Read this quote from the article. “For its part [in the bombing], the United States would no longer be respected and feared throughout the world, thereby inviting more confrontations with terrorists and terrorist nations.”
It is true that if we do not instill fear in other countries, it would be very likely we would suffer the consequences of being taken over by more aggressive people. Therefore, we must be forever vigilant in assuring we are ready and willing to go to whatever means necessary to protect our shores and possessions. The world must know we are so prepared.
Thus, most of us know the world is disciplined by either a show of arms or by application of arms. The former is a ‘cold’ war while the latter is either a ‘war’ or, in trying to
make less of what is going on, a ‘police action’. All are based on force and/or instilling fear.
Individual rights are supposed to be taken into account and protected but are they? Bombs are indiscriminate and will destroy or maim whether the intent was to do so to a particular
individual or not.
Punishment is applied through the use of military attack or, in the case of instilling fear, the use or threat of military attack. In other words, peace is either maintained or brought about through punishment and/or the creation of fear.
At best, we are a society that behaves as a socialized people due to the threat of and/or application of punishments. Our legal code is based on this as are other behavioral boundaries.
If socially accepted values are instilled through the threat or application of punishment or the use more positive means, then the individual is ‘socialized’ and welcomed as a
‘civilized’ member of society.
During my life, I have seen children become less and less disciplined and responsible for their actions. I have seen children (and adults) behave as uncivilized as cavemen likely
were in the pursuit of their goals. Little or no respect is given other people; self-esteem is extremely low or non-existent within the more radical of these people.
We have seen the results of this in kids killing kids, kids attacking (sometimes fatally) their parents and siblings, mass murders, killing for drugs, in protecting a so-called ‘territory’
established by rival gangs, killing because another person doesn’t feel the same about them as they feel about the other person, and so on.
The atrocities carried out by our young people against others are definitely anti-social behavior. The atrocities are also indicative of the lack of respect for other people. The
acts are also the acts of terrorists.
We use fear and punishment to control terrorists and to keep other countries in line that would otherwise attempt to take over all countries on the planet. And, yet, we have
deemed punishment or the threat of punishment as null and void in raising children. Does that make sense?
Legislators and well-intentioned do-gooders have determined it is against the child’s individual rights to be spanked and most forms of punishment applied. This has gone so far as to include yelling or depriving a child of something he or she wants, as inappropriate and the basis for children to sue their parents or have them arrested for child abuse.
Don’t you think this scenario sends a very mixed message? How can we on one hand say it is okay to destroy or kill others while on the other say it is wrong to spank a child? Add to
this the fields of entertainment and reporting in which killing and other forms of violence are condoned or presented in the form of hero worship.
If it is okay for us and other nations to drop a bomb that hurts or kills dozens of people to make a profound statement of dislike for the behavior, then why is punishing (including spanking) a child in order to establish behavioral boundaries inhumane?
Without the means of establishing socially acceptable behaviors, why is it surprising to have young, unsocialized or anti-social people take action in the same manner against those who are perceived as violating their persons or territories, be it their parents, siblings, peers, teachers, or others?
Also, isn’t arming guards and/or teachers in schools as protection against aggressive, hostile youths much the same as aiming missiles at or surrounding another country with the
tools of war? Afterall, both are cases of avoiding the difficulty in solving differences and other problems that must be dealt with in order for true peace and tranquility, not enforced passiveness, to exist.
And, so I ask - are we going to strive to become truly civilized or are we going to take the easy route and arm all people on Earth against all others, including in our institutions of
learning and let fear and death run rampant? Are we going to continue allowing terrorists to develop from within?
This is the direction (backwards) we are now heading. We cannot survive forever with part of us behaving in a civilized manner and the other part of us behaving in an uncivilized
manner, not with the weaponry we now have available.
The choice, my fellow human beings, is ours.