DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: domer on May 19, 2007, 04:23:16 PM
-
The recent, gratuitous blood-libel insults leveled against our fighting men and women by the assassin of the left, the Canadian crank Michael Tee, have given me occasion for this seemingly innumerable time to try to fix my bearings on what is right and just for our mission in Iraq, if not what is realistically possible -- the key question at that. I start from the proposition that the invasion should never have been launched for it failed (in the retrospective scrutiny) the key, sine qua non aspect spurring invasion: the presence of WMD. (Importantly, at the time the "go" order was given, there is a great lacuna in the data on the bona fides of the various principals, up to and including President Bush himself. Yet, necessarily, theories swirl around the principals' intent: pristinely good faith (unlikely), negligent, reckless, malevolent. I settle for reasons of common sense (not to be elaborated here further) on the "middle intents," negligent or reckless, given the entire panorama of the problem and the solemn duties involved.) The possession of workable, deliverable WMD's coupled with the intent and ability to do us harm in that way (any other way of harming us, such as a hypothetical amphibious assault on our beaches, say, would not satisfy the stringent criteria for a consensus use of a preemptive strike). The connections to terrorists in any demonstrably operational way, which was feared to be the most likely method of delivery of WMD-harm, also did not withstand scrutiny. And, of course, the direct link between Iraq and 911, stumbled over repeatedly, simply had no substance.
Yet, the critics claiming a rape of Iraq have been muted (given that potential charge) because the eddy of actual facts was stirrred by the soul-wrenching fears of a great nation and the neo-con pre-set template (employed by people duly elected partly on that basis) of keenly desiring a transformative event in the Middle East preferably through the means of the overthrow of Saddam and the planting a freer, more Western-friendly government.
As I see it, at the time the order was given to attack, the case for war against Iraq was a close one. Arrayed next to the "legal requisite" items identified in the last two paragraphs, adding heft and impetus if not validity on their own, there existed the matter of UN Resolution 1441 (and the minor but existing question of whether a constituent state could enforce on its own a Security Council resolution), the "continuing state of war, or absence of peace," since the 1991 Gulf War, the Iraqi practice of periodically attacking our aircraft enforcing the lawful no-fly zone, Saddam's open cheerleading and financial support of terrorists and their families, Saddam's being the leading occupant of the Muslim bully-pulpit at least indirectly stoking hatred of the US (and presumably encouraging its actual, physical enemies), the yawning need for something dramatic and decisive in the Middle East to stop the swing of popular sentiment and institutional support for a radicalism quickly being deployed to destroy and "reclaim" much of the Muslim world, if not all of it, and to eliminate through a thousand cuts or a few big calamities the Great Satan, the US.
No, the invasion, overthrow of Saddam and installation of a new government accompanied by a necessary occupation was not the cause of our great national heartache, it was the mismanagement of the endgame of the invasion and the entirety of the occupation, which flowed from terrible lapses in leadership. Had things gone as anticipated (who was handing out the orse-colored glasses?), we simply would not be questioning let alone protesting what (through those rose-colored glasses) could have been a boon to every decent person concerned, and prominently us. As it was, refleccting prescient pre-war assessments such as Sen. Kennedy's, a guerilla opposition developed and flourished, internal political wrangling accentuated, not modulated, differences, fighting raged in the streets, the government was singularly ineffectual, and the death toll rose among innocent Iraqis and the American servicemen, the salt of the earth who answered a noble call to duty only to be met by a maelstrom, which they neither created nor anticipated.
But now we're there. The politics of the matter as it is poised just now has it just about right. The president, despite his "stay the course" basic orientation, is finally -- at the point where he has little choice, but only to the extent he is forced -- is making some concessions as to benchmarks and renewed pressure on the Iraqi government. This is occurring as a consequence of Congressional pressure, but a pressure that will fall short of the Legislature "pulling the trigger," that is, defunding the war, because that step subjects them to catastrophic political liability should things go South in a hurry after withdrawal. It's better for them -- and for us -- to move in increments, shooting for if not attaining a consensus, than risk having th whole thing really go to hell in a handbasket during a timeout they called themselves.
-
I like your analysis , and partially agree.
What is the value of being resolute?
Have you ever seen a squirrel on the street displaying a lot of running energy and little decisiveness as it chooses alternately to advance and retreat? The squirrel would be better with either choice kept than with the repeated reconsideration.
How can we remain a free society , yet present to an enemy a united front?
-
Have you ever seen a squirrel on the street displaying a lot of running energy and little decisiveness as it chooses alternately to advance and retreat? The squirrel would be better with either choice kept than with the repeated reconsideration.
Against cars or ground predators. However, the biggest threat to a squirrel's life is from raptors. This constant weaving and dancing is enough to disrupt a raptor's diving attack.
-
I thank Ami for the "save" on Plane's "squirrel" analogy. Yet, the metaphors abound for the Iraq venture. Even hinting at our present predicament (which, overall, is a major failure) as being due to the "irresolute" (I prefer "thoughful") amongst us is a major disservice to the truth. It should be obvious to all that to a painful degree at least, Bush has been resolute in watching the lemmings he set in motion fall off the cliff despite the rousing cries of his critics for them to, "Turn right! (or left!)"
-
A possible solutiion might be to employ what esentially worked in the past. If I remember, Turkey adequately governed Iraq for quite some time. Is a possible method employing a strategy such as the Romans used, e.g. employing a constabulary force of non-
Legion, in this case the Turks? (or a similar ruthless yet effective middle-man) to govern until Iraq's fragile democracy can stabilize?
A side note: Would this require less of a Press presence due to the effective yet brutal means the Turks might use to establish and maintain order?
I remember, er, there was/we had a Turk regiment in Nam. Their area of the base was the only one, along with the Ghurka contingent, that was free of snipers. You could drive around all day and not have to worry. Our sector was not this way; you drove as fast as you could and ducked an awful lot. The Vietnamese were legitimately afraid of both contingents, for good reasons. I remember once the Vietnamese pissed off the Turks. Can't remember the reason. The Turks went after them and literally skinned many of them alive while pursuing "other leisurely pursuits" with many more and them left them for all to see. They were gone over a week. US Command was perplexed, not knowing what happened ot the Turks. BTW, it can take literally hours to flay a man alive while keeping him still marginally alive, I am told. The Turks were never bothered again. A lesson learned perhaps? (all this is obviously flalse as things like this never happen, just fiction of course)
-
Fuck with the Turks and you could get skinned alive. That was then, this is now. Now the Turks want to be admitted into the EU, so the question is, why would they want to give up on ever getting into the EU just for the dubious privilege of carrying America's water in Iraq? Actually why would ANYBODY want to carry America's water for it in Iraq?
Of course, you could always find an Iraqi group or faction with sufficient ruthlessness - - which just begs the question, what was the real problem with Saddam anyway? Why go all the way round the world for half a trill just to end up in the same place? At that point, the question wouldn't be whether Bush should be impeached or not, it would become why he shouldn't be hanged, drawn and quartered.
-
Good point, MT, about the Turks and EU entry. I guess they have to be more "civilized" now, huh? Too bad. There is sometimes a need, unfortunatley, for brute force and brutality, as untasteful as it is in reality.
-
Have you ever seen a squirrel on the street displaying a lot of running energy and little decisiveness as it chooses alternately to advance and retreat? The squirrel would be better with either choice kept than with the repeated reconsideration.
Against cars or ground predators. However, the biggest threat to a squirrel's life is from raptors. This constant weaving and dancing is enough to disrupt a raptor's diving attack.
I agree , but this expands the metaphor to illustrate the inflexability of instinctive response, against the threat of an oncoming truck the behavior that saves a squirrel from a hawk becomes inappropriate. within this metaphor is our squirrel facing more of a truck or more of a hawk?
-
In a properly-drawn analogy, the US is the TRUCK, and the squirrel is named "I.E.D."
-
<<There is sometimes a need, unfortunatley, for brute force and brutality, as untasteful as it is in reality.>>
It's never a need, Professor, it's always a choice. And IMHO, when you make that choice, you lose your soul.
It's really a question of means and ends. Once you accept that the end justifies the means, you can justify any means as long as the end is dire enough. I think you have to accept the fact that sometimes the world will deal out results that you are not going to like - - innocents are going to get killed, and it's out of your control. The only thing that is absolutely within your control is how YOU act, what YOU do (or don't do.) I think you have to accept that - - for example - -the death of a loved one is beyond your control. He or she can die at any time in a thousand different ways. And sooner or later they will. The question isn't really how they live or die - - they could be hit by a truck the day after you save their life by torture - - the question always is how did YOU, Professor, conduct yourself?
-
I thank Ami for the "save" on Plane's "squirrel" analogy. Yet, the metaphors abound for the Iraq venture. Even hinting at our present predicament (which, overall, is a major failure) as being due to the "irresolute" (I prefer "thoughful") amongst us is a major disservice to the truth. It should be obvious to all that to a painful degree at least, Bush has been resolute in watching the lemmings he set in motion fall off the cliff despite the rousing cries of his critics for them to, "Turn right! (or left!)"
I take it then that you do not think being resolute is very much of a virtue , or is that particular to this situation?
-
<<There is sometimes a need, unfortunatley, for brute force and brutality, as untasteful as it is in reality.>>
It's never a need, Professor, it's always a choice. And IMHO, when you make that choice, you lose your soul.
It's really a question of means and ends. Once you accept that the end justifies the means, you can justify any means as long as the end is dire enough. I think you have to accept the fact that sometimes the world will deal out results that you are not going to like - - innocents are going to get killed, and it's out of your control. The only thing that is absolutely within your control is how YOU act, what YOU do (or don't do.) I think you have to accept that - - for example - -the death of a loved one is beyond your control. He or she can die at any time in a thousand different ways. And sooner or later they will. The question isn't really how they live or die - - they could be hit by a truck the day after you save their life by torture - - the question always is how did YOU, Professor, conduct yourself?
Are members of Al Quieda then , completely dehumanized?
-
<<Are members of Al Quieda then , completely dehumanized?>>
Why the focus on the members of al Qaeda? Are you planning to make them your role model?
I would say that the members of al Qaeda are just as much members of the human race as the members of the U.S.M.C. and as such the problem of squaring their actions with their God is 100% their problem. Not your problem.
Your problem (which you seem to be willing to go to extraordinary lengths to avoid facing, for example dragging in the al Qaeda actors as if you had any moral responsibility at all for their actions) is that you are a part of the U.S.M.C. actions in that your tax money pays for them and they purport to act in the name of the U.S.A., of which you are a responsible citizen.
So that their atrocities become your atrocities. So that when revenge for their atrocities is exacted, be it the downing of a civilian airliner, be it the destruction of more office towers - - you are being asked to pay for their crimes.
I think we're all well past the point where only one side can point at the other and say smugly: "THEY kill innocents." Both sides are killing innocents, the U.S. side killing a lot more innocents than the Muslim side. Because of their cowardice in battle, their refusal to go mano-a-mano with the enemy for fear of incurring politically unacceptable casualties that would cause the abandonment of the whole enterprise. So you have to take a step back from the struggle and look at the basics, and ask yourself: Who is fucking with who? Did the Arabs colonize the West and try to rip off its resources and rule them by force? Did the Arabs plant a huge Arab settlement in the heart of Europe or North America, expel the original inhabitants and rule over the others by pure force of arms? Did the Arabs invade European or American countries and kill hundreds of thousands of them? No. No. And no. It was the reverse of all that. So who has the greater "right" to be pissed off? In the tit-for-tat round of slaughter - - who is the aggrieved party and who is the aggressor?
And finally, when you can show me evidence - - not speculation, but real evidence - - that alQaeda tortures prisoners to the extent that the U.S. tortures prisoners - - then your question about the dehumanization of al Qaeda might have some legitimacy. When you can show that al Qaeda not only kills innocents, but rapes them before killing them, as the U.S. has done, then your question might seem a little less strange. Now it is only pathetic, a morally blind diversion fooling nobody.
-
<<There is sometimes a need, unfortunatley, for brute force and brutality, as untasteful as it is in reality.>>
It's never a need, Professor, it's always a choice. And IMHO, when you make that choice, you lose your soul.
It's really a question of means and ends. Once you accept that the end justifies the means, you can justify any means as long as the end is dire enough. I think you have to accept the fact that sometimes the world will deal out results that you are not going to like - - innocents are going to get killed, and it's out of your control. The only thing that is absolutely within your control is how YOU act, what YOU do (or don't do.) I think you have to accept that - - for example - -the death of a loved one is beyond your control. He or she can die at any time in a thousand different ways. And sooner or later they will. The question isn't really how they live or die - - they could be hit by a truck the day after you save their life by torture - - the question always is how did YOU, Professor, conduct yourself?
Hmm, I think MT that life isn't that black and white. Realisticially, it is the VICTORS who write the history books for future generations. So, in a sense, victory at any cost is better than losing and losing all you hold dear. Being all high and mighty is fine but if you lose the war, then what does it serve you? Zip!
-
<<Hmm, I think MT that life isn't that black and white. >>
I'd say the moral choice is black and white. We all know what's the right thing, Professor. Whether we always have the moral integrity to do the right thing, that's something else. If I were a Pole, with a wife and family depending on me, would I want to risk torture and death for my whole family to oblige a Jew who came to me and begged me to save his little girl? I don't kid myself that I would, Professor. But I know what would have been right.
<<Realisticially, it is the VICTORS who write the history books for future generations. >>
Don't tell me you'd sell your soul for a good word in a victor's history book. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity? That can't be right.
<<So, in a sense, victory at any cost is better than losing and losing all you hold dear.>>
I had no idea you were such a materialist, Professor. What profiteth it a man that he gain the whole world if he lose his soul? Jesus, Professor, you must have known that.
<< Being all high and mighty is fine but if you lose the war, then what does it serve you? Zip! >>
Come on, Professor - - if you WIN the war, you're still gonna die sooner or later. Don't the winners still have to llook at themselves in the mirror? And the funny thing is, the U.S. will never be defeated by Arabs, whether it tortures them or not. The victims of U.S. torture - - Arabs, Vietnamese, Third World guerrilla fighters - - never stood a hope in hell of bringing down the U.S.A. Most of them strike out of rage or desperation, no longer caring if they live or die. They don't want to bring down America, they just want America out of their own back yard, off their backs. They want to be masters in their own homes. The sadism of the American "fighting man" isn't the last resort of someone with his back to the wall, fighting off anihilation - - it's just the anger and greed of the wealthiest nation on the face of the earth, determined to make an example of any peon anywhere who thinks he's entitled to stand up as a man equal to the foreigners who dictate to his own government.
-
- - it's just the anger and greed of the wealthiest nation on the face of the earth, determined to make an example of any peon anywhere who thinks he's entitled to stand up as a man equal to the foreigners who dictate to his own government.
Our people are on the side of people who want the right to stand like human beings in the face of government .
-
<<Our people are on the side of people who want the right to stand like human beings in the face of government .>>
Sure - - unless it's the U.S. government they want to stand like human beings against. Only U.S. citizens have the right to stand like human beings in the face of the U.S. government.
-
<<Our people are on the side of people who want the right to stand like human beings in the face of government .>>
Sure - - unless it's the U.S. government they want to stand like human beings against. Only U.S. citizens have the right to stand like human beings in the face of the U.S. government.
No, you are welcome to continue.
-
<<No, you are welcome to continue.>>
Thanks, but I was referring to the VC. Or the Cubans. People who take a REAL stand against your government. Your government has an enormous tolerance for impotent ranting and raving. What it can't handle is pesky foreigners who say NO to it with live ammunition and are prepared to die rather than submit.
-
<<No, you are welcome to continue.>>
Thanks, but I was referring to the VC. Or the Cubans. People who take a REAL stand against your government. Your government has an enormous tolerance for impotent ranting and raving. What it can't handle is pesky foreigners who say NO to it with live ammunition and are prepared to die rather than submit.
Those who want to disagree with us and take us to task with every form of suasion and leagal recourse are welcome to continue.
Anyone who kills an American for being an American should be killed by Americans as soon as can be managed.
-
<<No, you are welcome to continue.>>
Those who want to disagree with us and take us to task with every form of suasion and leagal recourse are welcome to continue.
Anyone who kills an American for being an American should be killed by Americans as soon as can be managed.
Hear hear! The U.S. government sholud pursue any instances like with the most vigor. If a Legionnaire was killed by a non-Roman, entire villages were put to the flame. Probably due to this, this event was seldom.
-
<<If a Legionnaire was killed by a non-Roman, entire villages were put to the flame. Probably due to this, this event was seldom.>>
Yeah, the good old days. Back when the villagers couldn't figure out how to fly hijacked airliners into the Capitol. Or how to assemble nuclear weapons from black-market parts. Back when the villagers didn't outnumber the Romans by a factor of hundreds of millions to one.
-
"........ Back when the villagers didn't outnumber the Romans by a factor of hundreds of millions to one."
When was that?
Or when will it be?
Population of Earth , one in five is Chineese , one in twenty is American.
-
<<If a Legionnaire was killed by a non-Roman, entire villages were put to the flame. Probably due to this, this event was seldom.>>
Yeah, the good old days. Back when the villagers couldn't figure out how to fly hijacked airliners into the Capitol. Or how to assemble nuclear weapons from black-market parts. Back when the villagers didn't outnumber the Romans by a factor of hundreds of millions to one.
MT, don't be naive, please.
The principle is the crucial piece. "Mess with one of mine and you'll pay." I do not see why this is anathema to you. Shouldn't there be a penalty for killing a citizen of your country? Let's say a Canadian was in Iran and was killed by the Iranians becuase he/she was a Canadian? Pretty bad precedent, huh? In that case, sever repurcussions should be in order. Should only take a few times before no one messes with a Canadian again. Or, as you are prone to say, diplomacy should be pursued. Really? So, then the message comes across that all you have ot do to get a cool million in Canadain is to kidnap a Canadian? Come on...
-
<<The principle is the crucial piece. "Mess with one of mine and you'll pay.">>
Professor, I don't disagree with the principle. But there are certain underlying assumptions here that are not always found in the real world. The primary assumption is that the person messed with is innocently going about his or her own business and is then attacked for no good reason.
Unfortunately in the real world, there are plenty of Americans out to do real harm to the inhabitants of the rest of the world. They get "messed with" as representatives of an evil empire and a cycle of violence ensues - - retaliation by the Americans and counter-retaliation from their Third World victims. The domestic MSM reports these events in a curious way that sensationalizes the violence of the Third World payback while ignoring the provocations that came before. Thus America always appears as the innocent victim and its attacks on the Third World are presented as justified revenge.
Part of the problem is that the harm done by America is not overt violence and is not visible. It consists of support given to dictators who follow pro-Amrican policy, specifically economic policy which effectively commits the Third World to disastrous "bargains" with Western lenders, burdening the people with ongoing debt for generations into the future for relatively useless "infrastructure" which even if built does not address popular needs but instead functions as a sinkhole of capital, which comes from multinational lenders (the World Bank is an excellent example) and flows into the pockets of crooked local and multinational "contractors." The political harm done by the Americans is their ideological support of right-wing dictators who can crush local labour movements, democracy movements opposed to the economic rape that I just described, and anyone else who threatens the dictatorship and the status quo.
These events, boring in their details, necessarily conducted in secrecy, do not find their way to the front page as easily as a "terrorist" explosion, which of course leads to the skewed view that most Americans have of the world - - they get to see in endless gory detail the results of the Third World's rage, at the same time being sheltered from the minutiae and incomplete details of the causes of that rage. The same interests that profit from the U.S. exploitation of the Third World also fund both political parties, so very little of the underlying causes ever gets discussed in public debate and the corporate MSM devotes endless hours to ridiculous panel discussions of "why they hate us" and "where are the moderates?" with little if any attention being paid to the realities of the situation.
The millions of Third World people killed as a direct result of American policy rarely make the front pages, and when they do, "the executioner's face is always well hidden," (Bob Dylan's words) meaning that the deaths of millions of Africans from AIDS, or thousands of Arabs in the West Bank or millions of Iranians and Iraqis in the Iran-Iraq war rarely if ever trace the causes back to their inside-the-Beltway origins. As control of the MSM concentrates into fewer and fewer corporations, the opportunity for alternative analyses of these events to reach a mass audience steadily shrinks, although of course there is no lack of opportunity for a small and lively alternative publishing network to put such views before a relatively tiny audience of academics, hippies, non-conformists and intellectuals whose total combined votes and ability to influence the course of action of the two "official" parties is minimal to negligible. A perfect example BTW of the principle known as "repressive tolerance."
-
Gotta do something about the title of this thread. Every time I look at it, I think "West Orange is not a hamlet."
-
"....specifically economic policy which effectively commits the Third World to disastrous "bargains" with Western lenders, burdening the people with ongoing debt for generations ..."
In recent years the USA has forgiven a lot of debt twards the third world ,we have also seen debt forgiveness on the part of some European creditors.
Although this amounts to Billions of man hour work , it has not amounted to good propaganda.
Accusation is cheap and effective , generosity is expensive and ineffective.
-
Hear hear! The U.S. government sholud pursue any instances like with the most vigor. If a Legionnaire was killed by a non-Roman, entire villages were put to the flame. Probably due to this, this event was seldom.
Interesting. A Christian who proposes to exact revenge on innocents to set an example?
Which of Christ's teachings would that have been?
-
"........ Back when the villagers didn't outnumber the Romans by a factor of hundreds of millions to one."
When was that?
Or when will it be?
Population of Earth , one in five is Chineese , one in twenty is American.
There is of course a bit of overlap because there are some who are both.
But we are not outnumbered all that badly .
-
Hear hear! The U.S. government sholud pursue any instances like with the most vigor. If a Legionnaire was killed by a non-Roman, entire villages were put to the flame. Probably due to this, this event was seldom.
Interesting. A Christian who proposes to exact revenge on innocents to set an example?
Which of Christ's teachings would that have been?
If you think Christ was a wmp, thnr you and I read a different Bible. :-)
-
<<If you think Christ was a wmp, thnr you and I read a different Bible. :-)>>
Yeah, but I think the question was about YOUR Bible. What part of it says that you can strike back at your enemies and even kill their families too if they strike at you first? Inquiring minds need to know.
-
Yes, I'd like to know too.
Does forgiving 70 times 70 still apply, or not? Does one still walk that extra mile and so on?
Has someone changed the words in the Bible?
-
<<If you think Christ was a wmp, thnr you and I read a different Bible. :-)>>
Yeah, but I think the question was about YOUR Bible. What part of it says that you can strike back at your enemies and even kill their families too if they strike at you first? Inquiring minds need to know.
Well, I do not advocate seeking out families and killing them. Seems too barbaric for my tastes, even though, logically, I can see why it is/was done. I do not condone; I only see how some people might rationalize the necessity of this.
-
<<Well, I do not advocate seeking out families and killing them. Seems too barbaric for my tastes, even though, logically, I can see why it is/was done. I do not condone; I only see how some people might rationalize the necessity of this.>>
There ya go, Professor. I knew you weren't ALL bad. :)
-
If you think Christ was a wimp, then you and I read a different Bible. :-)
===================================
Is turning the other cheek an act of courage?
How about bitching at a fig tree that it has no figs when it is out of season?
Constant circumlocutions of a clear answer to whether he was the Son of God?
It was, I admit, rather brave to not skip town right after the Last Supper, but face it: Jesus was not the sort of guy to advocate decimating the opponents, or skinning them alive, like the Unspeakable Turk.
It is true that barbarous acts a la Turk are often effective like no other, but still, they are barbarous, and violence still breeds violence. Observe that there is a lot more inhumane treatment today in the remnents of the Ottoman Empire than outside its perimeters. I don't think that this is a coincidence at all.
-
If you think Christ was a wmp, thnr you and I read a different Bible. :-)
The question is not whether or not Christ was a "wimp."
The Jews of the time expected their Messiah to be a military and political leader, someone to restore the Davidic Kingdom and throw out the Romans as the Maccabees had thrown out the Greek Selucid occupiers.
I am sure that some of them considered Christ a "wimp."
After all, he did not even allow Peter to kill a single Roman soldier as they led him away. He even healed the ear of the Roman soldier whom Peter had sliced.
So, I'm not sure what standards of "manliness" you place upon the Son of God, but no I don't consider him a "wimp." It took supernatural humility and strength to survive the scourging and suffering on the cross. Especially considering that he could have surely given in to temptation and become the great political and military leader that Israel and Judea needed and fought the Romans. He could have said, "to hell with their sins, Father, they are unforgivable and unreedemable - this creation you've made."
If that makes him a "wimp" in your eyes, more's the pity for you.
I'm always wary of those who make Christ into a Warrior King. There was a relatively obscure German political prisoner who wrote about Christ's throwing out of the moneychangers in a book called Mein Kampf.
Despite a lot of modern historical revisionism that allows Christians to breathe easier at night and claim that Nazism was directly spawned from paganism and occultism, the truth is that Hitler himself used Christianity quite often to formulate the earliest philosophies of his party. I suggest that if Christ isn't "manly" enough for you then the problem is with you and not Him.
-
A quick take on Jesus: whether Jesus, in the face of a mortal threat to all and everyone He holds dear, would turn the other cheek or fight to preserve the good about Him is predominantly speculation based on the Gospel texts. It is safe to say, however, that His pacific stance was a product both of the history which He culminated and the peculiar details of life in Palestine at that particular time. As much as anything, perhaps, Jesus's stance was simply very effective politics: matching a style and a philosophy to the needs of the times and the dictates of its power structure. Even so, there is the celebrated incident of anger at the moneychangers; it is hard for me to imagine that Jesus's righteous indignation and impulse to protect was limited to instances of descration of the temple to the exclusion of instances of desecration of human beings. But as with any transformative historical figure, Jesus was concerned with the overall message He would impart, the dominant theme, and He chose for all the incidentals alluded to for His ministry to emphasize peace and love -- surpassing goods, I suggest, but not absolutes -- because that was the most effective way to create, establish and maintain the message that was the mandate of His life.
-
A quick take on Jesus: whether Jesus, in the face of a mortal threat to all and everyone He holds dear, would turn the other cheek or fight to preserve the good about Him is predominantly speculation based on the Gospel texts. It is safe to say, however, that His pacific stance was a product both of the history which He culminated and the peculiar details of life in Palestine at that particular time. As much as anything, perhaps, Jesus's stance was simply very effective politics: matching a style and a philosophy to the needs of the times and the dictates of its power structure. Even so, there is the celebrated incident of anger at the moneychangers; it is hard for me to imagine that Jesus's righteous indignation and impulse to protect was limited to instances of descration of the temple to the exclusion of instances of desecration of human beings. But as with any transformative historical figure, Jesus was concerned with the overall message He would impart, the dominant theme, and He chose for all the incidentals alluded to for His ministry to emphasize peace and love -- surpassing goods, I suggest, but not absolutes -- because that was the most effective way to create, establish and maintain the message that was the mandate of His life.
I think that Jesus understood the power of nonviolent protest , but I would not have guessed it to be a central tenant of his teaching. More like it was the method he reccomended for getting his theme of salvation known.
He told his Apostles to recruit energeticly , to be harmless but sly , to leave a community that rejected the message alone , but what in your mind was the message?