From the General to the specific: Translating Violence as a tool of National Policy

Working from the results of my poll (see ealier thread):

Only a very few oppose the use of violence as a tool for national policy -- we must give dear Tribesman points for consistency -- with a clear majority of respondents seeing violence as a worthwhile tool under a number of circumstances.

Those supporting violence in the service of critical national interests, to use a specific example, would be in support of the conflict in Iraq (since the oil a a critical resource in the modern world and a democratic arab state in the region would improve long term access to that resource). These individuals would also be likely to support an armed effort against Iran, should Iran move beyond nuclear power and continue weapons development.

Those supporting violence in defense of one's allies would, implicitly, be supporting an armed effort by the USA against a Hamas-led Palestinian state or the smashing of North Korea.

Those supporting defense with counter-attack against those responsible are indicating support for an effort such as the U.S.-led coalition effort against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and possibly the coalition effort in Iraq as well (though admittedly if any definitive links from Al-Queada to the Hussein regime have been made, they have yet to be declassified).

Supporting an "anti-genocidal" use of violence is, of course, seemingly more humanitarian in character. Efforts by the USA in Haiti and Serbia would have been supported under this rationale, and we can expect that those voting for this option were in favor of such actions. However, NATO's reluctance to step into the Bosnian conflict does not seem to tally well with this.

Those supporting the use of violence to obtain resources are implicitly supporting U.S. efforts to destabilize the Chavez regime in Venezuela and Saddam's effort to acquire Kuwait.

Those favoring World Domination need little explanation. I would caution you about attempting to divide up the world in your messages, however. While you have been exchanging ideas, Dariush and Prole' have remained quiet -- but perhaps not inactive:inquisitive: -- always look out for the quiet ones.


So look over those votes again, and think about the real examples and concepts of which those voters are supportive. From whence comes all the opposition to U.S. efforts in the war on terror -- most of which have been on a far lower rung of the ladder than those explicitly supported by nearly all respondents to the poll!!!