Friday, February 17, 2006

Thoughts on "Christian War"

Thanks to Mick Gallagher.
Thoughts on "Christian War"
Prior to our invasion of Iraq, war correspondent Chris Hedges, citing decades of first hand observation from all parts of the world, wrote:

"War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning'....
[This includes] the myths presented in war; the plague of ignorance created by irrational nationalism and how it's both used and fomented by powerful interests who gain from military conflict; the relinquishment of individual judgment and liberty; the pornographic and ubiquitous tortures; the mass amnesia; the hijacking and destruction of culture--it's all there.

I find it ironic but telling that elements of our body politic found antiwar sentiments expressed at Coretta Scott King's funeral too "political."

As Hedges points out, there is no point of view more taboo to the nation state than pacifism.

Yet, in a nation that claims to be Christian, in a nation whose Christian coalitions are said to be responsible for reelecting president bush, I have to ask what such Biblical injunctions as "turn the other cheek," "resist not evil," and blessed are the peacemakers, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven" mean! In our nation, currently, there is the belief that despite what individuals say about the meaning of Islam, its adherents are warmongers. Can one imagine, after two thousand years, what non Christians must think about the legacy of Christianity? "Ye shall know them by their fruits."

Yes, "those who live by the sword, will die by the sword," and until humanity gets hip to that,... we have a long, hard and bloody slog ahead.

Posted by: barryology.

"Why We Fight." think back to 1990. The curtain was coming down on the Soviet Union. They had been the focus of the Military Industrial Complex for over 40 years. All politicians had used them as the excuse for spending untold billions for our "protection." Bomber Gap, Missile Gap, Window of Vulnerability-- all [were] lies to perpetuate endless spending. The military-industrial complex was then facing its greatest enemy-- peace.

During the previous 7 years, Reagan and Bush the First had supported Saddam with no consideration of morality. Now with his army on the border of Kuwait, Saddam inquired about the U.S. stance on his further aggression.

The response from the Bush administration was, "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." One week later, Iraq attacked Kuwait. [It became the] instant "bogeyman"! As we watched the Soviet Union crumble in our rearview mirrors, we moved ahead to our next foe.

Did anyone ask any questions? Hell, no! And it was a "splendid little war"! Why didn't we get rid of Saddam? The rationale for not removing Saddam had nothing to do with being "smart enough" not to get mired in a quagmire. But [it had] everything to do with military spending. And [it was about] a "projection of our power."

With Saddam in power, Iraq could be used as the target of sanctions, no-fly zones, and weapons inspections.

We spent about a trillion dollars "containing Saddam" between the wars! Was it any wonder that we allowed the Shiites to be slaughtered after their uprising.

Now the cherry on the whip cream is bin Laden. His war against the U.S. was prompted in part by our support for corrupt Middle Eastern Leaders, setting up military bases in countries ruled by these leaders, and our treatment of the Iraqi people. All of which was brought about by "containing Saddam" and our love affair with Big Oil.

It is no secret that Bush and his cronies wanted to go after Iraq (and Syria and Iran). The events of 9/11 provided the spring board for the series of lies that formed the pretext for the War in Iraq.

The current "War on Terror" and its bastard stepchild in Iraq are now being used to "justify" the massive spending by the Military Industrial Complex. This will continue until we admit to ourselves and the rest of the World our true motivations and our incredible stupidity. Or [until] China pulls the plug on our debt, and forces us into receivership.

--Posted by olephart.

No comments: