What's this "or" stuff?

I'm fed up with people, especially politicians, making the issues in our lives and in the public discussion, with making everything a this or that decision. When is anything so exact that each side of any issue is black and white, and the aspects are exclusive to the respective side? Can someone explain that to me? Why do we tolerate this mentality? Because we find it comfortable? But is it reality, or just the reality want to see where we can simply ignore the rest of the world?

Almost every issue in our world is an "and" issue, where both sides have merit, but not always equally. Some issues don't have balance because logic simply shows there can't be equal merit. For example, murder can't be show to have equal merit in most cases, but it can be in some where it's shown that it involved self-defense. But the case can be made for running a red traffic light, there is no merit for explaining why running one is good in any respect. It's where sociey has decided the overall good merits common understanding for everyone's safety.

What's the point? For example, the wor in Iraq. When folks say, "You're either for us or against us.", what does that mean? Or making terrorist the bad guys. Since when have we said terrorist are so absolutely bad that we make anyone fighting them good. How many dictators have we, as the government and nation, who were terrorist nations? Have we forgotten we support Saddham Hussein in his 8 year war against Iran, and before that we support the Shah of Iran for over 20 years. And they weren't terrorist leaders? We're saying Saddham was a terrorist ,but what about President Bush's father who supported him?

And then there is Isreal and the Palestinan people. Since when is only one side terrorists? Simply because one is a recognized nation which makes them using the same tactics not a terrorist? Some make an issue of Hamas saying the don't recognize the state of Isreal, but they don't make an issue of Isreal recognizing the need for the Palestinian people needing a state for themselves, and Isreal demanding the elimination of Hamas. So where is the balance?

The above was written before the recent conflict (war?) between Isreal and Lebanon (Hezballah). It's interesting to hear both sides saying the other side started it, when it depends on where you draw the line in time when the events started. Isreal claims it started with the kidnapping of their soldiers near the border. Hezballah claims it's about supporting the oppression in the Gaza Strip and Hamas. Both are right and both aren't right, so when do we say enough? All I hear is each side saying they'll stop when the other side stops, but who blinks first?

Take another example. We applaud our troops eliminating the insurgency without explaining why the insurgency is there in the first place? Don't we think it's time we took a look at our tactics in Iraq? It's my view that if Americans had to live under the conditions we, meaning the US Military, impose on the cities in Iraq and had to live under the same conditions of limited electricty, little running water or sewer, constant feeling of feeling unsafe, frequent searches while just getting around, impromptu home and personal searches, and so on, we'd be rioting against the oppressor.

It's time we demand "and" from people. When they say "or", interrupt them to explain the history of their or, and ask them "And...?" The reality is that the world is not black and white, but an almost infinite spectrum of gray.

[Top] [Columns] [Home]

Web Updates
Image Copyrights
Browser Optimization
WSR V2.8, January 2013