Good Friday at Lockheed Martin (by Shane Claiborne)
In our little circles, we've been talking a lot about the need to create new holidays and rituals of remembrance as a Church–this peculiar, set-apart people of God. The early Christians talked a lot about how they no longer celebrated the "festivals of the Caesars" or the holidays of the empire, but had new eyes through which they looked at the world (this is a major theme of our new book Jesus for President). They had a new calendar. They had new heroes and sheroes (not just kings and presidents and fallen warriors). And they had new liturgies and songs. That's what Holy Week is all about, a new holiday–Easter is our President's Day. And our Holy Week here in Philly was magnificent, a stunning celebration of the Commander-in-Chief who loved His enemies so much He died for them.
One of the highlights was Good Friday at Lockheed Martin.
My mom and pop came into town. On Good Friday my mother and I went to a worshipful vigil–walking the stations of the cross, remembering the sufferings of Jesus–held on the property of Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin is one of the world's largest weapons contractors and profiteers from war, headquartered right outside Philly. So it was there that we took the cross of Jesus.
Being the 5 year anniversary of the bombing of Baghdad, I was asked to reflect on my Easter in Baghdad in 2003. So I did. With mom looking on, I shared how she had supported my trip. I recalled how she had learned to ache with Abraham, Mary, and the parents of children in Iraq, all of whom have had to watch their own kids face grave danger. At one point, mom said to me, "The children in Iraq are just as precious to God as you are. How can I tell you not to get too close to their suffering?" And every night she prayed–weeping, hurting, groaning with God for an end to that suffering. As I spoke, I looked out and saw her eyes filled with tears. (NOTE: It was my mom's first "protest," so even though she had tears in her eyes, she also had a mischievous smirk as she stood next to a clever banner that read: "Lockheed Martin…. Making a Killing!")
After some speakers, scripture, and music, we walked through the stations of the passion narrative which led us onto the base of Lockheed Martin. There a dozen folks stood, holding crosses, in prayerful vigil.... And then, one by one, they were arrested for trespassing. It was an incredible embodiment of gentle dissent and vigilant hope – that holy mischief we see in Jesus as he triumphs over the empire's cross. Not the Fourth of July or Veteran's Day or Columbus Day – but Good Friday. Passover. Easter. Pentecost. These are our most beautiful holidays. So during this season of death and resurrection, we remember the contemporary sufferings of Christ, the other baby refugees being born amid the wars and genocides of our Herods. And we remember the Gospel promise that in the end life conquers death. It may be Friday, but Sunday is coming.
Shane Claiborne is the author of Jesus for President, a Red Letter Christian, and a founding partner of The Simple Way community, a radical faith community that lives among and serves the homeless in the Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I have to wonder if you enjoy your liberty's, freedoms to travel and for you and your mother to enjoy your safety and comfort.
These freedoms are bought at a price. Blaming companies that make the goods and provide the services that enable the freedoms which you enjoy is the height of hypocrisy. It's nice you have the freedom to write such hypocrisies to share with the rest of us.
I hope this doesn't make you weep.....
Posted by: Nick | March 25, 2008 1:06 PM
Shane-
Thank you for sharing your experience. I disagree with the previous commentor in that my freedoms are not provided by a weapons contractor. My freedoms come from God. Thank you for providing a reminder of this. God bless.
Posted by: Sean | March 25, 2008 1:28 PM
Thank you, Shane.
God bless you.
Posted by: sara | March 25, 2008 1:40 PM
Of course freedoms come from God. But there are those in the world that have the freedom to try and take your freedoms away from YOU!
Some are willing to prevent that. Your rhetoric would not go far in stopping them.
It's amazing how quickly wew want to label those that stand up for us as the bad guys.
Posted by: Nick | March 25, 2008 1:48 PM
Dear Nick,
You have obviously not done any home work. We spend more that half of all war dollars in the world. That means we spend more than all the rest of the world combined on war. That did not prevent 9/11 attack nor the Oklahoma bombing.
If you really believe bombing and killing civilians around the world keeps us free you are delusional, and please don't exuse killings of civilians as just part of the war. How would you like if Bush dropped a 500 pound bomb at the end of your street just to take out three or four drug dealers, and as this was done your child was killed by shattering glass in their bedroom. I bet you would be willing then to strp on a bomb and walk into the folks that dropped the bomb and blow them and yourself up. Violence begets violence.
Follow the profits Nick and you find Bush uncles, friends and Cheney friends and families making money off our war machine.
When Nick was the last time we were invaded? How Nick will these hordes of invaders get to the US? If you have not noticed there is a lot of ocean between us and ANY enemy the war profiters tell us to kill. Half or more of American homes have at least two guns in their homes - who are you afrid of?
Christ said blessed are the peacmakers, not the warmongers. I am sorry after spending 28 years in the Navy, I KNOW what we are doing in Iraq does not make us more free. It only makes us evil in the eyes of God and the rest of the world.
RandyT, USN Retired
Posted by: RandyT | March 25, 2008 2:18 PM
In what way does Lockheed Martin stand up for us? All they are interested in, is profit, and they are profiting at the expense of human life. Freedom does come at a cost, and we are beneficiaries of that cost, but in no way is the war in Iraq contributing to our freedom today.
Thanks Shane for a great reminder of were our true allegances need to lie.
Blessings,
Posted by: Bruce | March 25, 2008 2:20 PM
Do you really think that Jesus would suggest that we should kill and wage war against those who would like to take away our freedoms?
War and violence in the name of the one who hung from the cross is one of the greatest blasphemies.
The fact is, we're all "bad guys". We're all complicit in the sin of war and violence. All of us are sinners. But through God's grace, the Spirit can move us to speak out against war and break the cycle of violence that kills our brothers and sisters- and ourselves.
The freedom I cherish is the freedom I have as a follower of Jesus and it can never be taken away by anyone. Ask yourself if you've made idols of the freedoms the United States offers us and forgotten that true freedom is the liberation from sin and bondage that Jesus offers.
If you have, then that's fine- you can support any wars you like, as much violence as is necessary to protect your supposed freedoms. But it's not the freedom that Christ offers, and it's important you recognize that.
Posted by: Sean | March 25, 2008 2:21 PM
I don't recall Jesus or Paul or Peter killing the Romans or Jewish leaders because their freedoms were being taken away.
On the contrary, Jesus and his disciples preached message of love and forgiveness, knowing full well that it would likely cost them their lives.
Posted by: D4P | March 25, 2008 2:34 PM
Amen, now that's easter.
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 25, 2008 2:43 PM
These freedoms are bought at a price
And that price is killing people on the other side of the world with cluster bombs? How many people did we kill in England to gain the freedom of our own country? How many British people were killed during the independence movement in India?
Posted by: splinterlog | March 25, 2008 2:46 PM
It's funny how we want Jesus when he offers us comfort in times of struggle, or when he offers to take our burden from us, but we don't want him when he challenges us to be peacemakers, to turn the other cheek, to feed the homeless and take care of widows. We don't want him when we think being peaceful will not result in our "winning" or our protection. A friend of mine recently went to a local meeting about immigration in our community. Both sides were yelling across the room at each other. One particular man stood up and tried to drown out others with his hatred. My friend, living in the way of Jesus, the way of peace, went and sat next to him. He was silent, he prayed, his presence was unsettling. As a result of his peaceful presence the man left the meeting long before it was over. Jesus knew the key to conflicts and quarrels. His brother James pointed it out clearly in James Chapter 4. The answer is not our military or our might. The answer is supernatural, it is beyond our own wisdom. Great post Shane. Thank you for your voice, thank you for living in the way of Jesus.
Posted by: neil | March 25, 2008 2:52 PM
How it would be nice to see someone protest in front of the UN against Syria - Iran - North Korea to stop the war and terror that they are causing all around the world. But it is safer to protest Lockheed Martin, a company that has no say in what is happening around the world. Maybe when it is all over and people in Iraq have the same ability to protest freely the way you did, we can celebrate that too.
So many protested against South Africa at there embassies etc. years ago. Today we protest against the objects of war rather than those who cause it. If those people back in the day had done the samething - the would have protested against businesses and organizations that did work with SA. We need to deal with those that are supporting terror and war rather than the toys of war.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 25, 2008 2:55 PM
Well Moderatelad I did see people protesting a tyrannical government this last week. At the opening ceremony for the Olympics people protested China and their dealings in Tibet. This is not to mention their support of the genocide in Darfur. I don't want to speak for Shane but he is from the US, and so as a citizen of our country he was protesting our un-biblical actions in Iraq.
Posted by: Will H. | March 25, 2008 3:18 PM
By protesting agianst war profitiers we do not condon what countries like N. Korea, Syria and Iran do within their own borders. But when we are the world's lagest spender on war material and the world's largets exporter of such it is those profitiers we shoul be consered about.
In Iraq prior to the current war there was a very substantial community of Christians, now they are all but gone. Gone into hidding, into other countries, killed, etc. So in our ill advised war we have not only harmed those we wanted to harm, but that harm has spread to the Christian community there. If we believe God created man and all things, it is perhaps time we believe he created the Muslims also, the Jews also, the N. Koreans also - it is time to seek peace above war. We have not been doing that.
Spending more than Iran, N. Korea, S. Korea, UK, Russian, China, S. Korea, Japan, France and and a few other countries in total makes us the top producer of war in the world. Can you imagine if we stopped doing that? If we stopped sending anything other than hmanitarian aid to countries what changes that might bring about? Let Raytheon and the like make school buildings and hospitals.
His Peace be with all,
randyT
Posted by: RandyT | March 25, 2008 3:49 PM
The freedoms you take for granted would not be allowed in many parts of the world. Even in Saudi Arabia you would be imprisoned for holding mass in your hotel room.
The women in Afghanistan are executed for not following the dictates of a Mullahs interpretation of the Koran. I've seen them, forced to kneel while the executioner comes up from behind with a rifle, in soccer stadium that can no longer be used for soccer.
Look at North Korea where 200-400 are kept in Gulag style prisons, beaten tortured and killed. Babies are aborted or born then kicked and stomped to death. Any tears for them? Unfortunately tears alone won't solve that problem or blaming companies. But as long as it makes YOU feel better.....
The fact is that we live in a world that where there are those eager to take away your liberties and freedoms. Our nation's constitution provides that ALL men are equal and have a god given right to Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's ALL, not just Americans.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Thomas Jefferson
We stand up for people that can't stand up for them selves. That's part of what America is; it's part of who we are. It's why our young men and women join the military and stand up for what we know is right. We know what the result of not standing up for it is.
So you are right Randy, what we do in Iraq does not serve to make us free. It makes THEM free, the Citizens of Iraq.
Thats why I gave 30 years of my life and still have tears in my eyes every time I hear the national anthem. If you are sorry about your life, take your retirement and donate it to the hungry or oppressed.
All of you, instead of silly grandstanding gestures, get off your couch and get out and make a REAL difference. Feed the hungry.
Criticizing Americans for standing up for what we believe in, for what our country was founded on, is exactly like criticizing the farmer with your mouth full. You sound like spoiled little children.
By the way, who is building the next space shuttle? Who is putting the next Hubble telescope into orbit? Who is making the only shield against nuclear ballistic missiles?
Sleep well
NICK USN (retired)
Posted by: Nick | March 25, 2008 4:05 PM
Posted by: Will H. | March 25, 2008 3:18 PM
I am in support of protesting what is wrong in this world. But why Lockheed Martin when they are not a nation. Why not protest the Chinese about their faults in world policy? If we could stop countries from going to war - these companies would have to find something else to produce. But we take on the object rather than the person/country that is the problem.
All those people that protest against China over their policy on Tibet - wonder if we will ever see them again in public. Like the US - China has freedom of speech and expression. It is just that the US has freedom 'after' speech and expression that China and other countries don't.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 25, 2008 4:12 PM
Moderatelad: "...Lockheed Martin, a company that has no say in what is happening around the world."
Don't be so sure, Moderatelad, DON'T BE SO SURE!
(Sorry, must've bumped my CapsLock key.)
Posted by: I and I | March 25, 2008 4:48 PM
Shane,
I'm new to this blog and to the discussion you've been having. I must say that I've been challenged quite a bit by what you've been writing lately! Thanks!
As a pastor of a large suburban church in Philadelphia It's hard to get people to think like disciples and not like proponents of a particular political party or cultural viewpoint. Mainly because it's hard for me to do so first.
Brian Jones
www.brianjones.com
Posted by: Brian Jones | March 25, 2008 4:54 PM
Moderatelad: "China has freedom of speech and expression."
No it does not. Not at all. China just jailed a man who wrote an article saying that the country must improve its human rights record and allow more freedom of expression. He was jailed for "subverting the state."
As much noise as the world can make over China's treatment of Tibetans, Uigurs, and in some areas Christians who worship in non-licensed churches, the better. And this is the time to do it.
By the way, you know what was China's response to Speaker Pelosi's meeting with the Dalai Lama and speaking out against the repression? That the U.S. has no standing to make such rebukes because of our invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Posted by: I and I | March 25, 2008 4:55 PM
Moderatelad: "I am in support of protesting what is wrong in this world. But why Lockheed Martin when they are not a nation. Why not protest the Chinese about their faults in world policy?"
Moderatelad, many of us protest, in a variety of ways, Chinese, North Korean, Iranian, and U.S. policies, when called for, and protest the immoral wealth gained by companies such as Lockheed.
You seem to have this idea that if someone protests American policy, then automatically that person supports North Korea, China, etc.
Posted by: carl copas | March 25, 2008 5:02 PM
Posted by: I and I | March 25, 2008 4:55 PM
No it does not. Not at all.
You missed the last line. The don't have 'freedom after speech'.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 25, 2008 6:59 PM
Posted by: carl copas | March 25, 2008 5:02 PM
'...that if someone protests American policy, then automatically...'
No I don't - people can protest anything that desire. It is just that if you go after the end user - you have, I believe, better results.
But why trespass - is that a 'Christian' thing to do. How many police did they have to bring in to handle those people that could have been at home with their family and not be paid overtime. Could have been dealing with other challenges in the community. They could have been as effective without going on LM property.
I have never supported protesters going onto the property of an Abortion Clinic and blocking people entering that establishment.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 25, 2008 7:07 PM
"But why trespass - is that a 'Christian' thing to do."
Jesus and his disciples occasionally broke the Law: for example, Sabbath regulations, cleanliness rules, dietary regulations.
You might try reading up on Christian justifications for nonviolent civil disobedience. It's an old and honorable tradition; Martin Luther King was a master at it.
Posted by: carl copas | March 25, 2008 7:54 PM
Posted by: carl copas | March 25, 2008 7:54 PM
'...old and honorable tradition...'
But in this new age of Political Correctness - should it still be done? I again say that if we are going to allow people to trespass onto LM - then we better support those who have a conviction on abortion and support them. (that will not happen with Sojo and Co)
I believe that the better thing to have done is to protest and not trespass. Showing that they could have but didn't. It also shows respect for the Police and doesn't waste their time either.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 25, 2008 8:50 PM
I have to tell you that during the Cold War, I was part of an industrial/military organisation called AFCEA - The Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association. Both military and civilian contractors in the "C3" community of computer professionals belonged - that means "command, control and communications."
Lockheed Martin is a member, as are almost all defense contractors, along with many of their key individuals. Many companies take out ads in the organisation's publication, Signal Magazine.
These ads, during the Cold War, were big on patriotism and defense of liberty and freedom. Those were certainly my own motivations for participation.
How disappointing it was, after the close of the Cold War, when defense spending was drastically reduced, that those "patriotic" and "liberty-loving" corporations immediately moved to sell as much as they possibly could to entities like Communist China - even in the wake of the Tien Amin Square massacre - to make up for the loss of business from the U.S. government. As is well documented, export controls were circumvented in every legal way they could, and many contractors have had to pay enormous fines to settle illegal sales of armament-related products, while not actually losing their lucrative, often sole-source, contractor status. No management, paid in the usual regal style of our CEOs, ever faces any charges personally.
I have to tell you I was disillusioned, as were many of our members, even those who were former military who had joined those corporations through the famous "revolving door" between defence contractors and government and military.
Profit trumped any purported committment to "liberty," "freedom" or even "patriotism."
It hadn't been love of country after all, but love of money, that motivated them.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 25, 2008 9:18 PM
It was made illegal to protest peacefully outside abortion clinics, too, so we have to recognize there is a consistent "anti-life" corporate ethic being upheld by authorities. It is interesting that those who are consistently pro-life, if they choose to protest, will run afoul both of pro-war and pro-abortion financial interests and their legal enforcers.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 25, 2008 9:35 PM
Mums of the world Unite!!
Love to hear about your relationship with ya mum Shane. It's awesome. Bonnie really enjoyed meeting her. I've sent this to my mum.
Grace and peace,
jarrod
Posted by: Jarrod Saul McKenna | March 25, 2008 9:42 PM
Why "5 year anniversary"? In my day we used to say "5th Anniversary." C'mon, kids!
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | March 26, 2008 12:22 AM
I was at Lockheed Martin on Good Friday too, but for me it was just another work day. If you talk to Lockheed Martin employees, you find that we are consistent and sincere in our purpose. We are trying to equip our troops and our allies with the arms they need to deter attack, and if deterrence should fail, to ensure victory. Profit is a byproduct; defense of America is the purpose.
Posted by: Mr. Preparedness | March 26, 2008 12:24 AM
Moderatelad does not get the connection between trespassing on a defense contractor's land and opposition to US military engagement in Iraq.
Hey, come to think of it; that connection always gets lost on me as well.
I love Shane's spirit and oppose US engagement.
But I too never understood why the breaking of a tresspass law is dissent against a war. Why not just speed past Lockheed at 90 miles per hour and explain, "I am objecting to the war?"
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 26, 2008 12:29 AM
Thank You for your painful honesty Pastor Brian. I too am challenged by Shane's writings. Perhaps we can begin by praying for each another as colleagues; for Jesus to embolden us to live His example for our beloved communities. Remember, and I remind myself of this as well and say this by way of mutual encouragement, Jesus said "He who would save his life shall lose it, and He who would lose his life for my sake shall gain it"
Pastor Jeff Staples (small village church in upstate NY)
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 26, 2008 12:40 AM
..."defense of America is the purpose..."
then go after the Saudis, they're the ones who attacked you
Posted by: canucklehead | March 26, 2008 12:41 AM
"I was at Lockheed Martin on Good Friday too, but for me it was just another work day. If you talk to Lockheed Martin employees, you find that we are consistent and sincere in our purpose."
Did you read about my own experience with the sincerity of defense contractor execs after the Cold War end downed their profits posted above? Do you have an answer to this?
No doubt people can be sincere about a lot of things. You can be sincere in believing falsehoods only when you don't know better.
As for consistency, well, if you're a Christian, that requires a little cognitive dissonance to remaining sincere. I'd like to hear a really good defense as to how and why conscience is deadened to the fact of innocent lives being ended by the very things conceived in your brain and created with your hands, and how you really think that is going to play out in terms of personal salvation which involves a personal accountability to God that you won't be able to avoid.
Personally, if I'm a munitions exec and a Christian, I'm not going to have my brethren arrested for performing some Christian street theatre. Heck, I'd even go down and watch it and engage them. If I have to use force to shut up Christian witness, then my conscience must be bothering me, a whole lot.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 26, 2008 1:12 AM
"Jesus for President", huh? Great title, Shane; that should help sell some books!
Never thought about that before, but I'm sure He would have lost in a landslide in today's America because of His extremely liberal views - much more liberal and radical than Barack or Hillary! Ah, but we'll never know, since the US Constitution, Article II, Section 1 states:
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Nope, not born here, never lived here and never made it to 35 (most commonly thought to be 33ish at death).
I wonder what percentage of Americans would actually vote for Jesus based solely on His politics? I'm guessing no more than a 30% and probably much less. I'm betting that He wouldn't even carry a majority of devout Christians! Any other guesses?
Hey Payshun, the wife and I went to see "Ella" tonight at the theater. Should it come to your city, make it a point to go see it - you'd love the story of Ms. Fitzgerald's life and especially all of the jazz music contained in the play.
Posted by: Cads | March 26, 2008 2:07 AM
Shane and his friends did the right thing. Peaceful protest can take many forms - outside the establishments providing armaments, outside military bases, outside the White House. Good on you for having the courage to stand up for your principles and for the Prince of Peace!
I'm British, and our reputation as suffered as much as yours. I have many friends in the US, in different cities, and I've heard from most how ashamed (or defensive) they are about the Iraq war. I also have a good Iraqi friend whose family had to flee Baghdad last year, as they're Christians. (No journalist has ever covered the fact that Christians were safe in Saddam's regime! Not that that excuses his actions against the Kurds or Shias for one moment, or one death.)
Yet Bush and Blair claim to be Christians. What a bad advertisement for our faith, to have the blood of tens of thousands of Iraqis on their hands, not just 'our boys', who have to follow orders, anyway. We shouldn't turn to China to criticise unjust regimes, but FIRST own up to our own fault and culpability.
We first have to change the regimes of the countries where we live. That is the discomfort and challenge of being British and American Christians.
Posted by: Annette | March 26, 2008 4:54 AM
How it would be nice to see someone protest in front of the UN against Syria - Iran Moderatelad
I work two blocks from the UN. There are constantly protests against any number of countries including Iran and Syria. Of course those are the facts and they don't fit into your narcissistic world view in which the USA is the "victim" on not the perpetrator, so you conveniently omit them.
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 26, 2008 6:10 AM
Moderatelad--The capacity for grace (or incapacity) opens and closes many doors to make a case for anything. To me you display a remarkable capacity to display both--in the same breath. (Fully acknowledging I do the same.)
Have you ever posted a comment and later regretted not being mean enough?
Let's err on the side of grace.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 26, 2008 9:11 AM
"Ouch - maybe we should switch to DeCaf?"
I had not yet had a cup of coffee. But you're right caffeine can have that effect on me. So does willful ignorance.
"Blessings"
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 26, 2008 9:18 AM
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 26, 2008 9:11 AM
Have you ever posted a comment and later regretted not being mean enough?
Never posted with the idea that I wanted to be mean. Direct and to the point - yes. I have taken the logic of someone and used it to prove that it might be 'flawed'. But I have also celebrated people expressing their ideas freely and openly. I look and strive for understanding and not so much agreement. (there are times I do not agree with myself - LOL)
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 26, 2008 9:22 AM
"If you talk to Lockheed Martin employees, you find that we are consistent and sincere in our purpose. We are trying to equip our troops and our allies with the arms they need to deter attack, and if deterrence should fail, to ensure victory. Profit is a byproduct; defense of America is the purpose."
Profit is just a byproduct? Right! Welcome to the blog. You'll soon find out that the folks here aren't as dumb as you think we are, certainly not as dumb as the American populace overall, many of whom are inclined to believe your pseudo-patriotic platitudes.
Posted by: I and I | March 26, 2008 9:23 AM
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 26, 2008 9:18 AM
So does willful ignorance.
This site must do wonders for your blood preasure. Have a great day.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 26, 2008 9:25 AM
Posted by: I and I | March 26, 2008 9:23 AM
'...certainly not as dumb as the American populace overall...'
Spoken just like Mondale - Humphery and Wellstone.
Just a question - if the US had no companies that developed and manufactured guns, bullits, bombs, destroyers etc. Where do you think we would be?
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 26, 2008 9:31 AM
Posted by: I and I | March 26, 2008 9:30 AM
'...you've discredited...'
Please - compaired to what someone on the other side of the fence have said and be support by many - I am a light-weight. It was also a '()' thought so that it was more of an 'aside'.
What has she delivered on that she talked about doing in the first 100 days of her leadership. She can't even get her members on the same page. She has overstepped her role as Spkr. of the House that would make Tip O'Neal blush. For being third in line for the White House - she has shown little that makes her qualified.
(OK - I retract the "B" word)
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 26, 2008 9:40 AM
The reason for ANY for-profit corporation exists is PROFIT. Lockheed-Martin is accountable to it's shareholders alone. They are the 30 piece of silver people.
The message in the trespassing is the confrontational and ironic aspect of the cross vs. the weapon manufacturer. (I have to admit the 90 mph visual was humorous)
Jeff Staples
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 26, 2008 10:11 AM
Why "5 year anniversary"?
This term must have been coined by the Department of Redundancy Department.
Posted by: Don | March 26, 2008 10:38 AM
"Lockheed-Martin is accountable to it's shareholders alone."
I doubt that even Lockheed-Martin believes that. It is a critical accountability.
An irony that occurs to me after reading Sojourner Truth's post is that corporations (for better and for worse) are not beholden to national idenities. The CEO's and Ownership class also tend to be transnational in their thinking/orientations. They could actually be international peacemakers--and in many ways they are. International commerce has often been a freeway: on one side it is the avenue of peacemaking; and on the other side is the avenue of warmaking.
Where do the pockets made deep by war--invest their money?
Posted by: letjusticeroldown | March 26, 2008 10:39 AM
"Jesus and his disciples occasionally broke the Law: for example, Sabbath regulations, cleanliness rules, dietary regulations."
He actually didn't violate either the Roman law or the OT law. I'm not saying civil disobedience is unacceptable in all circumstance, but we should observe the law whenever possible.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 26, 2008 11:56 AM
"we should observe the law whenever possible."
I agree. Paul has (generally) sensible things to say about this.
"He [Jesus] actually didn't violate either the Roman law or the OT law."
Roman law, no. OT law? The Pharisees thought otherwise.
Haven't seen you on here in a few, kevin. Hope you had a wonderful Easter. Are you a Twins fan?
Posted by: carl copas | March 26, 2008 12:21 PM
"Just a question - if the US had no companies that developed and manufactured guns, bullits, bombs, destroyers etc. Where do you think we would be?"
This is certainly the question that any worldly person with experience will surely ask, whatever country in the world they are based in.
But it's rather one that's misleadingly reductionist, even from a non-Christian standpoint, because it leaves out all the other issues, which are that those technologies aren't simply for domestic defense, but are proliferated for profit around the world. Often this produces a situation where we must develop even more destructive weapons for ourselves to outgun those that were proliferated.
There are more sources for America to buy weaponry from, than America, on the open market, even though we are the biggest world supplier among the five major competitiors.
One thing we might have, economically, if we weren't increasingly relying on it as our last manufacturing infrastructure, is good employment in peaceful manufacturing.
Moreover, our country's not guided mostly by Christians nor are most people, even among our financial, military and politicl elites. What they think is practical is going to be uninformed by the Holy Spirit or Jesus, which they believe impractical, but rather by what the unregenerate conscience considers of self-interest.
For those called to be his disciples, the conclusions reached about the responsibility of each of us is going to be quite different, otherwise our religion is no different from the many tribal religions of violence and conquest.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 26, 2008 1:48 PM
"OT law? The Pharisees thought otherwise."
The Pharisees were wrong about the law. One of the great problems in contemporary churches is that we reduce the Pharisees to mere curmudgeons who were trying to uphold a set of petty rules.
Nowhere does Jesus dismiss the law (he clarifies the intent of the Sabbath, but does not dismiss it) as petty or irrelevant. The Pharisees were hypocrites not because they implored everyone to keep the law, but because they did NOT keep it, but compromised it.
That he convicted them of their sin, publicly no less, made them irate. He could have not done so had he not kept the law himself.
My Easter was grand, and I am a Tigers fan fan.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 26, 2008 2:13 PM
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 26, 2008 1:48 PM
Great answer - by not dealing with the question.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 26, 2008 2:27 PM
kevin s, thanks for the thoughtful response. And I agree that we often caricature the Pharisees; certainly, Saul was no petty curmudgeon.
I'm a lifelong Cincy Reds fan who lived in Toledo, Ohio (about an hour or so south of Detroit) much of the 1980s and esp. enjoyed 1983 when former Reds manager Sparky Anderson led the Tigers to a victorious World Series. A gang of us from Toledo used to head up to Detroit and the old Tiger Stadium once or twice a summer to catch a game. The left field bleachers were a blast and the beer was cold.
Posted by: carl copas | March 26, 2008 3:28 PM
That was 1984, Carl, when the Tigers defeated the Padres who had ousted the Cubs in the NL finals. I was living in the Windy at the time and, as everyone knows, the Cubs have yet to recover.
Posted by: canucklehead | March 26, 2008 3:57 PM
"That was 1984"
By Jove you're right. Thanks for the correction canuckle.
Posted by: carl copas | March 26, 2008 5:04 PM
It makes perfect sense to me that Shane staged a protest outside of Philly, as he resides there. I'm all for addressing issues close to home. I also agree with the point "Sojouner Truth" brought up, as in, what kind of danger did Shane and his friends pose, and did it warrant their arrests? Did the police *need* to be called? Suck it up, Lockheed Martin, and face the music! On a personal level, our family's income relies on the development of hydrogen fuel cells and solar power. Not too profitable in the current economic environment, but hoping things will turn around in the next couple of years!
Posted by: Sandee | March 26, 2008 5:28 PM
"Great answer - by not dealing with the question."
Sometimes people pose questions in such a way designed to elicit only the answer they want, rather than addressing the heart of the issue, which is each individual's moral responsibility before God for their actions, not a version of "where would we be if we weren't the mightiest military nation the world has ever seen?"
The answer to that is, "We wouldn't be the mightiest military nation the world has ever seen."
In some cases, the answer desired is already implicit in the question. So it can be a debating technique to move the area of discussion onto a more congenial playing field, from the home team's perspective.
I try to bear in mind what I think the underlying truths involved are, and zero in on that. Of course, you might disagree.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 26, 2008 8:05 PM
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 26, 2008 8:05 PM
There is no correct answer or wrong answer. There is discussion - see none let me try to put forth a few answers. If we were not the military force that we are - and it is the 1950's - I believe that Israel is a memory. For the most part if it were not for the support of the US - Israel would be gone. (Yes - God could intervine and he has through the US to protest Israel)
If it is the 1930's - we might be speaking German or Japanese. If it is the 1960's - we could be a nation under USSR donimation.
We have been for the most part the most powerful nation in the history of the world and have sown great restraint for conquest. Have we done everything correct - no we have failed. But I will take our failures compaired to the failures of others and what they might have done to the world had they the chance.
So you see ST - we could have had some interesting conversation. It is the discussion that is more important to me - not the slicing and dicing of someone character.
Hang on to your opinions and convictions ST - you maybe able to discuss them with someone else.
Blessings-
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 26, 2008 8:38 PM
(there are times I do not agree with myself - LOL)
Posted by: Moderatelad
That probably most often occurs when you go back and do a spell check after you posted a comment. LOL
"Blessings"
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 26, 2008 10:39 PM
"I doubt that even Lockheed-Martin believes that. It is a critical accountability."-letjusticerolldown
? Expand please. I respect your viewpoint and it seems you are hinting at something more complex than the profit motive.
"Just a question - if the US had no companies that developed and manufactured guns, bullits, bombs, destroyers etc. Where do you think we would be?"
Canadiens
Pastor Jeff Staples
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 26, 2008 11:13 PM
Hey, Reverend, watch it, or we'll have to come down there to New Yack State and kick your arses again like we did in 1812! Ok, like the Brits did for us, but look at the queen we got out of the deal - 124 years old and still looking great! And Prince Chuckie? Hasn't done a darn thing all his life but is still one of the richest laddeez in the world.
Give us a week or two b/c our Air Force is in the shop being repaired. It's a Cessna 172.
Posted by: canucklehead | March 27, 2008 12:33 AM
"If it is the 1930's - we might be speaking German or Japanese. If it is the 1960's - we could be a nation under USSR donimation."
I recall a military general I knew saying, "God forbid we should ever conquer the Soviets. Trying to administer their nation would completely finish us off."
We could go right back to the useless destabilising attrition of 1914-1918, and then the excesses culminating in 1929 to find the roots of the thirties and the rise of fascism and communism. We bear our own share of responsibility for those conditions.
In any case, there was never any plan, serious or frivolous, for either Japan or Germany to capture America. All of the history shows that the idea was to isolate America from becoming involved in their own areas of influence.
And the Japanese didn't cause the Chinese or Korean populations to stop speaking their languages and start speaking Japanese. Nor did the Germans cause the populations of France, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Poland or Italy to start speaking German.
The thought of there being occupation authorities from either Germany or Japan somehow causing forced speaking of German and Japanese throughout American society is completely unbelievable, found only in a cinematic "Red Dawn" fantasy.
Just how could the Soviet Union dominate an America with the vast industrial base it has, especially when Kruschev, who exaggerated with bombast, only possessed 4 nuclear missiles, while those positing the "missile gap" in Russia's favor, theorized and propagandized, knowingly, that they had thousands more than our own thousands? How could a largely impoverished nation, that went bankrupt fighting a little insurrection next door in even more impoverished Afghanistan ever have realistically carried out an expensive occupation of North America, when all the populations would have resisted, both violently and non-violently?
"But I will take our failures compaired to the failures of others and what they might have done to the world had they the chance."
There were all the western European empires, of which our own emerged as both their inheritor (think Spain's Phillipines, French Indochina and others) and their competitor, along mostly the same lines we like to think, as they did, are mostly benign.
Think the vast British Empire, on which it was said the sun never set.
Those that are ruled always see it in less sanguine terms than their rulers.
Besides, as the Chinese famously observed after being asked what he thought of 1776, "Too early to tell."
Supposing our eventual legacy is the unleashing of a nuclear holocaust, as we contemplated during the cold war, targetting losses of a minimum of 500 million foreign civilians as tolerable in either first or retaliatory strikes, unleashing 30,000 hydrogen warheads each of thousands the power of that of Hiroshima's single atomic bomb, up to thirty per thousands of target civilian cities?
Did you know that privately, Ronald Reagan, contemplating this genocidal horror, decided never to launch a retaliatory strike regardless of the provocation?
I wonder what later deciders might decide, given a belief in the return of Christ at Armageddon?
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 27, 2008 12:42 AM
The Cubs haven't recovered since '08 - 1908! Happy 100th (year-lol) anniversary!!
Posted by: Cads | March 27, 2008 1:37 AM
IF you have concern for your blood pressure, I advise you not to watch the last Frontline on PBS. Bush's War can be watched in its entirety online, references and all.
IT seems that Rome is still busy with breaking its own laws. Has anything changed?
Are there not enough fools with the courage to make light of the truth that we might see ourselves in the mirrors at the carnival.
Going to court for tresspassing is a small inconvenience in the face of the horror that the people of Iraq continue to suffer.
What else does Secretary Rice know about this administration that our congress has not found the courage to ask her? There must be some reason she is on the short list for McCain's vice presidential choice.
How much longer are we going to Haggel about it Chuck?
PLease forgive my spelling today. I can hardly see straight. I'm at a loss for outrage.
Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | March 27, 2008 2:19 AM
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 27, 2008 12:42 AM
Your accessment of WWII is interesting - a great read and should be expanded and put into the Fiction Section of your local library.
Hitler did have the world in mind and has established a program to train 50 young men that would be regional govenors reporting to Berlin. The Japanese knew that if they had any hope of success in the pacific area they had to cripple the US so that we would not be a factor. (the breaking of diplomatic relations between Japan and the US - the Ambassidor dilivered the documents to the State Dept over 7 hours after they attacked Pearl Harbor.)
Yes - some of us are looking toward Armageddon the Final Conflict so that we do not have to deal with these little Nuts in power of little countries that cause death and distruction all around the world. As my father used to say looking toward Heaven - 'what are you waiting for?'
Blessings-
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 27, 2008 8:55 AM
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 26, 2008 10:39 PM
'...do a spell check after you...'
Thanks for the LOL - we need more of that on this site. (I spell like I talk - scary thought)
Blessings to you too!
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 27, 2008 9:03 AM
I have greatly appreciated this series on 'the war' as it has caused me to think and pray.
I am convinced, more than ever, we have a political system that is not functional. It is not just imperfect, or confused, or conflicted, or broken. It is not functioning.
Our actions or inactions, with or without this present engagement in Iraq, have grave consequences for peoples, nations and the planet. We simply aren't even coming close to exercising responsibility. Some conservative voices say things like, "Gridlock is better than bad decisions."
But that doesn't reflect reality. We have chosen dysfunctional gridlock over an attempt to exercise responsible governance.
We can find ourselves in this grave situation in Iraq, a much broader crisis, and terrorist strategies on the move. We can have the impetus of 9/11, nuclear ambitions of N Korea, Katrina, etc. etc.------and how much movement has that produced in Washington DC to govern?
Five years of troops on the ground and tens of thousands (hundreds?) dead--and it is not enough time/space for the a few hundred officials in Washington to agree on a US policy?????
This, following Vietnam--a painful US lesson about waging war against invisible enemies in far-flung small countries?
For me, this is not just a theoretical conclusion. It can boil right down to the level of how I manage my words on this blog.
Sometimes these conversations are no more functional than the White House/Congressional management of the Federal budget. I must break my words out of dysfunctional modes of conversation, if I want my government to exercise its responsibilities, which in turn points a gun at the head of Iraq and demands it solve its problems in six months.
And I restate my request to Sojo--for some pieces from capable voices that raise specific vision and strategies for moving forward on reducing specific conflicts on the ground in the Middle East.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 27, 2008 9:32 AM
"But I will take our failures compaired to the failures of others and what they might have done to the world had they the chance."
Do a majority of Americans share this sentiment? The lack of historical perspective is appalling, the smugness tragic, and the hubris terrifying.
Posted by: carl copas | March 27, 2008 11:43 AM
"Your accessment of WWII is interesting - a great read and should be expanded and put into the Fiction Section of your local library.
"Hitler did have the world in mind and has established a program to train 50 young men that would be regional govenors reporting to Berlin."
This is the fallacy of the neocon paradigm, I think. The same hubris that overestimates our own capabilities leads to overestimation of realistic enemy threats. And then, a narrow window of history which is inapplicable to current issues is used as a false paradigm.
Germany couldn't even invade Russia successfully, but got bogged down in the mud with enormous losses. How the heck, logistically, could an invasion requiring hundreds of millions of troops into America take place, when
even the English Channel, which people can swim across, proved insurmountable?
If a phalanx of Germans or Japanese showed up in Biloxi, would you cooperate? Multiply that by a million cities, towns, villages and hamlets across our America.
Why, after the Civil War, even the North couldn't hold the South and civil resistance reversed Reconstruction completely.
And heck, we can't even occupy Middle East satrapies successfully ourselves. Have you looked at a map, and seen the size of the USA relative to that of Germany or Japan? If not us, then how them?
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 27, 2008 12:18 PM
Posted by: carl copas | March 27, 2008 11:43 AM
Carl - do you believe that if the roles were reversed that the USSR would have had the same restraint in world afairs that the US has shown from the end of WWII till the year 2000?
I believe that there is a majority of people that looking at the big picture agree with me. As we drill down into the details - I am sure that we have our own opinions.
Understanding is more important than agreement!
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 27, 2008 12:20 PM
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 27, 2008 12:18 PM
SO - are we talking about 'could he' or 'would he'?
Could Hitler have conquored the world - more that likely not. But our coming to the table a little late cost the people in Europe thousands of lives fighting him and millions of innocent people died in the camps. He had the plans, he had the vision, he started to make his dream a reality.
'...showed up in Biloxi, would...'
So - we can not do anything until we are attacked? As long as we are safe and snug - we do nothing. If JFK had used the same logic - the missles would be in Cuba. Diplomacy - YES! and work it for all its worth to straighten out the issue. BUT - if is doesn't work. What are you willing to do to save the lifes of those in harms way?
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 27, 2008 12:34 PM
"Carl - do you believe that if the roles were reversed that the USSR would have had the same restraint in world afairs that the US has shown from the end of WWII till the year 2000?"
What "restraint in world afairs" would that be, Moderatelad? Would that be the restraint we see in the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan? Or perhaps the restraint exercised by the CIA when it assisted in overthrowing democratically-elected leaders in Guatemala, Iran, Indonesia, Chile? Maybe the restraint we have seen in American interference in other nations' elections on every continent except Antarctica. Or perhaps the restrained way the U.S. has significant military bases in over 30 nations. The restraint exemplified in enormous military and intelligence establishments larger than all other nations' military and intelligence establishments combined?
"I believe that there is a majority of people that looking at the big picture agree with me. As we drill down into the details - I am sure that we have our own opinions.
Understanding is more important than agreement!"
How can you appeal to majority agreement, then in the next breath discount agreement's importance? Moreover, surely we, as citizens of God's kingdom (a citizenship far more important than our American citizenship), are used to and expect to often be in the minority on all sorts of public issues.
Posted by: carl copas | March 27, 2008 3:08 PM
Anybody have any ideas on how to celebrate Pentecost in creative ways?
Posted by: Kevin Peterson | March 27, 2008 3:27 PM
Thank you, and Blessings, for walking the road of the cross. In the face of empire, where many of us, like Peter, deny the identity of our Christ, it is folks like you who move the frightened and disheartened to practice the peace of Christ. No matter the consequences. We pray together for those who are imprisoned, that their light might shine before all.
May we not be like those who, thinking themselves righteous, become mobs who stone the innocent, and shout "crucify!" at the meek.
Posted by: J Hompoth | March 27, 2008 3:32 PM
Please.
I know the language spoken by most Americans is American English but "sheroes" is in danger of being a cultural disaster.
The English (and the Irish) use "heroines" which is a more gentle and respectful expression of the same meaning. Try it - you might like it.
Thank you.
Posted by: Kevin Healy | March 27, 2008 4:50 PM
I feel great concern about the way our culture worships militarism and values dollar accumulation. The impact on individuals and groups who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time or who lack the power (physically or financially) to avoid harm to often gets explained away through the use of language designed to conceal the damage.
Suprassed only by those we label as enemy, we lock away a higher percentage our fellow citizens. We stand nearly alone in our willingness to execute "law breakers". We spend more in real dollars on weaponry than the rest of the world combined.
Yet we do not feel safe. Incarceration and capital punishment only artificially insulate us from the need to seriously walk in the shoes of our struggling brothers. Calling civilian deaths "collateral damage" does not absolve us from, with good reason, the nagging sense of violating the admonition to not kill.
We call spending to feed and to clothe and to shelter "wasteful"; yet we apply no similar standard to tax dollars spent building prisons or stockpiling nuclear weapons. I feel great concern!
Posted by: phillybluesfan | March 27, 2008 6:55 PM
"So - we can not do anything until we are attacked? As long as we are safe and snug - we do nothing. If JFK had used the same logic - the missles would be in Cuba."
Actually, to get the missiles pulled from Cuba, JFK agreed to pull all of ours from Turkey. That was kept secret from our own people at the time. Each side could be allowed to paint themselves as the "winner" to their own people and saving face averted a nuclear holocaust.
We were as ready to launch armageddon as they were if a way to save face for the leadership could not be found.
"But our coming to the table a little late cost the people in Europe thousands of lives fighting him and millions of innocent people died in the camps."
As has been well documented, we didn't go to war for the six million Jews nor the 6 million others in the extermination camps. As Elie Wiesel learned after, to his disheartenment and which caused him a spiritual crisis, the Roosevelt he and his lost family prayed for, along with the political, diplomatic and military authorities in America were well aware all along of the plight of European Jewry, yet did nothing. In fact, the ship of Jewish refugees Hitler allowed to leave was sent right back by America which refused to admit them - while knowing everything about their fate.
Why were the railway tracks to the camps never bombed, disrupting the death machine? Instead, we fire bombed civilian cities.
Our nation was complicit in creating the worldwide depression that sprang from the untrammelled greed of Wall Street in 1929. That depression magnified the suffering already created by the so-called "War to End All Wars" and its aftermath, in which we particpated, and from which the worldwide influenza pandemic came in its wake, as pestilence always foillows war, from infected provisions shipped overseas from America.
Was all this intended? No. But being ignorant of consequences doesn't do away with them - and tends to aggravate them as the lessons are never learned, but repeated.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 27, 2008 7:04 PM
Posted by: carl copas | March 27, 2008 3:08 PM
The list of the exploites and emperialism of other countries is vastly longer and more ominous than ours.
'...wars in Korea, Vietnam...'
These are much more involved than most people on this site are willing to discuss or admit. VN could have been won if Congress had kept their nose out and Pres Johnson had gone in there to win. The north was supported by the communist in China and the south did not want to be a part of it.
'...interference in other nations' elections...'
Define interference - like when we are there to make sure that they all get to vote and live to tell about it.
'...significant military bases...'
I am on record to bring our military onto our shores and help our ecconomy. Close them all and let their economies tank.
'...discount agreement's...'
Not discounting it at all. It is just that understanding is more important.
'...expect to often be in the minority...'
I don't expect to be in the minority. If we as believers were doing our job - go into all the world - we would not be the minority. If it is God's desire that none should perish - I am going to work towards that end - Amen
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 27, 2008 7:04 PM
"VN could have been won if Congress had kept their nose out and Pres Johnson had gone in there to win. The north was supported by the communist in China and the south did not want to be a part of it."
If the U.S. had destroyed North Vietnam, yes it could have saved it. It almost certainly would have meant war with China and possibly even the Soviet Union. See books and articles on the war by George Herring, David Anderson, Robert Schulzinger, Jeffrey Kimball, Robert Buzzanco, James William Gibson, Gabriel Kolko, Robert McMahon, Kathryn Statler, George Kahin, etc.
"Define interference - like when we are there to make sure that they all get to vote and live to tell about it."
No, like when the CIA bribes newspaper and magazine editors to run pieces that support the candidate the U.S. prefers. Like when the CIA breaks the laws of those nations and funnels millions of dollars into campaign chests. Remember the furor in this country when Johnny Chang from China allegedly donated to the Clinton campaign?
And like when, in 1965, within hours of Sukarno taking power with the aid of the CIA, the "company" furnishes him with a list of Indonesians who oppose him, and he proceeds to kill them by thousands.
And like when the U.S blocked the national election scheduled for Vietnam in 1956, and election that even Pres. Eisenhower admitted would be won by Ho Chi Minh in a landslide.
And like . . . well you get the drift. Or probably not.
Posted by: carl copas | March 27, 2008 8:20 PM
"if Congress had kept their nose out"
The trouble is that Congress HAS kept it's nose out of it's Constitutionally designated role and created an imperial presidency wherein the executive can and does declere war on anyone and anything he wishes to up to and including "terror"
ST: Care to expand on the role of racist eugenics embraced by the US re: the tacit compliance with the extermination policies of the Third Reich?
Pastor Jeff Staples
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 27, 2008 8:35 PM
Moderatelad:
Just curious if you are a progressive or strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution? If the latter is the case, I'd like to get your views on a "standing army", the Second ammendment and militias and how all that fits into Lockheed Martin's defense of America.
PJ
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 27, 2008 8:43 PM
"These are much more involved than most people on this site are willing to discuss or admit. VN could have been won if Congress had kept their nose out and Pres Johnson had gone in there to win. The north was supported by the communist in China and the south did not want to be a part of it."
The same old disproven arguments are trotted out. That basically boils down to the "stab-in-the-back" "fifth-column" of domestic "anti-war traitors" being responsible for the loss.
The truth is that conquered peoples of the globe were determined to threow off colonialism. Those colonialists were all the western European nations. Naturally the Soviet Union, having overthrown their own monarchy and broken with the west, which sought their own overthrow by counterrevolution, would take the side of those opposing its own enemies.
We began by trying to get French Indochina back for the French, not from the Japanese, but from the indigenous movements themselves that sought independence after World War II had bankrupted the old empires - our allies of World War II. We rejected the Vietnamese version of "The Declaration of Independence" - a translation of Jefferson's own phrases, and began to almost entirely fund the French effort for reclamation of its colonies through violence. Eventually, we made that fight entirely our own - especially when we decided to assassinate
the President of South Vietnam.
There is no way you can fight a people on their own soil in favor of your own puppet government which does not command their respect or loyalty and have any definition of winning other than a kind of genocide in which those remaining accede to become a satrapy of your own empire.
As Martin Luther King said in 1967, America in Vietnam, as it was in so much of the world at that time, was on the wrong side of history.
The neocons are like some distaff Soviet politburo, caught up in failed ideology, telling themselves that if they work even harder making the same mistakes in their next five year plan, it won't fail like the last five year plan did. And if it does fail, it's due to domestic "wreckers," not the innate flaws.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 27, 2008 10:02 PM
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 27, 2008 10:02 PM
'...French Indochina back for the French...'
That is what the allies agreed to do - without this agreement the French would not have join the allies in fighting the Nazi's. (one of the reasons that I don't like the French nor do I trust them)
So - Rosevelt and Co made the agreement - should we have honored that agreement?
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 27, 2008 10:18 PM
"ST: Care to expand on the role of racist eugenics embraced by the US re: the tacit compliance with the extermination policies of the Third Reich?"
I think it's obvious that our eugenics policies weren't taken to the extreme genocidal extremes of Germany, nor were they directed at Jews. While calling them "mild" must in no way lessen the suffering and deaths of individuals here, or let us off the hook for our own contribution to a general evil pervading the world, we can't thereby diminish the true horror of what happened in Germany. This is partly why the Soviet Union, where far more perished than under the Nazis, is not seen as equally evil, because such a directed and complete genocide was never carried out there - though that's scant comfort to the millions of our fellow human beings who suffered and perished there.
Certainly the same attitudes here that some human beings are inferior to others, which led to toleration of slavery and apartheid, as well as all the murderous evils expressed under racism, allowed the Nazi beliefs currency there. And we forget that during the Depression, with scapegoating always a temptation, there was a sense by too many here that the Jews, at least some, were getting what they deserved. The popularity of Father Coughlin, with his weekly radio audience of thirty million or more, railing against Jewish bankers, was the political and emotional environment in which the country's politicians governed. No wonder the refugee Jews were turned back from our shores and no action was taken to disrupt the flow by bombing along the rail lines to the death camps.
Today, it's not white Canadians or even the European rulers of Mexico and its elite class we despise as immigrants, but the descendants of the brown-skinned Maya and Aztec original inhabitants of our continent.
Nazi sources did cite the American reservation system used against American Indians as a useful precedent for their own concentration camps.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 27, 2008 10:22 PM
"That is what the allies agreed to do - without this agreement the French would not have join the allies in fighting the Nazi's. (one of the reasons that I don't like the French nor do I trust them)"
Cite some backing for that claim.
De Gaulle was always fighting the Nazis, from his London-based Free French government-in-exile, and he didn't make it contingent upon our agreement to get French colonies back. De Gaulle, the Free French and the Resistance, were fighting occupation for years before America ever entered the war.
Our agreements weren't with Marshall Petain.
Not only that, but after the excesses of the Algerian revolt and the arabs being drowned in the Seine, De Gaulle himself decided that holding Algeria was putting France on the wrong side of history.
In the end, we weren't fightring for France at all, but for our own interests entirely, by 1964.
I know - anyone neocons don't like is somehow French - even John Kerry, wh oisn't. That's racist.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 27, 2008 10:32 PM
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 27, 2008 10:32 PM
Cite some backing for that claim.
Google it yourself. I have never let my schooling get in the way of my education.
De Gaulle was military - not political. That was the big difference. The French have for the most part not been good allies with anyone.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 27, 2008 10:48 PM
"De Gaulle was military - not political. That was the big difference. The French have for the most part not been good allies with anyone."
De Gaulle was the President of France for many years, after WW II. Being a general didn't stop Ike from being President, either. You're right he didn't want to put his country's armed forces under a unified American command (NATO), or its nuclear arsenal.
There is a difference between an ally and a satrapy. We call the latter allies, too, the kind we really prefer.
"Google it yourself."
Would that be seen as a good rejoinder, say, from a Presidential debater, when his opponent pointed out, "There he goes again"?
In the spirit of splinters and logs, would you seriously say that the US has been a really good ally with anyone? We abandon allies where expedient to our own interests, and are driven just like Clausewitz observed all nations are, by the pragmatic self-interest of ruling elites.
How else could you explain our most-favored-nation trading with China? Or the same with our sworn Viet Cong enemies today? Or how we switch sides and abandon "our own sons of bitches"?
These are the ways of the world from time immemorial. They are not what we pray for - "Thy will be done on earth, as it is in Heaven." If we live in the Kingdom according to His will here on earth, we will make very different choices from those not living in that Kingdom.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 28, 2008 1:15 AM
"De Gaulle was military - not political. That was the big difference. The French have for the most part not been good allies with anyone."
DeGaulle was always political as well as military. Otherwise, he'd never have ended up as president of France.
Without the alliance with France, the U.S. would probably not have beaten the British in the Revolutionary War.
"That is what the allies agreed to do - without this agreement the French would not have join the allies in fighting the Nazi's. (one of the reasons that I don't like the French nor do I trust them)"
Simply not true. The French were allowed to regain control of Vietnam after World War II because the British insisted on it. London feared that Vietnamese independence would spark a domino effect that would eventually infect the colonies in the British empire. That wasn't a half-wrong suspicion.
"The neocons are like some distaff Soviet politburo, caught up in failed ideology, telling themselves that if they work even harder making the same mistakes in their next five year plan, it won't fail like the last five year plan did. And if it does fail, it's due to domestic "wreckers," not the innate flaws."
A fascinating, and apt, analogy.
Posted by: carl copas | March 28, 2008 10:45 AM
"Define interference - like when we are there to make sure that they all get to vote and live to tell about it."
Well, to continue Carl Copas' list...like when the CIA interfered in, or overthrew the winner of, democratic elections in
*Iran
*Guatemala
*Cuba
*Greece
*Chile
Oh, yes, if I point this out, it must mean that I "hate america," effectively ending the discussion. Right?
Posted by: I and I | March 28, 2008 10:57 AM
Posted by: carl copas | March 28, 2008 10:45 AM
'Without the alliance with France, the U.S. would probably not have beaten the British in the Revolutionary War.'
They came to the table so late - they only had desert. The war was won - just doing the clean up. That I learned in public high school.
'...allowed to regain control of Vietnam after World War II because the British insisted...'
The British may have insisted - but the Gov't of France refused to join the Allies against Hitler if they were not promised that they could return to Viet Nam after the war. Again - public education and additional lectures on that one.
'...point this out, it must mean...'
Not at all - there are issues that I believe that we are wrong about but I still love America. Pointing out the flaws - fine. But what is the solution and what is the back story. I find that lack of looking back historically on an issue by most of the authors on this site apalling. With most of the authors here - all the ills of the world started with George Bush and will only end when we irraticate the world of all conservatives. (they are only two issue people and simpletons you know...)
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 28, 2008 12:01 PM
"They came to the table so late - they only had desert. The war was won - just doing the clean up."
"The British may have insisted - but the Gov't of France refused to join the Allies against Hitler if they were not promised that they could return to Viet Nam after the war."
Neither of those statements are true, Moderatelad. Indeed, the one about France and Vietnam is so strikingly erroneous that I'm going to use it as an example of bad public historical memory in the capstone seminar I teach to senior history majors.
But I'm finished trying to correct your historical errors. I tried because you're a Christian brother and I felt led to do so, but it's no use. Obviously I misinterpreted the Spirit.
My track record doesn't make me smarter than you, nor does it mean that I never get my history wrong--but my Ph.D. in American history (specialization in modern American diplomatic and political history), my 23 years of teaching at the university level, my two published books, approximately a dozen published articles, and some 50 published scholarly book reviews entitle me to make a few claims about history and my knowledge of it.
You reference your high school history classes and "a few additional lectures" as your sources of information. For either topic--France in World War II or the Franco-American alliance of the 1778-1794--I can reference you at least 50 books and articles I've read along with the lectures I've given to university students on both.
Moderatelad, I doubt you are, but if you're ever interested in some book titles to bone up on American history I'm happy to offer a few. Otherwise, even though I'm quite frankly embarrassed for you, you can continue to wallow in blised ignorance. I don't say that lightly.
God be with you; I am your brother in Christ,
Carl.
Posted by: carl copas | March 28, 2008 4:44 PM
Moderatelad: "With most of the authors here - all the ills of the world started with George Bush and will only end when we eradicate the world of all conservatives."
Moderatelad, bingo, here's one of the times when you and I seem to be in agreement. We must NEVER assume that the United States will reverse 50+ years of post-WWII foreign policy with a Democratic administration. LBJ got us into war, Carter declared oil a vital interest, armed the Muhajideen and the Iran Contras, and Clinton supported several oppressive regimes in Latin America and bombed the hell out of the Serbs (despite their own growing anti-Milosovic movement). Liberals should not assume they can kick back after November.
Posted by: I and I | March 28, 2008 5:34 PM
The tone of these comments sadden me. As followers of the Way, we should be gentler to kinder. To everyone.
Posted by: The Goat | March 30, 2008 1:02 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?