Peace became pizza. -- Guglielmo
I have wanted to ask Ronnie
Submitted by Norm on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 8:11pm.I have wanted to
Submitted by security_six on Sun, 12/02/2007 - 8:39pm.Own one of these for quite some time now... Why, I don't know. I really don't have much of a use for one per se, possibly becuase it is something the government may not like in the hands of citizens. Kinda levels some of the playing field you know. Although they would be a real kick in the pants to shoot! Of course I dont have a USE for about half my guns but own them because they are cool, or because they are historically interesting. This one would be both.
Connection between war/militarism and environment
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Mon, 12/03/2007 - 6:34pm.Instead of spending our financial, and other economic resources on finding alternatives to pollution - instead of spending our efforts on the development of a truly sustainable and life-serving society - our national coffers have been opened to plundering by the military industrial complex.
There is clearly a mismanagement and a mis-allocation of resources.
What I was trying to get at with posting this article is how the environmental movement is inextricably connected with the pro-peace and anti-war/violence movements.
Can you please clarify
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 12/05/2007 - 2:22pm."Anti violence"? This can be taken many ways. I am anti "violence" yet am ready to use it to prevent a greater violence.
There must be a division between unlawful violence, and the force required to counter that. Also, there must be no attempt to limit the lawful use of that force in order to protect yourself or others. You can look at England to see what happens when laws limiting self defense run amok.
At any rate, I am anti criminal violence, plus believe in enviromental concerns, and of course am a gun owner.
Nonviolence
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Wed, 12/05/2007 - 2:55pm.Even the use of "legitimate" violence to quell or suppress a "greater violence" or a "less-tolerable violence" will be ultimately ineffective in producing a true and lasting security/peace.
The use of violence always entails some oppression or suppression. Therefore, there will always be unsatisfied entities resulting from solutions that require violence. Even if the oppressed entity is the land itself, or a natural resource.
Addressing a problem with violence may provide a temporary solution, but the problem will inevitably return, because rather than eradicating the root of the problem, violence only addresses the symptoms. And violence only suppresses the symptoms, so that they will re-appear elsewhere, or later in time.
Peace is the way. Nonviolence can be a way of life. Nonviolence is also a means for the truly sustainable resolution of conflicts.
It's simultaneously a complicated and a simple idea. It might be difficult for some - especially those who are conditioned to violence in their every day lives - to grasp. Quite simply, I believe that nonviolent interactions and confrontations are the only means toward the true, lasting and sustainable resolution of conflicts.
Let me give you an example
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 12/05/2007 - 3:02pm.An attacker breaks into someone's home and is armed. Do you grab a gun and call 911, and take whatever defensive/offensive actions you see fit, or do you try and be nice and friendly with the bad guy?
An abusive husband with a restraining order breaks into a woman's home. Does she use a gun to defend herself, or take a non violent course of action? I can give you real world examples of what happens to people who protect their life, and those who try and be non violent. Hint, the non violent person died, or sufferend horrible injuries.
A rapist trys to attack. Fight back or be non violent?
I witness a person assault and stab someone. Do I do nothing, or should I try and stop the attacker?
I agree, non violence is the way. I am non violent and will fight to the death to remain so.
How do you respond to the threat of violence against your person or your family? I suggest reading the NRA's "Armed Citizen" column to give an idea of what I consider a justifiable use of violence.
I will never submit to violence against my person. Perhaps a better thing to do, would be to differentiate between violence, which is criminal or unjust use of force to cause harm, versus appropriate force, which is whatever level of force you use to meet and defeat violence.
Personal Choices
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Wed, 12/05/2007 - 3:21pm.What response to take depends on many different factors. What is your level of commitment to true nonviolence? What is the specific nature of the threat?
Is escape a viable option?
I don't think true nonviolence precludes all self-defense, even physical self-defense. But it is my understanding that most martial arts / self-defense disciplines essentially intend to avoid doing harm to the "attacker."
For example, if you're going to use a gun to defend yourself, fire a warning shot. If that doesn't work, attempt to use the weapon in a non-life-threatening manner. Don't just shoot for the head or the heart automatically.
Nonviolence and nonviolent actions are not black and white. Nonviolence exists on a continuum. It is up to you to decide, on an individual basis, what your level of commitment to nonviolence is, and how you can apply the principles of nonviolence in any given specific situation. But practice with nonviolence is essential and critical to its successful application in situations that require quick thinking and on the moment decision making.
I am speaking of
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 12/05/2007 - 3:34pm.Times when escape may not be an option.
Martial arts are great for someone who can learn them. What about someone in a wheelchair? Or a poor schmuck behind a counter in a store?
Warning shots may not be an option either. I am going to presume that if a violent individual is in my home, they mean me harm, and I am going to prevent that.
Shooting to wound is a myth as well. If you are faced with an attacker, you shoot to stop that person. Period. That usually means a head shot or "center of mass"
If you are using a gun for defense, there is no "non lethal" use.
I maintain if I am put in a position where my life or someone else's is in danger, I will use whatever force needed to stop that and save the innocent live(s)
Again, I suggest the NRA's Armed Citizen column.
If I can get out of a situation without violence, I will. If I can't I will use any force to end it that I have to. I carry various tools of force on my person. Pepper spray, my mini mag lite that functions as a blunt jabbing tool, and my gun. I will use whichever the situation demands. At home, in a small boat with limited space to move, if you break into my boat and are acting violent, I will draw down with my gun and give one verbal chance to back down. If a Bad Guy does not, I am within my legal rights to shot to kill, and in a small space, I will. My life is too valuable to risk on a dangerous person and trying to shoot "warning shoots" or doing fancy martial arts move in a limited space.
It depends on the situation, but the point I am trying to make is that violence may be the best or only solution at times when met with violence.
I am not interested in leaving an attacker unharmed. I am interested in leaving me or another innocent unharmed.
Sgt. Alvin York wrestled with this dilema, and ended up killing a few German soldiers to save the lives of many of his fellow soldiers. He also ended up capturing a great number of POW's, saving more lives.
You have to balance things sometime.
I am horrified that someday I may be put in a position where I may have to take a life in lawful defense, but am more horrified at losing mine to violence.