Peace And Blame

Self government brings together differences of opinion and with compromise, set policy. With a two party system, unlike parlementary style government, extremist rarely hold important offices. Instead, this fringe element are delegated to publishing their views in the media; whether it'd be electronic or traditional. To be sure this element of thought could not compromise on policy because they hold opinions that are based on a distorted view of the world. You can't find compromise on a solution when the problem is not agreed upon. In Waterbury we have one such writer in the name of Marilyn Aligata who is a regular columnist in The Observer who writes about the abolition of war and nuclear weapons.

Now Ms Aligata wants what everyone desires and that is peace in the world and no more nuclear weapons in particular. This is a noble cause few could disagree with. But why wars happen and why we defend ourselves and fight them and then posses nuclear weapons, for these questions Ms Aligata leaves reason behind.

Certainly the US and other nations could not simply abolish nuclear weapons for an assortment of reasons one being deterrence. Say what one will about the cold war it at least kept two sides from exchanging fire, the same could be said about Pakistan and India who are in a simular nuclear standoff. To be sure these weapons are awful things to have yet so are guns, cannons and bombs but in having them they do deter and in the last century when America was depleted in weapons and troops it was left short at the start of two major wars. The biggest lesson America learned in foreign policy is that readiness will always remain paramount because aggressors will simply strike us just when we are the most complacent in our need to protect ourselves. No serious major politician from each party argues that a strong defence is not necessary. Debates center around the degree of strength or a more efficient use of resources to make us stronger.

Indeed Ms Aligata wants peace and writes towards that goal but the obstacle to peace in the world. in her view, are not the enemies of America but America itself and President Bush and Joe Lieberman especially. In the October Waterbury Observer she notes that she supported Ned Lamont for senate over Joe Lieberman because, as she writes "Lieberman has become a war-monger". Taken literally this is ridiculous, but that's how she means it and this is why extremist don't hold office or once there don't accomplish much, there can be compromise. There can be no dialogue when one side is irrational or presents a problem that isn't there. We can agree or disagree with Leiberman on Iraq but the issue is are we more secure fighting Islamic terrorism via Iraq or are we not. To Aligata the issue is Leiberman wants war for war sake and she wants peace and that's that, so there.

She wins, of course because she has stacked the moral deck in her favor and to this we get the crux of her discourse, that is Aligata is right because she is morally superior. As long as she ignores issues of security then she can go on endlessly about war-is-wrong-that's- why- I'm-right. In September she alludes briefly to self-defense then excuses it with cliche, she writes:


Some people no matter how they are drilled and taught to kill, just cannot do it. We were not born to kill. In fact if you believe the 10 commandments are good rules to live by, it says, "thous shall not kill", it does not say unless there is a war, or a capital punishment, or to get back at someone. Thou shall not kill, period! As far as self-defense goes, our country has become so violent, I do not know what is best, but I do know that violence only begets more violence.



So if Aligata were sitting with president Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor she would say "Well they were violent, shame on them. Don't they know that's wrong, boy. Well if you want my advice I say do nothing, you know the ol saying violence begets violence."

Its no surprise that Aligata unleashes her greatest disdain on president Bush, another "monger" we presume, who is leading the world towards war. In fact she makes no bones about just who the aggressor is in the world stage, its one thing to be against war, quite another to lay blame which she does squarely on America's lap. Note how she treats two countries seeking an increase military budgets one being the US and then Russia, first the US:


Robert Ga[t]es, Defense Secretary cited the uncertain paths of Russia and China in urging congress to adopt Pres. Bush's $463.1 billion defense budget. Bigger and bigger and bigger until it has a life of its own and we are doomed. I ask you to see the danger developing and do something.


Now the Russian:


Putin has approved a $200 billion armament plan to revamp and modernize the military. I can understand why he would want to upgrade his military...he is in a Nuclear arms Race with the US.


Such wrong headed analysis undercuts even her own pacifist clap-trap. She certainly understands Putins military buildup, perfectly okay to her considering what he's up against. After all she scribes about weapons and war and how awful they are she comes full circle and somehow sees a glimer of justification for having them. When its them against us.