 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > War—what is it good for? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 2/14/2003 4:33 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
BJS: How can we truly love others if we don't do what we can to physically protect them?
Fyodor: In the end, all things, including our bodies will fall to the fact that they are only temporal. Nothing but the spirit moves on. In saying this I have to say that I'd rather lay down and die than kill another. Killing is sinful. I don't think it can be justified.
How far are you willing to take this philosophy? Do you think we shouldn't have stopped Hitler? That took a lot of killing. How about my earlier hypothetical? Would you kill someone who was trying to rape and murder your child?
quote:
War is an abomination of politics, it rarely has anything to do with defending people. One can think of a handful of nations under severe distress and even genocide in recent years, while the government chose not to do anything, not to come to the rescue, not unless our "interests" were there. Rwanda was a bloodbath, but we didn't make a move to protect those people. Nothing doin' in Iraq yet we're willing to assasinate, detonate, and "liberate" as the good. We're willing to cut short peaceful and diplomatic means of conflict resolution in Iraq, and for what? I don't buy it. War seems unjustifiable to me.
Again, there are two different arguments going on here. One is the general argument over whether war is EVER justified, and the other is the specific argument over whether war against Iraq is justified. I assume you are not trying to say that because you disagree with war in Iraq, war is always "unjustifiable."
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
 |
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 2/14/2003 6:30 AM (GMT -6) | | It is important to recognize that many of Jesus' commands such as the one in Matt. 5 were to how individuals act as individuals, not as citizens of a nation. What about Romans 12? From my perspective if you cannot support a just war, then you cannot support a just policeman who uses force (or a gun and kills someone) to bring about justice. My question is how far are pacifists willing to go? And of course its much easier for them to state their case behind the protection of the strongest military in the world. I certainly doubt there are many true pacifists in, say, Israel, where not using force usually means you and your family wind up raped and killed.
I would say Rwanda is a great point for force, not against it. We should have stepped in and done something. The world should have. SHAME ON US!
By the way, Cole has an excellant book out, When God Says War Is Right.
You can say what you want, but pacifism is only a good policy for those who can debate it behind safe walls. We all know that no one is going to allow their children to be killed and raped, even if it means using force. A true study of the Bible in its proper context shows that the Bible supports just war. God makes us responsible for the world we live in and that sometimes means confronting evil in countries as well. It also means making difficult choices and, sometimes, choosing the least of two hard decisions.
Yes, the temporal may pass away...so why don't we just abort all the babies so they can get to heaven quicker? Please. This is a world God gave us. Have more respect for it and the beauty of it. This isn't just a waystation. This is a beauty place God has given us.
Edited by - honorman on 02/14/2003 11:36:18 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 2/14/2003 6:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Don: your comments about "stuff" show your ignorance of the issues involved in this war. Just because You believe that is what is involved doesn't make it so. That certainly isn't what I believe the war is about, from researching the different issues. I would suggest you do a little more research into the issue.
Fydor: so God is sinful? Seems God ordained many wars in the Old Testament. That would make God sinful, because God kills. Your stance is, basically, idealistic, because you assume that if we all follow the command to love our neighbor (or if even some of us do) there would be no need for war. Let me give you a clue:
NOT EVERYONE FOLLOWS THAT COMMAND! THERE ARE EVIL PEOPLE IN THE WORLD! It is not enough to say people should all do this or that and everyone will get along. If we could all get along, we all WOULD have got along by now. There are people out there that will kill children and infants and the sick and terminal and don't care that you're a pacifist and want to love them and they don't care about God or you or anyone else. There are people in the world who are dedicated to evil and what does your pacifism do about that?
Nothing. And that is the whole point. You want everyone to adopt your view when there are many people in the world who are not Christians and have no hope but simply want to be safe and live in a world that is safe for their children and their families. You cannot tell them that God commands us to live a certain way because that may not be their beliefs. Christians live in God's world with many people who do not believe in God. Individually we should love, but as a nation love takes a different disguise. As it does if you are, locally, a policeman. But, as Christians, we cannot foster our views on others, nor can we allow a world to be come unsafe for others in the name of "love".
Edited by - honorman on 02/14/2003 11:51:38 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
fyodor
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 2/14/2003 8:58 AM (GMT -6) | | I absolutely agree Honorman. The idea is totally and completely idealistic and unachievable in this world, but I see no reason not to strive for it.
On the issue of the Old Testament God at War, well I'd have to argue that there was a clear transition for God from a God who is willing to be at war in the human sense, to a God who no longer uses war as a viable option for the advancement of his kingdom. God changed his mind on the issue. In the end, Jesus takes bullets rather than giving them out.
BJS you are right, there are many subjects here:
Killing
War
War with Iraq
I am idealistically against all of them. What would happen if we resisted the temptation of these issues by not fighting back? The philosophy only goes as far as I'm willing to act on it, but I would hope that I would have the courage to not act on any of these.
†††"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 02/14/2003 1:59:26 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 2/17/2003 2:14 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Don: your comments about "stuff" show your ignorance of the issues involved in this war. Just because You believe that is what is involved doesn't make it so. That certainly isn't what I believe the war is about, from researching the different issues. I would suggest you do a little more research into the issue.
How 'about a one word commentary on what the war is about?
peace and love, don
---
"No Rules, just Right" Outback Steakhouse | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 2/17/2003 2:32 AM (GMT -6) | | things 
God is Love,
Tim
1Jo 2:16…the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father… | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 2/17/2003 7:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Where in the Bible do you get that Jesus takes bullets? There is nothing in the New Testament that can even remotely give you that view? Plus, in the end, Jesus will take this world by force. Haven't you read the book of Revelation?
Idealism that sacrifices children at the altar of brutality is sinful and an affront to God. Besides, you preach something that you cannot live in this world. Therefore it is an ideaology devoid of purpose.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
fyodor
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 2/17/2003 1:10 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Where in the Bible do you get that Jesus takes bullets? There is nothing in the New Testament that can even remotely give you that view? Plus, in the end, Jesus will take this world by force. Haven't you read the book of Revelation? Idealism that sacrifices children at the altar of brutality is sinful and an affront to God. Besides, you preach something that you cannot live in this world. Therefore it is an ideaology devoid of purpose.
Point by point....
Jesus taking bullets is a metaphor! You may have heard of those before. "A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison"
Revelation is sketchy and is difficult to read without varying interpretations. I really don't see God as a God at war in the sense of choosing to kill in this age
I don't think I'm preaching something that can't be lived, The ideal is always worth striving for. You'll never achieve living like Jesus yet you want to move closer and closer to the model or the being that He put forth do you not. Well I guess that is devoid of purpose. Why try to be like Christ? Relax and let all hell break loose! 
†††"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 | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 2/18/2003 7:09 AM (GMT -6) | | While Revelation is stretchy it cannot be denied that Christ will take this world by force in the end and that force will include violence, considering that there will be those who oppose him.
Your view can be lived in this world and embraced by others fully only at the expense of order and justice or in a hypocritical mode where you get to live out your view while others sacrfice and pay the price by giving their lives and bodies while you pontifcate about how wrong they are.
In other words, this is a world where there will always be evil people, those who reject love. Therefore if the vast majority of the
people accept your view, they will be opposed by those who don't, therefore leading to the abuse of the weaker members of society. Or you go on embracing your view, knowing full well that others will do the work you are unwilling to do, giving you protection for your views. As I said, its always easier to live here and believe such "holy" views. But then, living in Israel or Iraq is another thing.
War is always about stuff, for those who need a convenience reason to oppose what they either haven't taken the time to understand or want a "righteous" reason to oppose what they are afraid might need to happen for the better of the world. How stereotypical!
Fyoder: the problem is not living like Christ, the problem is your concept of how Christ would act in situations of war is incorrect. You are making two classic mistakes: one, you are assuming that how Christ acted in HIS mission, in a CERTAIN time, is how we all should act, which is wrong because Christ was called to do certain things in his life we were not called to do, and 2, you are assuming that when Christ taught how to act as individuals, this also means we should act that way as members of a society. Your pacifistic view of Christ is not the Christ of the New Testament, but rather the Christ of modern society who has reinvented him into this whimpy, meek individual devoid of any power. Your premise is wrong and draws wrong conclusions. And it is certainly not the view of church history. It is more the view of those who have never seen war and never had to sacrifice for the freedoms they enjoy, but still want those freedoms. Idealistic? Yes. Christlike no. Hypocritical? In my view, yes, unless you are truly willing to sacrifice the freedoms you now possess. We both know you are unwilling to do that, or you wouldn't be in the country anymore. You would be in an oppressive country showing the oppressors how to truly live.
Edited by - honorman on 02/18/2003 12:09:14 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 2/18/2003 8:23 AM (GMT -6) | | So your one word might be "justice" ?
peace and love, don
---
"No Rules, just Right" Outback Steakhouse | | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 2/18/2003 8:28 AM (GMT -6) | | So your one word might be "justice" ?
peace and love, don
---
"No Rules, just Right" Outback Steakhouse | | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 2/18/2003 8:28 AM (GMT -6) | | So your one word might be "justice" ?
peace and love, don
---
"No Rules, just Right" Outback Steakhouse | | Back to Top | | |
|
fyodor
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 2/18/2003 8:31 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Your pacifistic view of Christ is not the Christ of the New Testament, but rather the Christ of modern society who has reinvented him into this whimpy, meek individual devoid of any power.
On the contrary Honorman, there is nothing wimpy or devoid of power in an individual who gives his life rather than taking lives. I would be interested to read the scripture that shows how Jesus fought back with a use of physical force when faced with the threat of his life or the lives of others. Rather he called on his disciples to respond to violence with non-violence. As in Matthew 26 where Judas has brought the armed crowd to arrest Jesus, "48 Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, "The one I will kiss is the man; arrest him." 49 At once he came up to Jesus and said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" and kissed him. 50 Jesus said to him, "Friend, do what you are here to do." Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and arrested him. 51 Suddenly, one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?"
Non-violent means of resistance are not wimpy by any means. Rather the assume and require courage on the part of the resistor. Facing brutality by an aggressor without becoming an aggressor oneself can hardly be considered devoid of power. Conversely power is gained when the resistance is focused in love to use non-violent methods for social change. Martin Luther King Jr. described this relationship in a paper that was a fictional letter from Paul to American Christians.
"It would be both cowardly and immoral for you patiently to accept injustice. You cannot in good conscience sell your birthright of freedom for a mess of segregated pottage. But as you continue your righteous protest always be sure that you struggle with Chritstian methods and Christian weapons. Be sure that the means you employ are as pure as the end you seek. Never succumb to the temptation of becoming bitter. As you press on for justice, be sure to move with dignity and discipline, using love as your chief weapon. Let no man pull you so low that you hate him. Always avoid violence. If you sow the seeds of violence in your struggle, unborn generations will reap the whirlwind of social disintegration."
MLK Jr. is speaking here, of course, about the movement for social and civil change but his words are much more encompassing and should be applied to the way in which Christians act on behalf of and for justice in this world, always avoiding violence.
quote:
Your premise is wrong and draws wrong conclusions. And it is certainly not the view of church history. It is more the view of those who have never seen war and never had to sacrifice for the freedoms they enjoy, but still want those freedoms.
Church History is probably not the best place to dig for an arguement on how Christians should justify war. The biggest freedom I have is free will. And with it, I will chose Christ. You're right, I have never seen war, except on TV, but you are wrong that I have never had to sacrifice for the freedoms I enjoy. Persecution comes with the territory. On the whole, I do not agree that killing is a sacrifice. To die for someone is a sacrifice, but to kill another is not.
quote:
Idealistic? Yes. Christlike no. Hypocritical? In my view, yes, unless you are truly willing to sacrifice the freedoms you now possess. We both know you are unwilling to do that, or you wouldn't be in the country anymore. You would be in an oppressive country showing the oppressors how to truly live.
Define sacrifice Honorman, it would be helpful for your arguement. Take all my freedoms, that's the point. In another article more specifically related to war and violence (Pilgrimage to Non-Violence), Dr. King writes,
"But I now believe that the potential destructiveness of modern weapons totally rules out the possibility of war ever again achieving a negative good. If we assume that mankind has a right to survive, then we must find an alternative to war and destruction. In our day of space vehicles and guided ballistic missiles, the choice is either nonviolence or nonexistence."
†††"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 02/18/2003 1:33:28 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Trista
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 6
| Posted 2/21/2003 6:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Really interesting debate. Very compelling!
I always wonder, if Christians could all agree on something, could we move mountains? It seems that then violence/physical force, would be completely unnecessary. Do we undermine the power of Christ when we feel the need to resort to murder to "control" an evil? Is this not a "nation" divided against itself? (I'm speaking of the worldwide nation of Christians, not the U.S.
What do you think?
Still praying for the miracle of peace,
trista | | Back to Top | | |
|
fyodor
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 3/17/2003 7:10 PM (GMT -6) | | War—what is it good for?
Sadness.
†††"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 | | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 3/18/2003 2:44 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
War—what is it good for?
Off topic thought... in 1970, my senior year in high school, my government teacher asked what the government provided. I answered, war and a few other assorted nasty things. The teacher didn't take to kindly to the reply to the test question. It <long story here> almost prevented me from continuing my education at that school.
peace and love, don
---
"No Rules, just Right" Outback Steakhouse | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 3/18/2003 7:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Anyone who truly believes that non-violent direct action is "wimpy" truly owes it to themselves to watch the Ghandi movie. I consider it a matter of good conscience to know at least something about what you are slamming before you do so. A movie is a pretty painless and time-effective way to take care of that.
Just a thought.
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 3/18/2003 10:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Amen.
----------------------------------------------
ModesofThought wrote:
quote:
Anyone who truly believes that non-violent direct action is "wimpy" truly owes it to themselves to watch the Ghandi movie....
| | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 3/18/2003 2:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Ghandi was a racist and a murderer, not to mention that he believed in the evilness inherent in reincarnation… he was however contemplating accepting Christ, but sadly, never did. Separation from God (a place of torment) is a bitch!
SeanG!"I quote others only the better to express myself." Michel de Montaigne | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 3/18/2003 5:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Gandhi also believed and supported the caste system in his country, which oppressed the undesirables. Finally, I would suggest that people READ about who Gandhi was, not SEE what Hollywood thought of him. The movie is a total fictious account of his life, removing anything that was remotely negative about him.
I find it extremely ironic that those against war simply argue from emotion and catch phrases (good argumentation there F buddy, not unlike dropping the f bomb). War, what is it good for. How lame!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 3/18/2003 6:03 PM (GMT -6) | | By the way, F, you might want to read up a little more on MLK. He never ruled out using force and both him and Gandhi counted on the use of force in order to further their respective causes.
By the way, I do not think it is wimpy to give your life up, non-violently, for another. But what I do think is wimpy is those who profess certain beliefs and do not live out the conviction of said beliefs. Why, for instance, F instead of confessing your sadness for what is going on, are you not laying your life on the line, non-violently for the poor people of Iraq?
Why not? Because you would rather stay here and vote for a regime change (I suppose one that would support your non-violent ways of living). A change to what? Do you really want our government to do away with its military? Please!
As I said before, its easy to pontificate about how we should all do these non-violent things and wouldn't all be wonderful. In this world? No, it would not. But its easy to bemoan and criticise in a country where the might of that military gives you that right.
War-what is it good for? Ask the Jews in WW2 if it did them any good.
Pacifists act as if those who support war are warmongers. Nothing is further from the truth. We just recognize that there are times when war is necessary because there are evil people in the world who do not care who they hurt.
To allow people to be hurt, to watch that and do nothing about it, to not use force to stop such things is evil.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 3/18/2003 6:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Two articles, one by Thomas Sowell, the other by Don Feder.
Pacifism and War
Thomas Sowell - September 24, 2001
Although most Americans seem to understand the gravity of the situation that terrorism has put us in -- and the need for some serious military response, even if that means dangers to the lives of us all -- there are still those who insist on posturing, while on the edge of a volcano. In the forefront are college students who demand a "peaceful" response to an act of war. But there are others who are old enough to know better, who are still repeating the pacifist platitudes of the 1930s that contributed so much to bringing on World War II.
A former ambassador from the weak-kneed Carter administration says that we should look at the "root causes" behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We should understand the "alienation" and "sense of grievance" against us by various people in the Middle East.
It is astonishing to see the 1960s phrase "root causes" resurrected at this late date and in this context. It was precisely this kind of thinking, which sought the "root causes of crime" during that decade, creating soft policies toward criminals, which led to skyrocketing crime rates. Moreover, these soaring crime rates came right after a period when crime rates were lower than they had been in decades.
On the international scene, trying to assuage aggressors' feelings and look at the world from their point of view has had an even more catastrophic track record. A typical sample of this kind of thinking can be found in a speech to the British Parliament by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938: "It has always seemed to me that in dealing with foreign countries we do not give ourselves a chance of success unless we try to understand their mentality, which is not always the same as our own, and it really is astonishing to contemplate how the identically same facts are regarded from two different angles."
Like our former ambassador from the Carter era, Chamberlain sought to "remove the causes of strife or war." He wanted "a general settlement of the grievances of the world without war." In other words, the British prime minister approached Hitler with the attitude of someone negotiating a labor contract, where each side gives a little and everything gets worked out in the end. What Chamberlain did not understand was that all his concessions simply led to new demands from Hitler -- and contempt for him by Hitler.
What Winston Churchill understood at the time, and Chamberlain did not, was that Hitler was driven by what Churchill called "currents of hatred so intense as to sear the souls of those who swim upon them." That was also what drove the men who drove the planes into the World Trade Center.
Pacifists of the 20th century had a lot of blood on their hands for weakening the Western democracies in the face of rising belligerence and military might in aggressor nations like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. In Britain during the 1930s, Labor Party members of Parliament voted repeatedly against military spending, while Hitler built up the most powerful military machine in Europe. Students at leading British universities signed pledges to refuse to fight in the event of war.
All of this encouraged the Nazis and the Japanese toward war against countries that they knew had greater military potential than their own. Military potential only counts when there is the will to develop it and use it, and the fortitude to continue with a bloody war when it comes. This is what they did not believe the West had. And it was Western pacifists who led them to that belief.
Then as now, pacifism was a "statement" about one's ideals that paid little attention to actual consequences. At a Labor Party rally where Britain was being urged to disarm "as an example to others," economist Roy Harrod asked one of the pacifists: "You think our example will cause Hitler and Mussolini to disarm?"
The reply was: "Oh, Roy, have you lost all your idealism?" In other words, the issue was about making a "statement" -- that is, posturing on the edge of a volcano, with World War II threatening to erupt at any time. When disarmament advocate George Bernard Shaw was asked what Britons should do if the Nazis crossed the channel into Britain, the playwright replied, "Welcome them as tourists."
What a shame our schools and college neglect history, which could save us from continuing to repeat the idiocies of the past, which are even more dangerous now in a nuclear age.
Pacifism Isn't Just Wrong, It's Immoral
Don Feder - November 7, 2001
As the U.S. deploys more special forces in Afghanistan, other forces have mobilized. Professional pacifists have resurrected the moldy cliches and self-righteous pieties of the '60s.
All that's missing is Joan Baez singing "Blowin' in the Wind" and Dr. Spock urging them on.
Last week, anti-war demonstrations were held in a dozen cities. From Los Angeles to Minneapolis, the arguments advanced against national self-defense were depressingly familiar.
Osama bin Laden should be brought to justice before the United Nations, declared a speaker at a Denver rally. And will the Taliban, which has resisted surrendering bin Laden after a month of heavy bombing, hasten to honor an arrest warrant from the U.N. bureaucracy?
"We want to call attention to the humanitarian disaster that is taking place in Afghanistan as a direct result of the campaign to bomb that country. Seven million Afghans are on the verge of starvation," croaked Candice Larson of the Portland, Ore., Peaceful Response Coalition.
News Flash -- Millions of Afghans have been starving in refugee camps for years. They are victims of the Taliban's lunacy. If our air offensive hastens the regime's demise, it will do more to end starvation in Afghanistan than all of the aid packages we've dropped to date.
A speaker in Los Angeles disclosed -- in the hushed tones of revelation -- that the bombing will not solve "societal problems such as police brutality and homelessness." Nor, for that matter, will it end road rage or produce a cure for the common cold.
If, after Pearl Harbor, America had waited to solve its social problems before fighting back, we would now be the westernmost province of the empire of the rising sun.
Violence solves nothing, is the protestors' universal refrain. Nonsense. Violence gave America its independence. Violence saved the Union and freed the slaves. Violence kept Hitler from killing the rest of Europe's Jews.
For the flower-power brigade, there's always an excuse to turn tail and run.
Prior to World War II, isolationists told us Hitler was a nationalist who had legitimate grievances against the West.
During the Vietnam War, campus protestors hailed the Viet Cong as agrarian reformers. It wasn't our war, they wailed. But it was our fight -- and millions of dead Cambodians and Vietnamese, who were murdered by the victors, wish we'd won it.
And the Gulf War? "Blood for oil," anti-war activists chanted. Then they drove away in their VW buses to well-heated homes, paid for with jobs dependent on reliable energy supplies.
The current conflict has pacifists scrambling to find new slogans. The old ones have such a hollow ring.
Are the Taliban thugs idealistic reformers? Is Osama bin Laden an aggrieved nationalist? Does Afghanistan have oil we covet? If the murder of 5,000 Americans on American soil doesn't make it our fight, I'd like to know what does.
But logic is irrelevant to the protestors. Their pacifism isn't an idea they've thought through, but a blindly adhered to belief system.
Pacifism isn't just wrong; it's immoral. Individuals have a moral right to choose not to defend themselves when attacked. They have no right to demand that others commit suicide by proxy.
Not to punish mass murder is to acquiesce to evil. Pacifism is a betrayal of the innocent. It invites more aggression -- witness Munich, witness the 1973 Paris Peace Accords, witness our muted response to other acts of terrorism (the 1983 bombing of the Marine compound in Beirut and the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania), which surely encouraged al Qaeda.
Is there anyone to the right of Ralph Nader who doesn't understand that not to respond militarily would embolden the terrorists and lead to more demolished skyscrapers?
Pacifism works well -- as long as pacifist pleading goes largely unheeded and anti-war activists remain a distinct minority. Then they can feel noble while others fight their battles and protect their freedom.
Only the battlefield sacrifices of generations of our best and bravest have given us a country where pacifists can bad-mouth America in comfort and security.
SeanG!"I quote others only the better to express myself." Michel de Montaigne | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 3/18/2003 7:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Pacifism works well...what a great line for a slogan! Sowell is the man!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
fyodor
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 3/18/2003 8:13 PM (GMT -6) | | It's always a pleasure to see you putting words in my mouth Honorman. I certainly wasn't arguing for anything with my most recent comment, I was expressing the most over-whelming feeling I have right now about the situation. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with your attacks good buddy Honorman, but suit yourself. Not everything needs to be fighting rhetoric as you seem to interpret it. Correct me if I'm out of place....
Sadness was indeed my reaction to the speech on Monday. I feel sad for those who will die. I feel sad for the infrastructure of Iraq, which, once roads and bridges have been bombed, people who have fled the cities will semi-permanently be displaced from their homes, living like vagabonds in tents of refugee camps waiting for the liberating Americans to pass out a food ration, I feel sad for those American soldiers who must give their lives for this "just war" and for the hundreds of thousands of families who are missing a family member who is serving right now. I feel sad about the liklihood of a terrorist backlash to the American action in the Gulf. I feel sad about our government claiming that the UN is irrelevant and then making sure of it by totally bypassing it just because it wouldn't democratically vote for its agenda (apparently its only relevant when it does what we say it should). I feel sad about the acts of violence that are about to occur.
Regardless of who Ghandi was, non-violent resistance takes courage that is unparalled in war. Being willing to be inflicted with acts of aggression as a means of resistance is to stare evil face to face and claim that it has no power over you.
quote:
By the way, I do not think it is wimpy to give your life up, non-violently, for another. But what I do think is wimpy is those who profess certain beliefs and do not live out the conviction of said beliefs. Why, for instance, F instead of confessing your sadness for what is going on, are you not laying your life on the line, non-violently for the poor people of Iraq?
Why not? Because you would rather stay here and vote for a regime change (I suppose one that would support your non-violent ways of living). A change to what? Do you really want our government to do away with its military? Please!
I honestly do my best to not preach, teach, or confess something that I wouldn't do. Why I am I not in Iraq? Becuase there's plenty of non-violent resistance to do right here in Minneapolis. There's plenty of local battles to fight without needing to go across the world to fight in somebody else's.
quote:
We just recognize that there are times when war is necessary because there are evil people in the world who do not care who they hurt.
Does anyone honestly believe that this war wasn't inevitable from the moment of Bush's State of the Union Speech back '02? The rhetoric started early to bolster approval in the polls for war. Even before junior was elected he was getting the agenda set for him by the same people who messed up the outcome of the first American led Gulf War, or by those who were setting the agenda for the Ameriacan role in the restructuring of global politics after the break up of the Cold War with the US as the lone super-power. As soon as September 11th happened Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld knew the door had opened to finish the job they wanted done in Gulf War I. This war is hardly about weapons of mass destruction or the fact that Saddam is an irrefutably ruthless dictator. It's about "American Interests," namely oil. Putting Iraq out of commission allows the occupation of US forces, allowing key bases for US troops in the region to secure Oil for future generations. Saddam is vulnerable. We know his military was largely weakened in the first Gulf War. He does not have the support of a religious leader, he's right next door to Axis of Evil Number 2 in Iran. One by one, justifications of preemptive strikes will begin to take shape in regard to the other Axis of Evil nations. It's the regional defense strategy of Paul Wolfowitz to eliminate and subvert contrary ideologies. This isn't a necessary war from human rights perspectives,, national defense, or even as a targeted retaliation for September 11th. It's a war to reveal the US as a superpower because of its military might rather than its ideological superiority.
Who makes money off this war? The post war rebuilders as we found out on Monday, the list will include Bush and Cheney's old corporate buddies.
†††"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 | | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 3/18/2003 9:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Fyodor said: “…It's about ‘American Interests,’ namely oil… Who makes money off this war? The post war rebuilders as we found out on Monday, the list will include Bush and Cheney's old corporate buddies.”
Man, you showed your colors here pal! I don’t think anyone can be more liberal and conspiratorial if they tried. I bet you think Bush stole the election too… am I right Fyodor?
I will agree with you though Fyodor, it is about oil! However, it is the French, Russians, and German’s (all conspicuously socialists) who have secret oil deals with Iraq that exceed the allotment the U. N. has allowed. Iraq owes these countries money as well, so these countries would hate to see their assets go out the door.
Fyodor, I have a question for you. If it is all about the oil, how come we didn’t keep it in the first Gulf War?
Iran will probably experience a revolution towards democracy on their own (FYI), their population is very young, and want their MTV! Some say within a year or so.
You said: “I feel sad for those who will die." (I do too, Saddam has killed more Muslims in recent history than any other menace, he gives acid baths to people who speak out against him, uses drills to torture his victims, and has children raped in front of their parents to discourage revolution) "I feel sad for the infrastructure of Iraq," (And if Saddam doesn’t blow up the oil fields, again, emmdiate money will be available to rebuild the infrastructure that he [Saddam] has destroyed through tyranny, deception, torture, and horrible economic choices) "which, once roads and bridges have been bombed, people who have fled the cities will semi-permanently be displaced from their homes, living like vagabonds in tents of refugee camps waiting for the liberating Americans to pass out a food ration, I feel sad for those American soldiers who must give their lives for this ‘just war’ and for the hundreds of thousands of families who are missing a family member who is serving right now." (I do too Fyodor. Because the plan was, and the British Prime Minister said as much, was to put such a unified pressure on Saddam that he would have left Iraq for Libya. Instead, the French, Germans, and a handful of others emboldened Saddam to stay. In fact the French said they would veto any resolution put before them. Do you know what this means? Iraq could have accepted the terms, but the French basically said we won’t accept the terms before the country in question doesn’t. Amazing!)“Peace is good; war is bad.” I don't even know what this means. Which peace? Which war? Did the people of Europe have peace after being conquered by Hitler? Should we have dealt with him in "peace" in the interest of "stability?"
Do the people of Iraq have peace? Surely not the ones who find themselves led into a basement to find their children hooked up to electrodes. Surely not the Kurds. Surely not anyone who doesn't work for the government. Who, then? The generals on the file footage who bounce up to The Great Uncle with frozen smiles for a kiss and a chat? The soldiers of the so-called elite Republican Guard? What horrors have they all committed to earn their privileges?… ( http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/284hwqva.asp ) You said: “ I feel sad about the liklihood of a terrorist backlash to the American action in the Gulf.” (I feel sad that in the schools the children are taught racism, hatred, and terrorism. I feel sad that the Muslim community doesn’t see how we helped them in Kosovo, or how we are going to rid them of a tyrant who has killed more Muslims than they have seen in their lifetime! I am sad that you don’t want to see a man who has invaded three countries, fired missiles into five, and gassed his own people, go?!) Ghandi would have been given a acid bath Fyodor, nothing can stop this psychopath! The only reason Ghandi succeeded somewhat is because he was dealing with a nation that had Judeo-Christian values for the most part. He was dealing with a civilized society, the Iraqi government is not civilized. So stop trying to speak as if a civilized solution can be found. All the money, education, and social well-being you could think of can be flowered upon the Iraqi leaders, this still wouldn’t change their minds!? They are already rich beyond dreams, have all the food they need, and are educated at our finest facilities, and they still murder and torture… you solutions are useless. Saddam thinks he is the inculcated spirit of Nebuchadnezzar. You go march in peace in front of his palace tough guy!
You may not think so, but the anti-war movement has been hijacked. And all the arguments you are using are from them… for the most part! I suggest you read the article here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29524
A brand new article reveals even more about one of the biggest peace organizations:In the run-up to this war, Not In Our Name became one of the major “peace” organizers and coalitions in the United States. Not In Our Name has spared no cost purchasing ads in newspapers around the world to publish its anti-American Statement of Conscience. Its signatories include scores of Hate America bigwigs, like Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti, Gloria Steinem and Barbara Kingsolver. Hollywood icons (and many more has-beens) like Danny Glover, Jessica Lange, Tyne Daly, Martin Sheen and Ed Harris have also signed or endorsed the statement. NION organizes marches and other protest activities in its support.
However, Not In Our Name is deeper than the latest academic babblers and limosuine liberals. NION professes peace, yet it is involved - directly as well as indirectly - with terrorist organizations and anti-American propaganda campaigns headed by fanatical Communist and Muslim groups. NION has cemented alliances with bona fide radical organizations like the Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom and the Revolutionary Communist Party…. For the full article, go to: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6722
Fyodor, you should be asking yourself which side your on… http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6720
SeanG!"I quote others only the better to express myself." Michel de Montaigne
Edited by - SeanG on 03/19/2003 02:50:26 AM | | Back to Top | | |
| 69 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:50 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|