Obviously. But then, I’m not sure America (and by extension the rest of the west) is really interested in peace at all. What matters is self interest abroad, and if that means assassinating a few democratically elected leaders or turning a blind eye to human rights abuses by your ‘friends’ then sobeit.
I refer anyone who is interested to the recent documentary by John Pilger called The War on Democracy. It is on youtube.
But then, I’m not sure America (and by extension the rest of the west) is really interested in peace at all.
I would have to agree, Joe. I think that President Jimmy Carter was himself interested in making peace. But US foreign policy in general is and has been focused on our own strategic (read: economic) interests.
So true! Small arms is BIG business. According to Jim Lobe at Interpress Service and accessed through Common Dreams.org:
New arms agreements with developing nations totaled 17.7 billion dollars, a 10 percent increase over new deals in 2001. Of that total, U.S. sales came to 8.6 billion dollars, or almost 48 percent of all arms transfers to Third World countries, up from 41 percent the previous year.
Lobe reported that 75% go to the Middle East. I would imagine that some of it is subsidized by US tax dollars and given in the form of so-called “security assistance” through the State Dept.
More imporatantly small arms of “weapons of mass destruction” according to IANSA:
An estimated 2 million children have been killed with small arms since 1990. In addition to those killed, an estimated 1.5 million people are wounded by small arms each year.
yeah. it’s kind of like being the world’s leading manufacturer and seller of matches, and saying you’re interested in reducing fires.
the thing that boggles me is the power of the myth that we really are both. there’s a huge number of people, mostly in middle america, I guess, who hold this myth so deeply ingrained that they can’t even get far enough outside it to have the perspective to see that they hold it so tightly. or something like that. or so it seems to me. How do we break the power of this myth? This blog is working on that sort of thing, but I think it’s going to take a lot more.
Anyone watch the movie “Lord of War”? It is based on a true story. The scene where he is arrested by American authorities and released after being given a briefcase of cash purportedly is exactly what transpired to the real arms dealer. Selling weapons to both sides in many wars qualifies in American foreign policy as maintaining global political balance and fostering a free market. The innocents dead are just a natural cost of doing business.
No–I meant to see that actually. Must add to netflix queau. Love that word: queue. =)
I had a sobering realization this week. I get hardened to this stuff. How do I avoid this? I mean I tend to keep myself somewhat exposed to it and it can become “Yeah, I know, whatever, the world is totally FUBAR, we do what we can”.
Nathan, pretty shocking, isn’t it. check out the photo and text on this post. How’d you like to be one of these guys? Do we in some sense bear the some of the horrifying responsibility that one can clearly see in their faces? I mean we live here, and therefore are beneficiaries of the system which allows/encourages them to do what they do and be damn good at it.
Jimmy Carter disagrees with George Washington, who said “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.”
Given Mr. Carter’s repeated cluelessness on every policy front, I’ll take Mr. Washington, thank you. You folks may want to review what happened between 1976 and 1989, when Mr. “Peace Through Strength” left office.
More importantly, Carter’s logic is silly on its face. Saying that weapon sales make one unable to champion peace is like saying that teaching a women’s self defense class makes one unable to condemn rape.
This is a Christian blog…can you enlighten me where in Christian teaching one finds the idea that a weapon has an inherent moral value that is irrelevant to who owns it and how it is used? That sounds very animist to me.
Mmm. Except that we’re not talking about weapons for self defence - a better analogue would be teaching men the best way to attack women making one unable to condemn rape.
And this is almost literally what has happened - we sell people the weapons and then act all surprised when they use them. You ever hear of Afghanistan? Ever wonder how come they became so good at guerilla warfare? If nothing else it is bad for business, we don’t want peace to break out, it would affect our economy and jobs in the ‘defence’ industry.
As to your other points:
1. This isn’t a Christian blog. Get used to it.
2. Please show me the part of the bible where we are given carte blanche licence to absolve ourselves of responsibility for our actions.
3. I’d like to know how it is possible to use some of our arms exports morally. Please start by covering the ethical use of nightsticks with retractable points.
Are you saying that you believe the world is relatively safer with more arms–a sort of high correlation between number of weapons in the world (in general) and amount of safety in the world (in general)?
Are you saying that you believe the policies of Ronald Reagan, who left office in ‘89, created a more peaceful world?
I wonder how Mr. Carter’s cluelessness is related to his being awarded the Nobel peace prize?
What do you think about the fact that the U.S. sold a lot of arms to Iraq/Saddam back in the 80’s?
A couple notes on the George Washington quote. I’m a bit confused as to how it’s related to the Jimmy Carter quote. Are you saying that George would have advocated arms sales to the world?
It’s interesting that multiple times within George’s first annual address, from which the quote is taken, he characterizes native Americans as hostile and aggressive types against whom we must defend ourselves vigorously. It seems we were making the same sorts of cruel and deadly mistakes from the very beginning.
George Washington said lots of interesting things. Here is one from his farewell address:
All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
…
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
The above seems prescient in light of our current political situation.
Here is another thought from the same address:
Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ?
The last leads back to the question: Which parts of justice and benevolence do we serve in acting as the world’s largest arms dealer, dispensing weapons of almost every ilk to both free people’s and despots who would overcome them? Those fine people of Iraq, who we so selflessly sacrifice today — men, women and children — for their democracy, are the self-same folks we sold down the river in propping up both Saddam Hussein and his predecessor with guns, tanks, planes and even chemical weapons. Those men were our allies despite their depredations until they made alliances with our enemies.
Read Washington’s farewell address, in which he warned against so many of the failures that have plagued our nation. I think Washington would agree with Carter. Claiming ourselves as peacemakers while selling arms to almost anyone is an hypocrisy that may be lost on our people, but not on most other citizens of the world.
Comment by: joe
1 09/25/07 2:46 AM | Comment Link |Obviously. But then, I’m not sure America (and by extension the rest of the west) is really interested in peace at all. What matters is self interest abroad, and if that means assassinating a few democratically elected leaders or turning a blind eye to human rights abuses by your ‘friends’ then sobeit.
I refer anyone who is interested to the recent documentary by John Pilger called The War on Democracy. It is on youtube.
Comment by: Rachel
2 09/25/07 7:51 AM | Comment Link |I would have to agree, Joe. I think that President Jimmy Carter was himself interested in making peace. But US foreign policy in general is and has been focused on our own strategic (read: economic) interests.
Comment by: Nathan Ketsdever
3 09/25/07 3:33 PM | Comment Link |So true! Small arms is BIG business. According to Jim Lobe at Interpress Service and accessed through Common Dreams.org:
New arms agreements with developing nations totaled 17.7 billion dollars, a 10 percent increase over new deals in 2001. Of that total, U.S. sales came to 8.6 billion dollars, or almost 48 percent of all arms transfers to Third World countries, up from 41 percent the previous year.
Lobe reported that 75% go to the Middle East. I would imagine that some of it is subsidized by US tax dollars and given in the form of so-called “security assistance” through the State Dept.
More imporatantly small arms of “weapons of mass destruction” according to IANSA:
An estimated 2 million children have been killed with small arms since 1990. In addition to those killed, an estimated 1.5 million people are wounded by small arms each year.
http://www.iansa.org/media/wmd.htm
Comment by: Benjamin ady
4 09/26/07 9:15 AM | Comment Link |yeah. it’s kind of like being the world’s leading manufacturer and seller of matches, and saying you’re interested in reducing fires.
the thing that boggles me is the power of the myth that we really are both. there’s a huge number of people, mostly in middle america, I guess, who hold this myth so deeply ingrained that they can’t even get far enough outside it to have the perspective to see that they hold it so tightly. or something like that. or so it seems to me. How do we break the power of this myth? This blog is working on that sort of thing, but I think it’s going to take a lot more.
Comment by: David H
5 09/26/07 10:28 AM | Comment Link |Anyone watch the movie “Lord of War”? It is based on a true story. The scene where he is arrested by American authorities and released after being given a briefcase of cash purportedly is exactly what transpired to the real arms dealer. Selling weapons to both sides in many wars qualifies in American foreign policy as maintaining global political balance and fostering a free market. The innocents dead are just a natural cost of doing business.
Comment by: benjamin ady
6 09/26/07 6:20 PM | Comment Link |david
No–I meant to see that actually. Must add to netflix queau. Love that word: queue. =)
I had a sobering realization this week. I get hardened to this stuff. How do I avoid this? I mean I tend to keep myself somewhat exposed to it and it can become “Yeah, I know, whatever, the world is totally FUBAR, we do what we can”.
Comment by: benjamin ady
7 09/26/07 6:32 PM | Comment Link |Nathan, pretty shocking, isn’t it. check out the photo and text on this post. How’d you like to be one of these guys? Do we in some sense bear the some of the horrifying responsibility that one can clearly see in their faces? I mean we live here, and therefore are beneficiaries of the system which allows/encourages them to do what they do and be damn good at it.
Comment by: David H
8 09/26/07 7:57 PM | Comment Link |I think that is a common American, if not human, problem.
Comment by: Chris Clukey
9 05/21/08 12:53 PM | Comment Link |Jimmy Carter disagrees with George Washington, who said “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.”
Given Mr. Carter’s repeated cluelessness on every policy front, I’ll take Mr. Washington, thank you. You folks may want to review what happened between 1976 and 1989, when Mr. “Peace Through Strength” left office.
More importantly, Carter’s logic is silly on its face. Saying that weapon sales make one unable to champion peace is like saying that teaching a women’s self defense class makes one unable to condemn rape.
This is a Christian blog…can you enlighten me where in Christian teaching one finds the idea that a weapon has an inherent moral value that is irrelevant to who owns it and how it is used? That sounds very animist to me.
Comment by: joe
10 05/21/08 1:46 PM | Comment Link |Mmm. Except that we’re not talking about weapons for self defence - a better analogue would be teaching men the best way to attack women making one unable to condemn rape.
And this is almost literally what has happened - we sell people the weapons and then act all surprised when they use them. You ever hear of Afghanistan? Ever wonder how come they became so good at guerilla warfare? If nothing else it is bad for business, we don’t want peace to break out, it would affect our economy and jobs in the ‘defence’ industry.
As to your other points:
1. This isn’t a Christian blog. Get used to it.
2. Please show me the part of the bible where we are given carte blanche licence to absolve ourselves of responsibility for our actions.
3. I’d like to know how it is possible to use some of our arms exports morally. Please start by covering the ethical use of nightsticks with retractable points.
4. Do you even know what animism means?
Comment by: Benjamin
11 05/21/08 1:48 PM | Comment Link |Chris,
Thank you for joining the conversation!
Is it?
Are you saying that you believe the world is relatively safer with more arms–a sort of high correlation between number of weapons in the world (in general) and amount of safety in the world (in general)?
Are you saying that you believe the policies of Ronald Reagan, who left office in ‘89, created a more peaceful world?
I wonder how Mr. Carter’s cluelessness is related to his being awarded the Nobel peace prize?
What do you think about the fact that the U.S. sold a lot of arms to Iraq/Saddam back in the 80’s?
A couple notes on the George Washington quote. I’m a bit confused as to how it’s related to the Jimmy Carter quote. Are you saying that George would have advocated arms sales to the world?
It’s interesting that multiple times within George’s first annual address, from which the quote is taken, he characterizes native Americans as hostile and aggressive types against whom we must defend ourselves vigorously. It seems we were making the same sorts of cruel and deadly mistakes from the very beginning.
Comment by: David H
12 05/21/08 2:18 PM | Comment Link |George Washington said lots of interesting things. Here is one from his farewell address:
The above seems prescient in light of our current political situation.
Here is another thought from the same address:
The last leads back to the question: Which parts of justice and benevolence do we serve in acting as the world’s largest arms dealer, dispensing weapons of almost every ilk to both free people’s and despots who would overcome them? Those fine people of Iraq, who we so selflessly sacrifice today — men, women and children — for their democracy, are the self-same folks we sold down the river in propping up both Saddam Hussein and his predecessor with guns, tanks, planes and even chemical weapons. Those men were our allies despite their depredations until they made alliances with our enemies.
Read Washington’s farewell address, in which he warned against so many of the failures that have plagued our nation. I think Washington would agree with Carter. Claiming ourselves as peacemakers while selling arms to almost anyone is an hypocrisy that may be lost on our people, but not on most other citizens of the world.