A respected American's view on the war in Iraq

From Gene Ching’s excellent article in the e-zine Shaolin Trips, Episode 2:

When traveling alone, television often becomes my constant companion. It made my first China morning into a rude awaking, time for the red horse to gallop in. The news was filled with images of Iraq, but not the patriotic coverage we were getting back in the states. These were images of civilian amputees, of babies in fragments, the cries of children and the other songs of war. It was the sick and awful side of “shock and awe.” No matter what your stance is on the war, if you don’t see suffering, you aren’t seeing the real war. War is hell.

Here in San Francisco, we used to say “Make love, not war.” It may surprise you to learn that Buddhists deny love as another delusion. In the Flower Adornment sutra, love is compared to nine things: an unpaid debt, a rakshasa (demon) woman, a wonderful lotus flower whose roots are hiding a poisonous snake, disagreeable food, a prostitute, a mleccha (barbarian), an infected sore, a destructive wind and a comet. However, if love is defined as compassion, compassion is the cornerstone of Buddhism. Passion comes from the Latin passus, meaning “to suffer.” In essence, “compassion” means “to suffer with.” While our country maintains a right to free speech, our free press chooses to waive that right, focusing almost entirely on the strategy of our attack instead of engaging in substantive debate. Americans did not see the war like the rest of the world. We didn’t see the suffering so we couldn’t “suffer with.” We weren’t given the chance to be compassionate. Even with our digital widescreen TVs, no one here saw the big picture, and to this day no one really knows what that big picture might have been.

But despite the niceties, the war haunted my trip like a whinnying banshee, rearing up and kicking whenever I thought I’d left it behind. Whether it was running into a group of Old German ladies who asked me if I had heard any recent news, or the smartass remarks of a shopkeeper asking if I’d like a ticket to Iraq, once anyone discovered that I was American, the topic would turn immediately to war. It’s alienating to be outside your own country while it is at war, but you get a better perspective.

Ironically, the Chinese pronounce “Bush” by combining two characters “bu” (clothes) and “shi” (rare.) This is a phonetic translation, so those parenthesized definitions are meaningless. But due to the inflections of Mandarin, Bush sounds a little like “bullshi.” All it needed was a final consonant, one that might fit to a “T”, and it could have expressed the opinion of much of the rest of the world.

It’s only a small part of the overall article but I thought they were two very powerful passages.

Good on ya, Gene.

[size=1]while i wait for Black Jack’s typical right-wing post yet to be posted on this thread, heres something:[/size]

Interesting stuff on “passus”, did you know that in portuguese “passo” means “step” and then “passos” is “steps”.
Just as in many other cases the latin “us” becames a “o” or “os” in portuguese, think bout it, like when you walk every step you feel is pain from the ground coming to your feet.
Passion for is “paixão” and compassion is “compaixão”, so i dunno if passus is or not the origin of passos. Anyone here is a crazy linguistics guy that can find that out? :slight_smile:

Though I appreciate the perspective of those who were against taking action in Iraq, both Americans and otherwise, I actually disliked the article. I think the promotion of the “foreigner’s” (by American POV) perspective is a good one to share, but the article had a lot of strange parts to it. Like these:

  1. The writer is a Buddhist, so he’s a pacifist (according to every Buddhist Sutra, a Buddhist is, by definition, a pacifist) in the most immoral sense of the word. That is to say, he believes violence in ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, FROM MURDER TO WAR TO SELF-DEFENSE, is immoral under all circumstances. But he claims that he didn’t understand the bad sides of war and violence (as if there were a good side) UNTIL HE SAW IT ON THE NEWS. So why was he a pacifist if he didn’t understand the horrors of violence?! And why did he need a television to explain it to him?

  2. The writer claims that no media source in the US showed images of the horrors of war. That’s untrue. Even the most pro-Bush media sources talked about the death that occured there AT SOME POINT. On the opposite side of the spectrum, the anti-Bush and “ultra-liberals” talked ONLY about the civilian deaths for quite a while, and even claimed that the US was LOSING THE WAR!! In the neutral area of the media, one could read about both sides of the war equally (but it takes some searching to find a truly neutral source!). Unfortunately, most media sources reported based on their own agendas, and even falsified information (such as the cover picture of an LA Times newspaper that depicted a US soldier pointing his weapon at a mother holding her child, which was later admitted to be fake). This happened on both sides of the media. Furthermore, it could be argued that countries which were against the war blew the negative sides of the conflict far out of proportion, because they, too, had their own agendas. It is my belief that exploiting the death of innocents for political reasons is just as bad as ignoring those deaths for politcal reasons. All in all, we live in a sick world.

  3. He claims that people outside the US have a “better perspective”. It’s different, and every bit as justifiable and credible as those who were in favor of the war. To say one is “better” than the other is stupid, whether one is for the war or against it. When it comes to war, only two perspectives matter: the one who’s killing and the one who’s being killed. Sad, but true.

  4. The entire ending about “BuShi” shows that the writer has an agenda that is against the Bush administration (or at the very least, he disapproves of George Bush). It annoys me that a respected Buddhist would add something like that to an article, which serves no purpose other than to make the reader equate George W. Bush with Bu||****.

All in all, the writer has an admirable perspective. But I didn’t like the article one bit.

Xesball,

That’s more than even a crazy linguistics guy would want to know! But interesting, all the same.

I think your perspective skews the way you view Gene’s article.

And Gene is a martial artist and a lay monk. Who are you to say what he does or doesn’t believe? Buddhists monks have propogated martial arts for centuries - there are different types of pacifism and different types of Buddhists.

While we’re on the subject, how much of this have you guys heard about?

No matter what your stance is on the war, if you don’t see suffering, you aren’t seeing the real war. War is hell.
Sorry to say many of us already know this.

“There is
many a boy here who looks on war as all glory, but, boys, it is all hell. You can bear this warning voice to generations to
come.”
General William Tecumseh Sherman

Hi Serpent,

I’ve been hearing about info along the lines of that news article for a little over a week now. It definitely has to be done, but I think that weapons will turn up in the end. They might not be in Iraq… maybe we can FedEx them in?? =)

I wouldn’t argue what a person believes, but I’ve read the Buddhist scriptures. And I realize there are many forms of Buddhism, Theravadan, Mahayana, Vadrayana, Zen, and even (as much as it pains me) pop culture Buddhism of America. And the definition of pacifism that I gave was taken directly from Buddhist scriptures. As I posted on another thread, that’s not how I define pacifism. But the Buddhist pacifism is NO PHYSICAL OR VERBAL VIOLENCE OF ANY KIND, AT ANY TIME, FOR ANY REASON.

“I think your perspective skews the way you view Gene’s article.”

As does yours. As does everybody elses’. When all is said and done, we’re all equally false.

Even the world and everyone in it is nothing more than an illusion.

:wink:

Even the world and everyone in it is nothing more than an illusion.

Be careful, this may prompt people to start talking about the matrix.

Enery one has thier own adgenda, marky. I think Gene did a good job of expressing his experiences and opinions. I don’t think Gene’s adgenda was to bash anyone, but to put his ideas on paper. BTW, I did not follow the war threw Americal news sources. I followed it threw Routers. IMO they do the best job of putting out facts and not propaganda.

Dayum, Becca, do you need a spell-checker! :wink:

Hi Becca,

I didn’t believe Gene was trying to bash anyone until the final paragraph. I agree about Reuters, but I should point out that many US news stations (particularly FOX News) used Reuters as a source (or a confirmation source) for a lot of information. And I think that helps to keep all the media sources in check, as well.

There is no US based independent media.

It’s hard enough to find on a global scale, but in the US it’s like looking for wings on a pig.

Or brains in a bush.

“While we’re on the subject, how much of this have you guys heard about this?”

“The CIA’s director, George Tenet, has assembled a team of retired CIA officers to scour the classified intelligence reports circulated to the US Government before the war on a range of Iraq-related issues, including those concerning Bagdhad’s links to terrorism and unconventional weapons, officials said.”

[SIZE=4]HOW ABOUT THIS!!![/SIZE]

http://www.terrorismvictims.org/terrorists/achille-lauro.html

[SIZE=4]WE CAUGHT THE A$$HOLE THAT PUT A BULLET IN LEON AND DUMPED HIS BODY INTO THE OCEAN!![/SIZE]

Hey kids!!

Guess where we got his slimiy arse?!?!?!?

Thats right boys and girls,[SIZE=4]IRAQ!!![/SIZE]

How some people here forget…

“While we’re on the subject, how much of this have you guys heard about this?”

“The CIA’s director, George Tenet, has assembled a team of retired CIA officers to scour the classified intelligence reports circulated to the US Government before the war on a range of Iraq-related issues, including those concerning Bagdhad’s links to terrorism and unconventional weapons, officials said.”

[SIZE=4]HOW ABOUT THIS!!![/SIZE]

http://www.terrorismvictims.org/terrorists/achille-lauro.html

[SIZE=4]WE CAUGHT THE A$$HOLE THAT PUT A BULLET IN LEON AND DUMPED HIS BODY INTO THE OCEAN!![/SIZE]

Hey kids!!

Guess where we got his slimiy arse?!?!?!?

Thats right boys and girls,[SIZE=4]IRAQ!!![/SIZE]

How some people here forget…
:mad:

Calm down before you give yourself an anuerism.

Actually… keep going.

:rolleyes:

Ok,only if you stop eating so much sugar…

“There is no US based independent media.”

 Actually, there is no such thing as independent, unbiased media.  Journalism comes from people, and people are biased.  It is very obvious that Mr. Ching doesn't like Bush, so one must take what he says with that fact under consideration.

I generally read a number of sources, discover their biases, and form my own opinion.

I.M.T.

Originally posted by tnwingtsun
Ok,only if you stop eating so much sugar…

An American telling me to eat less sugar!? Priceless!

That is quite funny :slight_smile: