Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > Jus Bellum?

Forum Quick Jump

41 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 2/21/2003 3:43 PM (GMT -6)

fyodor:

quote:
The problem is that you come into the dialogue with a presupposition that war was the only way to stop HItler. Why was killing absolutley necessary?

. . .

Don't get me wrong, I'm not totally naive about war. . .

If you don't think that it required military conflict to stop Hitler, I'm afraid you are indeed naive about war. By participating in a plot to assassinate the Fuhrer, even Dietrich Bonhoeffer realized that.

fyodor:

quote:
I think there is something theologically wrong with the conclusion that war can be justified. Perhaps it's semantics. I'm talking about justification on the spiritual plane. Can it be classified as good or evil?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you are saying that war was not God's intention for an ideal world, then of course I would agree with you. That does nothing to answer the question of whether war is a necessity in THIS world. The fact is, if we are called to love each other, we must at times physically protect each other, and the ability to protect is often so dire as to require military action.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 2/21/2003 5:28 PM (GMT -6)

Brett, thanks for the helpful info from Weigel and the First Things editors.

quote:
Just Cause. In the classic just war tradition, “just cause” was understood as defense against aggression, the recovery of something wrongfully taken, or the punishment of evil.…

I grant Weigel’s suggestion that just cause may also include recovery of loss and punishment of evil, in addition to defense against injury. I personally struggle enough with justifying war as a means of defense, and it is even more difficult for me to see how war might be a justifiable means of recovering loss or mediating punishment, however. It seems that Christians should rather suffer any injury, loss, or crime before resorting to killing in response. It is difficult to imagine any exceptions, yet history has shown that unimaginable evil happens. Sometimes injuries, losses, and crimes are committed whose evil is so gratuitous that even the death of the perpetrators does not seem commensurate with their deeds. So my dilemma is that on one hand I feel that war—any war—goes way too far, and on the other I feel that there are cases where even war does not go far enough.

quote:
To take an obvious current example: it makes little moral sense to suggest that the United States must wait until a North Korea or Iraq or Iran actually launches a ballistic missile tipped with a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon of mass destruction before we can legitimately do something about it. Can we not say that, in the hands of certain kinds of states, the mere possession of weapons of mass destruction constitutes an aggression–or, at the very least, an aggression waiting to happen?

This “regime factor” is crucial in the moral analysis, for weapons of mass destruction are clearly not aggressions waiting to happen when they are possessed by stable, law–abiding states. No Frenchman goes to bed nervous about Great Britain’s nuclear weapons, and no sane Mexican or Canadian worries about a preemptive nuclear attack from the United States. Every sane Israeli, Turk, or Bahraini, on the other hand, is deeply concerned about the possibility of an Iraq or Iran with nuclear weapons and medium–range ballistic missiles. If the “regime factor” is crucial in the moral analysis, then preemptive military action to deny the rogue state that kind of destructive capacity would not, in my judgment, contravene the “defense against aggression” concept of just cause. Indeed, it would do precisely the opposite, by giving the concept of “defense against aggression” real traction in the world we must live in, and transform.

I’m not persuaded by Weigel’s “regime factor” argument. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is much more likely to result from the crumbling of so-called “stable, law-abiding” regimes (e.g. Soviet Union), than from rogue regimes. If we fear what may happen if deadly weapons were to fall into the wrong hands (I don’t trust any human being to handle the power of nuclear weapons), it is much more expedient to destroy the deadly weapons than all the potentially wrong hands (and it is hypocritical to exempt our own).

South Africa, one of the most corrupt regimes in history under its policy of Apartheid, destroyed its nuclear weapons. What if our “stable, law-abiding” regime followed Apartheid South Africa’s example? This would take more courage than waging war.

There is a far more pernicious problem than weapons proliferation. September 11 proved that mass destruction is a matter of evil will, not weapons. What will waging war do to create good will?

Thanks for the discussion. I value your insight into these complex issues.

Peace,
Electra

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

Edited by - Electra on 02/22/2003 03:20:39 AM

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 2/21/2003 5:49 PM (GMT -6)

SeanG, your contention that the leaders of the anti-war movement are Leftist communists is not very convincing. For example, one of the most powerful leaders of this movement, the Pope, contributed to the demise of communism in his own country, Poland. I’m not sure what qualifies someone for the category of the “Left,” but his opposition to abortion, same-sex unions, the ordination of women, etc. do not make him a likely candidate.

The celebrity poster-people for the anti-war movement are just as much poster-people for capitalism, the system that has made them millionaires.

People wouldn’t bother to protest if they didn’t care about their country. One of the great things about America is that if you don’t like it, you can leave.

Peace,
Electra

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 2/21/2003 6:11 PM (GMT -6)

Brett and fyodor,

What do you make of the fact that God gave the commandment “thou shalt not kill” just about the same time God commanded the conquest of Canaan? Does this suggest a distinction between killing someone via murder and killing someone via warfare?

Another nasty question: Is it conceivable that killing Hitler could have been commensurable with loving him as our enemy? If yes, then what does love mean, if it can include killing? If no, then would this guilt be worth taking upon yourself, if it would spare the lives of others—is the preservation of your own blamelessness (e.g. by refusing to use deadly force against a regime that practices genocide) worth the sacrifice of others’ lives (the victims of genocide that you had the means to spare)? If so, how is this justifiable?
Peace,
Electra

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

Edited by - Electra on 02/22/2003 03:28:15 AM

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 2/21/2003 10:12 PM (GMT -6)

Yes Electra, the pope did contribute to this. Capitalism did as well, people wanting to be in charge of their own destinies. And the fact that the communists were tied up in a war in Afghanistan, causing the lack of funds to fight on two fronts. A great article can be found at:

If we didn’t assist in fighting the communists by backing the Afghan freedom fighter, then Poland wouldn’t be free today. Or if free, with large loss of life because the U. S. S. R. would have been emboldened (like the anti-capitalists are emboldening Saddam) to keep her-self together… if she won Afghanistan. So don’t feel that merely peaceful options were the only reasons involved. It was the military might of America putting pressure on all sides that allowed Poland to set the example for the other countries to follow. Not only that, communism as a political theory is economically, morally, and philosophically bankrupt, and its demise was inevitable. Poland just privatized social security by the by, proving to be less “progressive” than us. This inevitable demise was sped up by our military might and involvement.

And the amount of Christians in that country was another main driving force. Where Christianity spreads, so to do the flames of freedom, “The truth shall set you free.” The Catholic Church assisted in this freedom, first of the soul, then of the body.

You bring up one hell of a conundrum though. For instance, the largest private owner of land in the U. S. is Ted Turner. He is an avowed socialist who dearly believes in the vision the U. N. has for the world, that is, socialism. It is one thing to protest the policies of our country, it is quite another to stand in France and say, “I am ashamed to be an American.” The latter is anti-Americanism, the former is constitutionally healthy.

Keep in mind that I have yet to meet anyone in the anti-war movement who doesn’t blame Bush’s greed (ad hominem attacks) for oil as the main factor for our soon to be insurgence into Iraq. And, just in case you believe that it is merely the millionaire left that I refer to exclusively, watch the following video (just in case you missed it):

http://www.brain-terminal.com/articles/video/peace-protest.html#download

And you are right, if you don’t like it you can leave. We were promised by a myriad of celebrities that if Bush became president they would move to France, or some other country. Unfortunately, there still here.

SeanG!

"I quote others only the better to express myself."

Michel de Montaigne

Edited by - SeanG on 02/22/2003 03:17:08 AM

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 2/21/2003 10:21 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
The Pope himself has been careful to reject pacifism, while urging, appropriately, that war be a last resort. The Church has, however, come close to suggesting that a war must have the support of the United Nations to be just. Anyone arguing that the U.N. is a "competent authority" has an uphill climb. To make the case that it is the only such authority is impossible. The Church is also being shortsighted. The United Nations has been its enemy on important moral questions, and will be once more when the war is over. Does the Pope really want to lend it so much moral authority?

http://www.nationalreview.com/10mar03/editors031003b.asp

SeanG!

"I quote others only the better to express myself."

Michel de Montaigne

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 2/21/2003 10:39 PM (GMT -6)

Electra,

speaking of Poland, check out this article that I just now came across.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20030221.shtml

SeanG!

"I quote others only the better to express myself."

Michel de Montaigne

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 2/25/2003 10:07 AM (GMT -6)

Electra:

quote:
So my dilemma is that on one hand I feel that war—any war—goes way too far, and on the other I feel that there are cases where even war does not go far enough.

I hear you. It is an understandable dilemma. Personally, I think the simple justification for war is if its goal is to protect the innocent from evil. I keep saying this, but I really want to drive it home as my main point: How are we to love our neighbors if we do not at times physically protect them? I also believe, however, that war should ALWAYS be the LESSER of two evils. If it can be determined that it is not, then it should be resisted.

Electra:

quote:
I’m not persuaded by Weigel’s “regime factor” argument. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is much more likely to result from the crumbling of so-called “stable, law-abiding” regimes (e.g. Soviet Union), than from rogue regimes.

That may indeed be true. The danger of the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons getting into the wrong hands is certainly one of our greatest fears, and we are currently devoting substantial resources to prevent that from happening. We'll see, I suppose. I don’t see, though, how that negates the threat of WMD in the hands of rogue states like Iraq. Two different kinds of threats --- both pretty scary.

Electra:

quote:
If we fear what may happen if deadly weapons were to fall into the wrong hands (I don’t trust any human being to handle the power of nuclear weapons), it is much more expedient to destroy the deadly weapons than all the potentially wrong hands (and it is hypocritical to exempt our own).

I’m not sure what you’re suggesting here. Are you saying that instead of worrying about whether WMD are in the wrong hands, we should just destroy all WMD, including our own? How exactly would one go about doing that? Do you think that Iraq, N. Korea, Iran, Russia, India, Pakistan, etc., would just voluntarily destroy their WMD if we destroyed ours? No way. And if we, like S. Africa, just voluntarily laid down our arms, so to speak, by destroying all nuclear capability, do you really think the world would be a SAFER place? I don’t think so. There is a peace that comes through strength, as they say. It’s not that I disagree with you when you dream of a world without war and the weapons of war; we just don’t actually live in that kind of world.

Electra:

quote:
There is a far more pernicious problem than weapons proliferation. September 11 proved that mass destruction is a matter of evil will, not weapons. What will waging war do to create good will?

This consideration should certainly be a factor in the calculus of our decision about whether to go to war with Iraq. But I doubt you would argue that it should be the sole or even primary factor. If we decided about the need for war based solely on whether it would make others angry and want to fight back, we would never go to war. If, in this instance, we truly believe that the threat of Saddam’s WMD is real and dangerous, to both the stability of that region and the safety of the innocent, war may be the only just thing to do.
Electra:

quote:
What do you make of the fact that God gave the commandment “thou shalt not kill” just about the same time God commanded the conquest of Canaan? Does this suggest a distinction between killing someone via murder and killing someone via warfare?

Good point.

Electra:

quote:
Another nasty question: Is it conceivable that killing Hitler could have been commensurable with loving him as our enemy? If yes, then what does love mean, if it can include killing? If no, then would this guilt be worth taking upon yourself, if it would spare the lives of others—is the preservation of your own blamelessness (e.g. by refusing to use deadly force against a regime that practices genocide) worth the sacrifice of others’ lives (the victims of genocide that you had the means to spare)? If so, how is this justifiable?

There is quite obviously an unfortunate tension (dang it, what’s the cool theological term for such a tension. . .can’t remember) between loving our enemies and loving our neighbors. I think the only way to resolve it is to achieve the most loving and just result possible by our actions. If to love our neighbors we must protect them from being harmed by our enemies, we are called to do so, yes? Would loving our neighbors be commensurable with allowing them to be ravaged by an evil aggressor?

One final point I would make is this: I find myself much more comfortable with the idea of a preemptive strike when it is made abundantly clear to the entity we might strike what they can do to avoid such a strike. Saddam continues to be given every opportunity possible to avoid any military reprisal for his actions. Rather than comply, however, he has, as Hans Blix reports, remained in substantial non-compliance up to this point, defying the world community and banking on the kind of international paralysis that has allowed him to continue his illegal underground WMD development for the past twelve years. [Incidentally, Germany made the same wager in the decade prior to WWII -- they defied the Treaty of Versailles by building up their military and banked on Europe not enforcing their Versailles resolution in order to avoid war. They were right, and the world suffered another world war in which something like 50 million people died. I'm not saying that Saddam has the capacity to be the next Hitler. I merely make the point that this kind of paralysis has cost us in the past.] After 9/11, it has become clear that the free world cannot wait to be "hit first" so to speak. In the present age of WMD, the destructive capacity of that first strike is far beyond anything we have experienced before. Knowing of Saddam's capacity for aggression, his intent to deceive, and his affiliation with terrorists, is it so unjust that we demand Saddam's unequivocal compliance? And if he refuses, are we not compelled to act?

Good thoughts, Electra. Thanks for the dialogue.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Edited by - BJS on 02/25/2003 3:11:17 PM

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 2/25/2003 5:34 PM (GMT -6)

Hey, I found an article over at Probe that may assist some of you in this “just war” strain… I think it applies?

http://probe.org/docs/justwar.html

SeanG!

"I quote others only the better to express myself."

Michel de Montaigne

fyodor
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179

Posted 2/26/2003 6:51 PM (GMT -6)

Electra:

quote:
Brett and fyodor,

a) What do you make of the fact that God gave the commandment “thou shalt not kill” just about the same time God commanded the conquest of Canaan? Does this suggest a distinction between killing someone via murder and killing someone via warfare?

b) Another nasty question: Is it conceivable that killing Hitler could have been commensurable with loving him as our enemy? If yes, then what does love mean, if it can include killing? If no, then would this guilt be worth taking upon yourself, if it would spare the lives of others—is the preservation of your own blamelessness (e.g. by refusing to use deadly force against a regime that practices genocide) worth the sacrifice of others’ lives (the victims of genocide that you had the means to spare)? If so, how is this justifiable?
Peace,
Electra

Fyodor: Sorry, for the long delay in getting to these questions Electra. The board was consuming me, so i needed to take a break for a few days and clear my head, however, looking at those "nasty questions" I'm feeling a bit shady again....

a) Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black, huh? This question is why I believe that the scriptures show that God does change his mind. I don't really understand why God does what God does, but I do believe that God's motivations are consistent with his infinite and relative world-view. I do believe that there was a fundamental shift in God's approach to his relationship with humanity when our sins were reconciled through the sacrifice of his life. In this way, God provided for us the model which we are to mirror. So that the reflection of Christ is seen in us and us in Christ. Perhaps the conquest of Canaan could provide support for the theory that there is a distinction between murder and warfare, but I think that is a less likely scenario once it is contrasted with the God/man of Christ. Fully God, Fully Man, fully representative of how God chooses to relate to the world and reconcile with it. God could have come into this world as warring conquerer, but he didn't. He was the loving conquerer, using love, agape love, sacrificial love as the weapon of his warfare.

So what does that mean...???

b) On the question of Hitler, I think i said that exact same thing jokingly in the Bonhoeffer section....I think it's a fantastic question of which I don't have an answer. There is something wholly unsatisfying about killing as a means to love, as well as many innocent lives being taken on account of the sins of another. Bit of a quagmire if you ask me, but the question is not of one's blamelessness, but of the justification for the act of killing. Can it be qualified based on the quantity of good or evil it produces or is it objectively evil?

I'm inclined to go in one direction more than the other.....

†††"To have a self, to be a self, is the greatest concession, an infinite concession, given to man, but it is also eternity's claim upon him." – S. Kierkegaard

Edited by - fyodor on 02/26/2003 11:54:15 PM

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 3/2/2003 5:07 PM (GMT -6)

BJS: Personally, I think the simple justification for war is if its goal is to protect the innocent from evil.

Electra: This is a noble justification. This is one of the reasons I don’t get why we’re willing to hire the Turks to fight with us. Their human rights record is atrocious. If this was about defending innocent people from wicked regimes, we would be just as aggressive with Turkey as we are with Iraq. Yet, not only are we willing to overlook their abuses, we are offering them billions to assist us in our invasion of their neighbors.

BJS: I keep saying this, but I really want to drive it home as my main point: How are we to love our neighbors if we do not at times physically protect them?

Electra: I don’t get how invading a country qualifies as physical protection? “What does it matter to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless whether the mad destruction is wrought in the name of totalitarianism or in the holy name of liberty or democracy?” —Ghandi.

BJS: I also believe, however, that war should ALWAYS be the LESSER of two evils. If it can be determined that it is not, then it should be resisted.

Electra: I agree.

BJS: The danger of the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons getting into the wrong hands is certainly one of our greatest fears, and we are currently devoting substantial resources to prevent that from happening.

Electra: It is too late to talk of “prevention” regarding the Soviet Union. But it is not too late to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the event our own regime should crumble. If we want to take a leadership role in disarmament, we should start with ourselves.

BJS: I don’t see, though, how that negates the threat of WMD in the hands of rogue states like Iraq. Two different kinds of threats --- both pretty scary.

Electra: Iraq received weapons from the Soviet Union before it crumbled—and from France, and Germany, and the United States. If stable regimes did not have these weapons, neither would rogue states like Iraq.

BJS: Are you saying that instead of worrying about whether WMD are in the wrong hands, we should just destroy all WMD, including our own?

Electra: Yes. Any hands that hold WMD are the wrong hands.

BJS: How exactly would one go about doing that? Do you think that Iraq, N. Korea, Iran, Russia, India, Pakistan, etc., would just voluntarily destroy their WMD if we destroyed ours? No way.

Electra: You’re probably right. But, to quote Ghandi again, “I’m an optimist.”

BJS: And if we, like S. Africa, just voluntarily laid down our arms, so to speak, by destroying all nuclear capability, do you really think the world would be a SAFER place? I don’t think so.

Electra: Well, it would be a start.

BJS: There is a peace that comes through strength, as they say.

Electra: Don’t underestimate the strength of an unarmed person.

No weapons were used to destroy the Twin Towers. This was a terrifying demonstration of the power of evil will and our entire arsenal of WMD cannot defend us against it. This would be reason for despair, but the power of good will is stronger.

BJS: It’s not that I disagree with you when you dream of a world without war and the weapons of war; we just don’t actually live in that kind of world.

Electra: True, we have a long way to go. Which makes disarmament all the more urgent an issue.

[skipping a chunk]

BJS: There is quite obviously an unfortunate tension (dang it, what’s the cool theological term for such a tension. . .can’t remember) between loving our enemies and loving our neighbors.

Electra: I’m not sure that tension exists in love—because it doesn’t make distinctions like that. I’m not saying that love precludes interventions—including war. But love’s intervention does not make distinctions between “neighbors” and “enemies.” Love is on everyone’s side.

[skipping to the end]

BJS: Good thoughts, Electra. Thanks for the dialogue.

Electra: Thank you for the dialogue. I hope that my replies do not come off too stridently. I am truly in process in these difficult issues. Your thoughts are helpful.

Electra

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 3/4/2003 6:34 AM (GMT -6)

Electra: This is a noble justification. This is one of the reasons I don’t get why we’re willing to hire the Turks to fight with us. Their human rights record is atrocious. If this was about defending innocent people from wicked regimes, we would be just as aggressive with Turkey as we are with Iraq. Yet, not only are we willing to overlook their abuses, we are offering them billions to assist us in our invasion of their neighbors.

BJS: I’m not sure how what you’re saying here relates to whether we should forcefully disarm Iraq. Are you saying that we cannot ally ourselves with any nation that has violated human rights? Well, that would be a pretty inclusive bunch. The British, Russians, Germans, Japanese, Italians, just to name a few, all have dismal human rights violations as part of their history – not to mention the United States. Are you saying that we shouldn’t be allowed to fight to protect any nation that has ever committed human rights violations, including ourselves?

Electra: I don’t get how invading a country qualifies as physical protection? “What does it matter to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless whether the mad destruction is wrought in the name of totalitarianism or in the holy name of liberty or democracy?” ——Ghandi.

BJS: I think you know that just war theory has never been as easy as that, and I feel like you may have given short shrift to my reasoning for a pre-emptive strike by merely responding with a one-line quote.

quote:
BJS: How exactly would one go about doing that? Do you think that Iraq, N. Korea, Iran, Russia, India, Pakistan, etc., would just voluntarily destroy their WMD if we destroyed ours? No way.

Electra: You’re probably right. But, to quote Ghandi again, “I’m an optimist.”

BJS: Electra, if I’m right, then how can you honestly just dismiss what I’m saying by claiming you’re an “optimist”?

quote:
BJS: And if we, like S. Africa, just voluntarily laid down our arms, so to speak, by destroying all nuclear capability, do you really think the world would be a SAFER place? I don’t think so.

Electra: Well, it would be a start.

BJS: That’s not really an answer to my question. Would the world actually be SAFER if the United States unilaterally laid down its arms? If the answer to that question is no (which the realist in you would have to agree IS the answer), how could laying down our arms be the most loving thing to do?

quote:
BJS: There is a peace that comes through strength, as they say.

Electra: Don’t underestimate the strength of an unarmed person. No weapons were used to destroy the Twin Towers. This was a terrifying demonstration of the power of evil will and our entire arsenal of WMD cannot defend us against it. This would be reason for despair, but the power of good will is stronger.

I’m trying to understand the logic you’re employing here. Are you saying that because the terrorists on 9/11 used airplanes to kill thousands of innocent people, the United States doesn’t need weapons to defend itself?

quote:
BJS: It’s not that I disagree with you when you dream of a world without war and the weapons of war; we just don’t actually live in that kind of world.

Electra: True, we have a long way to go. Which makes disarmament all the more urgent an issue.

You can’t just say this without supporting argument. Again, if unilateral disarmament by the United States would make the world LESS safe, how can you in good faith argue that we should do it?

quote:
BJS: There is quite obviously an unfortunate tension (dang it, what’s the cool theological term for such a tension. . .can’t remember) between loving our enemies and loving our neighbors.

Electra: I’m not sure that tension exists in love——because it doesn’t make distinctions like that. I’m not saying that love precludes interventions——including war. But love’s intervention does not make distinctions between “neighbors” and “enemies.” Love is on everyone’s side.

“Love is on everyone’s side.” That’s true, and it’s easy to say, but it really does nothing to offer an alternative understanding of the tension I described. If, as you say, you believe that war is sometimes necessary, then you are agreeing that at times we may need to kill our enemies in order to protect our neighbors – all the while being commanded to love everyone. I offered a rationale for the tension between loving our enemies on the one hand, and being at times compelled to kill them on the other. Do you have a different rationale?

Electra: Thank you for the dialogue. I hope that my replies do not come off too stridently. I am truly in process in these difficult issues. Your thoughts are helpful.

BJS: Thanks, Electra. Please do not take my replies any differently. I highly respect your intelligence, wisdom, and heart for the Lord – which means I really try to listen to what you say. Give my best to that husband of yours.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 3/4/2003 9:07 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks for your response, Brett!

BJS: I’m not sure how what you’re saying here relates to whether we should forcefully disarm Iraq. Are you saying that we cannot ally ourselves with any nation that has violated human rights? Well, that would be a pretty inclusive bunch. The British, Russians, Germans, Japanese, Italians, just to name a few, all have dismal human rights violations as part of their history – not to mention the United States. Are you saying that we shouldn’t be allowed to fight to protect any nation that has ever committed human rights violations, including ourselves?

Electra: Here is the point I was trying to make: Turkey and Iraq are neighboring countries. Both have bad human rights records (as do many other countries, as you note). However, we are choosing to invade one country, and offering the neighboring country billions and billions to help us. The disparity in our policy toward these neighbors is why I don’t believe that defending innocent people from oppressive regimes is the primary motivation for an American invasion of Iraq.

BJS: I think you know that just war theory has never been as easy as that, and I feel like you may have given short shrift to my reasoning for a pre-emptive strike by merely responding with a one-line quote.

Electra: You’re right. Spouting ideals without rooting them in reality does not respect the complexity of the issues and difficult choices that must be made. I will try to do better. I do believe that instead of using the threat of our WMD to force others to disarm, it would be more just to disarm by laying down our own WMD. I think that this show of good will would draw (granted, some) nations together just as forcefully as the threat of violence is currently driving them apart. We would be forced to work together creatively.

This risky act would make us more vulnerable, and our enemies may take advantage of us. They may even succeed to a degree. This is why I refered to Ghandi’s optimism. The people of India endured violent repression under Great Britain. Ghandi was not only optimistic about the people of India, he was also optimistic about the British. He knew the evil they were capable of from experience, but he chose instead to trust that they were also capable of doing the right thing. By persistent and creative resistance, the hungry, impoverished people of India convinced the most powerful Empire the world has ever known to walk away. So if we disarmed and our enemies took advantage of our vulnerability, they may succeed in reducing us to poverty, but they will never successfully rob us of this kind of power and they will never defeat us if we have the courage to draw upon it.

This is the kind of power I was trying to illustrate with the unarmed student in Tienanmen Square. My idealism is rooted in historical realities like these.

BJS: Do you think that Iraq, N. Korea, Iran, Russia, India, Pakistan, etc., would just voluntarily destroy their WMD if we destroyed ours? No way.…And if we, like S. Africa, just voluntarily laid down our arms, so to speak, by destroying all nuclear capability, do you really think the world would be a SAFER place? I don’t think so.

Electra: I don’t think it will happen without sacrifice and time, but I do believe that these nations are capable of voluntarily laying down their WMD. The tensions and issues seem so intractible that it is easy to become fatalistic. But it wasn’t too long ago that Hindu Indians and Muslim Indians (who are now Pakistani) were united under Ghandi’s leadership, and I believe it can be that way again. This kind of peace may not be probable but it is possible.

BJS: That’s not really an answer to my question. Would the world actually be SAFER if the United States unilaterally laid down its arms? If the answer to that question is no (which the realist in you would have to agree IS the answer), how could laying down our arms be the most loving thing to do?

Electra: The reality is, there is a fundamental contradiction in relying on WMD to make the world a safer place. I grant that given the current proliferation of WMD, it would be very risky to lay down our own. It would force us to cultivate and depend on more just means of securing safety for ourselves and others.

BJS: It’s not that I disagree with you when you dream of a world without war and the weapons of war; we just don’t actually live in that kind of world.

Electra: We share the same dream. And we agree that we do not yet live in a world without war and the weapons of war. But given the disparity between our dream and our reality, shouldn’t this motivate us to pursue the dream all the more urgently rather than resigning ourselves to this sad reality? Resorting to WMD for security simply reinforces this reality.

BJS: “Love is on everyone’s side.” That’s true, and it’s easy to say, but it really does nothing to offer an alternative understanding of the tension I described. If, as you say, you believe that war is sometimes necessary, then you are agreeing that at times we may need to kill our enemies in order to protect our neighbors – all the while being commanded to love everyone. I offered a rationale for the tension between loving our enemies on the one hand, and being at times compelled to kill them on the other. Do you have a different rationale?

Electra: It is very difficult for me to rationalize how killing someone could ever be consistant with loving them, though I don’t deny it is possible. The best I can come up with is: if my heart were as resolved toward destruction as Hitler’s was, killing me would be a loving thing to do for me.

Brett, I think your challenge to me about responding glibly to complex questions with vague ideals was warranted. I hope that by rooting my ideals and my conviction about disarmament in the reality of India’s liberation from the British Empire (for example) is a start. In addition, I think there is a lot to draw upon in our own history (I wish I knew it better!)—even the very recent history of the Civil Rights Movement. In the process of wrestling with this issue, I realize that I have a lot of work to do in order to adequately support the claims I’m making.

Thanks,
Electra

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 3/4/2003 9:09 AM (GMT -6)

fyodor, I’m glad you’re still in this conversation. Sorry I haven’t had a chance to respond to you yet… Later, Electra

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/4/2003 11:15 AM (GMT -6)

You say Gren"A"da...I say Grenada

You say Al"A"mo...I say Alamo

Gren"A"da...Grenada, Al"A"mo...Alamo

Lets call the whole war-thing off!

fyodor
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179

Posted 3/5/2003 7:06 PM (GMT -6)

Non-sequitar.......

Recently I was handed a flyer for a "first-ever world-wide theatre event for peace." It was for an event called the Lysistrata Priject. On Monday March 3, all over the world readings of Lysistrata were taking place followed by peace rallies....

Has anybody ever read Lysistrata. I love Aristophanes. He is the true master of irony! That play was really funny. Oh, the allure of women!

†††"To have a self, to be a self, is the greatest concession, an infinite concession, given to man, but it is also eternity's claim upon him." – S. Kierkegaard

41 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:40 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual