The text consists of 9 points. Point 1 states that their religious faith calls upon them to resist war and strive for peaceful solutions. Point 2 comes close to articulating concerns about how war does not address the root causes of problems, in that "This creates an international culture of fear, threat and insecurity". Point 3 maintains that the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes is a violation of international law as embodied in the United Nations charter. Point 4 insists that "UN weapons inspections be given the time needed to complete their work" which ties into point 5 which insists that "all UN member states have to comply with binding UN resolutions" and that "Iraq is no exception" and therefore they call on "Iraq to destroy any weapons of mass destruction and related research and production facilities." Point 6 is a reminder of the horrors of war and the coming wave of death and destruction, while point 7 speaks to "the potential social, cultural, and religious as well as diplomatic long-term consequences of such a war. Further fuelling the fires of violence that are already consuming the region will only exacerbate intense hatred strengthening extremist ideologies and breeding further global instability and insecurity." Point 8 is an appeal to go beyond political propaganda and consider "the complexities of the issue." Point 9 is a summation expressing their hope that those responsible will take decisions based on "moral principles and high legal standards" and they "encourage participation of all people in the struggle for a peaceful resolution of this conflict."
Of all the points in the declaration, only two points come close to addressing the issue of the root causes of the current problems, point 2 (war leads to greater conflict and war) and point 7 (rather than 'ending terrorism' and bringing security, the war will lead to further radicalization, and thus further wars). It would seem to me that exploring root causes is required, since only in this way can the proposed solution (global warfare and pre-emptive strikes) be analyzed and its effectiveness as a solution be judged.
This is particularly important to consider when you keep in mind the hawkish rationale for going down the path of one 'pre-emptive war' after another. To not go to war is 'to do nothing' and thus wind up fighting the battles later 'at a time of the terrorists choosing.' To not invade Iraq would be to follow the path of weakness, a chronic complaint made by the hawkish right in regards to former American Administrations, with the end result that Iraqis will 'not have democracy and freedom' but rather will be ruled over by a tyrant. Furthermore, we live in dangerous times, where the threat of the spread of what are called 'weapons of mass destruction' is becoming an alarming problem, particularly alarming to those supporting the war party, and therefore, one can assume, a doctrine of taking police action to stop the spread of destructive technologies accross the globe can have a certain appeal. This can be contrasted with the weakness being displayed by, for example, certain churches, for if the policies they profess were adopted it would lead to a future of destruction and calamity as terrorism spreads unchecked around the world and weapons of mass destruction proliferate.
It should be noted here certain weaknesses in the Church manifesto linked to above, as well as certain glaring hypocrisies and obvious inconsistencies in the hawkish position itself. For example the Churches state categorically that all nations must obey United Nations resolutions, and that Iraq in particular must disarm. Now one of the first critiques of this position that I can think of, is that it plays right into the hands of those who are setting the agenda at the moment, in that the idea that 'Iraq must disarm' has only been on the table for a couple of months, and now, apparently, simply by forcing this agenda it has now become the defacto official agenda, and therefore even churches must now come into line and demand that Iraq disarm. This is troubling both because of the way we must march in lock step with the established agenda, which we can be certain will change from month to month. It also highlights the hypocrisy of those setting the agenda, who, after all are the world's major manufacturers of weapons of mass destruction and have a long history of flouting every international law and one United Nations resolution after another.
When you study the history of United Nations resolutions you will find an interesting pattern emerging. Both the United States and Israel have broken and defied United Nations resolutions continually, and really, I have the long list and find myself getting tired as a read on and on and on of the constant breaches of United Nations resolutions by these two countries. So then, we must suppose, Iraq must obey United Nations resolutions, and will only be given a couple of months to do so, and will be pressured by everyone, including churches, but Israel, for example, and of course the United States, can break so many resolutions that it seems to take hours to read the whole list (as I said I get tired trying to read through the whole thing, its so long) but for some reason that won't be a big problem.
Israel in in violation of the Geneva Convention, which prohibits the practice of ethnic cleansing for the purpose of settling territories seized by military conquest, not to mention common everyday morality as displayed by the constant bulldozing of homes on the grounds that 'the people who lived there were relatives of terrorists.' Just the other day Israel forces destroyed a vegetable market and once again the reason given was to 'punish Palestinian extremists', whom, one must suppose, were preparing to use Tomatoes as weapons of mass destruction. Never in my life have I ever seen such brazen displays of lawlessness and gross criminality on the part of any state as that constant oppression and outright theft practiced by that place known as Israel, and even though the long list of United Nations resolutions passed against that place would take a very long day to completely read through, one must pressure Iraq, a country by the way which is complying with United Nations resolutions, unlike Israel which never even makes so much as a small gesture to indicate that it ever will.
In one of the points made by those European churches in their declaration above, they state that the war in Iraq will destabilize and further inflame the situation in the Middle East. No doubt, given that the average American has very little idea of how criminally irresponsible the government of Israel really is, and given that most Americans probably do not realize that this one country is guilty of breaking just about every international law on the books, not to mention a string of United Nations resolutions so long that it might take hours to print out the whole list, and then long days to actually read the print out, well given the ignorance that exists on these matters it wouldn't be to unexpected if Americans were to be baffled by that social explosion that takes place in the Middle East, you know, not being able to put it into historical context after all, unlike the people who actually live there who are very keenly aware of each and every point I just made above.
Perhaps the best way to help Americans to understand would be to put it all into context as more of that inexplicable Muslim extremism. Certain hawkish Christian leaders can help out a lot, by once again reminding their congregations that Mohammed was a terrorist who advocated jihad (we will ignore the hypocrisy of such pronouncements, given that the Bible is much more virulent that the Koran, given the jihad terrorists whose maniacal ravings are recorded on its pages. For those unfamiliar with the murderous ideology that is extolled by terrorists in the Bible, and practiced by their descendants the Zionists of Israel, you might want to visit the following page. This will not only bring to your consciousness the obvious hypocrisy of certain ministers and their offensive attempts to explain the coming explosion in the Middle East as the result of 'terrorists like Mohammed', it will also help you to understand the poisonous ideology of Zionism, and thus the state policies of Israel, which follow the book - the really do - the Bible has come to life before you in our days and in our time, and odiously disgusting thing it proves to be as well).
'Guns and Moses'
T-Shirt on sale in Israel
I am starting to get angry here, so perhaps I should make an attempt to cool off, since my agenda in writing this is to examine both the ideology of the conservative hawks and then the response of the anti-war movement, not to get angry and start raving.
It is difficult however given the endless perjury I have had to put up with lately (for example that state of the Union Address was one of the worst things I have heard in a while, and I really should take some time to dissect that thing line by line).
But let's get back to root causes, since only by examining the causes of our problems can we then judge war hawking as the proposed solution and see if the solution is viable.
Now to get right down to the bottom of things, as far as root causes of the world's problems go, let us consider the example of Afghanistan and the Taliban and perhaps Rwanda as well. Both of these countries are always found right at the bottom of any annual list of the most ruined and shabby poverty stricken countries on earth. Both have shocked the world with displays of cruelty and violence. Now the level of political discourse in recent times does not rise above the level of the most maudlin attempts at religious sophistry. The problems in Afghanistan, for example, were the direct result of the actions of evil doers, and thus the good, American War Hawks in this example, must do what weak liberals refuse to do, and don the mantle of the White Shining Knight in Armor, and go out War Hawking for the good of humanity, defeating such evil beings as the Taliban. Similarly the shocking outburst a widespread mass murdering in Rwanda was the result of evil doers, and also requires a similar religious type of response. This argument is so ‘compelling' that actually has the power to split the opposition movement, which such well known figures of the left as Christopher Hitchens now proclaiming their solidarity with the Bush administration and their contempt for their former liberal and leftist compatriots, since only the current Republican administration shows the stomach to don that White Shining Armor and go out to fight the evil doers of the world. (As Hitchens put it himself in a recent interview, ‘I am voting for Bush' and he stated his reasons as being the reasons I have just outlined above).
Yes the world is a much simpler place when finally, at long last, people get some of the good old time religion, and start painting the world in black and white, as battle between the forces of good and evil, phrases you will often find rolling off the lips of the current administration in Washington. It makes for a compelling argument among those who don't think to deeply about the root causes of the problems we face.
Now hunger and chronic malnutrition and starvation do strange things to the human mind. Take Rwanda for example, one of the hungriest and most ruined places on earth. Rwanda, like most of the world's most devastated countries, is afflicted by gross inequalities. For example, in Columbia, another country full of evil doers and requiring the use of military force to bring about the triumph of goodness, three quarters of the land and wealth is held by a tiny fraction of oligarchs, while millions live on the edge in some of the worst poverty imaginable. Malnutrition is rampant, disease everywhere. Now let us return to Rwanda and, although it may be difficult, one must try to imagine what it is like to be starved repeatedly from infancy, and assuming one makes it past infancy and actually lives, to be involved in a fierce competition for the little shabby bit that is left over when the ideology of greedy hoarding leaves nothing for the human race to survive on, instead creating these small oligarchies, the plague of the third world, and, you guessed it, the root cause of the problems in the world.
Now try to imagine your fevered getting angrier and angrier with each passing year, going perhaps two or three days without a decent meal, desperately struggling from day to day to survive. Certainly it must be the fault of those Hutus, or maybe we can blame the Tutsis. There just isn't enough for everyone, and with them around hogging the little that remains, well you can understand how a million crazed, half starved people might collectively get the idea into their collective heads that perhaps what we need here is to finally at long last get rid of those food hogs, so that finally everyone can get enough to eat. When a million people go insane all at once, and starting hacking to death those they perceive as their rivals for scarce resources, one should understand that we are not dealing here with ‘pure evil, plain and simple', but rather a type of collective insanity, and that insanity is borne of evil alright, but the evil is entrenched in the system itself, and it is the cruel and sadistic system under which they have lived all their lives which produced such cruelty and violence in the end.
Similarly the Taliban were portrayed as pure evil, the very embodiment of the Evil One, requiring an attack by that glorious White Knight riding in on that Glorious White Stallion. Afghanistan you might recall, is the poorest and most ruined and most hungry country on earth, if not right at the very bottom of that list, then perhaps second or third up from the bottom. Such cruelty and viciousness in the system itself, in the end produces ruthlessly hardened and cruel ruthless pricks.
But then we aren't getting down to the roots of our problems in this place. We are going to war against ‘evil doers' instead, which should keep us distracted and our minds off the whole issue of the root causes of our problems. It also provides a convincing narrative for certain ‘ex-leftist' like Christopher Hitchens, for example, who finds that White Knight fighting the Black Knight view of the world to be quite convincing (so much so that he is now a card carrying Republican, or so he says). It might also be quite alluring to those who don't know much, the uninformed out in suburbia, and heck, there could even be a few protestors and ‘leftists' out there who have been troubled lately, you know, thinking about how they are protesting the White Knight, and you know, maybe its just not right after all.
Yup. Very compelling ideology that thing. And the proposed solution, war mongering, is also real compelling, too, especially when you consider the problems we face, and the obvious solutions that are required, you can understand how a Christopher Hitchens or perhaps someone out in Suburbia might be caught up in the wake of such a glorious movement towards war for the sake of democracy and the great cause of the Glorious White Knight on the Glorious White Charger. That'll help a lot...
Now I am indulging myself in some sarcasm, but one point here, a critical point, in regards to the declaration of the European Churches is that this declaration does not address the root causes of the problems we face. For example you have guerillas up in the mountains of Columbia. Now when you consider just how viciously unjust and cruel Columbian society really is, and just how murderous those death squads really are (the death toll of human rights workers, union organizers and other activists is higher in that feudal society than anywhere else on earth), well when you consider the brutalization of millions of human beings in the service of a handful of landlords who actually ‘own Columbia', you know, its their ‘private property', well you can understand how after being violated and brutalized since birth, you might find some guerillas up in the mountains of Columbia. Violence breeds violence, and brutality breeds a brutal response. Of course, given our new grade school religious tutoring lately, it would be the case that what we have is an obvious example in Columbia, or ‘purely evil terrorists' who require the military punishment and destruction that only a Sacred White Knight in Shining Armor can ever really deliver. Only a true honest to God Republican could ever do that, since Democrats and liberals and various sissy panty waist protestors just don't have the ‘strength of character' to ‘do what has to be done.'
Real convincing stuff, this ‘official narrative' for the coming wars. (Sign me on...)
So to return to the point, these churches might actually be able to come up with a powerful and convincing statement if, rather than simply following the official agenda, and pressuring Iraq, they include in their analysis a look at the root causes of our problems, since this is the only way to expose the deleterious fraud of the ‘Glorious White Knight in Shining Armor' which is the siren call to war among the ignorant and among those who just don't want to see root causes, but would rather be deluded and deceived instead (while being really sacred and holy at the same time, for the White Knight is on a glorious and holy quest engaged in that eternal religious battle between the forces of good and evil).
To summarize the point above, it is impossible to be effective as an ‘anti-war protestor' if one does not address the entire range of issues, for the hawks will be saying that ‘if we did it your way terrorism would fill the earth unchecked.' They will then insist that all you do is complain and offer no solutions while they are being pro-active. They will then point to the dangers and the violence, dangers and violence for which they themselves, being hawks in both economics and military policy after all, are the ones directly responsible for causing in the first place, and will suggest that you offer no solutions, when in fact the obvious solution would to be stop those hawks from destroying the human race any more than they already have with their brutal and cruel policies. Certainly their continuing violence and cruelty is not the solution, but they can certainly make it seem like it is. If they succeed in perpetrating their injustice and if they succeed in peddling their agenda of using mass murder and violence as ‘the solution' then it will be YOUR fault, and it will also be the fault of European churches and lots of other churches as well, since you did not address the root causes of the problem, but only skimmed the surface. You protested the war, and that was all you did, and you just weren't convincing for that very reason. You were tarred and feathered and then assigned the blame for the problem (being a bleeding heart liberal or something like that, you allowed the problem to get so bad that now those hawks have no choice but to do the tough decisions, including slaughtering millions, which is all your fault, since you just let evil get out of hand and wouldn't do anything about it).
Think about it. Its all your fault. This is the official narrative, and if you would like to be able to effectively resist this ‘compelling narrative' you must tell the uncompromising truth.
Now before I carry on here, let me reiterate what I was going on about above, using a graphic example. Let's say, for example, that I have your wallet, or your purse. And now let's assume that I have ten people standing before me. Now I am going to open your bill fold, and take out a great big wad of bills, and I am going to give to one of you. I still have a few bills left so I am going to two of you a few bucks each. Then out of the seven that are left, well a few of them I am going to pitch a few pennies and nickels from the change purse, and those that remain, well they are getting nothing at all. This is my graphic description of the root causes of poverty in what are called ‘the Third World countries.' I am also going to do the same thing with the land. Most of it I will give to the one I gave the wad of bills to. What remains I will divide up among those I gave a couple of bucks to. Those who got the nickels can show up to pull weeds for nickels every now and then, and as for those with nothing, well they can rot in slums.
Now to round out this practical example, I will now decide to ‘fight poverty.' For this I will need the IMF of course. My solution will be to cut taxes on the one with the big wad of bills. I will also cut services to like hospitals and schools, to save enough money to pay the interest on those debts. Aid to the poorest of the poor I will also slash. There just won't be the money for it, what with the budget being cut, and with the one with the wad of bills getting tax cuts, and so on. I will thus make poverty even more miserable than it ever was. This is called ‘poverty reduction' and ‘fighting poverty.' It supposed to take maybe one or two hundred years to work, and in the meantime we just have to make things worse to make them better. This is called fighting poverty, while not actually tackling the root causes of poverty and instead substituting all this other suffering instead. You see the root cause of the poverty was that feudal land lord with the wad of bills and all the land and all the property, that you find in all the poorest countries in the world. Given that no one wants to deal with this problem, it remains to find a non-solution to poverty, which is what these other solutions are, not addressing the problem after all, so what else could you expect? Thus we find the poorest of the poor getting poor, getting soaked for loans, loans which benefitted the one with the wad of bills by the way, who will not be paying them back, but rather getting more and more tax cuts.
You might want to consider what FoodFirst.org has to say about the current famine and the policies of destroying food reserves (free market principles rule). As well, since the Jubilee 2000 campaign failed it is now time for the chickens to come home to roost. You can also 'enjoy' watching poor countries paying their interest payments on their loans on time, while millions starve. 12 myths about hunger and starvation
As long as this continues, you will be troubled by ‘terrorists', as people target America for their problems. Its understandable how they would, too, given that when they see who funds and supports and arms their oppressors, it turns out to be Washington. The more of them you kill, the more the anger will spread, and the more danger you will be in. That's how these things work out when you ignore root causes of your problems and then turn stubbornly aside and start looking for evil solutions to your problems...you know, using violence to teach people a lesson in not trying violence as a solution to their problems, threatening to use weapons of mass destruction to teach people not to dare to think of using such things, threatening to bomb and blow up buildings to teach people not to bomb and blow up buildings, and just terrorizing the people who live in the most ruined shabby poverty stricken countries on earth as a great lesson in not practicing terrorism, all of which pretty well summarizes that sorry State of the Union Address (will they not all face ‘American justice').
If you happen to be an ‘average American' you will be the one who gets nailed for all this. As you might notice, they couldn't suicide bomb the Summit at Genoa, in the months before 9-11, since powerful security precautions were taken, including ringing the summit with anti-aircraft guns, and prohibiting passenger aircraft from flying near the summit.
Now it has occurred to me that there might still be those who will ignore root causes of our problems, and insist on a violent solution on the grounds that ‘it is now to late, and we have no choice but to use mass murder as a solution.'
In keeping with this way of thinking I thought it might be good therefore, to hop the fence as it were, and examine the top reasons for sending out the glorious White Knight on a crusade against evil doers, using mass murder to solve the world's problems.
First, since the White Knights were responsible for creating Al Queda as a tool to use against the Russians, it only seems right that they should be forced to clean up their own mess.
Similarly, since it was the same bunch in power now who were in power during the Nixon, Reagan and now both Bush presidencies it seems just that since they were the ones who gave Saddam weapons of mass destruction, they should now be held accountable for dealing with that problem they caused. For example, at the same time Saddam was said to be ‘gassing the Kurds' there are those pictures of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand in Baghdad. The Reagan administration also defied United Nations resolutions on condemning Saddam for using poison gas. You see the United States was giving weapons of mass destruction to both Saddam and Iran at the time, to make sure that neither one could gas the other into oblivion, and thus they could just bleed each other white and get weaker and weaker which is what Washington wanted at the time. If the United States had to go along with that resolution condemning the use of weapons of mass destruction that would have ruined everything. Since Rumsfeld was involved in giving Saddam poison gases and also the equipment necessary for constructing the delivery systems, it only seems right that he should punished by sending him to Iraq to fix that problem given that he was also responsible. He should also get back any left over anthrax they might find, since the Americans also sent Saddam a bunch of Anthrax so he could grow it in labs and so on. That stuff has a short shelf life, but if any is left over Rumsfeld should be forced to go to Iraq and get it back.
The Reagan administration started Al Queda, armed Bin Laden, and Reagan called the Taliban ‘the fathers of the nation' and compared the leader of the Taliban to George Washington and the rest of the Taliban leadership he called ‘the founding fathers.' They were ‘freedom fighters', not ‘terrorists' who deserved the support of all Americans because of their wonderful courage in the cause of freedom. Fortunately now that those same people like Cheney and Rumsfeld and the rest of them are back in power for the umpteenth time since the sixties, it only seems right that they should get rid of the Taliban since that was their creation and their fault. Now they should be forced to scour the planet and get rid of that other creation of theirs, Al Queda. They should do this using the same methods that got every one into so much trouble in the first place, only this time making sure not to make even more problems for everyone later, since they are all really really elderly now, and not likely to be around to be punished by being forced to pick up their pieces of their latest disaster later on, leaving instead someone else to have to go out and clean up after their latest mess.
These are some of the best reasons I can think of for adopting the pro-war position, and I just offer them here in case anyone is considering abandoning the anti-war movement in favor of the compelling ideology of the White Knight fighting the forces of evil. You will need a compelling official narrative to explain why things are the way they are and why we must do what we do, and so I offer the above as some possible examples of what might be convincing rationales for sending the current American Administration out war hawking around the world, cleaning up the messes they have made as only right and proper (while being a great success and not making things even worse than they currently are, one must insist).
