Ethics of War and Peace
As a former refugee of the First Gulf war and a Veteran I must say “There is no victor in War”. The calamity and suffering that War brings to both sides is far greater in magnitude than its merits. With the ongoing Global War on terrorism and an enemy not clearly defined there have been many ethical dilemmas. For example just defining enemy as combatant or non- combatant has become difficult for the United States. The suicide bombing of the terrorists in a religion where suicide is forbidden is also a topic of debate. These are people who claim to be followers of a peaceful faith and have no respect any human life form. Often times it is heard these terrorists have no ethics or any rules of Engagement like we do, so it is fair game for us to not abide by them either? I tried to do some research based on the assumption that these so called terrorists are Muslims. I have come across numerous instances were there are very well defined rules of engagement in Islam.
Islam’s first Caliph Abu Bakr and the most revered Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said to the war going soldiers, “Neither commit treachery, nor steal from the war booty, nor commit betrayal, nor mutilate(dead bodies), nor kill a young child, or an elderly person, or a woman, nor cut down or burn date-trees, nor cut down a fruit-bearing tree, nor kill a sheep, or a cow, or a camel, except if you need to eat its meat. You will pass by some people, monks, who have secluded themselves in places of worship, so let them do what they dedicated their time for.”[1] This clearly explains the discouragement of indiscriminate killing in Islam. There are numerous strict injunctions against suicide in Islam and they talk about facing hellfire for eternity for a person who commits suicide even in the name of religion.
So, what bounds United States of America as a nation at War where there is separation of Church and State? Again the army field manual and Geneva conventions have certain ethical guidelines to follow in combat. Is it ok for us as a nation of high morals and principals to engage in torture? I will leave that up to you to make that judgment with some stipulations of Article 3 of Geneva Conventions of 1949. Article three states that “(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
I personally feel we should refrain from unethical behavior as we are a world leader and need to lead from the front. Also we want our own captured to be treated in the same humane manner as we treat the people we captured.
[1] Hadith of Prophetic traditions by Imam Malik Ibn Abbas(858)
As a former refugee of the First Gulf war and a Veteran I must say “There is no victor in War”. The calamity and suffering that War brings to both sides is far greater in magnitude than its merits. With the ongoing Global War on terrorism and an enemy not clearly defined there have been many ethical dilemmas. For example just defining enemy as combatant or non- combatant has become difficult for the United States. The suicide bombing of the terrorists in a religion where suicide is forbidden is also a topic of debate. These are people who claim to be followers of a peaceful faith and have no respect any human life form. Often times it is heard these terrorists have no ethics or any rules of Engagement like we do, so it is fair game for us to not abide by them either? I tried to do some research based on the assumption that these so called terrorists are Muslims. I have come across numerous instances were there are very well defined rules of engagement in Islam.
Islam’s first Caliph Abu Bakr and the most revered Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said to the war going soldiers, “Neither commit treachery, nor steal from the war booty, nor commit betrayal, nor mutilate(dead bodies), nor kill a young child, or an elderly person, or a woman, nor cut down or burn date-trees, nor cut down a fruit-bearing tree, nor kill a sheep, or a cow, or a camel, except if you need to eat its meat. You will pass by some people, monks, who have secluded themselves in places of worship, so let them do what they dedicated their time for.”[1] This clearly explains the discouragement of indiscriminate killing in Islam. There are numerous strict injunctions against suicide in Islam and they talk about facing hellfire for eternity for a person who commits suicide even in the name of religion.
So, what bounds United States of America as a nation at War where there is separation of Church and State? Again the army field manual and Geneva conventions have certain ethical guidelines to follow in combat. Is it ok for us as a nation of high morals and principals to engage in torture? I will leave that up to you to make that judgment with some stipulations of Article 3 of Geneva Conventions of 1949. Article three states that “(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
I personally feel we should refrain from unethical behavior as we are a world leader and need to lead from the front. Also we want our own captured to be treated in the same humane manner as we treat the people we captured.
[1] Hadith of Prophetic traditions by Imam Malik Ibn Abbas(858)
Posts
The nature of war is ingrained so deeply into our sub-conscious it is very difficult to find the solutions. Whether we search our Holy Books or delve into our histories of philosophy and social anthropology.
ReplyDeleteI consider myself a pacifist of sorts. However if you attack my family I assure you I will not stand idle. I will rip your beating heart from your chest and stomp on it most assuredly. Ouch. It even hurts to say that. Now you may say that is not war but it is most certainly evidence of the reality of war in our homes, neighborhoods and then onto the global scale.
Is self-defense a proper defense for battle? Tell me grasshopper?
I have friends who fly and train others to fly the Predator and the Reaper. They are good soldiers. They are in it for life. They do as commanded. I pray for them.
One day a group of us got a great show and tell. We were treated to a day at work. As the computer screen lit up we were in the pilot’s viewpoint, a video of a real time exercise of that day’s work. (These are non-manned planes for clarification.)
We were flying at 20,000 feet seeking the day’s practice target. Everything was crystal clear. We watched the screen tell us the target was sighted, we saw said target. We watched as we were informed the missile was armed and then watched as it launched. We were in the driver’s seat of the missile as in honed in on the target. We watched the target grow larger and larger in our view, until suddenly the explosion filled the screen. Then we back in the plane viewing the crater left from the days training exercise.
The discussion that followed was most interesting. The major line of thought went along the lines of how “Human” we have become with the precision of our modern weaponry. It is evident from watching a real time exercise like this that there with be fall out among those close to the target. Civilians will suffer and die. What is human about all of this?
Robert your discription of the modern art of warfare is magnificent.Its precision of genuine target is questionalble though.It still does not justify killing of innocent civilians using predator drones.
ReplyDeleteInteresting, in your post you mentioned about the furious vengeance you would unleash if provoked. Should we be blatantly ignore the fact that on the other side of the fence there may be human beings who have same emotions like we do. If you get pounded by thousands of pounds of bombs and you loose your family member, there really is not much you can do, than attack the symbols of your presumed enemy which is not justified in itself.
I appreciate this post, Chaplain. Thank you for providing me information about what I thought to be true and hold as true, but had not taken time to research.
ReplyDeleteBob's right about this being deeply engrained in our psyche. I think that's why this requires us delving deeply into our beliefs and understanding about self and others. What will it take for parties to remember that as Chaplain said, "there may be human beings who have the same emotions like we do" when those parties perceive threat and the need for defense? I can't begin to imagine being a person having to make those decisions, especially if the person really does think about the human beings on the other side who present no threat.
Just like you, Bob, I know our military has many a great person serving. Being in special forces, my nephew has face some of the most challenging of ethical situations. During his many years in the field, he could not share what he really did. Only recently have we learned of settings and actions that would send chills down one's spine--none of which include torture of the other party. Asked how he coped, he stated, "my first job has always been to bring my group home safely." Fortunately as a leader, he had significant success in that arena. He's a man of deep, deep integrity who does not take the loss of ANY life lightly. He strongly believes in people getting their basic needs met and has challenges with any party who prevents this from happening. He has learned to build relationships with people behind "enemy lines" and in very remote parts of the world who want to build up their communities and not use their people/citizens as weapons or human sheilds. He's knows local customs and the languages for the regions and has trained many a leader who want justice and peace for their local communities in community building as well as self defense and military strategy.
However it comes to be that we end up in conflict/war, I hope that we have people like the persons Bob described and my nephew involved at the highest levels. People who do see all the pieces, nuances, and have a deep commitment to human life. They exist . . . we often forget they do when we learn of atrocities of war that occur under the auspices of the USA.
It seems that religion has not been able to destroy our disposition to kill, but at times has enhanced it! Perhaps Karl Barth was right when he said that in all religions, “The divine reality offered and manifested to us in revelation is replaced by a concept of God arbitrarily and willfully evolved by man.” And yet faiths have sometimes been a force for peace, and certainly some faith-driven individuals (Gandhi, MLK) have shown us a different way. I wish I knew the answer. We have bad qualities that lead us to violence (selfishness, envy, hatred) but sometimes our good qualities lead us there too (protecting our loved ones, stopping the killing of innocents). Sometimes I think I’m not surprised that we have wars, but that we don’t have more of them. I guess it’s safe to predict that people of peace and goodwill, whatever their faith persuasion or lack of it, will always have plenty of work to do in this area.
ReplyDeleteYou make a very good point Chaplin . I believe that a major contribution to war is people who don't accept on another's religious beliefs.No other force in our collective history is as influential in shaping our world as religion has been. It is a force that continues to define and redefine the world as we know it. Nations and countries have been established and destroyed all in the name of religion. Political lines are being redrawn even as we speak with religion as the main weapon of choice. No other force can affect people and compel them to action as much as religion does. It keeps followers together even while it keeps people of different faith out. It is source of cohesion and conflict at the same time. People who would not normally use force on another will gladly fight in the name of faith. A call to arms in the name of religion is the best way to assemble an army, fueled with righteous anger against the perceived enemy.
ReplyDeleteGreat piece, Chaplain! Thank you especially for the sharing from the Hadith--most interesting. So much to say; where to begin? For now I will say that a scene from the great movie Mi Familia comes to mind. In the scene, the mother of the family, who had survived injustice and trauma herself, explained something to her sons and daughter, who were contemplating action which she felt was sacrilegious. She explained that there are some institutions and values that are so sacred that, if we violate them, it really doesn't matter if we live or die. I've never forgotten that. Will have other comments later. Thanks, Chaplain!
ReplyDeleteDebbie--Thanks for reminding me of Mi Familia. I have viewed that movie several times and used it in training. Powerful!
ReplyDeleteChaplain, I do think that we have an ethical responsibility to abide by the Geneva Convention. I don't think we should alter our war tactics and our belief based on or enemy, I think all enemies should be held to the same standards, whether it is twelve people or twelve million people. The fact that we are fighting a war unlike any war we have ever fought before, where we don't know exactly who or where our enemy or where they draw their support from is rather scary. However, I feel if we give up our morals as a nation it will be the undoing of our nation. It will tear our country apart from the inside out. We will have those that believe in abandoning the Geneva Convention and those that believe we should always abide by it. Instead of being members of the same team fighting for the same things, we will be a nation divided. The best thing I think we can do, whether individually or as a nation, is stick to the Golden Rule. While that may seem childish and naive, I can't think of a better solution. I do feel war is necessary. I think it's terrible and should be avoided at all costs, but still necessary. I think we should treat our enemies, no matter who they are as we would like our soldiers to be treated if they were POWs.
ReplyDeleteIf “war is necessary” (as Heather pointed out), and if our whole point of entering wars like the second Iraq War is "to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture” (as George W. Bush said in his second inaugural address), then we should advance these wars with democratic principles in mind. It’s pretty clear that torture, etc. is illegal in the United States (as well as invading privately-owned land). If our purpose in invading Iraq was to rid the world of a terrible tyrant (which isn’t what we were told it was for – remember WMDs?), then we should conduct our business in that country with very different purposes from that of Saddam Hussein. In this, I agree whole-heartedly with Chaplain when he writes, “I personally feel we should refrain from unethical behavior as we are a world leader and need to lead from the front.” I can’t help but think how disgusted Thomas Jefferson and John Adams would be over how the U.S. has conducted this “War on Terrorism.”
ReplyDelete"“There is no victor in War”. The calamity and suffering that War brings to both sides is far greater in magnitude than its merits."
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as a child of a soldier, and a disciple of Jesus and the nonviolent teachings of Martin Luther King, Jr., Mohandas Gandhi and many others, I second these words.
Chaplain thank you so much for a interesting and stimulating post. I have always struggled with how to approach the issue of war not only as a human being but as a Christian who firmly supports peace.
ReplyDeleteHeather said, “The fact that we are fighting a war unlike any war we have ever fought before, where we don’t know exactly who or where our enemy or where they draw their support from is rather scary.” I have to agree with Heather’s statement. But it made me start thinking if we are fighting a war where we don’t know WHO our enemy is, then WHO exactly are we fighting? I agree that war causes irreparable damage to so many and going into a war with a blindfold on does not help prevent this damage. I also agree with Steven’s point that the United States has an obligation to act democratically and refrain from unethical behavior.
I can’t help but question whether the “war is necessary” principle is really true. I am not claiming to have the answer to any of this at all, rather simply wondering while typing. I know that personally I am eternally grateful to all those who have protected my freedom and safety over the years. Without those heroes I might not be here. As a daughter of an Air Force Vietnam vet I understand the damage can cause not only to the veterans themselves but to families. I continue to wonder though If God has blessed us with the ability to speak, love, feel and some many other actions, why must we always resort to violence and murders in order to ENFORCE our viewpoints upon others. Are our viewpoints of how governments, religions, life should be run really the best? Do we really consider our selves and our country that much better? Or are some cultures and governments better off without democracy? The part I struggle with is that as a Christian I do not feel that I can stand idly by when there are blatant signs of genocide and human suffering.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteChaplain, this is an important post; I’m particularly touched by your own story – a refugee and a veteran. It places you in a unique sort of “in-between” state when discussing the ethics of war. I, too, stand “in-between” in a very different way. I am a veteran of the US Air Force and the Air National Guard; yet as I stated in our Arizona class, a part of me wishes to be able to state emphatically, “I am a pacifist.”
ReplyDeleteMy generation was the first to grow up with television in our lives completely. Some of my first memories are television related. “Leave it to Beaver,” “The Mickey Mouse Club,” “Captain Kangaroo” and “Romper Room” were some of my earliest windows on a black and white world. As I grew older, the television window shifted into color and laughter, with “The Carol Burnett Show,” “Laugh-In” and of course “The Partridge Family” and “The Brady Bunch.” However, this light television fare was not what entered the depth of my psyche. As the first generation to have television on a daily basis, we are also the first generation to have war piped right into our living rooms. There were graphic, uncut and ugly visions of Vietnam. If your parents watched the news in your presence, the war was inescapable. The turmoil of anti-war protests, civil rights riots, assassination, the My Lai massacre – all was reported in depth. These visions of war permeated our lives. Nearly every day for the first 17 years of my life, war was in my living room.
As a teen, I argued for the validity of the conscientious objector’s stance. Although too young (or too naïve) to really understand what Vietnam was about, I felt it was a wrong place to be. As a senior in high school, I lived in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. We lived near the Amish, Mennonite and other pacifist communities. In a class on local history, we had a guest speaker who discussed his reasons for leaving the Amish community in which he grew up. This man had declared that in a situation where a family member was threatened (i.e., a child), he would not be able to behave peacefully; rather, if his daughter was raped, he would want revenge. Because of his stance, he had been shunned by the Amish community for many years. His argument posted a position that complicated my simple concept of peace at all costs. Since that time, I have struggled with my stance. What would I do in a situation like this? Did I really know? Do I know, even now?
The only thing I do know is that in war, no matter the type of war or the reason for war, there are innocent victims. As a child of the 60’s and 70’s, I knew some of them very well. During the Vietnam war, when a soldier was killed or missing in action, family members received bracelets that had their loved one’s name and the date they were killed or declared missing. I don’t know who provided the bracelets; I do know that they were a poignant reminder of the one lost. I wrote the following poem in the early 1980’s, thinking of a friend from elementary school. It was first published in the Holyoke Transcript-Telegram newspaper in Massachusetts in the mid-80’s. In 1987, Harry Perry, a man who roller skated along the Venice Beach boardwalk entertaining people by playing guitar and singing, asked my permission to use the words in a song. I gave that permission. I share it now because I still have nothing more intelligent to say regarding the problem of war.
Silver Bracelets
I’m too young to remember
Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix;
Too young to remember
Demonstrations in the park
In Vietnam there must be people
Who are too young to remember
Too young to remember
Watching soldiers disembark
I’m too young to remember
Riots in the cities
But I remember silver bracelets
On the arms of my best friends –
Bracelets worn in sorrow
On the wrists of little sisters
Who used to tell me softly:
It’s a brother’s love that never ends
I’m too young to remember
Jesus people, flower children;
Too young to remember
Soldiers crying through the years
But what I can remember
From the war that wasn’t war
Are bracelets for brothers missing
And a best friend’s bitter tears
© Suzanne B. Jacobson
Wow! This post has invoked a lot of great comments full of a lot of information as well as emotion. No doubt the topic of war and peace is one that touches the hearts of many. Like Suzanne, I too can appreciate your special status, Chaplain, as a former refugee and a Vet. It certainly provides you with an insightful perspective on the subject.
ReplyDeleteAs a child of the 60s and 70s, I too was one of those who grew up watching the Vietnam War on TV. I remember night after night being so angry at the television world for showing us so many images of what was going on halfway around the world. For a long time I thought of those interruptions as just that…interruptions of my precious TV time, which was limited by my parents and the amount of homework I was given by my teachers. Then, one night while we were preparing dinner and the usual news of the war was being broadcast, the doorbell rang. It was just a week or so before Christmas and we couldn’t imagine who would be at our door. But there they were: officers from the Air Force, there to tell us that my older sister’s husband had been shot down in Vietnam. They didn’t know where he was. He was among the ranks of the Missing in Action. In hindsight, these men must have been at our door at the same time they were at my sister’s door at Beal Air Force Base in Northern California, because it wasn’t until after they left that I remember hearing from my sister. Warren (my sister’s husband) was in a B-52 when it happened. He was flying his last mission before coming home for an extended period of training that was to occur in Texas. He, my sister and their two young daughters were scheduled to be at our house in Southern California a few days before Christmas, then they would drive on to Texas after the holidays. Plans were changed…the next day we drove up to Beal…and the rest is but a blur, pieces of memories. My nieces, who were only 4 and 7 years younger than me, were placed in my care while my sister wept while watching old movies and re-reading what few letters she had received from her husband while he was abroad. Every night I tucked the girls into bed, trying to answer their questions about when their daddy would be coming home, why wouldn’t their daddy be coming home, is my daddy safe. These are memories that haunt me still, so many years later. Warren never did come home alive. And yes, I have his POW/MIA bracelet, still to this day. (Thank you, Suzanne, for reminding us all about those.) We never found out exactly what happened to Warren on that day. All we knew was that his plane was shot down and he was never captured. Eventually his body was returned to the US, and we were told that it was so broken and unrecognizable that either his parachute didn’t open or he was beaten to death by the enemy when he hit the ground. I hope and pray whenever I think of him that it was the former rather than the latter. Years later, when it was clear he was not coming home, my sister remarried and his daughters grew up, having children of their own. We’ve only talked about those dark days once since it happened. They remember being with me, but they don’t remember all the specifics of that horrible time in our lives. For that I am thankful.
I’m also thankful that at least for the most part, our world has rules of engagement, and yes, I agree with you, Chaplain that we as a nation must refrain from unethical behavior when it comes to dealing with those who have been captured in any conflict. The audacity of our previous presidential administration to condone waterboarding and other forms of torture almost makes me ashamed to call myself an American. But I also can’t help but feel that war should be the absolute last resort, preceded by negotiation and diplomacy. As a Christian and a citizen of this world, I cannot condone war of any kind. I am a pacifist…there’s no getting around that. If we can’t deal with our disagreements through diplomacy, then IMHO, we haven’t been talking long enough. There’s got to be a better way, because there are way too many innocents who are harmed by wars of all kinds. Families like my own who have had to bury their loved ones. Men, women and children who happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and through no fault of their own, are losing their lives every day in some conflict or another. The horrors of past wars haunt me whenever I hear about wars and conflicts that are going on today. And sometimes, like I did when I was a young girl, I turn the TV off in disgust.
In the words of Marvin Gaye: ”War is not the answer, for only love can conquer hate…”
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks for these moving reflections.
ReplyDeleteYou might be interested in the following article on waterboarding, from today's NY Times. Apparently it was used 266 times on two suspects. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/world/20detain.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
If this sort of thing concerns you, I highly recommend getting involved in the National Religious Campaign Against Torture. For more, see: http://www.nrcat.org/
Thank you, Rich, for that connection.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWe can really see the darkness in humanity when we take a look at the variety of abominable torturous acts we have created in history. In asking whether torturing the enemy in order to save the lives of our soldier is moral, I think we should ask ourselves whether this type of behavior, in the end, results in greater happiness for the world as a whole. It seems the "Christian" way of loving our enemies is really thrown out the door in the name of peace. And just seeing the many detestable ways of torturing a human being is enough to send shivers down our spine in recognizing the potentiality of evil present in humanity.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Rich, for the info. Andrew Sullivan has been posted on the Justice Dept memos and the frequency of the waterboarding. Interesting perspectives presented. Early this afternoon, he posted the following on his Daily Blog on the Atlantic . . .
ReplyDelete21 Apr 2009 03:49 pm
"The Sentence I Can't Get Out Of My Mind"
It is a Bush administration official on the moment when torture breaks a victim:
The job of the interrogator is to safely help the terrorist do his duty to Allah, so he then feels liberated to speak freely.
From Neil Gaiman's account of a torturer in hell:
"We will hurt you. And we are not sorry. But we do not do it to punish you. We do it to redeem you. Because afterward, you'll be a better person ... and because we love you. One day you'll thank us for it."
War is peace. Torture is freedom. In the end, you love Big Brother.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/
It seems to me in what may be a limited perspective that the most passionate and most violent conflicts have been taken on in the name of peace. The Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem to quell an uprising; the Crusades were an attempt to "take back" Jerusalem from Muslim inhabitants thereby cementing Christianity's Holy Land and enforcing the peace of the (tongue-in-cheek) one true religion; the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was motivated by a political desire to break Austria-Hungary's south-Slav provinces off so they could be combined into a Greater Serbia or a Yugoslavia, presumably to have peace in one's one land and it resulted in the First World War, the death of 15 million people, and the Armenian Genocide; World War II was an attempt from Nazi Germany's point of view to unite the globe, clearly under a peaceful ruler (more tongue-in-cheek), resulting in the slaughter of countless more millions; the Korean and Vietnamese wars fought communism in the name of democracy; the attacks of 9/11 - arguably - to punish Americans for their foreign policy and bring about change; and the current war in Iraq to spread democracy (do I have to mention the tongue-in-cheek part again?). If this is how to get peace, I'm not sure I want it.
ReplyDeleteFor five years I worked with the American Friends Service Committee and though not a Quaker myself, I deeply respect and probably internalized many views of the people there who I worked shoulder to shoulder with and grew to love. One of those views is captured by AJ Muste when he wrote: “There is no way to peace, peace is the way.” Although I am probably not a total Pacifist, there is much wisdom in seeing clearly the connection between means and ends in any situation.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there are times when we as a nation must resort to force, there must be a clear understanding of connecting the means to the desired end result. In the case of torture, we are bound to live by the “rules of war” and to seek to minimized damage both physical and emotional. Our country, unfortunately, often acts like a bully who thinks they are above the laws of the rest of the international community. It is time, and I think Obama is leading us in the right direction, for us to behave as a member of the international community who respects international law and puts the interests of the international community before our exclusive interests.
Chaplain, thank you so much for you posting. I totally agree with statement that “There is no victor in War”. The calamity and suffering that War brings to both sides is far greater in magnitude than its merits. As a Vietnamese, I experience the suffering of the war. Even though in the Vietnamese-American war, Vietnam declared the winner, but the cost for this war was too expensive. American lost 58,000 soldiers, but guest how many soldiers were killed? Million and million. But not enough, Vietnamese people still bear strategies after the war. One of the strategies after Vietnamese-American war is the dioxin. It has been reported that the equivalent of 600 kg of dioxin was spilled on Vietnam during the decade between 1961 and 1971. It has been known that dioxin was dangerous to the body, but it has not been until recent years that environmental and government groups have acknowledged the compound as a known carcinogen. Aside from causing cancer, dioxin has been linked to numerous other health problems, including diabetes, birth defects, learning disabilities, skin rashes, liver and reproductive system disorders and immune system abnormalities. The risk of these side effects is high in the population of Vietnam War veterans who were exposed to dioxin overseas, as well as populations of Vietnamese citizens who continue to be exposed through their ecosystem. Not only the first generation was effected by dioxin, but also in the second generation as you see pictures below.
ReplyDeleteMy question is who will be responsibility for this? Therefore, I suppose the pacifism. I believe war is the greatest enemy of human being.
sorry, I don't know how to post picture. you can google "Dioxin victims in Vietnam". thanks
ReplyDeleteI came to think about war and religious conviction. I don’t think that the cause of most war is not the religion, but human being’s greed. All wars need justification for the war. The best justifications for the war are ideology, a race feeing, and religion. In other words, religious conviction is used as justification for wars. To decide to make a war is a few mans in power, and they use these justifications to create some financial or political benefit through the war.
ReplyDeleteNo religion encourages fight. Rather, religions teach love, mercy, and peace. To stop unethical behavior and to make the world peaceful, Christian has to be real Christian and Muslim has to be real Muslim. In other words, I believe that we need to be true religious person for peace.
I love this post. Those on both sides of the armed conflict, those who cite their religions as reasons to fight, must be corrected loudly and with long-lasting effect. Christians and Muslims do not kill. Christians and Muslims love and strive for peace and understanding. Christians and Muslims are against suicide. These truths must be stressed because a lot of war is carried on in their names.
ReplyDeleteThanks to everyone who posted on this subject. I was moved by the reflections and emotions. I too, watched the Vietnam War on TV and felt horrible that our country was engaged. At the time one my co-worker's significant other was deployed there and so we discussed it almost daily. I also had a friend who, although a conscientious objector, served as a medic. A couple of things that resonated with me were 1)the disproportionate numbers of African-American young men who were deployed an died there. 2) the treatment our Vietnam veterans received when they returned home from this unpopular war and mental anguish many of there suffered because of it. I was married to vet who served two-terms and suffered not only from the mental anguish of being a black veteran, flash-backs from the war and medical issues having to do with being exposed to the chemical agent orange.
ReplyDeleteWith respect to the Iraq War (2003) and it being justified - "To the victors of war go the spoil". I don't has commented on the fact that actions taken by our government 40 years earlier and conveniently forgotten, helped put Saddam Hussein in power (De La Torre, p.102-107) The clear driving factor was economics, the regime change allowed western oil companies to do business there: 112 barrels of crude oil and a $680 million reconstruction contract to Bechtel whose chief executive became Secretary of State in the first Bush administration and the estimated $60 billion no-bid contracts awarded to Halliburton, who was directed by none other than former VP, Dick Cheney.
The administration sold the justification for the war in Iraq on trumped up allegation on a search for WMD's. There were many in America who questioned the validity of that claim from the very beginning, even if their questioning was based on no solid evidence having been revealed. But these Americans were "voices crying in the wilderness, against the cavalcade of propaganda being staged by the federal government who went so far as to dupe high-ranking officials in our government to become purveyors of the lie, George Tennant and Colin Powell.
I suppose the statement “War is inevitable” is one I could agree to without too much consideration. War is part of our past and so in that sense I can acknowledge its historical functions. War certainly is not necessary, though. If that were the case then war would be the primary means of diplomacy. Instead, threats between feuding nations seems to be the main, but not exclusive means of communication. Some of these threats have become activated through political means, and even then the international distribution of contributing nations was or has been so low that to conclude war as a necessary act would itself be a statement of privilege from those who find an absence of alternatives. Even when one regards war as the final resort there is still an alternative. Once we find our back to the wall, so to speak, and feel that war is the only option left, the decision is still impregnated with self-preservation. The alternative is to deny the survival of the ego and force self-preservation to resign. This, I feel, is the best understanding of pacifism. I’m not sure it could apply on the international stage; it seems that a country whose foreign affairs policies are void of self-preservation would be quickly overtaken regardless of international opposition. Tibet is an example of this.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the comment. I agree that there is no win in war, it brings sadness, fear and suffering. It is more understanding for people who have been trough it. They would never want it to happen again. In my opinion most of the time individuals in a nation don’t want to solve any problems through war. These days we are seeking for a civilized way of solving problems among countries. However, governments decide weather we need to start a war or not. At the end people suffer. I have actually seen a suicide bomber. I was heart broken to see fourteen-fifteen years old teenagers being involved. They are being brain washed for the nasty purpose of the war. These people are not followers of the peaceful faith. They would do anything to win the game. You have mentioned about the Islamic terrorists. There are Christian terrorists as well. But right now Islamic countries are the targets. One would question if this is just a way of getting control over the world or is it just to diminish the headcount of the people on the Universe. Certainly this has nothing to do with keeping peacefulness over the world.
ReplyDeleteThere seem to be quite a few wildly deviating perspectives in the comments. One of the tragic things in my mind is the tendency to associate Islam - or at least its adherents - as exceptionally violent, especially when contrasted to Christianity. I wonder if this sort of racism & Islamophobia has its origins in the academy, as Edward Said argued. He wrote extensively about the use of Orientalist stereotypes in (19th Century) academic works, which tended to portray Middle Easterners as less civilized or more barbaric than those of the West. These stereotypes remained unchallenged for long periods of time and because few news reporters know Middle Eastern languages, all the information about the area's history that they got were from racist scholarship, which they then perpetuated through the news. This, in turn, influences a new generation of scholars, who assume the validity of such stereotypes in their own work. Bit of a vicious cycle.
ReplyDeleteChaplain- thank you for your insight on the war as not just a Veteran but a former war refugee as well. I was young, but I do remember when the Gulf War took place and the discussions and feelings around that. I think, as a nation, many of us felt removed from what was happenning. However, this current war, is a different story. It feels more personal to everyone, no matter where you stand on the issue. It has gone on longer, we have heard of so many casualties on both sides and we have prisoners on our own soil. I appreciate the fact that you mentioned the stipulations of Article 3 of Geneva Conventions of 1949. As this war continues, and gets even more personal, I hope that our nations leaders remember that everyone "in all circumstances be treated humanely" because I see this as the just thing to do.
ReplyDeleteThank you Chaplin for your posting, specially for Alhadith which spreads a new light on the moral richness of Islam.
ReplyDeleteWhat concerns about the USA, where the church and the state are separated, but its nation is in war in Iraq, the reponse for this is very clear.
As we have mentioned during our Christian Tradition classes that 'What is our oil as americans doing under the Iraqi soil ?' explains us the reality. But the so called religious interferance or religious war, it is the war of Iran as a Shiit government and Saudia Arabia as a Sunnit government, but not the war of USA. USA is a mediator.
We know very well about the big conflict between the two islamic communities Sunna and Shia which goes very far since the Oumar ibn Al Khattab and Ali bn Abi Taleb (khoulafaa). Therefore if we take in consideration the geograpihc position of Iraq, we can see that the southern part of Iraq is populated by Shiit believers. And the south west part of Iraq has a border with Saudia Arabia which is Sunnit government. And the majority of the central part of iraqi population are Sunni. Therefore the Shiit population of Iraq are surrounded with Sunni iraqians from the north, and sunni Saudi arabians from the south. Iran has a very long border from the eastern part of Iraq, through which Iran as a Shiit government can supply the surrounded shiit iraqians to resist against the sunnit attackers. Therefore lets be more realistic and see the truth about the US presence in Iraq.
these words really stuck to me: "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria."
ReplyDeleteI believe that the human heart, mind, and soul actually shifts when it comes to the enemy, and when it comes to the friend. why is this?
With all the good we consider ourselves to be, there is a major flaw with our human heart (even the most compassionate) in not wanting to show compassion on those who are against us; yet they are still human beings.
This let's me know that it is not the human hear that responds compassionately because something is human, but rather it's because that which is human, seems either harmless or innocent.
For example we get totally upset if someone kills a cute little puppy on television, and feel very little sympathy for something like a snake, or crocodile being killed. Why is this? what does this tell us about our ability to discriminate our compassion for anything that has a life.
War its self is something that is wrong when it is not the last option, when it has no just cause, and when it doesn't seek to preserve lives during battles. Clearly we can see the difference between a just and unjust war. We have marked the Iraqi war as unjust, because of the major cost of life, and major resources being loss which supersedes the small improvements being made here and there.
One thing is true,
we must learn how to make decisions in our world, without people having to die; without innocent families having to mourn.
To not abide by the Geneva convention would be a great tragedy. My grandfather was a pacifist before the start of WWII (peal harbor) and had to wrestle with the “ethics” involved in what he considered to be a justified war (not necessarily just. I don’t think he considered any war to be just). He eventually became a Marine fighter pilot but his journey is quite interesting. I cannot help but think how he might feel today about America’s ethically “gray” conduct concerning the Geneva Convention. I am sure it would disgust him as it does me.
ReplyDeleteWar may be necessary but I don’t know if I believe in such a thing as a just war. When life is undervalued war will always be reality. When life is properly understood and respected, war can never become a reality.
When is war so necessary? When is killing another human being humane? War is such a paradox to ethics! It is inhumane to kill one another, but to kill one another brings about humane treatment?
ReplyDeleteI am constantly on the fence whether to be for or against war. One group of people have one need, while another looks for protecting their rights, another group wants to join in for the benefits, another group joins out of obligation.
Even in war, can one be treated humanely?
Thanks for such a post! All the comments were insightful!
By Sangjae Lee
ReplyDeleteThank you for your blog. As Chaplain replied to Robert's comment, although the warfare technology had strikingly developed, so missiles can hit the target precisely, they are still for killing others' life, and taking other's life can not be justified in any case. Because someone is inflicted by others, if one has one's revenge on her or him, each of them will be caught in a vicious circle like Israel and Palestine. In this point of vew, we have to remind the Words of Jesus, "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'
But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles." (Mathew 5:38-41)