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.
A way forward to peace
Simonthepilgrim
Veteran
This is the letter the Buddhist Peace Fellowship (US members of the International Network of Engaged Buddhists) delivered to the White House after the anti-war demos. I think it offers a cogent way towards peace.
____________________________________________________
Buddhist Peace Fellowship
P.O. Box 3470
Berkeley, CA 94703
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
president@whitehouse.gov
24 September 2005
Dear President Bush,
As Buddhist practitioners and teachers, we write to you with deep concern for our suffering world. Our organization, the Buddhist Peace Fellowship, represents nearly 5,000 people who believe that compassion and wisdom are essential ingredients of effective government. We respect the vast responsibility you have to lead the United States government and to try to help people within and beyond our borders towards life that is free from repression, persecution, and want. We understand that as a man of faith your own heart goes out to people in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama who are so hard hit by Hurricane Katrina, and to military and civilians of many nations caught up in the wars and civil strife of Iraq and Afghanistan.
We are also people of faith. Though our religious scriptures and practices are different from your own, Buddhists share values of compassion, love, and generosity with Christians, Jews, Muslims, and all those who follow their true hearts. It is from these passionate and shared values that our serious concerns arise about the role of our country in the world, and about what awaits us in the near and distant future.
As we and many other Americans viewed the images from Iraq and Louisiana these past weeks, we feel that our country’s actions and priorities have gone terribly wrong. This is not a surprise. So many people—ordinary citizens, military leaders, and political analysts—warned that the Iraq war was built on false premises, and that it would serve to deepen resentment and violence both in Iraq and towards the United States. This has proven true, as nearly 2,000 U.S. military—our brothers, sisters, and children—have been killed there, along with untold numbers of Iraqi civilians whose numbers grow daily in the face of what has become an ever more bitter civil war. The only benefit of this war has been to the profit line of U.S. corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel, and arms manufacturers like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics.
Meanwhile, the tragedy along our own Gulf Coast continues to unfold. Here too, warnings of impending disaster could be heard loud and clear well before Katrina struck. Prominent journals like the New Orleans’ Times-Picayune and National Geographic spelled out the danger to the levee system in unequivocal terms. Along with neglectful maintenance and engineering, the government turned a blind eye to extreme poverty, violence, and racism in one of our treasured cities. So in the last few weeks, we have seen an overwhelmingly African American population that is desperate and homeless—a grim reminder of resources lacking at home while hundreds of billions of dollars are spent overseas in adventures that win us not even the smallest bit of security. We grieve the fact that aside from direct U.S. military expenditures, international arms sales, $37 billion dollars worth, have reached a new peak, with the U.S. continuing to be the world’s largest arms merchant.
In the Dhammapada the Buddha taught: “Hatred is never appeased through hatred. Only through love is hated appeased. This is an eternal and unvarying law.” In the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Jesus said: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you…” As individuals and as a nation these should be our watchwords. We believe we can create a world free from fear, poverty, disease, and war. But not if we are driven by habits of self-centeredness, greed, national pride, and intolerance.
President Bush, we believe that true spiritual values take precedence over a culture of avid materialism. We feel that this belief is shared by much of the world, and is at the center of your own faith. As President you have an opportunity to lead America in a new direction, motivated by love and generosity. This will take strength and courage on your part. This is a kind of calling, and it brings to mind words that Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke in Birmingham nearly fifty years ago:
If I hit you and you hit me and I hit you back and you hit me back and go on, you see, that goes on ad infinitum. It just never ends. Somewhere somebody must have a little sense, and that’s the strong person. The strong person is the person who can cut off the chain of hate…Somebody must have religion enough and morality enough to cut it off and inject within the very structure of the universe that strong and powerful element of love.
We urge you to be the kind of person described by Dr. King, and taught by the Buddha and Jesus. The American people will back you all the way. In the wake of Katrina and last year’s Asian tsunami, ordinary Americans have shown themselves to be among the most generous and compassionate of peoples. Let us all bring forth this compassion and turn away from heartless violence and neglect.
In light of the deep desire that all of us share for peace and for true security, we call on you to take the following steps:
• Withdraw our combat troops from Iraq, including the National Guard, and offer the Iraqi people the food, water, medicine, and education they need to rebuild Iraq according to their own autonomous wishes;
• Re-direct a substantial portion of funds designated for war on Iraq for the support and rebuilding of the New Orleans and the Gulf Coast region;
• Create a real partnership between state, local, and federal resources that heeds the voices of the displaced. This partnership should: 1) place local residents and community organizations in decision-making roles in the rebuilding of their cities and towns, 2) provide living wage jobs by restoring the Davis-Bacon Act, and 3) guarantee the right of return for all evacuees;
• Turn away from preemptive military solutions to all perceived and prospective conflicts involving the United States and other nations, and adopt a foreign policy of kindness.
Just to start down the road outlined here will get the world’s attention and respect. More importantly, it will sow seeds of peace in a time when war endangers us all. Please lead us in this direction, and we will continue to share the truth with you as we see it.
Sincerely, in peace,
(Signed by members of BPF's International Advisory Committee)
____________________________________________________
Buddhist Peace Fellowship
P.O. Box 3470
Berkeley, CA 94703
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
president@whitehouse.gov
24 September 2005
Dear President Bush,
As Buddhist practitioners and teachers, we write to you with deep concern for our suffering world. Our organization, the Buddhist Peace Fellowship, represents nearly 5,000 people who believe that compassion and wisdom are essential ingredients of effective government. We respect the vast responsibility you have to lead the United States government and to try to help people within and beyond our borders towards life that is free from repression, persecution, and want. We understand that as a man of faith your own heart goes out to people in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama who are so hard hit by Hurricane Katrina, and to military and civilians of many nations caught up in the wars and civil strife of Iraq and Afghanistan.
We are also people of faith. Though our religious scriptures and practices are different from your own, Buddhists share values of compassion, love, and generosity with Christians, Jews, Muslims, and all those who follow their true hearts. It is from these passionate and shared values that our serious concerns arise about the role of our country in the world, and about what awaits us in the near and distant future.
As we and many other Americans viewed the images from Iraq and Louisiana these past weeks, we feel that our country’s actions and priorities have gone terribly wrong. This is not a surprise. So many people—ordinary citizens, military leaders, and political analysts—warned that the Iraq war was built on false premises, and that it would serve to deepen resentment and violence both in Iraq and towards the United States. This has proven true, as nearly 2,000 U.S. military—our brothers, sisters, and children—have been killed there, along with untold numbers of Iraqi civilians whose numbers grow daily in the face of what has become an ever more bitter civil war. The only benefit of this war has been to the profit line of U.S. corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel, and arms manufacturers like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics.
Meanwhile, the tragedy along our own Gulf Coast continues to unfold. Here too, warnings of impending disaster could be heard loud and clear well before Katrina struck. Prominent journals like the New Orleans’ Times-Picayune and National Geographic spelled out the danger to the levee system in unequivocal terms. Along with neglectful maintenance and engineering, the government turned a blind eye to extreme poverty, violence, and racism in one of our treasured cities. So in the last few weeks, we have seen an overwhelmingly African American population that is desperate and homeless—a grim reminder of resources lacking at home while hundreds of billions of dollars are spent overseas in adventures that win us not even the smallest bit of security. We grieve the fact that aside from direct U.S. military expenditures, international arms sales, $37 billion dollars worth, have reached a new peak, with the U.S. continuing to be the world’s largest arms merchant.
In the Dhammapada the Buddha taught: “Hatred is never appeased through hatred. Only through love is hated appeased. This is an eternal and unvarying law.” In the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Jesus said: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you…” As individuals and as a nation these should be our watchwords. We believe we can create a world free from fear, poverty, disease, and war. But not if we are driven by habits of self-centeredness, greed, national pride, and intolerance.
President Bush, we believe that true spiritual values take precedence over a culture of avid materialism. We feel that this belief is shared by much of the world, and is at the center of your own faith. As President you have an opportunity to lead America in a new direction, motivated by love and generosity. This will take strength and courage on your part. This is a kind of calling, and it brings to mind words that Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke in Birmingham nearly fifty years ago:
If I hit you and you hit me and I hit you back and you hit me back and go on, you see, that goes on ad infinitum. It just never ends. Somewhere somebody must have a little sense, and that’s the strong person. The strong person is the person who can cut off the chain of hate…Somebody must have religion enough and morality enough to cut it off and inject within the very structure of the universe that strong and powerful element of love.
We urge you to be the kind of person described by Dr. King, and taught by the Buddha and Jesus. The American people will back you all the way. In the wake of Katrina and last year’s Asian tsunami, ordinary Americans have shown themselves to be among the most generous and compassionate of peoples. Let us all bring forth this compassion and turn away from heartless violence and neglect.
In light of the deep desire that all of us share for peace and for true security, we call on you to take the following steps:
• Withdraw our combat troops from Iraq, including the National Guard, and offer the Iraqi people the food, water, medicine, and education they need to rebuild Iraq according to their own autonomous wishes;
• Re-direct a substantial portion of funds designated for war on Iraq for the support and rebuilding of the New Orleans and the Gulf Coast region;
• Create a real partnership between state, local, and federal resources that heeds the voices of the displaced. This partnership should: 1) place local residents and community organizations in decision-making roles in the rebuilding of their cities and towns, 2) provide living wage jobs by restoring the Davis-Bacon Act, and 3) guarantee the right of return for all evacuees;
• Turn away from preemptive military solutions to all perceived and prospective conflicts involving the United States and other nations, and adopt a foreign policy of kindness.
Just to start down the road outlined here will get the world’s attention and respect. More importantly, it will sow seeds of peace in a time when war endangers us all. Please lead us in this direction, and we will continue to share the truth with you as we see it.
Sincerely, in peace,
(Signed by members of BPF's International Advisory Committee)
0
Comments
If everybody took a copy of this letter and mailed it - time and time again, to not only Bush, but Blair and other world leaders.... "It's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil".... wouldn't it be great if they actually took any notice - ?
keep us posted, please Simon, on any further 'developments'.....
Thanks for the post.
• Withdraw our combat troops from Iraq, including the National Guard, and offer the Iraqi people the food, water, medicine, and education they need to rebuild Iraq according to their own autonomous wishes;
I agree with the content of this letter, however this request is IMHO is impratical and unrealistic in the short term. Once hostilities were commenced against Iraq, a moral contract was established between the US and British Goverment and the ordinary Iraqi citizen. Withdrawing now would cause chaos and leave Iraq embroiled in a Civil War!
Thousands of people will die in the aftermath as the various factions seek to take power...thousands of Kurds were killed when Bush Snr failed to bring down Saddham during the Gulf War....
The victims of Katrina need and deserve help, but surely not at the expense of these poor souls in Iraq.......our two governments have a responsibility to see this through to a satisfactory conclusion!!
I wish to add however that I am aware that a sizeable majority of both US and UK citizens want a date for withdrawal of troops from Iraq. I know that our troops are the buffer between the opposing factions, and as in the conflict in Northern Ireland, they bear the brunt of cowardly attacks....The presence of the British Army in Northern Ireland along with major restrictions on civil rights have, however, considerably reduced the level of violence.
Political negotiations have progressed significantly. Brokered by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell, a historic peace agreement was signed in 1998 by leaders from all sides. Voters in the Irish Republic and the North overwhelmingly approved the pact. The pact provided for self-rule for Northern Ireland. The pact had many conditions, and some terrorism has continued. But recently, the Irish Republican Army, started disposing of its arms, as promised in the pact. A permanent political settlement for Northern Ireland may be near.
Patience is required.... lets leave Iraq and its citizens with a fighting chance....should We have gone there in the first place....now thats a different story!!
I was reading your post and remembered a news story that I saw once about the Nixon presidency.
It was showing all the different ways things were done in the Whitehouse. For example, let's say that there was a document that the President wanted to read and know about, but didn't want it to be known that he had read it or known about it (for political purposes) - he wouldn't "sign" or it stamp it. But, he would put a little red check in one corner. Everyone knew that this meant he had read it - but that he would deny knowledge of its existance - if need be.
Good point - except for the Hillary thing - that confused me. Does she really control the media?
-bf
As for Hilary Clinton, she doesn't control the media in the form of ownership, but as she is the next likely Dem Presidential Candidate, she is under almost constant watch by the media, therefore what she says carries alot of weight.
In response to that, I would like to see Laura Bush run against Hilary.
is it absolutely certain that Bush will never see it? Isn't a communication like this one likely to not go ignored or unnoticed?
What do people think of the point made earlier, about the demand for withdrawal from Iraq as being slightly unrealistic?
I was also considering events in South Africa, once Apartheid ended.... the 'hand-over' has not been the roaring success people hoped for there.... this is the danger of asking a country inexperienced in Democracy, to start running itself....
• Turn away from preemptive military solutions to all perceived and prospective conflicts
involving the United States and other nations, and adopt a foreign policy of kindness.
This is the most powerful and relevant point made in the letter, as it deals with future actions and the way in which conflict theoretically be resolved through peaceful means.....
I am still keen to know how the author of this letter is proposing "mechanically" how this withdrawal is supposed to work....without even more innocents being killed. Good intentions and well-meaning gestures need to be underpinned by sound, workable proposals.
QUOTE
• Withdraw our combat troops from Iraq, including the National Guard, and offer the Iraqi people the food, water, medicine, and education they need to rebuild Iraq according to their own autonomous wishes.
This is all very well, but who monitors the distribution of this aid?....What is being proposed? To drop the aid by parachute and watch the armed gangs of Militia and fanatical groups run by Mullahs steal it all and sell the produce on the black market. has anyone ever seen images of truckloads of food arriving where they're needed, and the frenzy that often surrounds them? The ONLY way of getting aid directly to those who need it is to be there....ensuring that the weak, old, and infirmed receive their fair share. As for "their own autonomous wishes"....WHOSE....the Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds.....???
I have no wish to pour scorn on this letter or ridicule the authors, and yes it has well meaning intentions, but if I am raising these questions.....What would Bush say??
Now as to pulling out our troops, While there is still hatred among the factions, I'm afraid we can not pull out. But one solution may be to divide Iraq into several states, One for each Faction. Saying this alone may pull them all the factions together.
As for the insurgents they are mostly from other countries. The Military needs to close those borders until the iraqi people can decide on what they truly want to do.
Like most buddhists I know, I was vehemently against the notion of going to war in Iraq. Now, with the situation as it is, I feel that the U.S. must stay there until the Iraqi's have a stable system of government.
I don't think we should put "our" people in office though. If we want a democratic government in Iraq, it should be the one they choose. Sadly, I don't think that will be the case.
The current situation is a fine example of how negative actions (going to war for all the wrong reasons) have long term and unforseen negative consequences. Don't we have a word for that?
We can no longer trust any of the 'news' that comes out of Bagdad, because the journalists, like the rest of the foreign contingent, are holed up in a luxurious enclave: a fortified palace which used to belong to Saddam! There they have water, electricity, food and security, but dare not go out into the country that we have rendered too dangerous.
The assertion which is being made so regularly that the insurgents are all outsiders may or may not be true. we have no way of verifying the army's information. What is true is that our governments took the decision to disband the Iraqi army and police force, and now have been unable to rebuild them. Saddam's most infamous prison has been used to hold suspects - akin to using Gestapo Headquarters! Some of the soldiers, for reasons that remain unclear, have abused and tortured prisoners (it is my view that the very place, Abu Ghraib, is so blood-stained that it should have been pulled down). We have destroyed the secular state of Iraq and allowed the mullahs back in. As a result, they have brought with them their dislike of non-Islamic troops anywhere near the holy places.
There are a number of things which could be done. The first must be the withdrawal of British and US troops which are now so hated that they simply enflame the situation. We should be handing over the management of the area to its own people, which means that we have to stop the demonising of Iran, Syria, etc. The longer we stay, the easier we make it for propagandists to persuade people that it is a colonising exercise and the more they will resist.
Having listened to Normans speak about the German Occupation, I heard the same complaints as are being levelled at us!
I liken the invasion of Iraq, to the stabbing of a person through the heart. One of the most irresponsible and dangerous things to do, if the person is still alive, is to remove the knife straight away, without first stabilising the patient. This is very much the case in withdrawing our troops from Iraq. There is plenty of evidence that the insurgents you described are not necessarily outsiders, but have been able to freely cross backwards and forwards from Syria, a country which has had very strong links with terrorism. The reports of torture, are without any doubt or argument, despicable. However again, I suspect that in many cases, this more akin to ill treatment, rather than sustained institutional torture. I have served in the British Army as a Military Policeman, so believe that I am in a valid position to draw these distinctions. The pressure on very young soldiers, whose day-to-day activities compel them to witness the death and maiming of their friends and colleagues is enormous, therefore isolated incidents of cruelty are almost inevitable, however regretful and wrong.
I also believe that whilst not seeking to demonise the Iranians, it is worth noting that they have been at war with Iraq for many years. The phased withdrawal of our soldiers will also help protect Iraq against possible attacks by Iran looking to attack it's historical foe when at her weakest.
The imprisonment of untried prisoners in poor conditions for prolongued periods of time is wrong both in Iraq and Guantanamo bay. The legality for this War has never been fully proved or tested in the Courts, therefore any other connected flagrant abuse of the Law and human rights is to be condemned.
I will be watching with some interest when Saddam Hussein's trial finally begins, as I believe that the legality of this procedure will be further put to the test. Regime change was never part of the supposed allied agenda, providing the evidence of WMD was. This whole situation is a can of worms, but this is my humble opinion, not fact. How could it be otherwise? Perhaps, the only good thing to come out of all this, is that the whole world is in camera shot and we are more conscious of the savage consequences of War.
The logic of colonial rule
Tariq Ali
There is now near-universal agreement that the western occupation of Iraq has turned out to be an unmitigated disaster; first for the people of Iraq, second for the soldiers sent by scoundrel politicians to die in a foreign land. The grammar of deceit utilised by Bush, Blair and sundry neocon/neolib apologists to justify the war has lost all credibility. Despite the embedded journalists and non-stop propaganda, the bloody images refuse to go away: the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops is the only meaningful solution. Real history moves deep within the memory of a people, but is always an obstacle to imperial fantasists: the sight of John Reid and the Iraqi prime minister brought back memories of Anthony Eden and Nuri Said in Downing Street just before the 1958 revolution that removed the British from Iraq.
The argument that withdrawal will lead to civil war is slightly absurd, since the occupation has already accelerated and exacerbated ethnic and religious tensions in Iraq. Divide and rule is the deadly logic of colonial rule - and signs that the US is planning an exit strategy coupled with a long-term presence is evident in the new Iraqi constitution, pushed through by US proconsul Zalmay Khalilzad. This document is a defacto division of Iraq into Kurdistan (a US-Israeli protectorate), Southern Iraq (dominated by Iran) and the Sunni badlands (policed by semi-reliable ex-Baathists under state department and Foreign Office tutelage). What is this if not an invitation to civil war? The occupation has also created a geopolitical mess. Recent events in Basra are linked to a western fear of Iranian domination. Having encouraged Moqtada al-Sadr's militias to resist the slavishly pro-Iranian faction, why are the British surprised when they demand real independence?
The Iranian mullahs, meanwhile, are chuckling - literally. Some months ago, when the Iranian vice-president visited the United Arab Emirates for a regional summit, he was asked by the sheikhs whether he feared a US intervention in Iran. The Iranian leader roared with laughter: "Without us, the US could never have occupied Afghanistan or Iraq. They know that and we know that invading Iran would mean they would be driven out of those two countries."
Meanwhile, there is the war at home. A war against civil liberties masked as a defence against terror. In the face of terror attacks one particular mantra, shrouded in untruth, is repeated: "We shall not permit these attacks to change our way of life." But they do. "Oh, may no more a foreign master's rage/ With wrongs yet legal, curse a future age!" wrote Alexander Pope. Three centuries later, we have Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib and Britain's own state security prison, Belmarsh, in which some of those held indefinitely without trial have been driven mad and transferred to Broadmoor. Nor should one forget the public execution of Jean Charles de Menezes and the attempted cover-up that followed.
There will be no progress towards peace so long as Tony Blair remains prime minister. He was re-elected with only 35 % of the popular vote and barely a fifth of the overall electorate - the lowest percentage secured by any governing party in recent European history. Britain is undergoing a crisis of representation: a majority of the population opposed the war in Iraq; a majority favours withdrawing British troops; 66% believe that the attacks on London were a direct result of Blair's decision to send troops to Iraq. All good reasons why we march and demand an end to war, occupation and terror on Saturday.
· Tariq Ali is a vice-president of the Stop the War Coalition
The next part is that the terrorists in Iraq seek to undermine any attempt by the US to rebuild the nation. These terrorists are mainly foreigners, who I personally feel have no business trying to disrupt the rebuilding of Iraq. The majority of Iraqi people hate them, knowing that they are foreigners, and knowing that these foreigners are only prolonging the occupation of their nation.
The next problem is that, while we are rebuilding the nation, we are occupying a sovereign nation, which is just bad PR for a nation that has anything to do with democracy. We have occupied other nations in the past, and were justified in doing so, but on those occasions we were justified, we were quick to rebuild and get out, or we struck a long term deal in which we remained as the defensive force for that nation. In those situations, we have made strong allies. In this case, we have to stay the course, and work to see that history repeats itself, that we end the occupation of Iraq when possible, and that the nation sustains itself under its' own government and military, with a strong alliance to the US.
A major problem is that Iraq has a desert border with several nations, from which the terrorists come. Closing the border would be the best option, but how do we achieve that? Send in more US troops to fortify the border? That would work, but then the occupation looks worse. Wait for the Iraqi forces to be trained? In the long term it would work, but what about right now? As long as Iraqi military recruiting stations are the targets of terrorist attacks, the process to do so is a long and tedious one. Ultimately, we do need to turn over border defense to the Iraqis, but for now, I think the US needs to bite the bullet. Unfortunately, there's only one way to meet our needs for Iraq, N. Korea, and Iran, and the politician that makes that motion is committing career suicide.
I will say this, the problem in Iraq was handled the wrong way from the beginning, and I'm not at all happy with what has happened. I place much of the blame on the UN. Had things been carried out swiftly, we might have caught Hussein with his pants down. If he didn't have weapons made, we would have caught him with facilities that had obviously been operating before we got there. As it is, we found nothing concrete to incriminate him with, and thousands have died with very little overall achievement. This is indeed turning into Vietnam all over again, and that is a mistake we need not repeat.
I'm sorry... I must be missing something here. The evidence we had against Saddam would not stand up in a court of law - but was enough for us to invade a country and kill it's innocent citizens?
Have no business in interrupting the United States rebulding of a country that they invaded? Because we are already here - it is okay for us to define how Iraq will be rebuilt - but it is terrorism if someone else does it?
I can't go on. What countries have the United States invaded or occupied that we were justified in doing so? How would you feel if people from another country came in and occupied your lands or dealt with your family as they saw fit? Obviously, someone thought we didn't need the World Trade Towers and took it upon themselves to remove these eyesores.
We were justified in invading Vietnam? Cambodia? Korea? Panama? I am sure the list could go on and on and I cannot think of a situation where forceful occupation of a country is justified.
It is my belief that the United States made a grave error when we decided side with Saddam to gain access to the botched relationship we had with Iran with the usurping of the Shaw. We put him on our bankroll so that we could have access to Iran via it's next door neighbor. We made a mistake when we knew Saddam was a tyrant and killing his own countrymen, setting up opulent palaces at the expense of the blood and lives of his own people. But, ooops!, mess with our oil and, all of a sudden, we're going to develop morals?
Not that my opinion matters, but I am having a difficult time agreeing with the information you have provided in this post.
Help me understand!
-bf
Additionally, we are foreigners in Iraq. Is this the result of "waging war on terror abroad so that we don't have to fight them at home"?
You go on: . Not, I would suggest a sine qua non although, possibly, useful commercially if disastrous politically! Alliance with the US will inevitably bring Iraq into conflict with its neighbours over the Palestine question if for no other reason.
And, further on, you say and yet the UN inspectrors did not lie: there were no WMDs. It was the US/UK alliance which disbanded the Iraqi army and police, exposing and opening the borders, not the UN.
And, finally, I would be interested to hear your evidence for this: Even Blair now admits that the whole question of WMDs was a mare's nest.
I have been told that the best way out of a hole is to stop digging. We have failed in Iraq, just as we are failing in Afghanistan. It cannot be the compassionate poltical decision to collude with more deaths, more destruction of infrastructure and more impoverishment. Let us admit our failure so that we can move on.
Second, a short list of nations we have invaded and occupied with full justification: West Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Afghanistan. The first two are obviously justified, as they waged a war with most of the world and engaged in the bigoted murder and genocide of millions of people. South Korea wants us there, to keep North Korea in check. And Afghanistan was harboring a fugitive terrorist who is responsible for the deaths of thousands, including, IMO, those soldiers killed on both sides of the Afghanistan war.
Third, how are those that disrupt the rebuilding of Iraq terrorists? Very simple, they use terroristic tactics to create instability in Iraq, indiscriminately killing Foreigner and Iraqi alike. And, most of these men are foreigners themselves who are trying to disrupt a process in which the majority of Iraqi people are behind. The US may prod the Iraqi National Council in certain directions while writing the new Constitution, but it is the Iraqis themselves who write that constitution.
Fourth, how are we not justified in going to war with a maniac who is known to be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands OF HIS OWN PEOPLE? That statement does include the Kurds, but that doesn't negate the fact that Hussein gassed thousands of them and started a war of invasion which led to the deaths of thousands more of his own soldiers. My biggest problem with the situation in Iraq is that the whole war has been overly politicized from the start. This is what happens when Beaureaucrats fight wars, not generals and soldiers. Hussein should have been taken out and the country occupied in Bush Sr.'s time, and Clinton has no excuses either, in my book.
It's plain and simple, there is no right answer to this situation, it's the result of several major errors made by US policy makers over three decades. Either we stay the course, and create another ally in the MidEast, or we pull out, and end up with another, far worse situation with one of the most hostile enemies the US could have, another dictator who hates the US as much as bin Laden does.
While I don't agree with everything you have stated, you do make some valid points. Not that I agree with the validity of them - because I don't see some of the issues that way.
But, so as not to belabor this point until people go bonkers, I'm fine with both sides stating their views and agreeing to disagree.
-bf
I have heard this justification over and over again. So, why Iraq? Why not China for the Tibetan genocide? Why not Sudan? Why not Turkey?
And this was not the argument that dragged us into yet another unwinnable war, with no planning for the aftermath. Nobody, surely, still beleives the lies tolf to the UN by Colin Powell: even he doesn't.
So we have stopped imprisonment without due process, torture and slaughter of innocent civilians, have we? I think not.
If you were not refering to me, :tongue2:
"It's easy to know right from wrong. It's knowing which of the wrongs is more right that's hard."
By propping up Sadam in the past, we now have two wrongs to choose from, and neither looks very attractive. I still maintain that we need to stay there until the Iraqis choose a government for themselves. I do belive, however, that it needs to be a govenment of their own choosing, not a puppet government that answers to us, such as in Afganastan. It seems their president, Hamid Karzi, answers directly to Unocal (or Dick Cheney, if you prefer). If we do this again, we are only sowing a bitter harvest that future generations will no doubt reap in full.
.................................[/quote]
TraceyLinMiller,
I know that you have recently joined these boards and that I am but a humble member like yourself, but I take objection to the comparison of Federica with Devadatta. That the story tells that the Awakened prophesied Devadatta's future awakening does not take away from the fact that he is an unpleasant figure in the Gautama legend.
You may wish to take time to see how diverse is the range of views held and expressed by people here. By your constant repetition that you follow the Nichiren way, we are now, I imagine, all aware that this is so. We also know that it works for you.
Please understand that many of us do not find the chanting of your mantra to be as useful as you do. Personally, I find it problematic.
Since I am new kid on the block, and many here have connections because of the fact that they have come to know each other better than they do me, it is nice to see such loyalty to each other. Devadatta might have been a somewhat repulsive character, but he aided shakyamuni in the proof of his teachings. Everyone has his or her own mission. Devadatta had his and Shakyamuni had his, hence the reason that both actually attained enlightenment. my point in my statement is that everyone has their person who opposes them. this is good. The world is our mirror. It allows us to see who we really are based on how it responds to us and how we respond to it. Some of us are like pine wood, every strick of the hammer against the awl sends chips flying. Others are like petrified wood and difficult to get a chip off of, and others somewhere in between.
Devadatta was like pine wood, everything shakyamuni did sent chips of him flying all over the place, all of which started from the emotion of jealousy (Shakyamuni married the woman he wanted) and snowballed from that moment into all kinds of ugly behavior. Yet, the murderous behavior of Devadatta did not turn Shakyamuni away from him, he still showed him the greatest compassion in prophesising his enlightenment. There are two kinds of connections with the buddha, a positive anda negative one, both ultimately leading to enlightenment. Devadatta's was a negative one.
In my opinion, my repetition of the name of the buddhist sect I belong to should not have any affect on anyone any more than seeing my name repeated in these replies. Yet, for whatever reason this annoyed Fredrica enough to bring this response from her. I wonder why?
Don't know where you got the impression I was annoyed, Trace, ... I just think it's funny that you sounded like a stuck record.....:whatever:
Thank you for clarifying how you were using the Devadatta legend.
You ask why I find repetition of the title of the Saddharma-pundarika ("White Lotus of ther True Dharma") sutra a problem.. It is probably the result of ignorance on my part (it usually is!) I have real difficulty with any 'doctrine' which says that this or that mechanical action is the one and only "true" Way.
You say yet I can find no evidence that Theravadin, Mahayana or Tantric practitioners are "all over the place".
It seems as though you, also, agree that each person has their own way to find. For some of us, that way is pointed out by the Shakyamuni, for you by Nichiren. Both are only "fingers pointing to the Moon" and not the Moon herself. Also, for some of us, there are lots of such "fingers", including some teachers alive today such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Sogyal Rinpoche.
In Tibetan Buddhism, there is the story of Padmasambhava and the hiding of "treasures" which are revealed progressively as they are needed. The Mahayana view of an unfolding of understanding of the Dharma does not imply a 'final' revelation of some sort.
The Lotus Sutra is a treasure, both spiritual and literary. Its apocalyptic vision (which reminds me of some of the great Hindu epics) sets out a cosmogony which is illustrative of the truths that the Awakened was teaching, but I seriously wonder if we are expected to take it literally, with its distant worlds and past aeons, hells and demons. It reads to me like a parable.
This is not to dismiss the sutra or to diminish its importance. It is to place it within the whole sweep of the canon of Buddhist writing. The sutra itself appears to have been subject to recension and editing. As far as I can read, there is agreement that the 'core' was composed arounf the First Century of the Common Era. It is quoted by Nagarjuna, who is generally accepted to have lived towards the end of the 2nd Century. But there is still no consensus as to which parts actually make up that 'core', any more than there is over the logia of Jesus which made up the Quelle 'gospel'.
To restrict ourselves to a single sutra is to lose some extraordinary and deeply wonderful works.
I do note, however, that the Ven. Maha Sthavira Sangharakshita says
The fact that the sutra says that that it is supreme does not make it so. If you consider the Perfection Of Wisdom Sutras and, in particular, the Hrdaya or 'Heart' Sutra, you find Avalokiteshvara teaching Sariputra the mantra that summarises the Dharma and by 'proper' intoning of which the heart is opened to the Perfect Wisdom: GATE GATE PARAGATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SVAHA.
It is in the nature of human beings that we want a "quick fix", a single phrase that will open the way out of dukkha and into some paradisical existence. Buddhism teases us with lots of such 'fixes', only to show us, over and over again, that it is in walking compassionately and skillfully through the world that we find true Refuge in the Wish-fulfilling Jewels.
The Christian scriptures have the sentence "By their fruits you shall know them". For those of us who have taken this to heart, it is by compassionate action in the world as it is, action arising out of practice faithfully followed, that we show the eternal truth of the Dharma.
I hope this explains a little better.
It is true that the Lotus Sutra is in fact a parable "that can only be understood between buddha's" as Shakyamuni says in it's second chapter. I think the primary difference in the other schools of buddhism is that one must attain enlightenment over long periods of time and only if you are a man. Whereas in the Lotus Sutra, for the first time the prophesy of enlightenment for women and those in the two vehicles of learning and realization is first pronounced. This means that prior to the Lotus Sutra only men could attain enlightenment.
I have been repetitively reading the Lotus Sutra for a few years now and each time I become aware of additional clarity regarding this writing. As you say, each has what he/she needs at the time it is needed and I might add only when one has reached the level of understanding to accept it. This of course is an individuals capabilities and not one for anyone else to judge. Because I don't understand does not mean it is not so. It merely means that I have not awakened the ability to understand yet.
Thank you for clarifying your position.
But the "Heart Of Buddha" book club thingy that Jerbear is is doing has an area early on in the book discussing the various teachings of Buddha. And that how, given the centuries that had gone by before any of Buddha's teachings were recorded - all the schools and all the transcriptions are useful in finding out what Buddha really meant.
It's a very informative book.
-bf
I had a teacher in the UK when I was studying Shiatsu and particularly TCM... the syndromes of the different diagnostic effects on the body, according to this ancient science, are very difficult to grasp with the Western Mind, so differnt are they to the clinical, analytical 'black-and-white-ness' of Western medicine... he once said that trying to understand Oriental concepts with a Western Mind was like "looking in a darkened room for a black cat that isn't there".... I'm sure I've heard this description with reference and comparison to other things too....
Sometimes, if we read, re-read and read again the words of a lesson we're attempting to absorb, and we just don't get it - it is more productive for our Mind to leave it aside.... not to either deny it, nor accept it. Just let it be.
Hebrew rule
The Hebrews were a subject people in Egypt for some time, this has been proven archaeologically. The idea of the Exodus is fairly solid. But when the Hebrews left Egypt, they were a nomadic people without a homeland. According to the Book of Exodus, they were commanded by God to go to the land of Canaan, and in subsequent books were commanded to take it by force, enacting a genocide to clear the land. I make no judgement on that matter, but Hebrew failure to fulfill the genocide leads to our first problem. They left a few groups of people who continued to reside in the general area after that, who are the ancestors of some of the nations in the MidEast today. Following Biblical history, we see that the Hebrews eventually divided into two nations, Israel and Judah. Israel was eventually conquered by the Assyrians, and Judah was conquered by the Babylonians.
The Dispersion
The conquered Jews were removed from the lands they had taken as their own, leaving only a small remnent in what would later be called Judea, then Palestine, by the Romans. When the Babylonian Empire was conquered by the Medo-Persian Empire, the Jews were allowed to return to Judea. But the neighbors they had left behind had multiplied, and this time genocide wasn't an option. Following the OT in the Bible, we see that the returned Jews had one problem after another under Medo-Persian Rule. This is our second problem. History tells us that the Persians displaced the Medes, then Alexander the Great conquered Persia. Here we find our third, and most devestating, problem. Under Greek rule, Judaism was suppressed, even to the point of the Temple in Jerusalem being desecrated. This sparked the Maccabeen revolution, and brought about the rule of the Hasmonean family in Judea. The Jews drove out their neighbors and maintained independence for 70 years. But the actions of Greek rulers had inspired a nationalism and instilled a distrust for conquerors that would last until well into the Roman Empire. The Roman Occupation of Judea was merely putting down one resistance after another. This brings us to the time of Yeshua of Nazereth, and later the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, who became Paul the Apostle. Pauline thinking later became Proto-Orthodox Christianity, which became the foundation for the Catholic Church. So the third and fourth problems occur in nearly simultaneous eras. Christianity grew, and the Jews continued to rebel, well into the second century. When the Romans put down the last rebellion in Judea, they cleared out all the Jews, destroyed all the Synagogues in that area, and forbade the religious gatherings of Jews while in the province now known as Palestine. The time of Christianity is at hand.
Christianity, Islam, and the Crusades
Under Roman rule, with the roads and Pax Romana, Christianity began to thrive, eventually coming to dominate all of Europe and Asia Minor. The Roman Empire Splits, giving us the Catholic Church, and the Greek Orthodox Church. The Western Empire falls, due to a corrupt government and a rotten cultural heart, but Catholicism thrives in Western Europe, being the only cultural unifier of the people in the Dark Ages. At this time, we see the birth and rise of Islam. It took just as long for Islam to dominate the Middle East as it did for Christianity to dominate Europe. First one Empire then another adopts Islam as its' state religion, until we come to the Ottoman Turks. Here, the third and fourth problems come to a head and create the fifth problem, the Crusades. The Holy Lands had been under the domination of the Eastern Empire and Greek Orthodox Church for over 600 years, and with the Eastern Empire in Decline, the areas surrounding the Holy Lands are coming under Muslim domination. To protect Christian Interests, the Crusades are fought, and a bitterness is sown that lasts into today. The Black Plague appears in Europe, which brings a halt to the Crusades, and intensifies Anti-Semitic sentiment in Europe. The Jews, who had long been social pariahs in Europe, are now openly persecuted. With Muslim Rule of the Middle East, the Jews don't return to Palestine, but seek to hold out in Europe. With the failure of the Crusades to hold the Holy Lands in Christian Rule, an alternate method of trade with the Far East is sought, to obtain the spices, silk, and other exotic goods desired by the rich and noble of Europe. The most important advances in the Crusades were arguably the nautical advances made by Europeans, because we see this lead to the discovery of the New World, as well as the eventual circumnavigation of Africa and then India.
The New World and the British Empire
Small groups of Jews began to trickle into the New World, along with the brave and other political refugees. The American Revolution is fought, and the US is born. Britain is fast becoming the world power, and eventually comes to dominate the Middles East, including Palestine. WWI is fought, and an agreement is struck when a Jewish Scientist discovers a method to produce large quantities of smokeless gunpowder. The British Empire would allow the Jews to return to Palestine, and claim it as their home after the war. Between WWI and WWII, groups of Jews began settling in the British Province of Palestine.
World War Two and the Modern Era
Then comes WWII, enough said. The necessity of a Jewish Homeland is clearly shown, and promises are made. Here's our sixth problem. Those who made the promises did not completely adhere to them, forcing the Jews to fight for every inch of land they currently have, and continually fight to keep it. And, the British began to dismantle the Empire, in some cases lumping several groups into one nation. The US began supporting rulers that were anti communist, and when the US got to close to a direct war with the USSR, we backed off. Then the USSR fell, leaving us with several more unrestrained enemies in the MidEast.
There you have it. The blame for the MidEast is to be shared by everyone West of the Hindu Kush and North of the Himalayas. Three Religions hold the City of Jerusalem to be sacred, and have fought over it for almost 1000 years. There is no easy or certain solution. I don't like the way things have been handled, but the worst possible course would be to pull out now. We would only create a worse problem in the long run.
Without wishing to patronise, I would like to say that you are worth reading.
* I am entirely in agreement with you that today's problems are the results of long history. It is one of the prevailing beliefs in Europe that the adventurism of the current US Administration arises from a lack of historical sense which, in turn, is a direct result of the USA's 'youth' and denial of the histories of the people it has displaced. Be that as it may, the history of the Near and Middle East is the whole history of the West, from the first cities on. For some 10,000 years, armies have moved across the region, conquering, raping and looting. Different cities and nations have dominated. Different socio-economic models have been practised. In a very real sense, this is the racial karma that we all carry and to which we contribute.
* I disagree with many of the statements that you make as being factual but I do not think a Buddhist forum the best place to exchange references about Biblical archaeology and authenticity. This in no way spoils the basic fact that the current situation in the Fertile Crescent is the result of ages-long preparation.