War and Peace

As Sesame Street would say…”Some things just go together” and this is never so true as with the following snippets.

Freedom, Love, Righteousness, and Peace.

Force, Hate, Unrighteousness, and War.

Peace:
======

The above eight words are forever interconnected. In order to have Freedom we must have Love, Righteousness, and Peace and vice-versa.

Peace is something that cannot be legislated. It must come from each individual’s heart. It must be planted, nurtured, and harvested by individuals. It cannot just be plucked from a tree.

It must come first from the old phrase “Live and Let Live." In my discussions with a fellow blogger, I have been unable to show him that his view of force can never be able to coexist with peace and freedom, for freedom is really only possible with the concept of “My neighbor must keep out of my business, and that includes forcing me to care for one of my other neighbors welfare.” I either want to or I don’t. I am morally responsible for his welfare, but if I am “forced” to do it, then there is no real freedom and hence no real peace.

Freedom is more precious than peace or even life. There is no peace in compromising principals. As Emerson said, “Nothing can bring you peace but triumph of principles.” To be makers of peace requires respect for law, the living of law, the willingness to preserve principles, and forthright facing of facts.


War:
====

In the early history of the world, wars were of extermination or enslavement. But, when the Roman Empire became powerful, it adopted rules that honored it’s enemies, treated them with respect, and in fact on one occasion the Romans declined to recognize one of their generals in a victory that he had won by using bribery, and on another declined a certain victory by use of poison.

After the Dark Ages, along about the 1500’s a man named Hugo Grotius prepared the first great work on international law, and in the preface he said, “I saw prevailing throughout the Christian world a license to making war of which even barbarous nations would have been ashamed; recourse being had to arms for slight reasons or no reasons; and when arms were once taken up, all reverence for divine and human law was thrown away, just as if men were thenceforth authorized to commit all crimes without restraint.”

Because of this condition Grotius wrote his work “De Jure Belli et Pacis”, which was the beginning of the bringing into war of something of humanity, if humanity may be properly spoken of in connection with war.

First an effort was made to draw the distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Wars were to be waged between armies and not civilians.

When our great Nation was formed, we brought forth the concept of neutrality, (again, the old Live and Let Live philosophy),the intent thereof being to confine the war conflagration in as narrow a space as possible. We knew that “global war” and “total war” was a curse.

Then came our own “Civil War.” Many were treated as “traitors.” But then came Francis Lieber, a political refugee from Germany, and he drew up for Lincoln what became known as “General Order 100.” These Orders went to the Federal armies and prescribed how to conduct the war.

The rules forbade the bombardment, without notice, of places where there were civilian peoples, provided protection of museums, libraries, and scientific institutions. Undefended towns were not to be attacked. They provided that poison gases and poison it self should not be used. Pillage, rape and arson along with all like crimes were forbidden.

Then came World War I, and we began to sink back to barbarism. All distinctions between combatants and non-combatants disappeared. This was partly due to the type of weapons used.

Then came World War II and the Atom Bomb. We wiped out hundreds of thousands of civilian populations with this bomb. Few if any of these people were responsible for the war. We lost all that we had gained from Grotius (1625) to 1912. And the worst was that not only did the people of the United States not rise up in protest against this savagery, but it actually drew approval from the nation at large.

We could have done something else to demonstrate our “Walk softly but carry a big stick (atom bomb)” philosophy. We could have at least “warned” the towns first. We could have dropped the bombs on a deserted island, etc.

We were again not thinking with our morals when it came to Nuremberg. As Lincoln said about the opponents of the North in the Civil war, (the Southerners), “no one need expect he would take any part in hanging or killing these men, even the worst of them.”

Men should not be convicted for acts, which, when committed, were not contrary to the law of that nation, but were declared so after they were committed. This is violating one of our fundamental constitutional concepts that “ex post facto” laws are not tolerable. (Dina, you will certainly appreciate this one.)

When we, as a nation, support such un-Christian plans as the “Morgenthau Plan”, (to starve Germans living in the South – See Tobacco Road), we need to reevaluate our national principals.

What are the conditions of Justifying War?

First the reasons that are not justified to begin a war;
1. Territorial Expansion.
2. To impel others to a particular form of worship.
3. To enforce a new order of government.

Reasons to Justify entering a war are as follows:
1. An attempt to dominate and to deprive another of his freedom.
2. Loyalty to his country.
3. Defense of a weak nation that is being unjustly crushed by a strong, ruthless one.

The reasons to justify beginning a war are:
1. When we are attacked.


Now, we were attacked and that part justifies the war. However, having said that, we were not attacked by a nation, but rather a group of people who truly want to destroy us. And we do have the right of self-defense. So, the question remains, do we have the right to use the methods that Bush applied to defend us?

That question is very hard to answer, and I must say that it may be that only the Classified documents that the White House has and only those in power really know the real reasons to justify his actions. In other words, more information is needed to answer this question. There is a right and wrong answer, it is just that I am not sure that I, or we, have enough to decide at this point. I have laid out the moral rules for war, help me decide.

Now for the reality check. Should Saddam be tried for crimes that were not illegal in his country? If they were not illegal, then I don’t think so, because of the “ex post facto” circumstances. However, there was supposedly written laws in his country, and I wonder if rape, and murder by the government were legal because they were written as law. (sts and I are having this discussion now with respect to stealing, (transfer payments), by the government being O.K. because he believes it is in the law.)

In the end, peace efforts are useless without Righteousness. War in our midst is inevitable without people searching for Freedom, Love, and Righteousness. We have too much hate in this country, and often by the very same people crying for peace. They hate the Christian, the Republican, and the Conservative. Now, some of the aforementioned also have hate, so we all need to pull back a little and not be so easily offended and not try to use force to get our way.

Peace can never be legislated. We will never have….”so let it be written, so let it be done” as long as man is running things.