The end of war.
Kudos to Howard for another great article. I know where he is coming from--I'm a Vietnam vet.
How can we prevent war? Zinn suggests we will be so burnt out over this one that we will be quite reluctant to get into another one.
What about the rest of the world? And how long will our "burnt out" condition last? Wars are very profitable. Where there's money to be made and politicians willing to meet corporate expectations in return for campaign contributions, then "enemies" will be invented and wars initiated. All in the name of profit.
A more thoroughgoing change is required if we are to avoid an eventual nuclear holocaust.
I am sure there are those who will call Howard Zinn naive, foolish, or even a nutcase for advocating against all war. But when you think about it, there is no middle ground. You are either for war or against it. Even if you are for it only sometimes, there will always be more Vietnams and Iraqs. Even an Administration not as practiced in deception as the present one can find a way to justify in the public mind any war it chooses to fight.
To determine which wars are just and which are unjust is a task for historians. Politicians shaping public opinion will frame every war as just, and disparage anyone who disagrees.
One day some fool--ours or another's--may push the fatal button and begin the first--and last--nuclear war. The only sane position is to be against all war. Howard Zinn is right.
Shasta Lake, California
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Article Type:||Letter to the Editor|
|Date:||Feb 1, 2006|
|Previous Article:||Pro-life plans.|
|Next Article:||Conniff on the Dems.|
|GI'S LETTER GAVE U.S. CIVILIANS WHAT FOR.|
|Chamberlain, Max & Droogleever, Robin. (eds)The War With Johnny Boer: Australians in the Boer War, 1899-1902.|
|Exploitation on the high seas.|
|LETTERS IN THE EDITOR'S MAILBAG.|