NathanJ,

There is no 'embedded violence' in Australia unless you are referring to the experiences of asylum seekers and migrants from war-torn and violent cultures. Are you criticising the importation of violent cultures, which includes the political corruption that coexists in such countries?

If so, you could be referring to Rotherham in the UK and yes, there are definitely lessons there for Australian multiculturalists.

Dear Nathan,

You wrote: "However my point is that 'violence' has become so embedded in our society - it is seen as 'normal' or 'what happens' - when it should be seen as something (we) in principle worldwide should not support, but this of course requires research, thought, discussion, negotiation, working together and having to address the many years of embedded hatred that exists between some living in Israel and Palestine for example."

There has not been many years of embedded hatred between Israelis and Palestinians. It has been brought about by the English government issuing the Balfour declaration in 1917 without consulting the wishes of the people who were living in Palestine. At the same time the British government was making contradictory promises to Arabs and Jews to get their support in WW1. This is the same Lord Balfour who kept Jews fleeing czarist persecution out of England. There was a series of actions by the English government and others which resulted in the animosity which now exists.

How to make governments aware of the consequences of their acts and care about the consequences is a great problem. Prevention is better than cure, and I think the current conflict could have been prevented. Is Mise has suggested one means by which the Vietnamese War could have been prevented. There were others.

I disagree that the problem is violence. I think most people prefer peaceful means of conflict resolution. I think the problem is that powerful entities such as government do not adequately consider the consequences of their acts, and violence can result.

There is embedded violence. I know some people don't want to realise that, and some go back to selective periods of the past to justify the horrid actions of today - but that is an excuse - not a solution.

I was speaking to a person (at a body mind and psychic expo) and saw a woman from a religion there (I think it was like Sikhism). I am not of that regligion - but we both agreed, that unless we stop killing animals (in terms of eating) we will not stop killing in principle.

There will be a lot of people on this page who will no doubt disagree as around 95-98% of Australian citizens are meat eating people.

However with meat - other people have to do the work - and people may be interested to know - my dad used to work in a meatworks. Many people find this strange and in my year 12 school magazine my headline was I told I would run an insect welfare shelter.

When I decided to go vegetarian (as a school project) my mum dumped a plate of meat in front of me and demanded I eat it. This is violence.

So to suggest there is no form of violence in Australia or elsewhere is not correct and we need to do what ever we can to stop that - but you don't achieve that through more violence, that simply adds the problem - and the cycle and telling of 'stories' will continue to go on... but for how long do we keep doing this? I'm interested in what we can do 'today' - not things from 1917.

Dear Nathsn,

You wrote: "So to suggest there is no form of violence in Australia or elsewhere is not correct and we need to do what ever we can to stop that - but you don't achieve that through more violence, that simply adds the problem - and the cycle and telling of 'stories' will continue to go on... but for how long do we keep doing this? I'm interested in what we can do 'today' - not things from 1917."

Certainly, to suggest there is no form of violence in Australia or elsewhere is incorrect. However, nobody on this thread has suggested that. To say that someone has done so is a false statement as is your statement implying war is always seen as the solution. Our society embodies both violence and non-violence. I expect it will continue to do so.

From a false premise one can expect a false conclusion.

Dear Nathan,

I take back what I said that no one on this string made the statement that there is no embedded violence in Australian society. Some one did make that statement. There is a great deal of violence embedded in this society. Our police and our armed forces are trained in the use of violence. Sometimes violence is the least bad of the alternatives, and then we need those who are trained to use it. However, it should not be used if there are less bad alternatives.

Nathan/David,

This is all avoiding the issue. Are there or are there not 'just wars' ? Wars that have to be fought, because an aggressor has forced itself on an otherwise peaceful country ?

Should we have resisted the Japanese ? Should the allies in WW 2 have resisted, and eventually defeated, the Nazis ?

For argument's sake, if New Zealand unleashed its awesome military might against Australia, should we just let them roll over us ? Yes, they may only want our sheep, but should we do nothing ?

Yes, there are unjust wars. But very often, even in those cases, there is also an unaggressive party - should they just roll over and take whatever an aggressor deals out ?

How sweet it would be if there were no wars, and therefore no need to resist an aggressor. How holy one must feel to be able to say, "all war is bad", and just do nothing. Or like so many Brits at the beginning of the Second world War, say that all war is bad, they are non-violent, yada yada, and just piss off to the US.

If a country is attacked for no reason, then it is just for it to carry out a war to defend itself and liberate its own territory. In other words, it carries out a just war.

Period. Now let's move on.

Joe