BS: Courage of Your Convictions

Subject: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 02 - 11:04 AM

The Courage of Your Convictions (Wounded Warriors)
Berrien UU Fellowship
Veteran's Day, November 12, 2000
© 2000 Matthew S. Cockrum

I was twenty years old and a sophomore in college when Operation "Desert Shield" became "Desert Storm" and was officially declared a war. I can clearly remember hearing the news when someone came to play practice that night, telling us that it had been made official. Later that same evening, I sat on my couch in my dorm room, smoking a cigarette and staring out at the night sky…listening to the television in the background reporting as events unfolded. I was hearing about how units of the National Guard were going to be called into service. I was thinking about who I knew that would be going.

But most of all, there was one thought that was slamming repeatedly into my conscience -

"You should go, Matt."

Simple as that.

"You should go."

I was scared to death. What should I do? The year before I had toyed with the idea of joining the Marines but had backed out of a scheduled meeting with the recruiter. Was this my "second chance"?

All of my life I knew the military. My father had ascended to the rank of Major in the Air Force before being passed over and forced into retirement. He was in Vietnam when I was born, a pilot flying reconnaissance missions. Intercepting enemy messages and attempting to determine their whereabouts.

His father is an Air Force veteran of Korea and World War II. Two of his three siblings served in the Navy. My dad offered both my sister and me to use part of our college funds to buy us new cars if we joined the military immediately after high school and then went to college.

We both refused. My own decision based largely upon a distaste for the military that I perceived had spoiled my family, my father and, for that matter, the world. Me? In the military? Armed service? Never!

So why was I sitting there, two years later, feeling like I ought to go into the service? That duty called me to go fight in a foreign land for causes I did not understand?

Confused, concerned, and - frankly - a little bit cranky that I was being forced to consider these issues at all, I walked across campus the next day only to discover another surprise.

While I had been sitting in my room, pondering and puzzling, a group of students had organized a candlelight peace rally on the campus green. Their picture took up half of the front page of the school paper. And right smack dab in the middle of that picture was one of my closest friends. I don't remember exactly what the caption read but I imagine it said something about concerned students gathering to protest the newly declared war in the Middle East.

I can't remember ever having felt so proud
So ashamed
So enraged
And so confused all at once.

Here I was, worrying about having to go off to war. In the meantime, a friend of mine attended a peace rally and stood out in front of cameras to demonstrate that she didn't support what was going on.

It wasn't that I wished I had been at that rally. And it wasn't that I wished I could have been in the gulf already…although that might have been closer to the truth at that time. What the problem was, was that I didn't feel like I fully belonged in either place. I couldn't see myself at the rally, singing and chanting for peace. But I also couldn't fully see myself marching off to battle in a war I didn't believe in.

I felt caught
Stuck In-between
Without place

I imagine that's what Veteran's Day does for some folks in our churches. I imagine that my own sense of disorientation and, honestly, fear of judgement might be felt by other folks. It's not always easy - even within our churches which claim to affirm the use of conscience - to express an opinion that is perceived to be unpopular or not in line with the majority…or something that might run contrary to the views or experiences of another. Having stalwart pacifists and staunch military veterans in the same gathering of any type - UU or otherwise - is bound to create tension. Add in there the event of Veteran's Day and you're just asking for trouble.

So…what do we do?

Well, we could just ignore it. Maybe it would go away if we pretend it's not there. Some of us have tried that with Easter and Christmas and it doesn't seem to be working. Troublesome issues do not disappear when we avoid them. Determining their meanings in our lives and our times, however, is another thing entirely.

I think another solution is in order. I think we need to engage Veteran's Day. I believe that a critical examination and a careful honoring of Veteran's Day will benefit all involved in the long run.

Here's why:

First of all, Veteran's Day, in our time, and perhaps far into the future is and will be about military service. I believe that there is something honorable about that. That there is something worthwhile to be celebrated, named and explored. And that is the first part of my goal today.

Secondly, I believe that we can accept this as a challenge to look at our lives and the ways in which we struggle for the courage to be the heroes that our convictions call us to be.

There are tensions here, to be sure. But these differing viewpoints are not irreconcilable. As a matter of fact, they might be complementary. If we are patient, understanding and serious about listening to one another, I believe that it is within this tension that we can find the creative energy to be harnessed for transformation, healing and wholeness. This is a project worthy of the attention of religious community.

In pursuit of my first goal, the honoring of veterans as those with military experience, I think it is essential to look at what we think we know about someone when we hear that he or she is a veteran. As with any other general category of people, there are many stereo-types about veterans of the armed forces…some positive and some negative. Patriotic, strong, war-mongers, aged, courageous, brave, violent and authoritarian are just a few. I think that within our congregations, where a paradigm of pacifism seems to reign, the negative stereotypes are often those most immediately heard and sensed. If I were a veteran, I imagine that I wouldn't want to even acknowledge that part of myself when I entered the doors of my UU church. It would be like walking into a room and feeling like I had to hide the fact that I was gay, or a republican, or a Christian, or taking medication to treat mental illness. Being a veteran is not the complete and total defining attribute of a person. But it does certainly tell us some things about them.

What does it tell us? The title of veteran, by definition, tells us that someone has experience. In this context, we know that the convictions of these persons have led them to enter the military service of our country. Ideally, I think, this service is about protection, peace, justice and democracy…values expressly stated in our own UU principles and purposes.

At times, the title of veteran indicates that someone has served in the military service overseas and even in a time of armed conflict or war. What does this tell us?

I believe that this tells us that these persons felt so strongly that they were willing to risk their lives in the service of, not only their country, but their convictions and ideals. I believe that this is the prevalent motivator leading folks into the service of their country in the military. I believe that it is this ideal that we can claim, name and honour on Veteran's Day. We do the same for civil rights activists, peace activists, and other agents of social change. I believe it is honorable, admirable and worthy of praise.

Nonetheless, I do not fully understand it. I cannot completely embrace it. I have yet to replicate or embody it in my own life. But I know that it is buried within me somewhere and it surfaces at times like that night in my dorm room in 1991.

Neither, however, could I fully understand or embrace the actions of my passionate pacifist friend on that same evening. Granted, she was not directly in the line of fire that night at the candlelight vigil. She was not obviously putting her life in jeopardy. She was however, strengthened by courage to act on her convictions. And this is where the second part of my proposition comes into play.

How, in our own lives, are we veterans? How are we warriors in the battles of our lives? Am I the only one here who sometimes falls short of my ideals? I want so desperately to have the courage and strength to live out firey convictions. But I seldom feel as though I am coming through. I often don't even know where to start.

I think our readings today have something to say about this. And they bring me to not only an explanation of this question but also to the ground whereupon this discussion becomes religious.

First, let us look to the words of the writer of Ephesians. The recipients of this letter are encouraged to "put on the armor of God" in order to contend with wickedness and principalities of destruction. What is this armor? Truth. Righteousness. Faith. Salvation. Spirit. And…peace.

Ironically, we are told to don the garment of peace in order to do battle. Where does this peace reside? The author says, "…having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace." Hence, we are to walk in peace. Somehow, we are to make peace while being ready for battle. And our defenses are those of truth and faith, righteousness, salvation and spirit.

We are talking about struggle. The religious life is one of struggle. The language of struggle is often one of battle or warfare. Some who may be ardent advocates for peace would rally behind the "war" on drugs or the "war" on poverty and the "battle" for civil rights. Struggle exists. It is a struggle for peace. It is a religious issue. And in any struggle there are those engaged in the battle. There are those whose convictions, fed by courage, have led them to take action. I believe that Veteran's Day honors that.

Our second reading today calls us to take a step back and look at the wounds of war in another way, by bringing to our consciousness another wounded one… the veteran.

The words of poet, James Dickey, call our attention to how his experience impacts the way he plays the guitar and watches his children swim and climb. It's impact, like shattered glass, "small, but with world-fury". The jagged pieces have spread throughout his life…shimmering, glinting in moonlight when he least expects them…burning like poison… "coming over me year after year," he says, "I lie with it well under cover, the war of the millions"

Well under cover.

Is this the way we want those, both inside and out, of our congregations to feel about choices that they made, in the service of what they thought was right…what they may still think is right? Do we want them to feel the need to hide this aspect of themselves when they walk through the doors of our churches, societies and fellowships? Would we ask the same of someone who wanted the church to be a sanctuary for refugees? Or to perform gay and lesbian weddings? Or to sponsor a politically sensitive, anti-oppression training?

My answer is no.

And further, I think this can provide us with an opportunity to do exactly what it is that I believe religion and religious community is about…healing. We bring ourselves to this place each and every week to make sense of our lives…to struggle and search for meaning. We come, sometimes joyous and dancing and sometimes limping, barely able to squeak out "good morning". And what we bring…

…is ourselves…

We are all searching…together…for peace…healing …and wholeness...individually and collectively…at a local, national and global level. At least that's what my understanding of the religious quest is about. And asking someone to leave a part of their experience at the door is asking them to leave part of themselves outside of the quest for wholeness. It is an impossible task. It defeats the very purpose of our common religious quest.

I welcome you, veterans of life and of military service who have enough courage to bravely act for what they believe is right, even at great personal risk and harm. I admire you, I celebrate you, and I thank you. Not only for the changes you make in the world, but also for the encouragement you are to me…to do the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 10 Nov 02 - 06:50 PM

That is quite a remarkable, little essay. There is quite a lot to which one must give serious thought. Thank you for posting it.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 09:47 AM

You are very welcome. For me, it touches on the conflicted feelings many people have when they don't support a war, but can't quite figure out a way to pay the personal social costs of fighting against it, which is actually the opposite of what this person is describing. This sermon is told from the perspective of a lay person in a congregation where the "paradigm of pacifism" is perceived by him as being unwelcoming to veterans.

I find that to be a very common misperception among people trying to do peace work, who fear the wrath of some Vietnam Vets for not caring about them. I personally don't have that fear of being judged, but perhaps that is because I'm Catholic, and despite there being a very strong anti-war movement in the Catholic community--there were leaders like the Berrigans, and others who were at the forefront of the anti-war movement--the Catholic community as a whole (there are always exceptions) didn't seem to have a problem welcoming the vets back. But there were many Catholic vets who refused to return to the Catholic community in New York where I lived, when they got home, my dad among them. But many of them have either returned to the church now, or at least to what my dad calls "the secular Catholic community"! ;-) Glad someone took the time to read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: JedMarum
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 10:16 AM

But most people are better balanced then you, Guest. Most people do not suffer the conflict that you do, over matters of import such as these. Do not presume that the angst you feel is universal and typical of human nature - and therefore worthy of public debate. You are simply missing the intellectual tools and spiritual stability that others around you have.

You stand in the shadows and preach to us anonomously because you know that these shortcomings are real. You know that we will recognize your failings instantly and we will discount your comments immediatley - you are right. But you are wrong in assuming we will pay more attention to you when you remain anonomous.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: DougR
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 12:15 PM

Well said, Jed.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Kim C
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 12:59 PM

I believe that most people want peace. But I also know, because history has proven it, that sometimes war has to occur before peace can be won.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 04:19 PM

War never HAS to occur...prior to the first shot. Someone decides on that first shot. It's after that first shot that war becomes unavoidable for a whole lot of people.

That's why it's best to give a great deal of thought to deciding whether or not to fire the first shot.

Most wars of aggression have been arranged in order to convince the public of the aggressor that the "other guys" fired the first shot. Japan's war in China in the 30's was launched through such a ruse. So was Hitler's attack on Poland, which brought about the Second World War. So was America's large scale intervention in Vietnam and her war on Spain in 1898. Etc...etc...etc... All of these were trumped up ruses...or fortuitous circumstances (the battleship Maine most likely blew up in Havana harbour due to her own ammunition magazine exploding from unstable ammunition...NOT due to any action by the Spanish).

It's usually quite easy to convince a given public that the other guys shot first. A cinch, in fact. But it may not fool too many people in other nations...

When will the death of a few justify the further death of many? Ask yourself that before launching a war.

When is a negotiated surrender of the losing side preferable to unconditional surrender and total humiliation of them? Ask yourself that before dropping atomic bombs on people.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Kim C
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 04:31 PM

Negotiation is always the first, and best, option. But what do you do when that doesn't work?

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 04:52 PM

In 1944 negotiation would have worked with Japan. It was never tried. The Japanese tried, attempting to send messages through Stalin, but Stalin did not pass those messages on to the British and Americans. He had plans to attack Japan as soon as Germany was disposed of, so he could grab lands in Asia. Nevertheless, the American secret services were aware of the Japanese desire to negotiate, but they also chose to ignore pursuing anything BUT unconditional surrender (which was virtually unthinkable to the Japanese mentality at the time...national death seemed preferable to them).

Why did America insist on unconditional surrender? Was it sheer arrogance and hubris? Was it a habitual pattern ever since Ulysses S. Grant? Was it an assumption of complete moral superiority? Or was it a desire to use their atomic weapons under actual battlefield conditions while the opportunity to do so was still there...without any risk to the user? Or was it all of those?

Had the negotiated surrender occurred, the Japanese military would have been utterly ruined in the eyes of the Japanese public (as happened anyway), and Japan would undoubtedly have embarked on another period of civilian government...and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved.

But the unanswered question is: would the A-bomb have then been used somewhere else...such as in Korea? Quite possibly. So maybe we got off lucky...in a sense.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:58 AM

LH, the requirement for imposition of unconditional surrender on all of the Axis powers was agreed and set by the Allied heads of governments much earlier in the war. The option to negotiate individually did not exist and would not have been countenanced. Stalin's Russia did not declare war on Japan until the early part of 1945.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Davetnova
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 04:08 AM

It often seems to me that the only reason for war is to secure our leaders a place in history. I would think that most people can name the leadres their country had in times of war but who can name the leader whose term of office was marked by peace prosperity and absolutely no crisis at all. Our leaders need crisis and war to justify their extremely expensive existance. They are the ones who say WE must fight and I am the right person to send YOU to die so that others may remember ME.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST,Greg F.
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 08:23 AM

History, n.: An account, mostly false, of events, mostly
unimportant, brought about by rulers, mostly knaves,
and soldiers, mostly fools.
       Ambrose Bierce

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 08:47 AM

Well, now we have nukes to play brinkmanship with. So what happens when our nation decides, and it will, probably much sooner than any of us cares to think, to throw negotiations out the window, and just nuke the nation we don't like?

No, we need to study and commit ourselves to non-violent means of working out our disagreements, and of containing empires and despots. War isn't the answer now, and it won't be in the future. The costs to societies are much too high, and the payback doesn't justify it.

42 million people are uninsured in this country. Schools are overcrowded and underfunded, and fewer and fewer middle and low income families can afford to send kids to college each year. Affordable housing doesn't exist in most major metro areas where the urban poor are concentrated. Police and fire departments, the coast guard--all woefully underfunded.

There are so many social demands for government tax dollars that are going unmet, just to fund the bloated military industrial complex, which does very little to enhance the military security of our citizentry. As a nation, we won't be able to ignore those problems forever, if we wish to retain the standard and quality of life we have. There is no security for a citizenry besieged by the problems being ignored, because it just puts the problems in our neighborhoods, in our schools, on our streets.

We might be vulnerable to terrorist attacks in certain parts of the US, but that is inevitable in this day and age. What we aren't in danger of is invasion. The genuine security issues the nation faces have been put aside by fear mongerers, to further the economic and power interests of the securocrats.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 10:08 AM

The next time we have to defend ourselves against whoever, what means do people suggest we use, attack them with prose,anti war poems or demonstrate the life out of them.

George Harrison shouted Hari Krishna at the person who attacked him,it did not stop the attack nor awakened the love of God in his attactors heart and mind. Harrison had to fight back to protect his life and that of his family,was he wrong did he break some anti war or pacifist code? Was he a fool to fight?

When Hitler decided to go on his rampage,would there have been an alternative way to stop him? I see no politician who would have instigated the war just to forward his/her career, to suggest so is crass and arrogance. Arrogance in the fact that we have hind sight to sit,in times of relative peace, and point fingers at those who HAD to take decisions in the time of war. Crass that people think someone would really want that responsibility without using others means to avoid war.

Japan as we all know initiated war with America, would a couple of protester's sailing between the Japanese navy al a green peace mode, have stopped them attacking the American fleet at Midway? Can anyone come up with an alternative strategy to the one that was took.

How would Australia or Hawaian Islands have handled the invasion by Japan if they had mounted a successful one. Considering the barbaric treatment meted out to those over run by the Japanese army I'm sure these people would not have wasted time on protesters. And Hare krishna chanting would not have awakened the love of God in their hearts and minds.


"and soldiers, mostly fools", I'll agree with this, yes they were mostly fools for giving their all, for what,some ingrate to quote such tripe and believe it.

Who stands up to the aggressor? Who is willing to hare Krishna the attacker while they take lives? George Harrison tried it and it nearly got him killed, until he turned the aggressor himself.

I mean no offence to the followers of krishna and apologise if I have caused any.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Kim C
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 10:08 AM

LH, I don't know enough about WWII to comment.

All I know is, when I was a little kid and I acted up, I was told what the penalty would be if I didn't shape up. When I didn't shape up, I got the penalty.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 10:33 AM

Well said, GUEST, and you are absolutely correct in the cost of war on the Earth's society. It has become too small and dangerous for mankind to continue solving conflict with violence. If mankind is to survive, which is debatable, our leaders are going to have to show courage and become proactive in pro-human activities, rather than reactive which has solved little but created a high level of mistrust, vengence and insecurity.

America's Boss Hogs won't get it until the working class is so squeezed that it just can't take it any more. That is certain to happen. Everywhere we look we see his greed and we see just how little he cares about the working class. Like you say, GUEST, our schools are a skeleton of what they used to be and Boss Hog has a plan to gut them even further with a voucher system that benefits the wealthy, not the working class. In Social Security, the same plan. Gutting in favor of the wealthy. Health Care? Like you say, 42 million without any and those who do have insurance have no protections from Boss Hog's PPO's and HMO's deciding what *level* of care you're gonna get or just *drop your butt* fir having the audacity to get sick.

So, GUEST, the squeeze play is on. The working c,lass will figure it out sometime and when they do, things are gonna get real ugly, as national strikes become the tool of the little man and when Boss Hog uses the National Guard and Reserves to force Joe Six-Pack to work. Yeah, Boss Hog is very much like the pigs in "Animal Farm" and we know how that ended, don't we...

Greed is some purdy evil stuff...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 10:33 AM

I am not suggesting we shouldn't have the ability to defend ourselves from direct attack. Trying to compare the non-cooperation of a well isolated and contained despot with Hitler, is disingenuous. If Europe and the US had contained Hitler the way we have contain Iraq, Libya, and other despotic regimes, the Holocaust couldn't have happened.

Think about it. There is precious little beyond intelligence gathering that we can do to defend ourselves from terrorist attacks like 9/11. Except to clean up our act overseas, and support democracy outside the empire the same way we do within it, to defuse anti-American hatred building to the point it has today. The double standards we employ in our foreign policy has come home to haunt us, as is always the case when imperial nations overreach like we have.

The Jean Kirkpatrick foreign policy model (he is a despotic bastard, but he is OUR despotic bastard), which has been the modus operandi of US foreign policy for the better part of the past two centuries, has to change if we are to maintain our quality of life and standard of living. Such bold, successful attacks as the Oklahoma City bombing and 9/11 demand a new paradigm, not more business as usual from the securocrats.

C'mon people, do you really feel safer now than you did on 9/12/01?

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Davetnova
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 10:48 AM

Hitler was a politician and as far as I know didn't go on his rampage but sent the people he had convinced that he knew best. Likewise Japan did not invade America but the Japanese obeyed their leaders who told them to invade for their glory. In a war there are two sides both have leaders and both have common people who have to die to prove their leaders right. Saying that though I have no answer on how to counter an agressor. It would seem in this world that might is right, sad though that is.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 11:04 AM

How to contain an aggressor in the post-nuke era is the most important challenge we face right now. The main problem is, it is the nuclear powers themselves who are some of the worst aggressors.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, it was an act of aggression. Now, whether it was the international community's responsibility to deal with that militarily was open to debate, but the fact that Iraq was the aggressor wasn't.

Now however, we have a situation where Iraq is not an aggressor, and the US and Britain are trying to make an argument that their nations have a right, which supercedes the rights of the international community, to "pre-empt" Iraq before it becomes an aggressor nation again.

That is highly problematic. Again, people don't realize that the Bush administration has introduced (and it can be found at the White House website) this completely new foreign policy doctrine. The tactics the Bush administration intends to use are those which have previously been defined as illegal tactics by the international community. There are serious sovereignty issues at stake, at minimum. The defintions used in this supposed "national security doctrine" leaves unanswered many questions, such as what if the Saudis decide to throw the US out of their country--does the US have the right to invade because it needs Saudi oil for all of us to get to work?

These are most dangerous times.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 11:04 AM

Might can be right, but with a history strewn with destruction, it doesn't have a good batting average.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 11:22 AM

Amen to that Bobert. Also, I think we need to draw attention to the fact that this is the British and American empires acting as one. That too has serious policy implications for the rest of the world, especially the European Union, and in the Middle East, where Britain's imperial record is quite dismal.

There is so much more at stake here than just the securocrats' cry that America has the right to defend itself anyway it sees fit, because of the attacks on 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Kim C
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 11:36 AM

A lot of people thought George W was nothing but a country bumpkin, a farmer, who had no skills in either public speaking or the military. Most of the people around him didn't want to go to war. They believed it was nothing but folly. They were happy with the way things were.

George W and his clan went ahead anyway, and exercised a little might.

George Washington became the first president of a new country.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 11:41 AM

Know who said peace in our time? In defense of the 1938 Munich agreement Neville Chamberlain practically bent over backwards to appease Hitler, who broke his agreement anyway. How do you combat that? Everyone signed this and that document went home thinking everything was fine and dandy we know what happened.

Saddam is at the same thing, is he buying time to do another Hitler? Is it worth taking the chance?

To put you theory across that Germany could have been contained shows a lack of understanding of the situation. Germany had the military might to do what they wanted, while most countries were maintaining their armed forces Germany was increasing theirs.

Your holocaust theory is shear disingenuous ignorance, Hitler showed his animosity towards the Jews in 1933 when he proclaimed a one-day boycott against Jewish shops, his introducing of Nuremberg laws in Sept 1935, also shows that your off with that notion. Hitler had it in for the Jews and nothing was going to stop him based on diplomatic means. Compare that with Iraq and the plight of the Kurds, has the sanctions against Saddam helped them?

Be anti war most soldiers are, but don't peddle you wares on half truths and accuse others of scare mongering while you employ the same tactic.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 11:43 AM

And that country is now the mirror-image of the colonial empire we fought to overthrow to found it.

We ourselves have become nothing more than what Britain once was--a greedy, bloated, bloodthirsty empire.

That doesn't say much for us, IMO. Especially considering the potential we've squandered, because we could have been so very much more than that with our democratic traditions, our resources, and what essentially is, I believe, a deep desire to be generous and fair.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Kim C
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 11:45 AM

Mirror image..... so THAT's why we drive on the opposite side of the road!

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 11:50 AM

On the issue of using Hitler as a synonym for Hussein, Ireland, I disagree with both your conclusions, and your tactics.

I'll leave it at that, as I'm not interested in pursuing those sorts of arguments, as they aren't relevant to the fact that by this coming Saturday, that the president of the US may make a defacto declaration of the US and Britain being at war with Iraq.

Bullshit arguments about Hitler notwithstanding, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 12:01 PM

Guest who protects your democracy? Will you? The use of the word "we" were have you fought? Or are you riding on the back of others efforts,oh *we* fought well that day didn't *THEY*.

We ourselves have become nothing more than what Britain once was--a greedy, bloated, bloodthirsty empire.

Are you turning down any advantages that has come about from the above,some how I don't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 12:11 PM

PLease, please GUEST or GUESTS - this is a serious issue, a serious discussion. But it gets confusing with all these posts by what may be the same person or several people, so noone can tell without doing textual analysis whether one point lead son to another. And it invites comments like that of Jed Marum up the thread, focussing on this anonymity issue. And this post here for that matter,

So wouldn't it be simple, maybe just until this war is out of the way, to give up on the anonynmous posting?

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 12:11 PM

I see guest you cannot defend your bs so you cry off,why start it in the first place? At least you have realised you cannot defend your postings, just a step closer to realising your wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: NicoleC
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 12:20 PM

I always find it ironic that those who seek justification for war always accuse those who support peace of being the ones who have disregard for the lives of American soldiers.

Who protects democracy? Every person who votes. Every person who speaks their mind (even if it's unpopular) and every person who supports the right of others to do so. Every person who questions government, questions officials and every person who finds good reason to support government.

Protecting democracy is not solely the job of soldiers, it's the job of citizens, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Amos
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 12:20 PM

In answer to your upthread question, O Nameless One, I have to answer "Yes". I do feel safer than I did on September 12, last year. The state of the organization that launched those attacks has been significantly depressed, and an international standard has been promulgated such that those who once felt secure launching such surprise attacks are at least on notice that the penalties will arrive, sooner or later, and they will be most painful.

Is this good? Well, no, not in any ideal sense. But it is real. Are we as secure in fact as we thought we were before those attacks? Not really, but weren't then, either. The sense of security which we felt back then may have been simple ingenuousness.

As for the scariness of our times, I don't think so. I see no benefit in promoting generalized "Dangerous environmental threats" point of view, without specifics, especially from an anonymous perch. I believe it promotes an atmosphere of ineffective timidity and does no service to anyone.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 12:29 PM

Of course the other thing they said about George Washington was that he was a traitor and a terrorist. Which in a sense was true enough, but wasn't quite the whole story.

Historical analogies can set you thinking, but they can never settle an argument, because history doesn't repeat itself. It's really no more helpful drawing up lists of ways in which Saddam's regime and situation has similarities with Hitler than it does to do the same for Bush, with his "my patience is exhausted" speeches and all.

I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that in the present circumstances Iraq poses any kind of threat to the United States or to Europe, or indeed to his immediate neighbours. I'm glad that inspection teams are likely to go into Iraq with a view to eliminating any Weapons of Mass Destruction; and the sooner similar teams with a similar mandate go into a lot of other countries, including the one I live in, the better.

And I dearly wish that people in power could focus their attention on the real threats, famine top priority, terrorism next, and could work imaginatively and energetically to avert disaster and to eliminate the things that are pushing us in that direction.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST,jhop
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 12:30 PM

If you want to see how someone summoned the courage to act on his convictions, and helped bring a war to an end, get yourself a copy of Daniel Ellsberg's memoir, "Secrets," which came out just this fall. There's a whole lot there about how we got into Vietnam on false pretenses, and how the public and Congress were deceived by four or five presidents in a row to keep the war going.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 12:55 PM

Of course it is the civy that has went to Afghanistan to get shot at,but in your context your right.

People have to question their government,that's part of the system,using half truths to defend their opinions is wrong especially when they accuse others of the same tactic.

When people attack certain actions rather ambiguously,not many point out they are against the premise of that action not those who are charged with carrying it out, i.e. following orders and that's disengenuous. The assertion that leaders are war mongers, bearing in mind the military commanders are soldiers also,it not hard to see why people see it as an attack on the vets.

No one is more anti war than veterans, because they have experienced the consequences of war. If we have to go to war the decision is not taken as lightly as others are putting across. So attacking the decision makers is also attacking the people who carry out their orders.

As an ex soldier I would go through hell and back to prevent my sons from going to war, but the fact is, I felt I contributed to my country and as much as it would hurt I could not deny my sons the same.

Sept.11 showed the world the threat of complacency, many in America thought that distance made them safe, how grateful were people to have the state troops and the USAF who represented some security. What do the leaders do stand and weight for the next strike?

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 01:16 PM

Ireland, you make a lot of sweeping, damning allegations which are poorly organized and thought out, so it makes it difficult to discuss anything with you. You seem to be in constant attack mode too, which also makes it difficult to discuss things rationally.

McGrath, I think you nailed it dead on. The democratic nations of the world have a duty and responsibility both to their own citizenry and the international community of which we are all citizens as well, to do all in their powers (which we all know is a considerable amount more than is currently being done) to prevent violence and warfare from breaking out, and addressing the root causes of terrorism.

Zimbabwe is just one other current example of the need to stop propping up "our bastards" who, once we withdraw our resources and attention from them, turn on us. Somebody should certainly get that message to the Bush administration's armchair generals straight away.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Kim C
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 01:24 PM

You're right, McGrath, and I think the problem is that we're not getting the whole story. Or we're getting it in so many different pieces that it's impossible to put together.

Well, I just don't know. I have a lot of mixed feelings about the whole thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: NicoleC
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 01:27 PM

Ireland, I have NEVER met a peace activist that viewed soldiers with contempt for following orders. On the other hand, I have met numerous war-mongers who insist that we do, and, sadly, many soldier and veterans that believe them.

If veterans were the only ones who made decisions about wars, there'd be a lot fewer wars.

No one hear abouts the views of the peace activists until there's a war, and precious little then. So it's easy to assume that no one was worried about the possibility of a terrorist attack on US soil. We were, and we were talking. No one was listening. The intelligence community was worried, too, but few were listening to them. My first numbed thought when I turned on the TV the morning of 9/11 was, "Oh, they finally did it."

But in regard to the attack on Iraq, there's been no evidence presented that Iraq was involved with any kind of terrorist attack on the US or our allies. Nor would he want to. The fundamentalists and Saddam's secular government would like nothing more than to take each other out. Using 9/11 as a justification for and attack on a Iraq is simply a PR ploy designed to play on the emotions of the public to drum up support for a war that is essentially unjustified.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 01:28 PM

teribus - Yes, you're quite right that the Allies had agreed much earlier in the war to fight until achieving unconditional surrender of Germany, Italy, and Japan. I'm suggesting that that was a bad decision...and one that should have been reconsidered AS SOON as any Axis power showed a genuine inclination toward a negotiated settlement. Stalin would never have agreed to negotiate with the Germans...but Stalin was not even AT war with Japan until the last couple of days of the war, so that would not have been a problem in that case.

The only one of the 3 Axis powers that was totally disinclined toward a negotiated end was Nazi Germany...specifically because of Hitler, who was a madman and was in total control of the country. That is why a lot of German officers conspired on various occasions to assassinate him...but unfortunately they did not succeed!

I think it is extremely wrong-headed and unnecessary for anyone involved in a war to insist on unconditional surrender of their enemy. It simply pushes the thing to the utter limit of destruction and human suffering. Negotiated surrenders with conditions are almost always possible, given a little common sense on both sides.

Some exceptions to the common sense rule: Hitler in the Berlin bunker, and the Jewish zealouts who were slaughtered by the Romans in Jerusalem and committed suicide at Masada (mind you, the Romans might well have slaughtered them anyway...but their absolute refusal to compromise with Rome on anything was the main reason for that circumstance...they were the only subject people the Romans ever were unable to reach a mutual arrangement with as far as I know).

It takes a willingness on both sides to admit that the other guy is human. Then negotiations can always find a solution to a bad situation without stretching it out to the final catastrophe.

Ireland - When people suggest that a certain course of military action is not advisable in a given situation, why do you respond by acting as though that means they are incapable of defending themselves in ALL situations? Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Why must it be all one way or all the other? While I may well object to the unnecessary or excessive use of force in any particular situation, I have never suggested that anyone not defend himself if attacked. I'm basically non-violent by nature (which means...I don't ATTACK people), but don't let that fool you into thinking that I am helpless if attacked. :-) No sir! And neither would a country be helpless if I were commanding it, I can assure you.

George Harrison reacted in the way that was natural to him, and then fought because he HAD to fight. That doesn't prove anything one way or another about people who are for or against a given war...or plans for a given war.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 01:38 PM

Amos, we have not punished or brought to justice, those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. We did invade and topple the despotic government of another nation which was giving refuge to terrorists, but it has never been proven beyond doubt that the terrorist cells operating in Afghanistan were in fact connected to the terrorist cells which carried out the attacks.

The reason why we haven't been able to bring those responsible for the 9/11 attacks to justice, is our poor intelligence capabilities in this regard, and our insistence on propping up illegitimate leaders like the Saudis, while the terrorist cells continue to breed under the noses of those leaders (nay--from their own families!).

Or our foreign policy vis a vis Israel and the Palestinian territories--the double standard we uphold there, which essentially manifests a cruel double standard for the world to see--we value the lives of Israelis more than we do Palestinians, because we control the government of Israel through our foreign policy military appropriations, which has armed them to the teeth, and looked the other way when they commit war crimes and gross human rights violations. Sharon/Netanyahu--again "our bastards", so we justify continuing to fan the flames of violence in the region, rather than diffuse them.

I don't feel we have been made safer in this country from attacks from within, like the Oklahoma City bombing, or from without, as with 9/11. Or from things like the anthrax attacks upon the US government and it's citizens, which was a circumstance where it has never proved whether it was an attack from within the US or from outside it. I don't feel more safe, in fact, I feel less safe, because I know that the results of the new Bush foreign policy doctrine is only fueling anti-American hatred on the ground, around the world. That is going to come right back at us, which is exactly what happened on 9/11.

Sorry to bow out of the conversation here folks, but I've got to get to work. It's a great thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 02:59 PM

My involvement in this thread is simply due to it being raised over the Remembrance period, I usually do nothing but reflect on my lost friends over this time. Although my friends lost their lives in July and August,but in the spirit of remembrance I think of them on Remembrance Sunday as a part of the group of people who lost their lives in world conflicts.

We have all year to have such sentiments that guest has raised, it was imo wrong to have these views raised at present. The should I shouldn't I quandary that was posted was done so to get a reaction, which plays on the emotions of the veterans.

That is why we get vets who are peace activists take offense at such posts as it undermines the service they and their friends gave to their country. Guest is wanting to have his/her views respected but is unwilling to do the same for others.

Why on one of the most important times to vets raise such issues,why not let them have their day and show some respect to them for what they went through,I'll not apologise for asking for this,they deserve it.

I'm not attacking any peace activist Nicolec, the way I feel about it is simple,no matter how well meaning people are,the anti war bumph has no place on vets day because to me no matter if people mean it or not I see it as an attack of those I remember and a slight on what they stood for. Vets of all people do not need to be told of the consequences of war and how bad it is,they have not the luxury of reading about it or going to films they went through it. I know people like guest know that this is a highly sensitive time for vets but they still post such threads.

Think of it this way how many vets protested the V.Nam war and how many remember their friends on Veterans day,probably all of them that's not saying they agree with war does it.But they will not tolerate condemnation or the idea of it of their fallen friends,it's part of protecting their memory and what they went through. Well thats the way it is for me, plain and simple hands off.

Living in a world of be nice and get along is wishful thinking which I am guilty of,fact is no matter where we go there is always going to be someone who wants that little bit more gets it and then wants it all. How do we cope with that hopefully with peaceful means,but sure thats wishful thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:09 PM

And neither would a country be helpless if I were commanding it, I can assure you.

How would you do that LH,what experience would you use whose expertise would you call on? If you had intel of a forgein country wanting to attack yours, would you stike first?

I'm not being aggressive or offensive just trying to cut down on the typing.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:13 PM

Ireland, you are trying to stoke flames, nothing more. Veteran's Day is over, I withdrew from the conversation, and so have the others. Which begs the question, why is a supposed Irish peace activist trying to provoke a flame war about the US Veteran's Day?

Give it a rest, like everyone else. This thread has drifted onto another subject entirely, which is fine by me.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:17 PM

Thought you went to work!

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:20 PM

LH-Ireland is obviously a true believer in the Bush doctrine of supposed offensive "pre-emptive attacks" being justifiable. They are not according to international law, international precedent, and international consensus in the UN.

Until you ask him if it applies to the Irish Republican Army using such a justification for attacks against the British occupying forces, that is. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:23 PM

This one is for you Amos, from MSNBC:

Not Even the FBI Can Protect Us
Updated Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 7:21 AM PT

Lawmakers and experts doubt that the FBI can prevent the terrorist attacks that the invasion of Iraq might trigger, the Washington Post reports. The C.I.A. believes that Saddam Hussein will help terrorists attack the U.S. as his last chance for revenge. Iraq is meanwhile ordering vast supplies of an antidote against nerve gas from Turkey, probably to protect Iraqi soldiers during gas attacks on U.S. troops.

The FBI hasn't penetrated domestic terror networks that might carry out attacks in retaliation for a U.S. invasion of Iraq and hasn't made much progress in identifying Iraqi agents and émigrés loyal to Saddam. Testifying to Congress in October, FBI Director Robert Mueller conceded as much, saying, "I would be uncomfortable in saying that you should relax and say, 'The FBI or the CIA is taking care of that issue.' "

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:26 PM

Guest ask me your self.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: NicoleC
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:27 PM

I see what you are saying, but I honestly disagree. To say that "anti-war bumph [bunk?]" has no place on Veterans' Day (as we call it here; it's for all veterans, not just the dead ones), is, to me, to say that we wish to glorify war, instead of recognizing the service of veterans for what it is -- a sacrifice. Not a lark; not glory. But a sacrifice.

I see nothing contradictory in saying that the service of veterans deserves respect, while trying to promote peace so that we end up having a whole lot fewer of them around. What better day?

If veterans perceive it as attack to say that you wish to prevent more people from dying in war, or suffering the mental and physical damage that many vets have, well, I don't know what to say to that. Perhaps they need to consider who their allies really are.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:29 PM

"I would be uncomfortable in saying that you should relax and say, 'The FBI or the CIA is taking care of that issue.' "

Apart from sniping at the FBI and CIA Guest what exactly are you doing? At least they are trying.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:46 PM

Ireland:

I mean absolutely no disrespect to you but there is no attack on vets occuring on this thread. I spoke of my own losses and my intent to relect upon their lives on another thread this pat Sunday night. In a manner, those of us who have suffered thru the horendous wars of the last 60 years are all *vets*. We have all lost frineds, some, myself included, have lost family members and we have all seen the mindlessness of the fruits of bad foriegn policies.

This isn't about vets verses folks working for peace. Not at all. We are brothers and sisters united in a single vision.

The drum beaters would have us at each others throats but there is no "each others" unless we buy into that PR ploy of dividing and conquering. You are my brother and I am yours. And as my brother, I love you.

Now, lets get back to the unfotunate task at hand of stripping away the PR campaign that has been waged against *us* by the drum beaters and try to figure out a way to let the drum beaters know that *we* expect them to set their drums down and consider breaking a cycle of failed human behavior and repalce it with a pro-human, pro-Earth policies that foster trust, communication, sharing and caring.

Too much to ask? How can peace loving people ask for anything less?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: DougR
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 04:02 PM

I don't think that the Mudcat has yet reached the point where an unidentified "Guest" can dictate what a MEMBER says in any thread. IMO, you only believe that Ireland is flaming, because you do not agree with his point of view.

Bobert: "If mankind is to survive, which is debatable, our leaders are going to have to show courage and become proactive in pro-human activities, rather than reactive which has solved little but created a high level of distrust, vengence and insecurity." You didn't put that statement in quotes, so I assume it is yours. Are you concerned because President Bush is not acting pro-active rather than reactive? He IS being pro-active for the citizens of the United States who want to continue to live in the same world they lived in prior to 9/11.

You counter your own argument against war at any time, when you say in a later post, "Might can be right ...etc., etc. Where you coming from my friend?

Davetnova: "Japan did not invade America."?? Would you agree that Japan attacked America?

Kim: your statement about not knowing much about WWII. I think that is sad, but I don't think it is your fault. The schools in America have become so traumatized by the politically correct community they are afraid to report history as it happend, for fear of offending our enemies in WWII.

Guest: (I know not who of course) "We ourselves have become what Britain once was--a greedy, bloated, bloodthirsty empire." What a bunch of horse shit. How many countries have we over run and made our own in the past hundered years? I wish you would take your trolling to another forum. You're having too much fun in this one, though, I guess. Someday we will learn not to feed you (hopefully).

Do I feel safer? Yes, I do. Because we are more aware of the dangers that could befall us. I think we are one hundred percent more alert to those possible dangers than we were prior to 9/11.

McGrath: "And I dearly wish that people in power could focus their attention on the real threats ..." They are McGrath, they are. Their "threats" just don't happen to coincide with yours that's all.

Guestjhop: Anyone who is not familiar with Daniel Ellsburg and his treasonous acts should not be in discussions such as this, IMO.

Nicole: For a comprehensive discussion on the subject of why we probably will, and should, invade Iraq, I refer you to this morning's Diane Rheme show on NPR. The first hour. I'll check out a website for you if you like and refer you to it. Diane's guest was the Editor in Chief of a British publication who has studied the Iraq situation over the past several years and has just authored a new book on Saddam and the Iraqi situation. Sorry I don't remember the name of the publication. It was an excellent discussion I thought.

DougR