"Peace is Passive"
Walking from the bus to the Student Union to Clemens Hall, the statement struck me as the most ridiculous of last week's countless sidewalk scribblings.
Others included "Bombs Don't Discriminate," "Nothing kills innocent people like war," and perhaps the most humorous, "Force George to read a book for every bomb."
The "Peace is Passive" comment seems ridiculous to me because I have been wondering what exactly it means for days now. Does it imply that to be peaceful we should ignore the fact that thousands of our citizens were killed in a cowardly, senseless act? That by being inactive against terrorism, it will go away? If so, then it is surely an ignorant statement.
The jealousy and anger felt by thousands toward Americans is not something innocent people should have to pay for. The people who work in and visit the World Trade Center and Pentagon did not deserve to die for being better off then those who are not. Just because there are people in this world less fortunate than us does not mean that we should feel guilty or fearful.
Of course, we could try to help these people. Unfortunately, too often it has been America's habit to try to make others, who we are trying to help, live and act like ourselves when all they really need is financial support and perhaps military protection.
Still, to believe that passively dealing with terrorism is an effective means of eliminating it is absurd. There are countries that are victims of terrorism every day and do nothing not because they do not want to but because they cannot. Because they do nothing, terrorism remains.
As for "Nothing kills innocent people like war," I can think of at least one thing that does: two jetliners crashing into 110-story towers, causing them to crash to the ground and producing mass destruction. These people truly were innocent. The bombing of Afghanistan by the United States is focused on Taliban bases and training camps. These bombs are not meant to kill civilians.
In the days following Sept. 11, my thoughts were scattered and confused. My initial, albeit shortsighted, reaction (which I am sure will anger many) was that we should drop a nuclear bomb on Afghanistan and be done with it once and for all. We would kill bin Laden and all of the trainers and trainees that look forward to an "honorable" death by killing thousands.
Of course, after thinking it over, I decided that this was probably not the best course of action, although it still seems somewhat attractive (to me). The main reason I no longer think it is such a great idea is only because of the innocent people in Afghanistan and because of the patriotic, law-abiding Afghan people in the United States who have suffered along with the rest of the American people this past month.
As for the amusing comment about Bush, I was the first to cringe at the thought of him taking office. His jumbling of the English language led me to believe that he was the least intelligent person that could possibly run for president. Still, I admitted way back in November that if we were ever to go to war, I would rather have Bush in office than Gore, who I worried would be more concerned with the survival of our trees than our people.
Now, months after "Indecision 2000," I can say that I am thankful Bush is in office. Although the weeks following his appointment to office were littered with anti-republican sentiment and television was plagued with comedy routines focused entirely on our less-than-articulate president, it is times like these that require a strong leader who realizes the power of force. If you feel that George should read a book for every bomb, then maybe you should go read every missing person poster hung around New York City.
The pacifist markings on the sidewalk are someone's opinion and although I do not agree with them, I do have to accept them. One of the chalkings says "End Terrorism, End War." I say, "End terrorism with war."
