Christian Democrats in the United States
Global Issues - AfghanistanWas the U.S. invasion necessary, if any wars are ever necessary? Maybe NATO should have invaded in 1998, after the theo-fascist Taliban started locking up their women, beheading nonconformists and destroying religious art. Those are more honorable intentions than private profit on the "silk pipeline" from Saudi Arabia to China. J did say some wars (and rumors of wars) were necessary, they were the "birth pains." Was this one? Forgiveness is a more difficult struggle than a terrorist jihad or a military occupation, but meanwhile, killing just keeps on killing.
The People won't take getting their buildings smashed. But the FBI strongly suspects a trusted U.S. military scientist of prodding the People's fear after 9/11. If you think the U.S. was tricked into Afghanistan on 9/11, well, then we're really in trouble. We respect the right of free thinkers to consider that possibility. Consider which major powers in the region benefit from the stabilization of this central asian trade, transportation and energy transmission nexus. The question is, why are we paying for it? Or rather, why are we borrowing for it?
The truth will set us all free. All people must be free to share their view of the truth for the truth to become known. Afghanistan was not free. It was a prisoner of many foreign interests using their peoples' pursuit of God to turn them into soldiers for life. The late twentieth century war (world war 3) was not cold. Was a hot war in Afghanistan, Vietnam and everyone else a necessary evil? Look within the heart and find that no evil is necessary. Love is all you need.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]u.s. dod admits errors in bombing
Robert Gates admitted U.S. troops disobeyed policy, failed to plan the attack and dropped a 2,000 pound bomb without certainty of its target.That's a good sign in the bureaucracy -- Gates' bureaucratic coup against Rumsfeld and his continued service are going to make the history books, but the innocent men, women and children who were bombed that day will be forgotten, and that cannot be undone even by "integrity" in "leadership." A fact of war is, that most people who are willing to kill are brutes, and they do it badly. They have to stop some fundamental process of empathy within themselves in order to carry out their orders, and the constant stress leads them to stop caring about anyone's lives but their own. No amount of policy is going to change that. Thus, fighting is not the way to stop fighting.
Over here we don't know the victim's names, or how they lived, or who they loved. U.S., Afghan, U.N. and NGO public relations sycophants argue about numbers of people killed. But we'll never know. Some will be forgotten. Some missing may not have died, but given into rage and joined the other side for revenge. Some of the survivors may do the same and join the Afghan forces for revenge. Or they play off both sides. So the fighting does not end.
1) Join state-sanctioned forces, kill and die. 2) Join terrorist forces, kill and die. 3) Play both sides, kill, maybe get rich, and die. 4) Drop out, stop killing, maybe die, but possibly have a happy, long and blessed life.
Of those four choices in the "game theory" set up to corral people into fighting, laying down weapons is promoted as the loser, the only option which is sure suicide of the body and soul -- but this is false. The "winning points" of being able to kill them before they kill you are set up by the rules of the game. The only solution is to reject the game, and #4 is the only way to do that. The option of non-violence is the only one with the highest chance of survival for the individual and for humanity.
If everyone chose #4, the world would be awesome!
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< HomeArchives May 2007 / August 2007 / August 2008 / October 2008 / May 2009 / June 2009 /