Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister and possible Republican candidate for President, recently made a statement about Osama Bin Laden's death by saying, "Welcome to hell, Bin Laden."
I do not presume to speak for God. However, based on my reading of the Gospels and my understanding of God, I would instead argue that the only acceptable response for Christians is, "Lord have mercy."
Yes, may God have mercy on Osama Bin Laden. He went astray of God's will. He went against the teachings of his religion. He could have turned. He could have repudiated violence. He could have worked for peace, not for war.
And God have mercy on us! We are so quick to war, so quick to celebrate death. I think God must be happy that al-Queda has sustained a severe blow, and we have every right to be happy about that as well. But God loves all of His children, including Osama bin Laden.
Meanwhile, there is much work to be done. Al Queda must be destroyed. But Robert Pape and Jenna Jordan argue that we might want to withdraw most of our military forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, while using intelligence and small scale covert operations against al Queda - because our military presence helps fuel support for al Queda. In addition, we must continue to make fundamental changes in our foreign policy towards countries that are predominantly Muslim. We must support the Arab Spring - a repudiation, by the way, of al Queda's theology of armed insurrection.
And, as an aside, the guy who got Abu Musab Al Zarqawi without torture says that contrary to the apologists, torture most likely impeded bin Laden's capture.
As Martin Luther King said, you cannot kill hate. War can, if used correctly, contain hate. But ultimately, peace is what kills hate, and we must work doubly hard to win the peace.
Showing posts with label Peace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peace. Show all posts
Friday, May 06, 2011
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
U.S. keeps first-strike nuke strategy, but reviews policy
Not long ago, President Obama reached an agreement with the Russian Federation's Dimitri Medvedev to begin reducing the number of nuclear weapons that the U.S. and Russia hold. The cuts were modest, but they were an important first step. Both sides will reduce the number of deployed nuclear weapons by around 30%. This treaty needs a two-thirds vote in the Senate to be ratified.
The U.S. is also reviewing its policy on the use of nuclear weapons. Previously, the U.S. stated that it was willing to use nuclear weapons on non-nuclear opponents, especially if faced with an overwhelming conventional attack. In fact, the Bush administration sought to widen the permissible uses of nuclear weapons, using them against hardened targets with substantially less provocation. Now, the President seeks to declare that the U.S. will not use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear state that is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The eventual goal must be a world with zero offensive nuclear weapons. However, President Obama has taken some important first steps and I urge the Senate to follow through. Critics of these reductions are off-base: both the U.S. and Russia have more than sufficient nuclear weapons to destroy each other. Should Iran or North Korea foolishly decide to start a nuclear war with the U.S., there are sufficient weapons to annihilate each country several times over.
Articles are linked from the Washington Post, Voice of America and the Wall Street Journal.
The U.S. is also reviewing its policy on the use of nuclear weapons. Previously, the U.S. stated that it was willing to use nuclear weapons on non-nuclear opponents, especially if faced with an overwhelming conventional attack. In fact, the Bush administration sought to widen the permissible uses of nuclear weapons, using them against hardened targets with substantially less provocation. Now, the President seeks to declare that the U.S. will not use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear state that is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The eventual goal must be a world with zero offensive nuclear weapons. However, President Obama has taken some important first steps and I urge the Senate to follow through. Critics of these reductions are off-base: both the U.S. and Russia have more than sufficient nuclear weapons to destroy each other. Should Iran or North Korea foolishly decide to start a nuclear war with the U.S., there are sufficient weapons to annihilate each country several times over.
Articles are linked from the Washington Post, Voice of America and the Wall Street Journal.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Slate: We're Blowing It - A new paper suggests U.S. military aid does nothing to reduce drug production in Colombia.
Ray Fishman writes for Slate. Check the original document for numerous hyperlinks. The report cited in the article is available at the Center for Global Development's website.
Last month, the U.S. military got some positive international P.R., as Marines landed in Haiti to provide food, supplies, and security for earthquake victims. That our other military aid efforts typically fail to garner such praise is hardly surprising given their focus on American interests around the globe. Drone attacks in Pakistan and bulldozing coca and poppy farms in Bolivia and Afghanistan may be critical to U.S. national security but are more controversial, particularly overseas. Proponents of military assistance argue that it can be good for people in recipient countries as well, pointing to the critical role of military aid in stabilizing nascent democracies (and market economies) by keeping the government—rather than vigilantes or rebels—firmly in control.
Civil war and drug trafficking have long, intertwined histories in Colombia. The current conflict has its roots in a 1960s communist insurgency, which has evolved into a three-way fight involving communist guerrillas, the government, and right-wing paramilitary groups. These days, two guerrilla armies—the FARC and ELN—continue to operate in the countryside with the stated aim of overthrowing the government. The paramilitary organizations have their origins in the private armies formed by drug cartels and landowners in the 1980s to fight back against guerrilla shakedowns. Despite the paramilitary's record of kidnapping, extortion, murder, and cocaine trafficking, the Colombian government subscribes to the belief that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Paramilitary groups were declared illegal in 1997, but the government continues to cooperate with them informally to fight insurgents, share intelligence and weapons, and sometimes even conducts joint operations.
Given the central role of the drug trade in financing both guerrilla and paramilitary operations, military and anti-narcotics support from the United States have been connected from the start, beginning not long after Richard Nixon declared the War on Drugs in 1971. American-Colombian collaboration has seen its share of successes—Delta Force and Navy SEAL experts helped to hunt down and kill the original Medellin kingpin, Pablo Escobar. But throughout the 1990s, U.S. assistance grew dramatically, making Colombia the largest recipient of military aid outside of the Middle East and Afghanistan. Has the money been well-spent?
Assessing the impact of American aid dollars is complicated, to say the least, by the Colombian government's connection to the paramilitary groups, and the paramilitary groups' connection to drugs and violence. Whether more aid leads to less drugs and turmoil—or exactly the opposite—depends in part on how much of it gets channeled to the government's paramilitary allies. Paramilitary groups may, for example, boost coca production to buy U.S. weapons to attack guerrillas, who in turn produce and sell more coca so they can fight back.
To see how all this actually plays out in the Colombian countryside, economists Oeindrila Dube and Suresh Naidu analyze how conflict and coca production were affected by the level of U.S. military aid during the years 1988-2005. They compare regions with Army bases (i.e. areas that receive U.S. military assistance) to regions without bases (i.e. areas that are relatively unaffected by U.S. aid). If, for example, coca cultivation plummets in regions receiving U.S. military assistance, but not in nonbase regions, then we can be reasonably sure that the change is due to military aid and not something else (like good weather for growing coca). To make sure that they're measuring the impact of U.S. aid on conflict and drug production (not the impact of conflict and drug production on U.S. aid), the economists focus on changes in aid to Colombia that go hand-in-hand with changes in U.S. military aid to the rest of the world, thus reflecting broader American foreign policy objectives rather than reactions to Colombia-specific events.
Dube and Naidu's analysis provides a dark view of U.S. involvement in Colombia and suggests that the $5 billion we've sent to the country in the past couple of decades hasn't exactly been well-spent. When U.S. aid to Colombia increases, so do paramilitary attacks in areas with Army bases—but not in regions without bases, where the number of guerrilla attacks stays the same. Despite the explicit focus of aid on reducing drug production, the researchers found an actual decline in anti-narcotics operations by the Colombian military in response to greater U.S. aid, with coca production continuing unchanged. There's also some evidence that U.S. dollars may have been channeled to paramilitaries to intimidate voters and keep its government allies in power. Greater U.S. aid is associated with a decline in voter turnout, concentrated in municipalities with Army bases. (A related study finds that paramilitary presence leads to the election of legislators sympathetic to their cause.)
There may be nothing wrong with using American money to pursue American interests, but we should make sure that that's indeed what our aid dollars are doing. Which brings us back to Haiti. The country is getting a much-needed infusion of relief funds, but as some have noted, when the camera crews pack up and move on, public attention will likely wane. Haiti will then face the complicated task of building the institutions—absent even before the earthquake hit—that might allow it to develop a functional economy. Economist Paul Collier has argued that a military presence can be critical to maintain the peace and stability that's required for investment and rebuilding to take place in nations torn apart by war and other turmoil. Haiti, with its legacy of weak, ineffective government, makes it a particularly promising candidate for such assistance. Even before the earthquake, Haiti was the beneficiary of outside intervention, with thousands of Brazilian peace-keepers stationed there. Haiti would surely benefit if these forces were augmented by a longer-term U.S. presence. Given the budget crunch in Washington, however, it seems unlikely that there will be extra foreign aid funds available. A dollar more of aid for Colombia is likely one less dollar available for keeping the peace in places like Haiti.
Last month, the U.S. military got some positive international P.R., as Marines landed in Haiti to provide food, supplies, and security for earthquake victims. That our other military aid efforts typically fail to garner such praise is hardly surprising given their focus on American interests around the globe. Drone attacks in Pakistan and bulldozing coca and poppy farms in Bolivia and Afghanistan may be critical to U.S. national security but are more controversial, particularly overseas. Proponents of military assistance argue that it can be good for people in recipient countries as well, pointing to the critical role of military aid in stabilizing nascent democracies (and market economies) by keeping the government—rather than vigilantes or rebels—firmly in control.
Civil war and drug trafficking have long, intertwined histories in Colombia. The current conflict has its roots in a 1960s communist insurgency, which has evolved into a three-way fight involving communist guerrillas, the government, and right-wing paramilitary groups. These days, two guerrilla armies—the FARC and ELN—continue to operate in the countryside with the stated aim of overthrowing the government. The paramilitary organizations have their origins in the private armies formed by drug cartels and landowners in the 1980s to fight back against guerrilla shakedowns. Despite the paramilitary's record of kidnapping, extortion, murder, and cocaine trafficking, the Colombian government subscribes to the belief that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Paramilitary groups were declared illegal in 1997, but the government continues to cooperate with them informally to fight insurgents, share intelligence and weapons, and sometimes even conducts joint operations.
Given the central role of the drug trade in financing both guerrilla and paramilitary operations, military and anti-narcotics support from the United States have been connected from the start, beginning not long after Richard Nixon declared the War on Drugs in 1971. American-Colombian collaboration has seen its share of successes—Delta Force and Navy SEAL experts helped to hunt down and kill the original Medellin kingpin, Pablo Escobar. But throughout the 1990s, U.S. assistance grew dramatically, making Colombia the largest recipient of military aid outside of the Middle East and Afghanistan. Has the money been well-spent?
Assessing the impact of American aid dollars is complicated, to say the least, by the Colombian government's connection to the paramilitary groups, and the paramilitary groups' connection to drugs and violence. Whether more aid leads to less drugs and turmoil—or exactly the opposite—depends in part on how much of it gets channeled to the government's paramilitary allies. Paramilitary groups may, for example, boost coca production to buy U.S. weapons to attack guerrillas, who in turn produce and sell more coca so they can fight back.
To see how all this actually plays out in the Colombian countryside, economists Oeindrila Dube and Suresh Naidu analyze how conflict and coca production were affected by the level of U.S. military aid during the years 1988-2005. They compare regions with Army bases (i.e. areas that receive U.S. military assistance) to regions without bases (i.e. areas that are relatively unaffected by U.S. aid). If, for example, coca cultivation plummets in regions receiving U.S. military assistance, but not in nonbase regions, then we can be reasonably sure that the change is due to military aid and not something else (like good weather for growing coca). To make sure that they're measuring the impact of U.S. aid on conflict and drug production (not the impact of conflict and drug production on U.S. aid), the economists focus on changes in aid to Colombia that go hand-in-hand with changes in U.S. military aid to the rest of the world, thus reflecting broader American foreign policy objectives rather than reactions to Colombia-specific events.
Dube and Naidu's analysis provides a dark view of U.S. involvement in Colombia and suggests that the $5 billion we've sent to the country in the past couple of decades hasn't exactly been well-spent. When U.S. aid to Colombia increases, so do paramilitary attacks in areas with Army bases—but not in regions without bases, where the number of guerrilla attacks stays the same. Despite the explicit focus of aid on reducing drug production, the researchers found an actual decline in anti-narcotics operations by the Colombian military in response to greater U.S. aid, with coca production continuing unchanged. There's also some evidence that U.S. dollars may have been channeled to paramilitaries to intimidate voters and keep its government allies in power. Greater U.S. aid is associated with a decline in voter turnout, concentrated in municipalities with Army bases. (A related study finds that paramilitary presence leads to the election of legislators sympathetic to their cause.)
There may be nothing wrong with using American money to pursue American interests, but we should make sure that that's indeed what our aid dollars are doing. Which brings us back to Haiti. The country is getting a much-needed infusion of relief funds, but as some have noted, when the camera crews pack up and move on, public attention will likely wane. Haiti will then face the complicated task of building the institutions—absent even before the earthquake hit—that might allow it to develop a functional economy. Economist Paul Collier has argued that a military presence can be critical to maintain the peace and stability that's required for investment and rebuilding to take place in nations torn apart by war and other turmoil. Haiti, with its legacy of weak, ineffective government, makes it a particularly promising candidate for such assistance. Even before the earthquake, Haiti was the beneficiary of outside intervention, with thousands of Brazilian peace-keepers stationed there. Haiti would surely benefit if these forces were augmented by a longer-term U.S. presence. Given the budget crunch in Washington, however, it seems unlikely that there will be extra foreign aid funds available. A dollar more of aid for Colombia is likely one less dollar available for keeping the peace in places like Haiti.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Sojourners: Afghanistan needs aid, not troops
President Obama has committed to about 30,000 additional troops in Afghanistan - a limited "surge".
When you break something in a store, you've bought it. The same principle works to a much, much larger degree in the laws of war. When the United States chose to invade Afghanistan, it took on responsibility to stabilize the country. I am not a military expert, and I have not extensively examined the evidence for or against the surge. Therefore, I cannot oppose the surge per se. There is good reason to believe there are really dangerous people on the ground in Afghanistan.
However, Afghanistan has also been a failed state for years. Its extremely rugged terrain and extensive tribalism make it difficult to govern. There are many reasons to be concerned about deploying additional troops. President Obama sought extensive advice from his military, but when you ask a military person about the problem in Afghanistan, you are most likely to get military solutions.
For a long time, Sojourners, a Christian organization, has counseled against additional military action in Afghanistan. While I don't necessarily agree with that, I agree wholeheartedly with their warning that development, not military action, must be the primary strategy. Military solutions can at best contain the problem of terrorism. Anyone who thinks they can kill terrorism is a fool - Dick Cheney being at the top of this list.
I think that in his heart of hearts, President Obama does not think he can kill terrorism. However, there has also been no sign of an increased commitment to economic development in Afghanistan. I would urge readers to sign this letter on the Sojourners site to remind the President about economic development - and, on the off chance that he's forgotten, of the folly of the armed solution to this problem.
When you break something in a store, you've bought it. The same principle works to a much, much larger degree in the laws of war. When the United States chose to invade Afghanistan, it took on responsibility to stabilize the country. I am not a military expert, and I have not extensively examined the evidence for or against the surge. Therefore, I cannot oppose the surge per se. There is good reason to believe there are really dangerous people on the ground in Afghanistan.
However, Afghanistan has also been a failed state for years. Its extremely rugged terrain and extensive tribalism make it difficult to govern. There are many reasons to be concerned about deploying additional troops. President Obama sought extensive advice from his military, but when you ask a military person about the problem in Afghanistan, you are most likely to get military solutions.
For a long time, Sojourners, a Christian organization, has counseled against additional military action in Afghanistan. While I don't necessarily agree with that, I agree wholeheartedly with their warning that development, not military action, must be the primary strategy. Military solutions can at best contain the problem of terrorism. Anyone who thinks they can kill terrorism is a fool - Dick Cheney being at the top of this list.
I think that in his heart of hearts, President Obama does not think he can kill terrorism. However, there has also been no sign of an increased commitment to economic development in Afghanistan. I would urge readers to sign this letter on the Sojourners site to remind the President about economic development - and, on the off chance that he's forgotten, of the folly of the armed solution to this problem.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Aaron Taylor on Sojourners: Caught Between Two Worlds: Progressive and Evangelical
Aaron Taylor, a Pentacostal pastor and member of a Christian Peacemaker Team, blogs about his conflicting experience on Sojourners. I do not agree with his worldview and will write a response, but he has a very genuine commitment to peace and writes very well.
I’m trembling as I write this one. I’m already isolated within my own faith community (Pentecostalism) for my views on war and peace; and I know that what I’m about to write here may put me at odds with a lot of people in the progressive evangelical community — a community I’m just getting used to. In addition, there’s always the fear of being misunderstood, so regardless of whether you agree or not with me, know that at least it’s my aim to speak the truth in love.
I love Christian Peacemaker Teams. I especially love their motto: “What would happen if Christians devoted the same discipline and self-sacrifice to non-violent peacemaking that armies devote to war?” I wish all Christians on the planet would ask themselves that question. I have nothing but admiration and respect for full and part-time CPT workers that live out that motto every day. When I went on a delegation with CPT in October 2007 to the West Bank, it radically changed my life.
So why am I conflicted about CPT? It’s not that I don’t believe in the organization. I do. It’s not even because I necessarily disagree with their anti-proselytizing policy. I understand that every organization has its own purpose and mandate. But as a long-time evangelical missionary and a recent convert to non-violence, I find myself caught between two worlds. On the one hand, I move freely in circles that “pray through the window” and map “unreached people groups.” On the other hand, my devotion to peace and non-violence cause me to move in peace circles — many of which are comprised of theologically liberal Christians.
Never was this more obvious than when I was on the CPT delegation. It took all of about two hours for everyone in the group to realize that I was the “evangelical” in the group. When I was asked to describe myself, I shared with the group honestly about what I had been doing over the past several years: traveling the world and sharing the gospel. Throughout the week, I had many discussions with individuals in the group about why I believe that Jesus is God and why I don’t believe that all religions are equal paths to the same truth. For the most part, the group was respectful, but there was the occasional anti-missionary remark that reminded me of my minority status within the group.
Maybe peacenik evangelical missionaries like myself need an alternative to CPT. Then again, maybe not. I think it’s at least an option that should be looked into, and I’m willing to dialogue with anybody even remotely interested in pursuing the matter further.
My concern isn’t just with CPT, but with the progressive evangelical movement at large. I’m conflicted because I’m concerned about the implications of progressive evangelicals continuing to endorse groups like CPT as “a new face of global missions” in their books and articles. If young people join these kinds of efforts to experience “a new face of global missions,” how many of these young people will eventually jettison their biblical orthodoxy? Even worse, I wonder how many have already jettisoned their biblical orthodoxy?
I just wonder if in our sincere efforts to promote peace and tolerance between people of different faiths, we’re becoming more “progressive” than “evangelical”? I wonder if we’ve gone too far in laboring to share physical bread with the masses that we’ve neglected to share the “Living Bread” with the masses.
I pray that we in the progressive evangelical community will never forget that despite all of our efforts to save the world, the “form of this world is passing away.” May we labor “not for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life” (John 6:27).
Aaron D. Taylor is the author of Alone with A Jihadist: A Biblical Response To Holy War. To learn more about Aaron’s missionary work and his travels around the world, go to www.aarondtaylor.com. Aaron can be contacted at fromdeathtolife@gmail.com
I’m trembling as I write this one. I’m already isolated within my own faith community (Pentecostalism) for my views on war and peace; and I know that what I’m about to write here may put me at odds with a lot of people in the progressive evangelical community — a community I’m just getting used to. In addition, there’s always the fear of being misunderstood, so regardless of whether you agree or not with me, know that at least it’s my aim to speak the truth in love.
I love Christian Peacemaker Teams. I especially love their motto: “What would happen if Christians devoted the same discipline and self-sacrifice to non-violent peacemaking that armies devote to war?” I wish all Christians on the planet would ask themselves that question. I have nothing but admiration and respect for full and part-time CPT workers that live out that motto every day. When I went on a delegation with CPT in October 2007 to the West Bank, it radically changed my life.
So why am I conflicted about CPT? It’s not that I don’t believe in the organization. I do. It’s not even because I necessarily disagree with their anti-proselytizing policy. I understand that every organization has its own purpose and mandate. But as a long-time evangelical missionary and a recent convert to non-violence, I find myself caught between two worlds. On the one hand, I move freely in circles that “pray through the window” and map “unreached people groups.” On the other hand, my devotion to peace and non-violence cause me to move in peace circles — many of which are comprised of theologically liberal Christians.
Never was this more obvious than when I was on the CPT delegation. It took all of about two hours for everyone in the group to realize that I was the “evangelical” in the group. When I was asked to describe myself, I shared with the group honestly about what I had been doing over the past several years: traveling the world and sharing the gospel. Throughout the week, I had many discussions with individuals in the group about why I believe that Jesus is God and why I don’t believe that all religions are equal paths to the same truth. For the most part, the group was respectful, but there was the occasional anti-missionary remark that reminded me of my minority status within the group.
Maybe peacenik evangelical missionaries like myself need an alternative to CPT. Then again, maybe not. I think it’s at least an option that should be looked into, and I’m willing to dialogue with anybody even remotely interested in pursuing the matter further.
My concern isn’t just with CPT, but with the progressive evangelical movement at large. I’m conflicted because I’m concerned about the implications of progressive evangelicals continuing to endorse groups like CPT as “a new face of global missions” in their books and articles. If young people join these kinds of efforts to experience “a new face of global missions,” how many of these young people will eventually jettison their biblical orthodoxy? Even worse, I wonder how many have already jettisoned their biblical orthodoxy?
I just wonder if in our sincere efforts to promote peace and tolerance between people of different faiths, we’re becoming more “progressive” than “evangelical”? I wonder if we’ve gone too far in laboring to share physical bread with the masses that we’ve neglected to share the “Living Bread” with the masses.
I pray that we in the progressive evangelical community will never forget that despite all of our efforts to save the world, the “form of this world is passing away.” May we labor “not for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life” (John 6:27).
Aaron D. Taylor is the author of Alone with A Jihadist: A Biblical Response To Holy War. To learn more about Aaron’s missionary work and his travels around the world, go to www.aarondtaylor.com. Aaron can be contacted at fromdeathtolife@gmail.com
Monday, May 14, 2007
Film about Kamikaze pilots sparks pacifist response
TOKYO: A film celebrating World War II kamikaze pilots and written by the nationalist governor of Tokyo has opened in theaters, sparking more of a pacifist than a patriotic response from audiences.
The movie debuted Saturday, at a time when the Japanese government is edging toward a vote on revising its U.S.-drafted Constitution, which has strictly limited military activities for six decades following Japan's World War II defeat.
"For Those We Love," written by Shintaro Ishihara, a 74-year-old writer-turned-politician, tells the true story of a restaurant owner who became a mother figure to many of the young men as they trained to crash explosives-laden aircraft into U.S. warships.
Tome Torihama's restaurant at Chiran on the southern Japanese island of Kyushu was a home away from home for the trainees, mostly in their teens and early 20s, who were preparing to make the ultimate sacrifice as Japan tried desperately to avert a U.S. invasion in the final months of World War II.
Though Ishihara is known for patriotic policies, including introducing compulsory singing of the national anthem in schools, members of the audience took away a different message from the ¥1.8 billion, or $15 million, production.
"It made me think we should never go to war. War is terrible, and all it leaves behind is bitterness," said a 58-year-old businessman, who only gave his name as Hiro, after watching the film in a Tokyo theater.
The director, Shinjo Taku, has said he had no intention of glorifying the extreme policies adopted in wartime Japan.
"In a word, I think the military leaders of the time were despicable," Taku told reporters Tuesday. "They took these pure, inexperienced young men and sent them off to die. I think they should take responsibility for that."
He and Ishihara have insisted there were differences between the wartime kamikaze and contemporary suicide attackers, but others say the two phenomena have common threads.
"The similarities in the selection of young men to carry out these one-way missions and the methods used to convince them cannot be ignored," said Linda Hoaglund, one of the makers of "Wings of Defeat," a documentary film about the kamikaze set to be screened in Japan later this year.
A Japanese vice admiral, Takijiro Onishi, initiated the desperate strategy of having pilots fly their planes into U.S. ships when Japan was on the verge of losing control of the Philippines.
The success of the first kamikaze attack off the island of Leyte in 1944 led to the recruitment of more men for such missions.
"The suicide attacks were an inevitable result of Japan's prewar militarism," said Hiro, a businessman. "It was a kind of religion."
More than 2,000 planes were used and 34 U.S. ships were sunk by Japanese suicide attacks in the last few months of the war, according to a Japanese encyclopedia.
One 80-year-old who lived through wartime bombing said it was hard for those who did not remember the conflict to understand it.
"I don't really feel proud of them," Kunimitsu Suzuki said of the pilots after watching the film. "I think with the education they had, they were forced into it. They felt there was nothing else they could do."
Friday, April 06, 2007
Nancy Pelosi presses womens' issues in Saudi Arabia
[Go, Nancy!]
Instead of wearing the traditional abaya, a long black robe worn by women in Saudi Arabia, Pelosi wore a lavender pantsuit, according to the New York Times. Under Saudi Arabia's strict form of Islam, women do not hold high positions in public office and face restrictions in the workplace.
During the visit, Pelosi commended the king's Mideast peace initiative and his efforts in Somalia and Darfur, Sudan. A member of the Shura Council brought up the difficulty of acquiring visas to the United States after tightened post-Sept. 11, 2001, security precautions.
Pelosi said she did not discuss a statement at last month's Arab Summit by King Abdullah calling the U.S. presence in Iraq "illegitimate."
The stop in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday marks the last leg of the speaker's Middle East trip after traveling to Syria to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad. President Bush criticized her visit saying it would send mixed signals to Syria.
The Bush administration has rejected direct talks with Syria despite recommendations from the Iraq Study Group for the United States to open a dialogue on Iraq with its regional neighbors.
As House speaker -- and third in line to the presidency -- Pelosi is the highest-ranking official to visit Syria in over two years. She met with Assad for three hours and said she expressed concerns over Syria's connections to Hezbollah and Hamas and insurgents crossing the border into Iraq.
Pelosi also said that Assad was ready to engage in negotiations with Israel. She met with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert over the weekend in her second visit to Israel since January.
At a dinner in Israel's parliament building, Pelosi told lawmakers that the United States remains united with Israel.
Some media outlets reported that Pelosi was delivering a peace message from Israel to Syria though Israeli officials said their policy toward Syria remains unchanged. Israel blames Syria for supporting Palestinian militants in the West Bank and Gaza.
Instead of wearing the traditional abaya, a long black robe worn by women in Saudi Arabia, Pelosi wore a lavender pantsuit, according to the New York Times. Under Saudi Arabia's strict form of Islam, women do not hold high positions in public office and face restrictions in the workplace.
During the visit, Pelosi commended the king's Mideast peace initiative and his efforts in Somalia and Darfur, Sudan. A member of the Shura Council brought up the difficulty of acquiring visas to the United States after tightened post-Sept. 11, 2001, security precautions.
Pelosi said she did not discuss a statement at last month's Arab Summit by King Abdullah calling the U.S. presence in Iraq "illegitimate."
The stop in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday marks the last leg of the speaker's Middle East trip after traveling to Syria to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad. President Bush criticized her visit saying it would send mixed signals to Syria.
The Bush administration has rejected direct talks with Syria despite recommendations from the Iraq Study Group for the United States to open a dialogue on Iraq with its regional neighbors.
As House speaker -- and third in line to the presidency -- Pelosi is the highest-ranking official to visit Syria in over two years. She met with Assad for three hours and said she expressed concerns over Syria's connections to Hezbollah and Hamas and insurgents crossing the border into Iraq.
Pelosi also said that Assad was ready to engage in negotiations with Israel. She met with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert over the weekend in her second visit to Israel since January.
At a dinner in Israel's parliament building, Pelosi told lawmakers that the United States remains united with Israel.
Some media outlets reported that Pelosi was delivering a peace message from Israel to Syria though Israeli officials said their policy toward Syria remains unchanged. Israel blames Syria for supporting Palestinian militants in the West Bank and Gaza.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
