I was reading an old debate of Noam Chompsky on the Vietnam war several weeks ago. I could not disagree more whole heartingly with Chompsky's conclusion that violence is only acceptable against other violence. This approach suggests that pacifism must always win, and that we can never fight anyone else except when we first have been punched. Chompsky's ideas are superior to a flat out doctrine of preemptive war, but fail to realize that sometimes violence is necessary to protect our freedom and dignity.

There are times we must confront power with violence when there is no other solution, and that the reason for such using such violence is in essentially intolerable situations. These intolerable solutions include infringements to our freedom and dignity to ourselves and the environment that surrounds us. Before any violence must be perpetuated we must ultimately ask what will be the net result: more or less freedom? Violence almost always leads to less freedom. Think about Iraq or even the South End. Can you travel freely in Iraq? Do you dare go for a walk after dark in the south end? The answer to both is no, and the result is lss freedom.

Think about the environmental consequences for a moment. When the bombs rain down, we pollute streams with heavy metals and destroy infrastructure made out of materials. We kill people. We destroy families. Is this ever okay to do? In the case of Iraq about two years ago, I said we have a moral obligation to do such a thing. Years later it's easy to doubt our choices when we see the destruction of a society.

We as a society have many diverse opinions on the war in Iraq. Those opinions are changing. Iraq has re-educated many of us on the horrors of a real war. While are boys are not getting killed in the jungles of Afghanistan, they are still dying slowly but surely. Every American who fights in these wars is brave, if only for carrying out what they believe is right. They are just as brave as the Iraqi terrorists who dare to disagree, and find themselves with no other recourse but to fight back.

We would have hoped that both the terrorists and the Americans would have chosen other means to conduct a meaningful debate on the realm of political power. It is important to carry out your political beliefs, even if it does mean war. But when you think about all the environmental damage and the reduced civil liberties at home and in Iraq, you are brought back to the same question: is violence ever acceptable?