Non-violence not the answer
To the Editor:
Answer violence with non-violence? Maybe in an ideal world.
In an ideal world, Hitler could have been stopped with peaceful protest. In this world, if nations had gone to war sooner, WWII would not have been as catastrophic.
In an ideal world, a non-violent response to Sept. 11 would have ceased further terrorist attacks. In this world, leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban would have guaranteed more disastrous attacks.
In an ideal world, Iraq would once again be on the verge of creating nuclear weapons, but have no intention of using them. In this world, the possibility of Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons in his reach is enough of a reason to at least consider invading Iraq.
In an ideal world, Israel would cease to be used as the primary example of a nation which uses genocide, when there is no evidence of genocide occurring. In this world, editorials consistently ignore countries which are far more racist (i.e. Zimbabwe).
In an ideal world, Israelis would never have felt the need to elect Ariel Sharon. In this world, Israeli occupation intensified, not because of Sept. 11, but because former prime ministers failed to achieve peace through non-violence and negotiations and waves of suicide bombings erupted.
In an ideal world, two rational leaders would sit down and create two states side by side in the Middle East, one being Palestine and one being Israel. In this world, there have never been two rational leaders able to sit down side by side.
In an ideal world, the answer to violence is non-violence. Unfortunately, Saddam Hussein with a nuclear weapon is not negotiable.