Forgiving or Revenge?

[Pfaffenhoffen]

This is a reflection that is taunting me for some times.
Bin Laden was the culprit for the murder of the Twin Tower first victims and the ones who died later and are still dying for exposure to the toxics while working there. The death toll coul reach, say, 20 thousand persons.

Now, with the almighty firepower of the USA it was understandable the the USA would do something strong to aveng this crime.
So, the USA decided to invade Afganistan and later on Iraq. The consequences in future politics are rather uncertain.
I will not put numbers of American. British and other nations soldiers killed in Iraq and Afganistan. I do not mention the civilian casualties, as some one may dispute the numbers and that is not what is in discussion.
But the humber by far are much bigger than the death toll of the Twin Towers.
And Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan. And the Taliban were not uprooted.

So on top of the Twin Towers Victims, the USA chose to have even more American Victims in the War.

My reflection is: What for? What did the world gained with the death of those American soldiers. Was it worthwhile their deaths?

I remember the commandement of Jesus Crhist. “Forgive you enemy”. It seems that if there was forgivennes instead of revenge, we would have avoided the death of so many American Soldiers. And I am not speaking about the civilians. and Bin Laden would be kille the same for, after what he did in 9/11, he could not die in bed.

I am not preaching to others what probably could not do. Were I American, probably would react the same way. So, please, do not take as an accusation that American Actions were un-Christian. If I had the American firepower, probably I would do the same. Of course, war is war. But … it would not say that my warmonger reaction would be right…

So, how hard, how difficult, how against human nature may be, this question makes me see that, even in politics, Jesus Christ is right in his comandments.

 

[EasterJoy]

This is not so simple as forgiving vs. revenge.

For instance, Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. The evidence seems to be that some elements in Executive Branch lied in order to gain public support for the second incursion into Iraq. OTOH, Saddam Hussein was a despot. It wasn’t as if doing nothing would have left no one harmed.
Having said that, the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive aggression is problematic from a moral standpoint, and many people in the US see that. It is an attractive prinicipal when you are mortally afraid of this enemy or that, but it is a very dangerous one, for what one would hope are obvious reasons.

Most of the military incursions the US is on and has been on were not sold as revenge, in appeasement of justice, but rather in appeasement of fear. Some of the efforts have prevented further attacks. Others, I fear, have mostly had a devasting effect on the soldiers and families who have committed their lives to the nation’s defense, not to mention other families, via the impact on the US economy.

 

[EasterJoy]

These things were not done to appease a sense of justice so much as to appease a sense of fear. This has not been an entirely misplaced fear: Osama bin Laden was still active in trying to kill more civilians by surprise attack.

Having said that, the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive aggression is a dangerous innovation.
Pope John Paul II and many bishops decried the second invasion as illegal and unjust:
cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html

 

[kelvinf]

Servus!

I was just about to quote these words from Blessed JP II–which can be found in the link EasterJoy provided–before reading her post:

“Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of man. Bl. JP II”

 

[Flyingg]

It’s all about destruction and re constraction strategy, in politics there is no forgiveness or revenge, there is only benefits.