jeff
Senior Member
Posts: 128
|
Post by jeff on Aug 30, 2013 13:36:49 GMT 1
Coming from our Buddhist perspective, I am curious what action, if any, you would take in Syria?
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Aug 30, 2013 15:35:25 GMT 1
Great question. I was adamantly against the first two wars in Iraq, and invading Afghanistan. I have been opposed to war my whole life. But I supported our actions in the former Yugoslavia, In Lybia, and I am in favor of attacking Syria with cruise missiles. To me, 911 was an amazing opportunity, missed, to demonstrate forgiveness and understanding from one of the most, if not the most powerful country on earth to the whole world. So i was against in retaliation, and I think it only made things worse. There are times, though, when dictators want to kill their own people, then I support intervention. I only believe in using the military for compassionate reasons. If we only used it for compassionate reasons, there would be a lot less reasons to use it. I would defund all militaries today. I would love for America to unilaterially disarm, completely. But in this world, right now, I honestly hope they will use it to send a strong message that gassing people is not allowed.
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Aug 30, 2013 15:40:46 GMT 1
We all should also pray for peace and prosperity in Syria. That kind of miracle is not beyond our grasp. That much we can do, we all can pray, no problem. It may seem crazy to pray for peace, and want missile strikes at the same time, but in my mind it is consistent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rudy on Aug 30, 2013 20:59:02 GMT 1
Especially without a UN decision on who committed these attacks, a US strike is nothing more then an act of arrogant aggression.
Unfortunately, the last war that the US started cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's their lives, and the motivation to start it - at least for the public - was based on incorrect intelligence. Since when is it in any ways justified to kill hundreds of thousands of people without reason?
Suppose the US has the sense to at least wait for the judgement of the international community, then what would this strike accomplish?
If it is as limited as promised, Assad (and other people opposed to the US acting as the moral police of the world) will only use it to prove how justified they are to oppose the US and other Western countries. So yes, you may destroy some military equipment, but it will only make the determination of people like Assad stronger.
Who will be killed by these strikes? At best, only Syrian soldiers, but are they not people, very much the same as US soldiers, but simply on the wrong side of the barrel? How would you justify the inevitable 'collateral damage'? Should innocent Syrians be happy to be killed because some random attacks can be launched against some military targets, which won't make any difference in the power and arrogance of Assad?
It is not impossible that such an attack will cause attacks from Syria and Iran against Israel - which they arguably see as a virtual US province - what then?
And why exactly is this chemical attack not allowed, when the country which released more war chemicals like napalm and agent orange over the heads of tens of thousands of Vietnamese civilians (the US) then any other country on the planet is in any way justified to 'punish' this attack as being inhumane?
How to explain that when Israel used phosphor bombs on the Palestinians not too long ago - which are equally 'banned' by the international community - the US gave them a pat on the back?
Why would Assad hold back from an all-out chemical attack on all his opponents, including Israel? It would certainly make him the hero in the eyes of many, many extremists...
As far as I know, throwing oil on a fire will not help much to put out a fire.
As the Buddha said, when you throw hot coals, you can be sure to burn your own hands.
I am certainly opposed to chemical weapons, but let's put them all on the list please, not just the ones that some opponents of the US use.
I'm opposed to killing and violence, so how can I agree with an open-ended attack from one criminal on another criminal which is likely to cost the lives of innocent people - possibly many more then were killed by the chemical attacks of Assad? Are the dead of that horrible attack helped by more deaths?
Even without the Buddhist view of non-violence, I think that chances are that the proposed attack will only make the situation in the Middle East worse, possibly dramatically worse.
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Aug 30, 2013 22:55:32 GMT 1
Yes, it is entirely possible it will only make things worse. The Buddha also said if you destroy your enemy, a thousand more will replace him. And Buddha taught nonviolence first and foremost, all the great masters did. I agree with everything you said about the US, Rudy, wholeheartedly. Recently, the CIA acknowledged that they and the Reagan administration.knew that Saddam Hussein was using Sarin gas against the Iran army, and the US continued to support him and help arm him. In fact, those attacks turned the tide of the war.
I have known since before the first Iraq invasion, Desert Storm in 92, that George Bush orchestrated Saddam Hussein's rise to power in Iraq when he (Bush) was the head of the CIA. Same with Norrega of Panama. The CIA paid him a hundred thousand dollars a year while he was still an army officer. Then when Bush was president, he invaded both countries. The US even gave Hussein a kind of subtle go ahead to invade Kuwait, which the Iraqis had done three times before. They told him whatever you do, do it now. THis is after they had an invasion force ready on the border of Kuwait.
And their (Bush 1 and 2 and Reagan and Cheney and the forces they represent) motivation was all about oil and the enormous budget for our military. Of course they always lied about that.
But Clinton sent planes and troops into Yugoslavia, and that was of huge benefit to the muslim minority there. The serbs were practicing genocide against them, and many many people in Europe wanted the US to do something about it. So Clinton and Blair, they finally sent their forces there. Would you have let the Germans win WWII? Should we have stayed out of Libya? Should we have stayed out of Yugoslavia?
I think you need to understand the difference in motivation between those actions, and the kind that neo-cons like Reagan, Bush and Chenny have done. THe US is often a force for evil, this is usually under the direction of forces in the military-industrial complex, and conservative presidents who believe might makes right, and god wants america to dominate the world, and get more rich doing it.
Now many people will protest any use of arms. People were against invading Yugoslavia, against bombing Libya. Most americans believe in American Interests, whatever that means.
But there are times that the result has justified the use of violence. Serbia, and Libya are two. We should never have gone to Viet Nam. Again the difference is motivation. I do not fear for my safety from any foreign threat. I do not want the US to ever attack anyone for any reason except to try to stop genocide from continuing. That is the only reason I am for it. And to Buddhists, motivation matters. Assad could win that civil war with sarin gas. His regime knows this. They did use it, deivered with rockets, that were found intact after they had been fired. A thousand or so people were killed by it. This much, has been demonstrated. If Assad's regime wins this war with sarin gas, what then? I think what Obama is leaning toward is the most compassionate thing to do. Those people tried nonviolence, they were very very brave, and they have been begging for help from anyone. So should we not give them arms? This is not black and white. I believe if we attack with some missiles and leave our navy there in that sea, the Syrians may decide not to use Sarin gas anymore. And then, it is possible regime change that is not as bad as they are will occur.
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Aug 30, 2013 23:30:35 GMT 1
Buddha doesn't care if Assad stays in power or not, he just wants people to be safe and become enlightened. I don't know that attacking is the right thing to do. I do know I was in favor of attacking the Serb army in Yugoslavia, and what we did in Libya and those are the only military actions I have supported in my life. That is out of many overt and covert wars I was completely against. I have hated hearing about what is happening in Syria, like I felt hearing about the genocide and rape camps in Yugoslavia and that was going to happen in Libya, I believed that. I am not attached to any outcome, or action on our part. I just really want an end to the civil war there, and I would love for the Syrians to have wise leaders. That is what I am really praying and meditating for.
Now 911 was good for the US military/industrial complex, and that's all those people who get rich from it really wanted. You should make an effort to understand the difference in my motivation, why I say I am for attacking Syria, and theirs. If you can't see any difference, then I think it is because it is easier to just have hard and fast rules that you can apply to every situation, and feel, well, the US is always wrong when it uses it military. I think why we use it, that is very, very important. ANd I really believe Obama cares about the people in Syria, and knows how wrong the US has been at times, including invading Iraq and Afghanistan.
The military industrial complex in America, is a reality you, I and Obama must live with for now. I want it to go away, but I do not think it will any faster if we did not go into Yugoslavia, or Lybia or we stay completely out of Syria. I think it is too oversimplified to say there is never a time the US should attack another country. Yes people will be killed. I think you know many will be killed either way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rudy on Aug 31, 2013 0:30:35 GMT 1
I did not say that force may never be needed. I do agree that for example in Serbia things have worked out in a generally positive way.
But I think that the actual reason why the US will attack in the coming days is that Obama has to save face, because he idiotically set an arbitrary 'red line' some time ago. I also vaguely remember from his own campagn when he wanted to become president that the US is not the police of the world. And this is exactly what he is doing, not just playing world police, but also the judge and executioner, and even in person!
When Obama was first elected president, I really had great hopes for a different attitude. As it is going now, I think he is simply earning his place among the worst of the US presidents.
Striking at Syria at the moment is throwing a match in a tinderbox. At best, the match will die out and prove to be useless, all other options mean a mess.
Alternatives? Obama should come down from his pulpit and pick up the phone with Putin. Obama has great ideals, but it seems he has no idea how to engage with others to make progress - both inside and outside the US. Russia is the only real ally of Syria, and all that has happened over the last 10 years is a gradual return towards a new cold war. Make a deal with Russia and clarify that when Russia keeps supporting Assad, they are morally responsible.
International politics has always been the weakest point of the US in my opinion. Believe me, from outside the US, it appears as if a few 12 year olds are in power, they have no memory from previous failures and more often then not, they chose the wrong side. Diplomacy is quickly replaced with violence - as if I am looking at a bad cowboys and Indians movie from the fifties...
Obama does not seem to understand that not only is he not constitutionally authorized to start a war with another country without the agreement of congress, similarly, he does not seem to understand that he has to wait for the UN.
Sorry, I'm afraid I'm talking way too much politics, and too little Buddhism. I really hope my ideas on this situation are wrong - it would save many lives...
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Aug 31, 2013 1:10:08 GMT 1
Well, one way or another we are all wrong. I hope for the best outcome. I have a lot of respect for Obama. I know the forces he lives with. He and Putin do seem to let their egos get in the way, but even without that, it is still in Russia and Iran's percieved interest to maintain the existing regime in Syria. I have seen what Obama has done with the situations he inherited, and I am mostly favorably impressed. He is far from perfect, but he has had many, many no-win situations to deal with. I believe he will be remembered fondly around the world eventually.
You see, I think any nation can be a terrible evil force. America often has been. I support a lot of wierd things Obama has done, because to not do them is to risk events that will end in letting the war dog of America, completely off the leash like we did after 911.
Russia was also very against any NATO action in Serbia. They never backed down from that position. Good Allies seem scarce for any world power any more, go figure.
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Aug 31, 2013 1:50:42 GMT 1
Okay, one more note, and then I will also stop talking politics. This is not supposed to support my argument, I just think it is of interest. What do the Serbs and the Allowites (like Assad) have in common? They were both oppressed under the Ottoman Empire, and then came into power in a mixed culture modern nation. Tito was a strong man, and he held the lid on, and defied both East and West and played them against each other. The Assads have too. Both have been ostensibly closer to Russia, but friendly with the US.
|
|
|
|
Post by bristollad on Aug 31, 2013 8:20:31 GMT 1
Was the Assad regime responsible for the chemical weapons? There are reports coming out now that "the attack" was due to rebels mishandling chemical weapons given to them by the Saudis. A decision by the US to bomb Syria would to my mind be akin to trying to put out a fire by throwing a bucket of petrol on it. As Buddhists we try to develop equanimity - we strive to develop compassion for the victim and the perpetrator. Both are suffering in Samsara and need to be helped. Knowing what action will be truly helpful requires wisdom and so we are motivated to achieve full enlightenment.
|
|
jeff
Senior Member
Posts: 128
|
Post by jeff on Aug 31, 2013 13:30:54 GMT 1
Yes, it is entirely possible it will only make things worse. The Buddha also said if you destroy your enemy, a thousand more will replace him. Didn't the Buddha also kill to save lives? |
|
jeff
Senior Member
Posts: 128
|
Post by jeff on Aug 31, 2013 13:45:54 GMT 1
While we may be talking politics, we are Buddhists talking politics, so I believe it is relevant. It's comforting to me to hear the struggles you are having, with which I identify completely. You guys are raising very important points.
The Buddha (supposedly) killed to save lives. He was willing to accept the negative karma (consequences) in order to benefit numerous sentient beings.
Matt said: "I only believe in using the military for compassionate reasons."
then Matt said: "I do not want the US to ever attack anyone for any reason except to try to stop genocide from continuing."
This is my belief also. When I see the faces, which I pray never leaves my mind, of the children who are scared and scarred for life, action becomes imperative.
That we have a spotty history when it comes to intervention, does not mean we should never try... Imagine if the US took that position in every instance in the past.
If we can agree that force may be needed at any time then the question is only under what circumstances is it justified?
Someone commenting on the NYT web site said: "If you want a guarantee buy a refrigerator". We can't be certain of the outcome and all of the side effects... ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by schnoebi on Aug 31, 2013 14:51:30 GMT 1
It is difficult to know what the truth really is when the facts are woven into stories and conspiracy theories by delusional parties which appear to motivated by fear. It is these distortions of the truth which causes all the suffering. Buddhists are on a mission to deconstruct their egos (I am struggling with me, myself and I currently), but perhaps not enough is said about deconstructing collective egos, such as the notion of : America(n) - applies to all countries, the Democratic Party - applies to all political parties, Buddhist - apples to all religions, Harvard alumnus - applies to all universities and institutions etc. it is the attachment to these collective egos that also leads to so much suffering. I am not suggesting an aversion to the the structure of society, on the contrary, the more the merrier. It is just the being attachment to them and the egoic belief that they are solid, permanent, independent causes so much misery..
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Aug 31, 2013 17:32:11 GMT 1
It is difficult to know what the truth really is when the facts are woven into stories and conspiracy theories by delusional parties which appear to motivated by fear. It is these distortions of the truth which causes all the suffering. Buddhists are on a mission to deconstruct their egos (I am struggling with me, myself and I currently), but perhaps not enough is said about deconstructing collective egos, such as the notion of : America(n) - applies to all countries, the Democratic Party - applies to all political parties, Buddhist - apples to all religions, Harvard alumnus - applies to all universities and institutions etc. it is the attachment to these collective egos that also leads to so much suffering. I am not suggesting an aversion to the the structure of society, on the contrary, the more the merrier. It is just the being attachment to them and the egoic belief that they are solid, permanent, independent causes so much misery.. I agree with that, a lot of my artwork is along those lines of thought. I ended up putting two mud sculptures in the faculty exhibit. One was a life sized eagle perched on a limb. The materials are mud, (top soil and water) willow branches and rope, that and the title are on the name tag: Interdependent American Digest. I started scuplting with mud, rather than bronze, as a graduate student. The mud works to deconstruct the expectation the sculptures are permanent, and applied to various themes like aggression, anger, nationalism, I have a series called Unused Gods... it is meant to help people see how we reify many aspects of our lives and identities and what that means. Also, I use the term Inter-dependence a lot in my work. Most people probably do not realize just how important our impermanent nature is to our interdependence. But Buddha never actually mentioned interdependence or emptiness. Those terms came later. What Buddha talked about was impermanence and selflessness. Buddha said that, "just as the foot print of the elephant is the greatest of all creatures foot prints, so my teachings on impermanence are the greatest of all my teachings." So I often teach mud sculpting workshops for kids and families at a nearby environment education center. I stress that by impermanent nature, I don't just mean we all die. Rather we live in constant physical change. We need food, water, air and all that underscores our interdependence. One can certainly deconstruct the sense we have a solid existing body, by contemplating all its impermanence and dependencies. Right down to the cellular level, bacterial, virus, chemical. On every level macro or micro, we are utterly impermanent and so interdependent. This is true of all our social constructs as well.  |
|
shaun
Full Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by shaun on Sept 1, 2013 9:11:33 GMT 1
Unfortunately, sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind. No man wants to see another man killed, but if you sit back & do nothing how many more will die. As any boxer will tell you sometimes you've got to cop one to land one. An unfortunate fact of life, but a fact none the less. That's samsara. My thoughts & prayers to the people of Syria.
|
|
|
|
Post by schnoebi on Sept 1, 2013 12:25:23 GMT 1
Unfortunately, sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind... . I have used the phrase "to be cruel to be kind" to justify my actions, even recently. This bleak statement, and the fact we are on a Buddhist forum, has made me think differently. Thank you Shaun for that. I now think there is never, ever, ever, ever, ever, a situation where one is justified to be cruel to be kind. Never. That does not mean being passive. A new topic perhaps? |
|
|
|
Post by Rudy on Sept 1, 2013 13:08:11 GMT 1
That's a good question!
I suppose we first need to decide what is meant with cruel. Is killing one person to save hundreds of lives cruel? This is what Jeff referred to as a story of the Buddha where he killed one 'terrorist' in order to save the lives of hundreds of people on a ship. Is that cruel per se, or is it only cruel when we make people suffer on purpose?
The story with Syria also raises another issue again that always comes up in my mind: with dictators such as Assad, would not the most fair and simple solution be to make them personally responsible, and instead of strikes on military targets or whatever, we should simply pick out the responsible guy at the top? Of course, this may end up that only the leaders of a country would be judged and 'executed' by another country (or the international community, such as the UN).
To me, that resembles most the example that the Buddha gave in extreme situations: avoid a massacre by taking out the responsible in charge. Had we done this with Hitler, Saddam and now Assad, it would certainly save the lives of thousands, total destruction of cities and entire countries. It would seem then that possibly the weapons industry and the military would need to make a switch to focus on taking out one or a few people in charge, rather then inviting these people to talks, nice dinners and treat them with all the regards they do not deserve...
One side-advantage might be that leaders take their jobs serious, and do not get the illusion they can get away with everything they do to enhance their ego.
The problem would of course be that no leader of any country would be safe from attack at any time. International summits would possibly end up as gun-slinging matches... Still, would that be worse then that the entire population of a nation is unsafe amidst the bomb-slinging leaders?
By the way, I think Obama made a good choice to leave the decision to Congress; not only does he need to do so legally (as I understand it), but as the Congress is in recess, the UN assessment should possibly be available when they need to decide. If this was not on his mind, in my view, it was a good choice by accident. All his talk about how big the US is and they can make their own decisions is simply ego-delusion, I thought he was more intelligent then that... Making decisions on international level without considering that there are more countries on this planet is arguably beyond being stupid.
|
|
jeff
Senior Member
Posts: 128
|
Post by jeff on Sept 1, 2013 13:21:26 GMT 1
Assassinating foreign leaders (of countries, not terrorist groups), while it may be expedient, is not something the world is likely to condone nor tolerate. As attractive as this option is among a lot of terrible options it will not happen, at least from the U.S. Also, am I the only one who finds it strange that the U.S. can't respond with a military strike because of vacations? I'm sure we all work on our vacations on more mundane activities... Now the political... Obama is passing the buck to Congress for 2 reasons: 1. He has criticized Bush for not going to Congress for approval and is afraid of being labeled hypocritical 2. He wants to share the blame if he breaks something While he may have convinced himself he is protecting democracy, I don't believe it. Also, at this point, I think most of his staff doesn't believe it |
|
|
|
Post by Rudy on Sept 1, 2013 15:37:20 GMT 1
Good point. Actually I have no idea at this point what he believes anyway...
Still it remains strange that we do not make leaders responsible for their actions - or is that just me? To me it has always felt like we know that someone committed a crime, and we start shooting his friends and family in response. I thought only organized crime used those tactics, but it appears that in international politics the same rules apply... This is probably why I have a strong aversion to most politicking.
|
|
|
|
Post by schnoebi on Sept 1, 2013 19:19:04 GMT 1
There are leaders and there are leaders. Some are dictatorial/autocratic and some are like puppets with no authority; usually it is a blend of the two. It isn't therefore easy to see who/what power is behind the throne. Accountability and responsibility comes with the job but we must be mindful not to demonise people who appear to be the leaders of the "bad guys"...
The dualistic view of who/what is good and what is bad/evil, is often used by some to justify violent action. If I took the view that I was on the good side, then paradoxically I will feel more righteous the more evil us good-guys were trying to fix. The withdrawal of this righteousness drug may be the cause, or the need, for the good-guys to find an enemy to demonise.
Or putting it in another way, goodies "need" baddies and their dance is like a tornado that destroys mindlessly and indiscriminately, everything in its path.. (Apologies for the drama!)
|
|
