quote:

---

Mayflower sailed into the western sea with:

How do you think Bonhoeffer would have responded to the US invasion of Iraq if he were in our position?

---

quote:

---

How do you think Bonhoeffer would have responded to the US invasion of Iraq if he were in our position?

---

quote:

---

For some Iraqis (such as those who are safe in other countries), this invasion will have a loving impact. But for others, the impact of our bombs will result in psychological trauma, spiritual grief and bitterness, economic impoverishment, political provocation, physical injury and incineration. The impact of our actions is far more likely to be terrorizing than loving. Theologically, this is more reminiscent of Constantine’s chi rho—“in this sign conquer”—than Jesus’ cross.

---

quote:

---

I suppose that is also the way many feel just before they go under the doctor's scapel.

Brandon

---

quote:

---

Electra: you're mixing apples and oranges again. Try to stay on the subject. And, again, if you are against the war, GIVE OPTIONS! What is the matter with you people! If you are going to be against something, give options. Its no wonder the vast majority of americans are for the war when anti-war can do nothing but criticise and give vague ideas about "love."

---

quote:

---

Excuse, me, Laika; but, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that you've completely misquoted me.
I did not ask the Bonhoeffer question that you referenced in your previous post.

---

quote:

---

If you are not advocating stopping evil dictators...

---

quote:

---

Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can kill both soul and body in hell. Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. And even the hairs of your head are all counted. So do not be afraid; you are of more value than many sparrows. Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; bu whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven. Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and one's foes will be members of one's own household.

---

quote:

---

This is, in a nutshell, the problem with all who support such a view as yours.”

“If you do, then you are truly sad.”

“Your views are inheritly unloving because you refuse to take the hard steps to insure that love can flourish and evil is stopped.

“That is why the honor of such decisions will always fall on people like Bush and people like you will always be on the sidelines, critising, without offering any concrete solutions.

“To oppose the war without giving true options to it is to support Hussein in all his evil.

---

I have major problems with how honorman (HM) paints those on the “pacifists” side for lack of a better expression. And I think I could provide more examples from (HM), but this is enough. Let me try to put this in perspective.

Throughout the history of Christian consideration to war there have been basically three different views. These are:
A. Activism
B. Just war or “selectivism”
C. Pacificism and/or nonviolent resistance

Now on these boards and IN THIS DEBATE we have Christians, who I believe, fall into ALL THREE categories. I would put Electra in category C. I would put “HM” in B to A and I think it would be safe to say that BJS and I would be in B. Those who fall in category A tend to be very harsh on those in category C. Those in category C tend to have problems with the views (not necessarily the person, because they are of a pacifistic nonviolent persuasion already) of both categories A and B. But it seems to me that HM can barely see how Electra’s views can be based on Christian convictions when one takes a gander at his quotes above.

I personally don’t like to see this. I say that because of this. Category A holds that Christians should support a military effort whenever their country declares war. That governments are ordained of God and we are told to submit to our leaders. Typically, the thinking goes, because we don’t have all the information that our leaders possess, we must trust their judgment. Now, here’s the catch. While few Christians will admit to holding an activist position, IN THEORY, a great many tend to follow it in practice. They do this because they have a deep sense of patriotism and since their government ALWAYS presents SOME JUSTIFICATION for every war they actually support ALL their country’s wars.

Now, those in category C say that just war or “selectivism” sounds good in theory but that ANY war violates many of the criteria. In other words there really can’t be such a thing as a “just war.” For example, the just war has a principle known as the “principle of proportionality” (proportionality of intention). What this says is that the total good achieved by a victory will by all indications outweigh the total evil and suffering caused by the war. That is, no one should prescribe a cure that is worse than the disease. “But”, the pacifist will say, “the just war theory fails on all/most accounts.”
However, this is not the only reason Christian pacifists take the stand that they do. They have grounded their views on deeply held scriptural convictions such as:

A. The nature of Christian discipleship. Jesus lived non-violently even when he had just cause for violence. Christians are to pattern their lives and imitate Christ and his teachings. The Christian pacifist’s position is a way of life more than a theory about war. The way of the world is radically opposed to the way of the cross (as Electra noted above) and the Christian is to glory in the “foolishness of the cross and the non-violent advancement of God’s kingdom.
B. Another conviction is that human life is sacred and a gift from God. Again, as noted by Electra above (“Bombs destroy life and limit loving possibilities for survivors. Bullets bring horror rather than help).
C. A third conviction is the concept of redemptive witness. That is, because of the courageous testimony of nonviolent Christians over the centuries, many unbelievers have been won to Christ. This can be seen in the early church where many joined the ranks of Christians due to the powerful witness of self-sacrificing love for one’s enemies. Even if none came to Christ through this means, God’s love for all people—including his enemies—is still proclaimed through Christian pacifism.

Now there are a host of other reasons as pointed out by Sider and other pacifists, but the point that I am trying to make here is that far from seeing Electra’s views as being unloving or inherently evil, she has a strong biblical and theological basis for her views not to mention some excellent practical reasons (of which I’m not all that in agreement with) which should be considered and not taken lightly, i.e. principle of proportionality.

Having said that, I would like to respond to the last post Electra responded to me. First, there is the issue of the analogy that I brought up. The point is not that the analogy follows to the “T” the actual circumstances at present. The point is that in order to heal some sickness, a doctor needs to “do damage” to the body. In some situations the body must actually “die” or the heart stop beating. And it is the same with war. It is unfortunate that it even has to be this way, but that is the sad state reality. In the end, I believe the liberated people of Iraqi will come to see this war as just. Now before I go any further, I think something else needs to be brought up which is related to this.

In one post Electra said,

quote:

---

I agree that there is a time for war, but I don’t believe this is the time.

---

Then she says, in response to my analogy,

quote:

---

The difference is, people who are bombed don’t just feel maimed, orphaned, incinerated, etc. They are incinerated—without sterilization or anesthetic. Doctors remove unhealthy and nonvital organs and limbs; bombs remove healthy and vital organs and limbs. I think your metaphor does not do justice to the suffering of victims and survivers of invasion.

---

It would seem to me, that one of the major reasons for not going to war is because innocent people will be killed, maimed, orphaned and incinerated..basically involved. If this is the case, how can you believe that there is a time for ANY war? For example, can you tell me of ANY TIME IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANKIND when non-combatants have not been involved in war? Even on a local scale (no war), as soon as police are faced by an armed gang instead of one individual, it is almost impossible to avoid the involvement of non-combatants. As the level of attack increases so the problems increase. As desirous as it is to keep civilians out of battle, we have to realize the inevitability of civilian involvement increases with the level of force necessary to resist an enemy. Therefore, I would have to conclude that according to your understanding, there would ABSOLUTELY NEVER BE ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR AT ANY TIME EVER. This would not only contradict your first point, but it would also portray the idealism of which you adhere to.

Hence, I conclude that Electra couldn’t be farther off than a Scud Missile. Stole that one.

P.S. I also agree with fyodor and honorman that some solid solutions need to be forthcoming.



Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com

Edited by - BBBCanada on 03/26/2003 11:41:57 AM

quote:

---

Throughout the history of Christian consideration to war there have been basically three different views. These are:
A. Activism
B. Just war or “selectivism”
C. Pacificism and/or nonviolent resistance
Now on these boards and IN THIS DEBATE we have Christians, who I believe, fall into ALL THREE categories. I would put Electra in category C.

---

From what you say below, I understand why you would classify me in category C, in spite of the fact that I have explicitly denied that I am a pacifist several times.

I do believe that there is a time for war, but I believe that now is not the time for war. I have suggested that it would have been justified to go to war against Iraq when Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians in the 1980s. But I do not believe that using this incident as a pretext for invasion 20 years later is legitimate.

If the US government really cared about the Iraqi people, we would have helped them then. Instead, this is how we responded:



This picture of Donald Rumsfeld (current US Defence Secretary) shaking Saddam Hussein’s hand was taken when Rumsfeld was serving as an envoy to re-open US-Iraq diplomatic relations and remove Iraq from our list of 'Countries that sponsor terrorism.' This occurred in the midst of the Iran/Iraq war, in spite of the fact that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International were reporting Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons. Picture and info from this site

I do believe that there is such a thing as “just war,” but I do not believe that our invasion of Iraq is just. Even when war is “just” (e.g. as self- or other-defense against a hostile invader) it is the lesser of two evils (as Brett has pointed out), yet this war is being spun as if we are doing the Iraqi people a favor—as an expression of our love for them. When the United States did Vietnam the favor of “liberating” its people, 1.3 million of them (and tens of thousands of US soldiers) were killed. I object to the rhetoric of “freedom” and “liberation” being applied to invasion and occupation (as illustrated in the picture of the soldier’s tattoo above)—acts which are antithetical to the self-determination of the Iraqi people.

quote:

---

It would seem to me, that one of the major reasons for not going to war is because innocent people will be killed, maimed, orphaned and incinerated..basically involved. If this is the case, how can you believe that there is a time for ANY war?

---

You’re right, every war has collateral damage. This is why even just war is at best, a lesser evil. In this case, I think the “collateral damage” caused by our bombs and bullets is a greater evil than addressing the humanitarian crisis in Iraq via nonviolent resistance, humanitarian aid, diplomacy, and disarmament.

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

Edited by - Electra on 03/26/2003 1:09:49 PM

quote:

---

For some Iraqis (such as those who are safe in other countries), this invasion will have a loving impact. But for others, the impact of our bombs will result in psychological trauma, spiritual grief and bitterness, economic impoverishment, political provocation, physical injury and incineration. The impact of our actions is far more likely to be terrorizing than loving. Theologically, this is more reminiscent of Constantine’s chi rho—“in this sign conquer”—than Jesus’ cross.

---

BBBCanada wrote:

quote:

---

I suppose that is also the way many feel just before they go under the
doctor's scapel.

Brandon

---

Electra wrote:

quote:

---

The difference is, people who are bombed don’t just feel maimed, orphaned, incinerated, etc. They are incinerated—without sterilization or anesthetic. Doctors remove unhealthy and nonvital organs and limbs; bombs remove healthy and vital organs and limbs. I think your metaphor does not do justice to the suffering of victims and survivers of invasion.

---

========================================================

THE REALITY OF WAR:


NEWSPAPER ARTICLE:


St. Paul (Minnesota) "Pioneer Press
Published Saturday, Mar. 22, 2003



What an 'educated' bomb does

BY DAVID WOOD
Newhouse News Service

WASHINGTON — It falls silently and unseen from the distant sky, a cigar-shaped steel capsule hurtling down at 300 mph with a single deadly purpose: to kill. In the final moments, there might come a brief, chilling whir as tiny gears adjust its tail fins to nudge it closer to its target.

At home, television viewers monitoring the air war over Baghdad see the
Pentagon's familiar gun-camera footage: cross hairs on a blurred image of a building and, as a Pentagon officer narrates, the flicker of a shadow and a bright flash before the tape runs out. From afar, television cameras record a fireball.




_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

CITY OF FIRE
A building in the government area of Baghdad explodes as it is hit by American missles during the third night of the "Shock and Awe" campaign



_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _



On the ground, however, the work of the 2,000-pound Mark-84 JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition) bomb, the new workhorse of the U.S. military, is just beginning. In nanoseconds, it releases a crushing shock wave and showers jagged, white-hot metal fragments at supersonic speed, shattering concrete, shredding flesh, crushing cells, rupturing lungs, bursting sinus cavities and ripping away limbs in a maelstrom of destruction.

These and other effects, calculated and charted by Defense Department war planners in a predictive software program called "Bug Splat," are largely obscured by smoke and debris.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld Friday praised the precision of the JDAM and "the humanity that goes into" the use of the weapon.

Along with the Tomahawk ship-launched cruise missiles, JDAMs have been the chief weapon used in the air strikes on Baghdad this week.

The simple fact, says Dr. Harry Severance, an emergency physician and associate clinical professor at the Duke University Trauma Center, is that weapons like JDAM are designed to kill.

"People look at and calculate the effects and design those into the weapons," said Severance, a member of the American College of Emergency Physicians who advises state, federal and military agencies on blast injuries and triage.

In a recent briefing for reporters, a senior military officer explained that "Bug Splat"... is really a mathematical process that we can go to that shows, depending on the direction the bomb is actually falling, where the effects of that fragmentation from the bomb will go.

The Mark-84 JDAM is a 2,000-pound "dumb" or unguided bomb of the type used by U.S. forces for decades. What is relatively new, however, is a strap-on kit consisting of an inertial navigation system that guides the bomb toward the target, a satellite receiver and tail fins for small final corrections in the dive toward an aim point determined by Global Positioning System satellites.

No one in the Defense Department or its research labs or weapons contractors would publicly discuss the actual effects of the munition as it detonates. Privately, however, engineers and weapons designers were eager to describe the mechanism.

As the Mark-84 JDAM strikes the ground, its fuse ignites a priming charge that detonates 945 pounds of Tritonal, a silvery solid of TNT mixed with a dollop of aluminum for stability.

The ensuing chemical reaction produces an expanding nucleus of hot gas that swells the Mark-84's 14-inch-wide cast steel casing to almost twice its size before the steel shears and fractures, showering a thousand pounds of white-hot steel fragments at 6,000 feet per second and driving a shock wave of several thousand pounds per square inch.

Instantaneously, a fireball lashes out at 8,500 degrees Fahrenheit, and the explosion gouges a 20-foot crater and hurls off 10,000 pounds of rock and dirt debris at supersonic speed.

Trauma physicians confronting the human wreckage from a bomb like the JDAM divide casualties into four classes. One is injury from the blast itself, mostly caused by a pressure wave a hundred times or more the injury threshold of 15 pounds per square inch (psi). By comparison, a shock wave of 12 psi will knock over a standing person.

A second class of injury is from the wind and debris that immediately follow the blast wave. A blast force of 4 psi — far below the force of these winds — can shatter glass and drive lethal fragments at 120 mph. Metal fragments will travel about 3,800 feet, nearly three-quarters of a mile. Bigger fragments of the bomb — heavy pieces of the thick metal nose cone, for instance — will sail out a mile and a half, a Defense Department engineer said.

A third set of injuries results either as bodies are picked up and thrown against something or as part of a stationary body is ripped away.

A fourth class takes in everything else, including burns from the fireball and crush injuries from falling debris.

Almost no one survives primary blast injuries, experts say. The brutal shock wave, a force that far exceeds the pressure the atmosphere normally applies to the human body, smashes into and explodes body cavities of lesser pressure — lungs, colon, bowels, even through the sinuses into the skull.

The overpressure can burst individual cells and rupture critical blood vessels, forcing air through them and on into the heart and brain, causing instant death.

"You really don't treat consequences of primary overpressure," said Dr. Michael McCalley, a physician and professor of public health and preventive medicine at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland.

Third-class injuries also are almost always lethal.

"The type of force that picks you up and throws you, where you get traumatic amputations, you're pretty much already dead from the blast," Severance said.

Crush injuries, from the pressure wave or from falling rubble, can also be lethal. Crushing can break open muscle cells, dumping the contents into the capillaries and clogging critical blood vessels, McCalley said. That can cause cardiac problems, kidney failure and other complications difficult to treat in a war zone.

"In a poor country like Iraq, you don't survive a crush injury," said McCalley, who recently returned from making a survey of public health facilities there.

Surprisingly, many people who avoid the primary blast injuries of a munition like the Mark-84 survive its other effects — severe burns from the fireball, losing chunks of flesh to flying debris, and crushed limbs.

That's when emergency triage — sorting out the dying from those who can be saved — becomes critical.

"You may have 85 to 95 percent of the victims of a major blast who are walking — scared, covered with debris and dust, bleeding from lacerations, and wanting somebody to help them right now," Severance said. "Those walking you can green-tag for later medical care. Five to 10 percent, these are people who need an operating room right now, and they are red-tagged.

"Black tag? Today's your day to die," he said.

Medical care in Iraq, according to the United Nations and other organizations, is minimal and declining. Iraq does not have an operative burn unit anywhere in the country, McCalley said, and no broad system of civil defense or bomb shelters.

His survey found many towns have ambulances — but often they are not equipped with defibrillators, intubators or other common emergency medical equipment.

And with Iraq's hospital system in a shambles, McCalley said, "Where would the ambulances take people?"

[end]

quote:

---

Electra:

3. How will those who survive our Stop Action know it is done in love? How likely is
it that they will interpret the destruction of their government, their cities, their
homes, the increasingly difficult access to food, shelter, healthcare, etc, as love?

---

quote:

---

VIENNA (Reuters) - A few hours and a simple internet search was all it took for U.N. inspectors to realize documents backing U.S. and British claims that Iraq had revived its nuclear program were crude fakes, a U.N. official said. Speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, a senior official from the U.N. nuclear agency who saw the documents offered as evidence that Iraq tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger, described one as so badly forged his "jaw dropped."

---

quote:

---

The issue is not the past what to do NOW.
...

Like what would solve the current situation?

I mean, I don't think anyone doubts that war is horrible. Isn't that just a given (like DUH!) I am sure in WWII some innocents were killed. But in the overall pictures the war was justified.

---

We have bombed their cities; the people of Iraq have very little food, and are drinking contaminated water.

What would help RIGHT NOW??

Humanitarian aid.
FOOD; CLEAN DRINKING WATER.


<><



An Iraqi boy begs for food
as an armored convoy of the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine
Regiment passes through the Iraqi desert.
(Sun photo by John Makely)

March 23, 2003

WITH THE U.S. MARINES, Iraq - Men, women and children ran from
their mud-brick houses, and from their fields and flocks of sheep
and stood beside a highway in southeastern Iraq yesterday waving their hands wildly, making peace signs and grabbing their empty bellies, begging for something to eat.....


__________________________________________________________________


Will They Survive War?
Racing to Feed Malnourished Iraqi Children
Posted by: laurakujawski on Wednesday, March 19, 2003


With the threat of war looming over Iraq, UNICEF is providing special therapeutic food for over 400,000 malnourished children across the country in an urgent effort to bolster their chances of survival in the event of a conflict.


Working closely with the Ministry of Health, UNICEF has trucked more than 1,000 metric tons of high-protein biscuits into Iraq in recent days. The biscuits, which the government is now delivering to health centers across the country, are part of an ongoing UNICEF campaign to reach Iraqi children with life-protecting nutrients and vaccines ahead of a possible conflict.

"We are still hoping for a peaceful resolution to this crisis," said UNICEF executive director Carol Bellamy. "But it's a fact that the children of Iraq are extremely vulnerable. Their health, their nutrition, their access to safe water - all of which are weak already - will be further jeopardized in a war. By acting to reach them now, we hope to save lives in the weeks and months ahead."

UNICEF has also delivered 155 metric tons of therapeutic milk to feed children suffering from severe malnutrition - a major cause underlying death among children under five. A total of 10,000 severely malnourished children will benefit immediately from the therapeutic milk, which is now arriving in each of the 63 nutrition rehabilitation centers run by the Iraq Ministry of Health.

The UNICEF deliveries constitute the first shipments of high protein biscuits and therapeutic milk into the country in two years. The supplies are sufficient to last for a month. UNICEF has also shipped nutritional supplies to its warehouses in the countries surrounding Iraq to enable a rapid response should a surge in malnutrition occur.

Iraq has one of the highest rates of under-five mortality in the world, with more than one in eight children dying before they reach their fifth birthday. Although it has improved in recent years, malnutrition also remains high, affecting one in four Iraqi children under the age of five - almost 1 million youngsters in total.

Half of Iraq's 24.5 million people are children.

Lessons of 1991

UNICEF noted that child malnutrition in Iraq rose dramatically following the 1991 Gulf War, partly due to the destruction of infrastructure, partly due to poor use of available resources, and partly because of international sanctions, which have drastically reduced most families' purchasing power and thus their protein consumption (a lack of meat in the diet). This explains why 60 per cent of Iraqi women suffer from iron deficiency, which in turn contributes to children being underweight at birth.

"Today, almost a quarter of Iraqi children are born underweight, and a similar number under age five are malnourished," said Carel De Rooy, the UNICEF representative in Iraq. "That's serious enough. But war adds displacement, interruption of food and water supplies, and outbreaks of disease. Combined, these events would strike a heavy blow to a population of children who are already struggling to survive," he said.

Since 1991 UNICEF has supported the Ministry of Health to establish nutrition rehabilitation centers in children's hospitals. The agency provides training, specialized nutrition supplies, and materials. The effort was expanded with the development of 2,800 Community Child Care Units that screen children for malnutrition to catch signs early and speed children into special care. Primarily based in schools, the units have reached some 70 per cent of children under five.

UNICEF said that malnourished children do not typically perish from hunger. "In this situation, when children are weak, diarrhea caused by bad water will kill," warned de Rooy. "Tens of thousands of children are extremely vulnerable to any further deterioration in their health and nutrition status," he said.

"Simply put, war hurts children the most," Bellamy said. "Children are the most vulnerable, physically and emotionally. Whatever else we feel about war, we have to recognize this fact. It's just as true in this region as it is in Afghanistan, Sudan, Colombia, and dozens of other countries in conflict. The real issue is what we do to protect children in times of war."

[end]






Edited by - Mayflower on 03/26/2003 7:18:42 PM