Iraq, continued...
Okay, so... yeah, I know this is a heated topic, but I don´t want to run away from heated topics anymore just so I can be comfortable. First of all, I appreciate your responses... Secondly, I think sharing different ideas is great. We can all learn a lot from each other if we help each other see our points of view in the spirit of learning and without insult. AHEM.
Just so everyone knows, Dave Bourgeouis is an incredible teacher of mine that has worked his ass off trying to get me to be able to come to Costa Rica and have this experience. He is a very special person who has contributed to a lot of my learning and who takes a real delight in investing in each of his students. What other professors do you know that take the time to read their students´blogs and let them know that they´re praying for them and keeping up on their learning? I expect only respect for that amount of effort.
That said, the script was from a presentation that some of the students did in my class after researching for 6 weeks on the topic. There were 6 students who researched everything from if the war in Iraq was acceptable to how it compared to past wars (such as wars in South/Central America).
I don´t think that any larger picture should involve torture of other human beings. From a Christian perspective, how is this ushering in God´s Kingdom? If that´s what Jesus´message is all about (which, I assure you, it is), there seems to be very little justification for this war, and absolutely none for the torture. Three of my friends right now are in the marines and Navy, one directly in Iraq. I still love them for who they are but do not support what they are fighting for. That´s like many things in life. Dan falls under that category as well. Just because Dan isn´t capable of such torture, doesn´t mean what he´s fighting for is right.
The U.S. only has a reputation for helping others according to people in the U.S. and few others who have not been educated in history. Please do not be blinded into thinking, as your article said, that "we Americans are relatively alone because from our founding we have believed that we have a mission to better the world. And for this we are hated."
We are hated because our government hypocritically puts up this face of hospitality, when they are most definitely concerned for their own interests. Governments do not do anything that will not benefit them in the long run. Do you not find it a little "sketchy" that Bush owns an oil firm? Do you also not find it a little interesting that the 9/11 attacks were ONLY against the World Trade Center (rich elite), the Pentagon (U.S. military), and possibly the White House (U.S. Government)? This does not mean that all U.S. citizens are bad, but I encourage you to research their patterns throughout the world, concerning their OBSESSION with capatilism and "democracy" that has led them to starve citizens to submission (Nicaragua). Our "new kind of enemy" is probably one of the fairest enemies I´ve seen. They don´t attack common citizens - they attack the rich, the militaristic and the oppressive government who has tried to impose their ways on them for decades.
I encourage everyone to continue to research. I´m not done - this is barely a beginning. I am not anti-U.S. and I am not anti-military. However, I am anti-corruption and I think there´s room for questioning a government who conserves 60% of the worlds´wealth in it´s own country, and then claims that the only reason there´s poverty is other peoples´faults...
Bob, I can´t wait to see you at Christmas and talk more with you about your time and your thoughts on military and war. I think I miss you more than I have ever in my life just because I´m so anxious to hear what your thoughts are on the things I´m learning. (And Carol´s, by the way... where´d she go?)
Professor B, I would ask the same question as Bob - what bigger picture justifies that torture? I don´t feel I understood your point...
I can´t tell you all how much I appreciate your contributions... please keep posting... we´re all just helping each other figure out life, anyways, right? No one has it figured out yet, especially me. Thanks for doing that...
Just so everyone knows, Dave Bourgeouis is an incredible teacher of mine that has worked his ass off trying to get me to be able to come to Costa Rica and have this experience. He is a very special person who has contributed to a lot of my learning and who takes a real delight in investing in each of his students. What other professors do you know that take the time to read their students´blogs and let them know that they´re praying for them and keeping up on their learning? I expect only respect for that amount of effort.
That said, the script was from a presentation that some of the students did in my class after researching for 6 weeks on the topic. There were 6 students who researched everything from if the war in Iraq was acceptable to how it compared to past wars (such as wars in South/Central America).
I don´t think that any larger picture should involve torture of other human beings. From a Christian perspective, how is this ushering in God´s Kingdom? If that´s what Jesus´message is all about (which, I assure you, it is), there seems to be very little justification for this war, and absolutely none for the torture. Three of my friends right now are in the marines and Navy, one directly in Iraq. I still love them for who they are but do not support what they are fighting for. That´s like many things in life. Dan falls under that category as well. Just because Dan isn´t capable of such torture, doesn´t mean what he´s fighting for is right.
The U.S. only has a reputation for helping others according to people in the U.S. and few others who have not been educated in history. Please do not be blinded into thinking, as your article said, that "we Americans are relatively alone because from our founding we have believed that we have a mission to better the world. And for this we are hated."
We are hated because our government hypocritically puts up this face of hospitality, when they are most definitely concerned for their own interests. Governments do not do anything that will not benefit them in the long run. Do you not find it a little "sketchy" that Bush owns an oil firm? Do you also not find it a little interesting that the 9/11 attacks were ONLY against the World Trade Center (rich elite), the Pentagon (U.S. military), and possibly the White House (U.S. Government)? This does not mean that all U.S. citizens are bad, but I encourage you to research their patterns throughout the world, concerning their OBSESSION with capatilism and "democracy" that has led them to starve citizens to submission (Nicaragua). Our "new kind of enemy" is probably one of the fairest enemies I´ve seen. They don´t attack common citizens - they attack the rich, the militaristic and the oppressive government who has tried to impose their ways on them for decades.
I encourage everyone to continue to research. I´m not done - this is barely a beginning. I am not anti-U.S. and I am not anti-military. However, I am anti-corruption and I think there´s room for questioning a government who conserves 60% of the worlds´wealth in it´s own country, and then claims that the only reason there´s poverty is other peoples´faults...
Bob, I can´t wait to see you at Christmas and talk more with you about your time and your thoughts on military and war. I think I miss you more than I have ever in my life just because I´m so anxious to hear what your thoughts are on the things I´m learning. (And Carol´s, by the way... where´d she go?)
Professor B, I would ask the same question as Bob - what bigger picture justifies that torture? I don´t feel I understood your point...
I can´t tell you all how much I appreciate your contributions... please keep posting... we´re all just helping each other figure out life, anyways, right? No one has it figured out yet, especially me. Thanks for doing that...
posted by Sings in the Sunshine at
1:21 PM
5 Comments:
Point taken. I withdraw my rather ill-considered and arguably inappropriate attack on Dave's name. Admittedly, I got a little carried away as, in the Bush administration's words regarding Iraq, "the gloves came off" in my response. My apologies.
That said, I'm not sure we're all talking about the same things in our three party discussion. So I'm going to take a little time to reflect before posting my next missive - likely on my blog.
Stay tuned!
By
Bob, at 9:34 AM
OK, where to begin...
Vanessa: there is so much to cover here, and, believe it or not, I do agree with much of what you are saying.
Bob: I've actually never had anyone post a definition of my last name before, so it was kind of refreshing. I've learned to not take things too personally on the Internet, so no grudges here.
OK, a little background on me:
1) I did not support the US invasion of Iraq.
2) I am not a Republican (or a Democrat). In fact, I withdrew from the Republican party because of the war.
3) Many things this country and the current administration have done have troubled me, both as a Christian and a US citizen.
However...
1) I do believe we are currently in a war with radical Islam.
2) To win this war, we must go after those who would attack us. We cannot wait for them to attack us with their ever-increasing firepower. They have no state, we must seek them out.
3) Because they have no defined state or army, they are impossible to find, capture, and destroy without a lot of information. One method to obtain information is to capture, hold, and question individuals with this information.
4) As for torture...it is almost always wrong. But what if we were holding an individual whom we knew could tell us the location of an imminent terrorist attack or information that could save the lives of millions? This should be an extremely rare occurence, but I cannot rule out torture in all possible cases. Please know that I hate that I have to take this position. But I see no other position to hold.
If you see a better way to win this war, please argue your point. I am always open to new information and ideas. I have had my view changed on this just recently through discussion and research.
Some responses to the other parts of your post:
- I must take exception with you that the enemy is more fair. They are attacking the symbols of our country not because they are more fair, but because they hate what the symbols stand for. This "fair enemy" purposely targeted the WTC at a time when the most people would be there. This "fair enemy" attacked the London subways during rush hour. This "fair enemy" attacked trains in Madrid. They intentionally shot and killed children in Russia. They gruesomely decapitated Nick Berg and videotaped it for all to see on the Internet. Do not engage in moral equivalence; just because both sides have done bad things does not make them equally bad. There have been some evil acts committed by members of the US military, no doubt. But notice that while the enemy celebrates its evil deeds, we punish those who commit these crimes (court-martials at Abu Gharaib).
- it has been said that capitalism is the worst economic system in the world, except for all the others. I agree with that statement. So for our government to promote capitalism throughout the world is a positive thing to me.
- since when does our government claim that "the only reason there´s poverty is other peoples´faults"?
Finally...
As for ushering in Christ's kingdom: it is much easier to share faith in open and free societies that respect human rights. The enemy knows that and they are doing everything in their power to ensure that Iraq does not become this kind of society. I support our efforts in Iraq for just this reason.
Vanessa, I will continue to pray for you and ask the Lord to give you wisdom as you ponder these things. Unfortunately, I am not going to have the time to keep this "conversation" going anymore. But let's get together when you're back and discuss.
Prof. Bourgeois
("Dave" to you, Bob)
By
Dave Bourgeois, at 1:14 AM
Dave, looks like you're not likely to read this comment, if you're unable to continue this conversation. But just in case, here goes: from a Kingdom of God perspective, it seems like you're fuzzying the lines between Kingdom and state. Kingdom citizens may have a stake in government and have an opportunity to help shape the world via their involvement in government - especially when said government is free and open as ours is.
However, it was interesting to see how many times the word "enemy" was used in relation to another country and another religion. I am having difficulty with that - the Kingdom we're a part of actually has some similarity to Al Quaeda - it's a Kingdom with no borders, no national identity. And our controlling story is not one that defines "enemies" in terms of governments and religions as much as spiritual forces. The words of Jesus that do put a human face to the word "enemies" does so in a way that commands a response of love and forgiveness, not torture and pro-active, preventive milataristic agression.
Granted, cheek turning is terribly unsatisfying to us, and there's a point to be made about doing what we can to prevent future attacks that will cost many lives of innocents. But I will choose to err on the side of pacifism in the name of Jesus, rather than bombing . . .
And for the record, when I first started reading Vanessa's accounts of her adventures, I was impressed with a professor who would care enough to track with student blogs and provide encouragement. Well done.
By
Steve, at 7:59 AM
I'm still thinking about what we're actually discussing. My initial formulation of the questions reads something like "When, if ever, is it appropriate for a civilized society (arguably the US) to use uncivilized means (murder, torture, etc.) toward the ends of defending itself from enemies without civilized notions obliteration?". Of course, whether our actions in Iraq are a kind of "defense" or not is wide open to debate.
Anyway, I'll think a bit more on this and post additional comments later this week.
By
Bob, at 11:22 AM
Wow, this has really stirred up an inteesting discussion thread. Too bad Dave has decided to "leave the field of battle" (so to speak). I have a feeling that my difficulties with Dave's post (largely a policy discussion) will pale in comparison to the difficulties people of faith would have with what he's said.
On he policy front, there was an article on point re: torture on the Wall Street Journal's op ed section ("Is There Always Another Way To Get Information?," Nov. 7, 2005). Inteesting and addressed the "ticking bomb" argument advanced by Dave. It spurred a good number of responses by US citizens about our "will to win" the war and the efficacy of torture in various circumstances.
I'm still playing with the question of means vs. ends. One point of clarification is that frontline combat troops should not be doing any interrogation. Rather, professional interrogators should handle these interviews. That would help with the Geneva Convention issues and shield soldiers from their own worst instincts.
And, finally, way to Angie for you point re: Dave's tone in his responses to date. I think he might get more than he bargained for in a follow-up discussion given what I've seen on this board to date.
By
Bob, at 9:55 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home