Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I will be commissioned as a lieutenant in May in the Armor branch of the Army, which is to say I will go in as a platoon leader rather than an entry-level private. Since I already know my occupational service, I will have the option of going into "heavy" or "light" armor. Reconaissance vehicles like Bradleys, Strykers, and HUMVEEs, or Abrams tanks.
If i were you, i'd ask myself, what i was trying to protect here?
As far as i understand, you come here with the intention to enter the military, but are concerned whether or not Buddhism and violence can coexist.
This gives to me the impression that you are worried, that by adopting the views of a soldier, you will thereby take on the identity of a soldier, and loose the identity of an "I" that is a Buddhist.
So the question for you would be really what is it that you want? To me it doesn't seem clear - do you want to stop Islam from spreading? Do you want prevent women from getting raped? What is it that you see yourself preventing by joining the military?
See, those things i mentioned might have rather different consequences for your conscience, even though you might add them up and call them "fight for freedom".
For example, now being me who's looking at it, if i were killing people because they didn't believe exactly what i do it would be quite un-Buddhist to me. On the other hand, if there was rape going on and i had the capacity to stop it, it would be very un-Buddhist of me not to try to prevent it. What is according to path and what is off it is therefore a matter of personal values. Sharing the same religion might be of lesser value to me compared to people not getting hurt for example. Note that it may be different for the infamous fundamentalist Muslim person. While both of us will be doing what we do with the best of our intentions, conflict will nonetheless arise. Coordinating different views like this can be extremely difficult, and sometimes either side might tighten the conflict by rising the stakes; even until one of us dies (either in a belief or physically).
To lessen this as much as possible, i would advise you to see as much as your "enemy" as possible. If you truly want to help, you should know what the other person does - maybe it involves reading the Quran or similar stuff. With that knowledge, always note your (current) values. If two values come into conflict, know which one is correct to you to choose. If the values are near in importance, expect the one you disregarded to come back and haunt you. Accept this possibility, or don't do it. You will never out-reason your emotions, so don't expect to do so either now or in the future.
"There is something to be learned from a rainstorm. When meeting with a sudden shower, you try not to get wet and run quickly along the road. But doing such things as passing under the eaves of houses, you still get wet. When you are resolved from the beginning, you will not be perplexed, though you still get the same soaking. This understanding extends to everything." Yamamoto Tsunetomo
This was directed to what you said earlier in the thread:
I was contending the popular notion in the media that somehow every soldier suffers from it or is tragically emotionally scarred by what he does. This is simply not the case. I have known hundreds of soldiers for many years who live normal lives after returning home from horrific experiences.
So in essence, what is most important for you to protect? How far are you willing to go to protect it?
Matters of life and death require us to go quite far, to loose a lot to gain a little. Another thing you might wanna ask yourself is: If i loose my Buddhist identity, am i still willing to become a soldier? By doing it, you might just well realize how to make them both coexist - by serving your country, still not straying far from the Buddhist path.
This has been a fascinating thread to watch. Many Buddhists are passionately pacifist, and who wants to argue for war? Yet passion even in a good cause can get in the way. We end up lecturing and yelling and getting angry when people don't agree with us, because we're right and they're wrong so they must be deliberately ignoring our reasoning. Real communication stops.
This right here is why wars get started. Not because people put on uniforms and march around and salute each other, but because we divide the world into right and wrong, then start treating "those people" as less than us. Either stupid, or misinformed, or just plain bad. After all, there must be something wrong with them if they don't agree with us, right? So words and anger escalate to shoving and then blows and eventually two tribes are fighting, each certain their cause is just.
True story. When I was a Sergeant in the USAF, I read about Buddhism and found a local UU church that had a minister who taught Zen Meditation. I showed up there, a young single man in search of enlightenment, and discovered the UU crowd is as liberal as you can get. Definitely anti-war and anti-establishment and anti-military. I was certainly the only military guy there, but discovered they actually welcomed me and the subject of me being a soldier never came up. I found out years later from the minister, this was because someone there told them I must be a closet gay soldier (I was shy around girls and had no girlfriend at the time) so they helped to keep my secret and treated me like a person, not a uniformed member of the enemy. I was on their side, you see.
I have often wondered how I would have been treated, without that. I suspect not nearly as welcoming. The minister and I also had a good laugh when he told me, because he knew different and never told them or me at the time. He just let it play out.
There are people who are anti-religion, and they are just as certain of their moral rightness as we are that Buddhism has the answer to the world's suffering. So they're stupid, and we're smart, and they're blind, and we are enlightened? That's how they feel about us. So, how are you going to change their mind? By lecturing them? Has getting a lecture ever changed your mind?
We're all just people, stumbling around in the same forest of suffering, trying to find a path out. I don't want to change people, or get them to agree with me. I just want to help them.
If i were you, i'd ask myself, what i was trying to protect here?
So the question for you would be really what is it that you want? To me it doesn't seem clear - do you want to stop Islam from spreading? Do you want prevent women from getting raped? What is it that you see yourself preventing by joining the military?
So in essence, what is most important for you to protect? How far are you willing to go to protect it?
Coincidentally, one of my intellectual heroes Christopher Hitchens died just last night. Although I do not hold religion in contempt like he did, I share the same value that he and George Orwell did; hatred of evil and hatred of totalitarianism. This is my overarching motivation for military service. (See Psalms 97:10 for the Judaic call to hatred)
I believe Western Civilization is good and worth preserving, and that jihadists are the antithesis of it. So long as they wish to destroy the West from outside and within, they must be opposed intellectually and physically. Just as International Communism and Fascism were rightly opposed intellectually and on the battlefield, the Islamist movement is simply this generation's totalitarian demon.
KnightofBuddha, that makes sense. However I think with caution. think on the Crusades to Islam which if they were to fight the evils of Islam... if that be the case then its the pot calling the kettle black. I'm not arguing a contention as much I am just exposing my thought process.
IMO the idea that one can "destroy" an ideology is a bit short-sighted. Nazi Germany was defeated, but Neo-Nazism and Neo-Fascism is on the rise in Europe. Even if Radical Islam is "defeated" militarily in some way, it will always exist in another form.
Ideologies are often so inbeded into a culture that it is almost impossible to go against them. That is why advertisers of products use ideologies to target people to buy their products because people really do not like to go against their ideology.
Sorry, this thread is huge, I've not read much of it. I just wanted to say that if Obama is proud of what has been "achieved" in Iraq, then he has no sense of shame. What has been achieved: a new and very unstable, violent situation was created in Iraq, and a similar situation in Afghanistan that (as has been foreseen by military experts before the war even started) cannot possibly lead to "victory". At what cost? 100000s of deaths, millions of injured people, millions of refugees living in poor conditions, violation of human rights including the application of torture, and 3,000,000,000,000 dollar (yes, that much) that could have been spent in so many better ways.
Are these facts the signs of wise men acting wisely? Do you really want to follow them? If you want to follow someone, isn't there a better pick?
I just don't operate from the same premise as you. I was deeply opposed to the installing of an Islamic government in Iraq and Afghanistan, although I did support the successful routing of AQI. It was a vile organization. But that money was not taken from thre mouth of babes or education. And it wouldn't have bee spent there otherwise, any more than saying we somehow have a surplus for not fully invading Libya. Were the number of civilian casualties the act of Coalition troops or AQI? It's an important distinction.
IMO the idea that one can "destroy" an ideology is a bit short-sighted. Nazi Germany was defeated, but Neo-Nazism and Neo-Fascism is on the rise in Europe. Even if Radical Islam is "defeated" militarily in some way, it will always exist in another form.
Agreed ideas are bulletproof but should one do nothing?
Sorry, this thread is huge, I've not read much of it. I just wanted to say that if Obama is proud of what has been "achieved" in Iraq, then he has no sense of shame. What has been achieved: a new and very unstable, violent situation was created in Iraq, and a similar situation in Afghanistan that (as has been foreseen by military experts before the war even started) cannot possibly lead to "victory". At what cost? 100000s of deaths, millions of injured people, millions of refugees living in poor conditions, violation of human rights including the application of torture, and 3,000,000,000,000 dollar (yes, that much) that could have been spent in so many better ways.
Are these facts the signs of wise men acting wisely? Do you really want to follow them? If you want to follow someone, isn't there a better pick?
I think Iraq was a real F%$#up, should not have been there in the first place. That being in the past, what is the main issue now? The MASSIVE power vacuum we helped engineer. Whose going to fill that vacuum? I think Iran will be more than happy to do that.
I think Iraq was a real F%$#up, should not have been there in the first place. That being in the past, what is the main issue now? The MASSIVE power vacuum we helped engineer. Whose going to fill that vacuum? I think Iran will be more than happy to do that.
Beat! Beat! Drums! Beat! Beat! Drums! By Walt Whitman
Beat! beat! drums!—blow! bugles! blow! Through the windows—through doors—burst like a ruthless force, Into the solemn church, and scatter the congregation, Into the school where the scholar is studying, Leave not the bridegroom quiet—no happiness must he have now with his bride, Nor the peaceful farmer any peace, ploughing his field or gathering his grain, So fierce you whirr and pound you drums—so shrill you bugles blow.
Beat! beat! drums!—blow! bugles! blow! Over the traffic of cities—over the rumble of wheels in the streets; Are beds prepared for sleepers at night in the houses? no sleepers must sleep in those beds, No bargainers’ bargains by day—no brokers or speculators—would they continue? Would the talkers be talking? would the singer attempt to sing? Would the lawyer rise in the court to state his case before the judge? Then rattle quicker, heavier drums—you bugles wilder blow.
Beat! beat! drums!—blow! bugles! blow! Make no parley—stop for no expostulation, Mind not the timid—mind not the weeper or prayer, Mind not the old man beseeching the young man, Let not the child’s voice be heard, nor the mother’s entreaties, Make even the trestles to shake the dead where they lie awaiting the hearses, So strong you thump O terrible drums—so loud you bugles blow.
if you think you should go to Afghanistan to fight an ideology you are over-estimating both your judgement and your rights. You seem to think that because YOU see a moral obligation to crush some extremist islamist ideology using violence, you automatically have the right to do so. What about the opinion of the people who see this as a stupid and pointless road to just more suffering?
In speak, the US present themselves as fighters for democracy. In practice, they declare themselves the gold standard for what is good. They do whatever they please, which is far from democratic. So what if there is international law that says that starting a war is illegal if the other country never attacked your country? You just invent some weak argument and invade anyway. So what if your laws do not allow torture on US territory? You just create a few secret prisons in Romania and other European counties, problem solved. Have a problem with suspects you cannot detain without trial for ever? Just call them illegal combatants and you can hold them as long as you like, no trials necessary. Need support for your opinion in the UN? Just buy it by applying some economical pressure in a few poor countries (how democratic is that?). Have a problem with drugs coming into their country? Just spray poison to kill the coca crops, and if some indigenous populations suffer from their rivers being poisoned, bad luck for them.
Add to this the meddling in the internal politics of several countries, to make sure that these countries would have leaders that are to the taste of the US government, and you have enough reasons to stop trusting the good intentions of your government, and let them do their own dirty work.
So the bottom line is: no one is asking the US to save the world. Instead the US is choosing to impose their policies wherever they can. It's easy to see that all this meddling is just making things worse. And if something needs to be done, choose a democratic path (as was done in world war II), because the US is not the gold standard for what is good in the world. Therefore, in my opinion, you have no right to go and fight in Afghanistan. And I'm not saying that European countries are so much better, probably they are marginally better. As people with buddhist intentions, we can encourage them to start behaving ethically, but if we know their history, we will be careful in getting mixed up with them, let alone do violence for them.
What about the opinion of the people who see this as a stupid and pointless road to just more suffering?
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”
if you think you should go to Afghanistan to fight an ideology you are over-estimating both your judgement and your rights. You seem to think that because YOU see a moral obligation to crush some extremist islamist ideology using violence, you automatically have the right to do so. What about the opinion of the people who see this as a stupid and pointless road to just more suffering?
I see. And once again, no specifics are offered on what YOU think should be done to combat stone-age theocrats who violently oppose equality before the law, even marginal women's rights, secular government or education, any notion of freedom, etc. You could not create a more cartoonishly evil cabal of individuals than the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
And if something needs to be done, choose a democratic path (as was done in world war II), because the US is not the gold standard for what is good in the world. .
That's interesting. All the pictures I've looked at of the "democratic path" circa September 1945 show the remains of giant autocratic empires in rubble, never to rise again. Could you elaborate about what was so democratic about the utter obliteration of Germany and Japan, other than they were destroyed by democracies?
What about the opinion of the people who see this as a stupid and pointless road to just more suffering? ..........
........Therefore, in my opinion, you have no right to go and fight in Afghanistan
What about the opinion of those who don't think it's right to allow foreign governments to oppress its people, eradicate its minorities, throw acid in the face of women, and saw off heads of people insufficiently radical?
Also, what government or people IS the gold standard for what is good in the world?
>> Could you elaborate about what was so democratic about the utter obliteration of Germany and Japan, other than they were destroyed by democracies?
Maybe WOII is not the best example of a democratic process, but at least there was a clear consensus (30 countries had declared war against germany by 1941) that a war was justified to stop nazi germany. For the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam there was no such consensus.
>> What about the opinion of those who don't think it's right to allow foreign governments to oppress its people, eradicate its minorities, throw acid in the face of women, and saw off heads of people insufficiently radical?
This opinion should be part of the democratic (or 'as democratic as possible') process that decides if war must be declared against a country. I believe that the values you mention, which are shared by most human beings, are an important part of why resolutions allowing war were passed against Iraq when it invaded Kuwait, and why UN peacekeeping missions were organized. But when a war cannot solve these problems, then it is the wrong path to take.
>> Also, what government or people IS the gold standard for what is good in the world?
In my opinion it is the united nations. If the decision would have been left to the UN, they would probably have correctly concluded that a war in Iraq or Afghanistan solves nothing, and would greatly increase the suffering there.
Do you think that any country who sees a moral obligation is allowed to start a war? Don't we need some controlling process that checks if certain conditions (such as worthy cause, and chances that a war will improve the situation) are met? Do you think that the US has such high moral standards and such good judgement that they can operate on their own? What if the rest of the world does not agree with that view?
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@Bekenze How dare you ask us to actually put ourselves in someone elses shoes! Don't you know that American shoes are the only ones that count! :sarcasm:
Really, trying to isolate out the reason one nation chooses to attack another is pretty much futile. First of all, there is never only one reason, and even if you identify one cause, that doesn't mean the other factors didn't matter.
The history of the human species is pretty much one of tribal warfare. Many factors must converge before the beast of war is unleashed in a society, but as Buddhists we know the root cause. Selfish desires.
But to complicate matters, wars usually end up getting other nations involved on one side or another. We have alliances and treaties, and if war is evil, then what do you call refusing to defend a neighbor who is being attacked? Deciding who to blame becomes as impossible as finding out who threw the first punch in a brawl.
I remember this, thank you for the reminder, Gui. It's almost always about oil. But definitely, there's difficulty getting oil out of those Central Asian Republics, and there was some discussion years ago about how Afghanistan would be the perfect route "if only...". That would explain why Bush (the quintessential oil man) suddenly abandoned the search for Bin Laden, and began a war in Afghanistan.
This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's history; I remember the newspaper and magazine articles, accompanied with maps of the region, on how to get oil out of Central Asia. My vague recollection is that the Caucasus was involved in one variant, to get the oil to the Black Sea, or something.
I would need to see more evidence than that to turn a conspiracy into history, for me at least, because i believe i could easily out do you in pulling up magazine articles with a much different tale without calling Congress liars
I didn't say Congress lied. Like Cinorjer said, oil probably wasn't the only reason. But back when oil pipelines were being discussed, Congress was discussing this. the problem back then was that all the potential corridors for a pipeline were through unstable regions or hostile regimes. Iran, for instance. It was never publicly discussed than any country might be dealt a regime change in order to accomodate the pipeline. Where did it say Congress lied, the Kucinich article? I didn't see that part. Maybe Congress just has a short memory.
hmm. I see. It does sound kind of sinister, doesn't it? Well, all I know is that the issue was handled in the media as normal foreign policy analysis. Map of Central Asian republics, including surrounding countries, discussion of potential oil pipeline routes, discussion of which countries had a more friendly regime to the US, which ones had unstable governments, which were in regions where conflicts had a tendency to break out (the Caucasus). I remember a route was indicated as the only one possible at the time, I only remember it went to the Black Sea, I don't remember if it went through Afghanistan or Iran or where.
You can go to the library and look up Time or Newsweek, or US News & World Report from back then, and read it yourself. That part is history. The part about Congress deciding to change the gov't in Afghanistan wasn't public, but it looks like Kucinich is getting it from the Congressional Record and the BBC news mostly, so there you go. Impeccable sources. How can this be a conspiracy theory?
I see your point, i can't argue that there was no such plan... I just can't make the statement that the oil plan was the reason for the war.... Perhaps the idea helped some congressmen feel better about voting with the war... Even that sounds sinister, but not as bad as creating a cover story for a lie.
Telly, why would the use of a cover story by the US government come as a surprise to you? I think that history shows that they have been covering up their operations (some of them really ugly) all the time. Why do you have such a positive image of the people in the congress? I'm not saying you should think negatively about them, but given what has happened in the past, there are compelling reasons to be very alert about what they tell you, and about what could be their true motives.
@maarten it's because we have two parties keeping each other in check, which causes a lot of problems, but it does keep things honest.... There is no way that a Republican or Democrat could try to pull off something so sneaky without the other side blowing the whistle.... Sure you get the political spinners trying to blow whistles after the fact, but that is mudslinging..... If it was factual it wouldn't get past the voting process
Hi Telly, the kind of scandal I am talking about is known (and condoned) by both parties. For example, they conducted an experiment with herpes on their own population that lasted 40 years (so obviously both parties new) for which Clinton apologized in 1997
To the pacifists here, how do you envision this works out in reality? To civilized, decent people, what should the response be in the face of barbarity, aggression, conquest, and genocide?
Let me say that while I respect your decision, I don't necessarily agree with it, but if it's what you truly think you want to do, then go for it.
To answer your question - name me one single time in the entire history of human kind when war solved anything in the long term. There isn't a single case. Wars always create more problems than they solve, often continuing until long after those who started them are dead and gone. Look at the 1948 war of independence fought by Israel. Yep, they won, fair & square. Think that solved anything? Sure, it made Israelis free. But what about the Palestinians? What about the Syrian farmers who used to live in the Golan Heights? What about the residents of Gaza who had lived, fished, and farmed there peacefully for hundreds of generations? Not so much of a success for them.
Military intervention on behalf of humanitarian causes is another matter, but all too often that just turns into war, no matter how well intentioned it may have been at first. Even WWII, which was very much a war against true evil left us without that particular evil, but catapulted several other really evil (maybe more evil) hydras into positions they otherwise wouldn't have occupied on the world stage. We're still dealing with some of them today.
Would Japan, Taiwan, etc, etc be "free" today without American hegemony? Probably not. But is it our (or anyone's) place in the world to do that? Is it Belgium's place to do it? Is it Sri Lanka's place? If not, why not? Does the Belize Defense Force go running off to Iraq, or send carrier task forces to the South China Sea to rattle its sabre? Why not? How about Lithuania? Mongolia? What's the difference in them and us?
How much did that hegemony cost us? Our "defense" department (which should have never been changed from the War Department, since that's what it is) has sucked up more money since WWII than the rest of the budget of the entire nation since its founding - several times over. It has spawned an entire industry - that Dwight Eisenhower warned us about - dedicated to supporting it and to making its principles über-rich (Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al). All in all, I think the vast majority of it was a complete waste. Imagine what we could have done with 1/10 of 1% of all that money since WWII if we'd put it into education, poverty elimination, health care, etc. The mind boggles.
Try to distill the wars the US has been involved in within the past 30 years down to their essence. In every case, the common thread is oil. The reason (as stated by Osama bin Laden himself) that al Qaeda has it in for the US is because of the presence of American troops on Saudi soil. Why are those boots on the ground? Oil. Why are we in Afghanistan? Because of the bad guys who lived there. Why are we after them? Because they're after us. Why are they after us? Because we're occupying (in their eyes) their country, which is sacred to Islam. Why are we there? Oil. Period. Why did we invade Iraq? Because Saddam was a bad guy. Why was he a bad guy? Because he invaded Kuwait. Why did he invade Kuwait? For their oil and their access to the Arabian Gulf. Why did he want that? So he could control more of the world's oil. So we went to war with him to "liberate Kuwait". Really? But we didn't finish it in 1991. And then Saddam tried to snuff daddy Bush. So then junior decided (along with his buddies Dick and Don) that we needed to finish him. A really nice side benefit would be better access for American companies to their... yes, you guessed it, OIL! We've had troops in Saudi Arabia since 1990 (not before) simply to prop up the house of Saud to ensure the unending flow of, yes, you guessed it, OIL! Name me another single reason for the presence in (or hell, even the political interest in) the middle east. Without oil, it's a sand lot in the middle of nowhere with nothing anybody needs or wants (good dates though). World trade doesn't pass through it, you can't make anything from sand except glass, and it's not really a tourist draw. Nope, it's ALL about oil.
Good luck in your career. Just remember, to the military, regardless of whatever propaganda they feed you, you're just a tool. You're expendable and replaceable. I guarantee you that's true (been there, done that).
Would Japan, Taiwan, etc, etc be "free" today without American hegemony? Probably not. But is it our (or anyone's) place in the world to do that? Is it Belgium's place to do it? Is it Sri Lanka's place? If not, why not? Does the Belize Defense Force go running off to Iraq, or send carrier task forces to the South China Sea to rattle its sabre? Why not? How about Lithuania? Mongolia? What's the difference in them and us?
Nope, it's ALL about oil.
Are you American? Or live in the States? If so, why? If you believed the country you live in is as wretched as that, why bother staying? I certainly would not want to.
You live in a strange world different than my own. The world you would have us live in would be filled with far more evil than exists today. War has never solved anything? What history books are you reading? The Civil War lead to the unshackling of slaves (no matter what Lost Causers say), the Allied vanquishing of Nazism meant that the Jews would not be completely exterminated. I would love for you to read "Knights of Bushido" written about the Japanese war crimes in Asia. Have you any idea the torture and cruelty that was inflicted on China and the rest of East Asia? Read and still say war never solves anything, and you deserve a medal.
And why the " " sneer quotes on "free"? Do you see no objective difference in freedom between North and South Korea or Taiwan and China?
The difference in those nations you mentioned and us is that America basically inherited world dominance peacefully from the British Empire, which had previously ruled the waves, guaranteed trade, and stopped international slavery. None of those countries have ever been in the position to wield such influence.
Osama bin Laden said one thing to Western audiences but another thing entirely to fellow Muslims. He acknowledged that non-Muslims must either convert, submit, or die in the long run.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I think war can maybe be viewed as like surgery to fix a problem from an unhealthy lifestyle. If some one has a heart attack from blocked arteries surgery is probably neccessary to save his life. If done poorly the patient will die from the surgery or complications afterwards.
For the patient though the better solution would be to live a healthy lifestyle and not simply wait for the doctors to fix them once they breakdown.
War is sometimes needed when situations have gotten really bad. However, unlike my analogy war is far from surgical. It would be better to focus on building better relations and helping (help, not force) disfunctional countries develop.
@KnightofBuddha, since you are not a buddhist monk at a monastery, a pacifist lifestyle is very hard to maintain. It was good that you were able to at least have a period of time being a pacifist.
It's good that you're having this moral debate. It's reassuring to know that you don't take violence and killing lightly.
I don't condone violence, but I understand that sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do.
@KnightofBuddha, how do you feel about people who do practice pacifism?
Well it's a technique. I think pacifists are a bit myopic. Like George Carlin said once, pacifism's great...but it can get you killed. I think it was less of a joke than he meant it.
It's actually an amoral philosophy. It says that life is actually NOT so dear, not so worthy or precious to be protected by the strength of arms. Pacifists would offer nothing but words as neighbors are enslaved and slaughtered. It simply does not account for implacable evil in the human soul, and has no answer to the Zawahiris, Mullah Omars, and Kony's of the world.
from a pacifists perspective they are not responsible. Otherwise shouldn't I kill people who factory farm? In my opinion that is immoral. Christians should kill homosexuals because to them homosexuality is immoral.
In the context of buddhism attachment to views CAN result in people killing eachother. Because they *can't* agree on what is right/wrong.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Pacifism is a much easier pill to swallow if you think some aspect of the mind continues after death.
from a pacifists perspective they are not responsible. Otherwise shouldn't I kill people who factory farm? In my opinion that is immoral. Christians should kill homosexuals because to them homosexuality is immoral.
In the context of buddhism attachment to views CAN result in people killing eachother. Because they *can't* agree on what is right/wrong.
If a society cannot agree that enslaving other people or sending them to death camps is wrong...then it's not exactly a society that's poised to last long. And I guess you would only kill factory farmers if you believed that a chicken had the same moral value as a person...which I don't.
Homosexuals actually are murdered for their sexuality in Saudi Arabia and other Islamic states. Their murderers deserve the gallows since it is so abominably evil to murder someone for their sexuality.
I AM attached to the view that genocide, torture, and enslavement of others is evil...are you?
KoB the point is that when people use violence to settle issues it is a slippery slope. What if someone does think an animal has moral rights? What if I shot your dog while it is on a walk? I bet you think that is wrong because the dog is your property, right? hahahahahhahahahahahahah
You specifically limited this discussion to violence and buddhism.
Do you find it interesting that the first precept is 'do not kill' rather than 'killing misconduct' similar to the third precept: sexual misconduct. Buddha was very clear.
KoB the point is that when people use violence to settle issues it is a slippery slope. What if someone does think an animal has moral rights? What if I shot your dog while it is on a walk? I bet you think that is wrong because the dog is your property, right? hahahahahhahahahahahahah
I reckon if I had a dog and someone shot it, they'd be a goner pretty quickly. Granted, for selfish reasons...the dog is my property, I do have affection for it, and I'd feel endangered myself.
Like William Buckley said once, a man who pushes an old woman in front of a bus, and a man who pushes an old women out of the way of a bus are not morally equivalent for being pushers of old women. Not all violence is equivalent.
You specifically limited this discussion to violence and buddhism.
Do you find it interesting that the first precept is 'do not kill' rather than 'killing misconduct' similar to the third precept: sexual misconduct. Buddha was very clear.
Actually, that brings up a question I have. In the original language that the precepts were stated in (Sanskrit? Pali? I'm ignorant of which), does it actually state "do not kill" or "do not murder" as the original Hebrew states in the Bible for instance? Does the original language have different words for "kill" and "murder?"
You specifically limited this discussion to violence and buddhism.
Do you find it interesting that the first precept is 'do not kill' rather than 'killing misconduct' similar to the third precept: sexual misconduct. Buddha was very clear.
Actually, that brings up a question I have. In the original language that the precepts were stated in (Sanskrit? Pali? I'm ignorant of which), does it actually state "do not kill" or "do not murder" as the original Hebrew states in the Bible for instance? Does the original language have different words for "kill" and "murder?"
KoB, no as interpreted my any modern buddhists that I am aware of.
KoB, for me the dog has it's own value before I assign any. Because it is a sentient being. BUDDHA ONLY TAUGHT ONE THING. Liberation from suffering. If a dog suffers then it is to be regarded as valuable.
What if I ask a question of a Christian chatroom: A Modern Jeffrey Reflects on Christianity and Blaspheming Jesus?
You with me? And then I get on a pulpit and share my atheist view? Does that make any sense for a conversation? Buddha was very clear. Five precepts. We get this all the time with people asking if they can do drugs.
Comments
I will be commissioned as a lieutenant in May in the Armor branch of the Army, which is to say I will go in as a platoon leader rather than an entry-level private. Since I already know my occupational service, I will have the option of going into "heavy" or "light" armor. Reconaissance vehicles like Bradleys, Strykers, and HUMVEEs, or Abrams tanks.
As far as i understand, you come here with the intention to enter the military, but are concerned whether or not Buddhism and violence can coexist.
This gives to me the impression that you are worried, that by adopting the views of a soldier, you will thereby take on the identity of a soldier, and loose the identity of an "I" that is a Buddhist.
So the question for you would be really what is it that you want? To me it doesn't seem clear - do you want to stop Islam from spreading? Do you want prevent women from getting raped? What is it that you see yourself preventing by joining the military?
See, those things i mentioned might have rather different consequences for your conscience, even though you might add them up and call them "fight for freedom".
For example, now being me who's looking at it, if i were killing people because they didn't believe exactly what i do it would be quite un-Buddhist to me.
On the other hand, if there was rape going on and i had the capacity to stop it, it would be very un-Buddhist of me not to try to prevent it. What is according to path and what is off it is therefore a matter of personal values. Sharing the same religion might be of lesser value to me compared to people not getting hurt for example. Note that it may be different for the infamous fundamentalist Muslim person. While both of us will be doing what we do with the best of our intentions, conflict will nonetheless arise. Coordinating different views like this can be extremely difficult, and sometimes either side might tighten the conflict by rising the stakes; even until one of us dies (either in a belief or physically).
To lessen this as much as possible, i would advise you to see as much as your "enemy" as possible. If you truly want to help, you should know what the other person does - maybe it involves reading the Quran or similar stuff. With that knowledge, always note your (current) values. If two values come into conflict, know which one is correct to you to choose. If the values are near in importance, expect the one you disregarded to come back and haunt you. Accept this possibility, or don't do it. You will never out-reason your emotions, so don't expect to do so either now or in the future.
"There is something to be learned from a rainstorm. When meeting with a sudden shower, you try not to get wet and run quickly along the road. But doing such things as passing under the eaves of houses, you still get wet. When you are resolved from the beginning, you will not be perplexed, though you still get the same soaking. This understanding extends to everything."
Yamamoto Tsunetomo
This was directed to what you said earlier in the thread:
So in essence, what is most important for you to protect?
How far are you willing to go to protect it?
Matters of life and death require us to go quite far, to loose a lot to gain a little. Another thing you might wanna ask yourself is: If i loose my Buddhist identity, am i still willing to become a soldier? By doing it, you might just well realize how to make them both coexist - by serving your country, still not straying far from the Buddhist path.
This right here is why wars get started. Not because people put on uniforms and march around and salute each other, but because we divide the world into right and wrong, then start treating "those people" as less than us. Either stupid, or misinformed, or just plain bad. After all, there must be something wrong with them if they don't agree with us, right? So words and anger escalate to shoving and then blows and eventually two tribes are fighting, each certain their cause is just.
True story. When I was a Sergeant in the USAF, I read about Buddhism and found a local UU church that had a minister who taught Zen Meditation. I showed up there, a young single man in search of enlightenment, and discovered the UU crowd is as liberal as you can get. Definitely anti-war and anti-establishment and anti-military. I was certainly the only military guy there, but discovered they actually welcomed me and the subject of me being a soldier never came up. I found out years later from the minister, this was because someone there told them I must be a closet gay soldier (I was shy around girls and had no girlfriend at the time) so they helped to keep my secret and treated me like a person, not a uniformed member of the enemy. I was on their side, you see.
I have often wondered how I would have been treated, without that. I suspect not nearly as welcoming. The minister and I also had a good laugh when he told me, because he knew different and never told them or me at the time. He just let it play out.
There are people who are anti-religion, and they are just as certain of their moral rightness as we are that Buddhism has the answer to the world's suffering. So they're stupid, and we're smart, and they're blind, and we are enlightened? That's how they feel about us. So, how are you going to change their mind? By lecturing them? Has getting a lecture ever changed your mind?
We're all just people, stumbling around in the same forest of suffering, trying to find a path out. I don't want to change people, or get them to agree with me. I just want to help them.
I believe Western Civilization is good and worth preserving, and that jihadists are the antithesis of it. So long as they wish to destroy the West from outside and within, they must be opposed intellectually and physically. Just as International Communism and Fascism were rightly opposed intellectually and on the battlefield, the Islamist movement is simply this generation's totalitarian demon.
Godspeed and may you stay safe.
All the best,
Todd
Thank you. Appareciate it.
Brad
IMO the idea that one can "destroy" an ideology is a bit short-sighted. Nazi Germany was defeated, but Neo-Nazism and Neo-Fascism is on the rise in Europe. Even if Radical Islam is "defeated" militarily in some way, it will always exist in another form.
Are these facts the signs of wise men acting wisely? Do you really want to follow them? If you want to follow someone, isn't there a better pick?
I just don't operate from the same premise as you. I was deeply opposed to the installing of an Islamic government in Iraq and Afghanistan, although I did support the successful routing of AQI. It was a vile organization. But that money was not taken from thre mouth of babes or education. And it wouldn't have bee spent there otherwise, any more than saying we somehow have a surplus for not fully invading Libya. Were the number of civilian casualties the act of Coalition troops or AQI? It's an important distinction.
Beat! Beat! Drums!
By Walt Whitman
Beat! beat! drums!—blow! bugles! blow!
Through the windows—through doors—burst like a ruthless force,
Into the solemn church, and scatter the congregation,
Into the school where the scholar is studying,
Leave not the bridegroom quiet—no happiness must he have now with his bride,
Nor the peaceful farmer any peace, ploughing his field or gathering his grain,
So fierce you whirr and pound you drums—so shrill you bugles blow.
Beat! beat! drums!—blow! bugles! blow!
Over the traffic of cities—over the rumble of wheels in the streets;
Are beds prepared for sleepers at night in the houses? no sleepers must sleep in those beds,
No bargainers’ bargains by day—no brokers or speculators—would they continue?
Would the talkers be talking? would the singer attempt to sing?
Would the lawyer rise in the court to state his case before the judge?
Then rattle quicker, heavier drums—you bugles wilder blow.
Beat! beat! drums!—blow! bugles! blow!
Make no parley—stop for no expostulation,
Mind not the timid—mind not the weeper or prayer,
Mind not the old man beseeching the young man,
Let not the child’s voice be heard, nor the mother’s entreaties,
Make even the trestles to shake the dead where they lie awaiting the hearses,
So strong you thump O terrible drums—so loud you bugles blow.
if you think you should go to Afghanistan to fight an ideology you are over-estimating both your judgement and your rights. You seem to think that because YOU see a moral obligation to crush some extremist islamist ideology using violence, you automatically have the right to do so. What about the opinion of the people who see this as a stupid and pointless road to just more suffering?
In speak, the US present themselves as fighters for democracy. In practice, they declare themselves the gold standard for what is good. They do whatever they please, which is far from democratic. So what if there is international law that says that starting a war is illegal if the other country never attacked your country? You just invent some weak argument and invade anyway. So what if your laws do not allow torture on US territory? You just create a few secret prisons in Romania and other European counties, problem solved. Have a problem with suspects you cannot detain without trial for ever? Just call them illegal combatants and you can hold them as long as you like, no trials necessary. Need support for your opinion in the UN? Just buy it by applying some economical pressure in a few poor countries (how democratic is that?). Have a problem with drugs coming into their country? Just spray poison to kill the coca crops, and if some indigenous populations suffer from their rivers being poisoned, bad luck for them.
Add to this the meddling in the internal politics of several countries, to make sure that these countries would have leaders that are to the taste of the US government, and you have enough reasons to stop trusting the good intentions of your government, and let them do their own dirty work.
So the bottom line is: no one is asking the US to save the world. Instead the US is choosing to impose their policies wherever they can. It's easy to see that all this meddling is just making things worse. And if something needs to be done, choose a democratic path (as was done in world war II), because the US is not the gold standard for what is good in the world. Therefore, in my opinion, you have no right to go and fight in Afghanistan.
And I'm not saying that European countries are so much better, probably they are marginally better. As people with buddhist intentions, we can encourage them to start behaving ethically, but if we know their history, we will be careful in getting mixed up with them, let alone do violence for them.
That's interesting. All the pictures I've looked at of the "democratic path" circa September 1945 show the remains of giant autocratic empires in rubble, never to rise again. Could you elaborate about what was so democratic about the utter obliteration of Germany and Japan, other than they were destroyed by democracies?
What about the opinion of the people who see this as a stupid and pointless road to just more suffering? ..........
........Therefore, in my opinion, you have no right to go and fight in Afghanistan
What about the opinion of those who don't think it's right to allow foreign governments to oppress its people, eradicate its minorities, throw acid in the face of women, and saw off heads of people insufficiently radical?
Also, what government or people IS the gold standard for what is good in the world?
http://forum.kucinich.us/index.php?topic=668.0
Maybe WOII is not the best example of a democratic process, but at least there was a clear consensus (30 countries had declared war against germany by 1941) that a war was justified to stop nazi germany. For the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam there was no such consensus.
>> What about the opinion of those who don't think it's right to allow foreign governments to oppress its people, eradicate its minorities, throw acid in the face of women, and saw off heads of people insufficiently radical?
This opinion should be part of the democratic (or 'as democratic as possible') process that decides if war must be declared against a country. I believe that the values you mention, which are shared by most human beings, are an important part of why resolutions allowing war were passed against Iraq when it invaded Kuwait, and why UN peacekeeping missions were organized. But when a war cannot solve these problems, then it is the wrong path to take.
>> Also, what government or people IS the gold standard for what is good in the world?
In my opinion it is the united nations. If the decision would have been left to the UN, they would probably have correctly concluded that a war in Iraq or Afghanistan solves nothing, and would greatly increase the suffering there.
Do you think that any country who sees a moral obligation is allowed to start a war? Don't we need some controlling process that checks if certain conditions (such as worthy cause, and chances that a war will improve the situation) are met? Do you think that the US has such high moral standards and such good judgement that they can operate on their own? What if the rest of the world does not agree with that view?
The history of the human species is pretty much one of tribal warfare. Many factors must converge before the beast of war is unleashed in a society, but as Buddhists we know the root cause. Selfish desires.
But to complicate matters, wars usually end up getting other nations involved on one side or another. We have alliances and treaties, and if war is evil, then what do you call refusing to defend a neighbor who is being attacked? Deciding who to blame becomes as impossible as finding out who threw the first punch in a brawl.
:rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rocker:
This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's history; I remember the newspaper and magazine articles, accompanied with maps of the region, on how to get oil out of Central Asia. My vague recollection is that the Caucasus was involved in one variant, to get the oil to the Black Sea, or something.
You can go to the library and look up Time or Newsweek, or US News & World Report from back then, and read it yourself. That part is history. The part about Congress deciding to change the gov't in Afghanistan wasn't public, but it looks like Kucinich is getting it from the Congressional Record and the BBC news mostly, so there you go. Impeccable sources. How can this be a conspiracy theory?
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmtuskegee1.html
Sorry I am hammering this home, but it's quite amazing that this kind of thing can happen without alarm bells ringing with common american citizens.
To answer your question - name me one single time in the entire history of human kind when war solved anything in the long term. There isn't a single case. Wars always create more problems than they solve, often continuing until long after those who started them are dead and gone. Look at the 1948 war of independence fought by Israel. Yep, they won, fair & square. Think that solved anything? Sure, it made Israelis free. But what about the Palestinians? What about the Syrian farmers who used to live in the Golan Heights? What about the residents of Gaza who had lived, fished, and farmed there peacefully for hundreds of generations? Not so much of a success for them.
Military intervention on behalf of humanitarian causes is another matter, but all too often that just turns into war, no matter how well intentioned it may have been at first. Even WWII, which was very much a war against true evil left us without that particular evil, but catapulted several other really evil (maybe more evil) hydras into positions they otherwise wouldn't have occupied on the world stage. We're still dealing with some of them today.
Would Japan, Taiwan, etc, etc be "free" today without American hegemony? Probably not. But is it our (or anyone's) place in the world to do that? Is it Belgium's place to do it? Is it Sri Lanka's place? If not, why not? Does the Belize Defense Force go running off to Iraq, or send carrier task forces to the South China Sea to rattle its sabre? Why not? How about Lithuania? Mongolia? What's the difference in them and us?
How much did that hegemony cost us? Our "defense" department (which should have never been changed from the War Department, since that's what it is) has sucked up more money since WWII than the rest of the budget of the entire nation since its founding - several times over. It has spawned an entire industry - that Dwight Eisenhower warned us about - dedicated to supporting it and to making its principles über-rich (Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al). All in all, I think the vast majority of it was a complete waste. Imagine what we could have done with 1/10 of 1% of all that money since WWII if we'd put it into education, poverty elimination, health care, etc. The mind boggles.
Try to distill the wars the US has been involved in within the past 30 years down to their essence. In every case, the common thread is oil. The reason (as stated by Osama bin Laden himself) that al Qaeda has it in for the US is because of the presence of American troops on Saudi soil. Why are those boots on the ground? Oil. Why are we in Afghanistan? Because of the bad guys who lived there. Why are we after them? Because they're after us. Why are they after us? Because we're occupying (in their eyes) their country, which is sacred to Islam. Why are we there? Oil. Period. Why did we invade Iraq? Because Saddam was a bad guy. Why was he a bad guy? Because he invaded Kuwait. Why did he invade Kuwait? For their oil and their access to the Arabian Gulf. Why did he want that? So he could control more of the world's oil. So we went to war with him to "liberate Kuwait". Really? But we didn't finish it in 1991. And then Saddam tried to snuff daddy Bush. So then junior decided (along with his buddies Dick and Don) that we needed to finish him. A really nice side benefit would be better access for American companies to their... yes, you guessed it, OIL! We've had troops in Saudi Arabia since 1990 (not before) simply to prop up the house of Saud to ensure the unending flow of, yes, you guessed it, OIL! Name me another single reason for the presence in (or hell, even the political interest in) the middle east. Without oil, it's a sand lot in the middle of nowhere with nothing anybody needs or wants (good dates though). World trade doesn't pass through it, you can't make anything from sand except glass, and it's not really a tourist draw. Nope, it's ALL about oil.
Good luck in your career. Just remember, to the military, regardless of whatever propaganda they feed you, you're just a tool. You're expendable and replaceable. I guarantee you that's true (been there, done that).
You live in a strange world different than my own. The world you would have us live in would be filled with far more evil than exists today. War has never solved anything? What history books are you reading? The Civil War lead to the unshackling of slaves (no matter what Lost Causers say), the Allied vanquishing of Nazism meant that the Jews would not be completely exterminated. I would love for you to read "Knights of Bushido" written about the Japanese war crimes in Asia. Have you any idea the torture and cruelty that was inflicted on China and the rest of East Asia? Read and still say war never solves anything, and you deserve a medal.
And why the " " sneer quotes on "free"? Do you see no objective difference in freedom between North and South Korea or Taiwan and China?
The difference in those nations you mentioned and us is that America basically inherited world dominance peacefully from the British Empire, which had previously ruled the waves, guaranteed trade, and stopped international slavery. None of those countries have ever been in the position to wield such influence.
Osama bin Laden said one thing to Western audiences but another thing entirely to fellow Muslims. He acknowledged that non-Muslims must either convert, submit, or die in the long run.
For the patient though the better solution would be to live a healthy lifestyle and not simply wait for the doctors to fix them once they breakdown.
War is sometimes needed when situations have gotten really bad. However, unlike my analogy war is far from surgical. It would be better to focus on building better relations and helping (help, not force) disfunctional countries develop.
@KnightofBuddha, since you are not a buddhist monk at a monastery, a pacifist lifestyle is very hard to maintain. It was good that you were able to at least have a period of time being a pacifist.
It's good that you're having this moral debate. It's reassuring to know that you don't take violence and killing lightly.
I don't condone violence, but I understand that sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do.
It's actually an amoral philosophy. It says that life is actually NOT so dear, not so worthy or precious to be protected by the strength of arms. Pacifists would offer nothing but words as neighbors are enslaved and slaughtered. It simply does not account for implacable evil in the human soul, and has no answer to the Zawahiris, Mullah Omars, and Kony's of the world.
In the context of buddhism attachment to views CAN result in people killing eachother. Because they *can't* agree on what is right/wrong.
Homosexuals actually are murdered for their sexuality in Saudi Arabia and other Islamic states. Their murderers deserve the gallows since it is so abominably evil to murder someone for their sexuality.
I AM attached to the view that genocide, torture, and enslavement of others is evil...are you?
You specifically limited this discussion to violence and buddhism.
Do you find it interesting that the first precept is 'do not kill' rather than 'killing misconduct' similar to the third precept: sexual misconduct. Buddha was very clear.
It's pretty simple KoB: 5 precepts. Buddha. Enlightenment.
Like William Buckley said once, a man who pushes an old woman in front of a bus, and a man who pushes an old women out of the way of a bus are not morally equivalent for being pushers of old women. Not all violence is equivalent.
KoB, no as interpreted my any modern buddhists that I am aware of.
What if I ask a question of a Christian chatroom: A Modern Jeffrey Reflects on Christianity and Blaspheming Jesus?
You with me? And then I get on a pulpit and share my atheist view? Does that make any sense for a conversation? Buddha was very clear. Five precepts. We get this all the time with people asking if they can do drugs.
Don't eff it up.. This is your chance. You can bargain with karma all you want. Just as a patient with stage 4 cancer can bargain with Jesus.
5 precepts. Good bucket. Bad bucket.