Syria

Thursday, September 5, 2013

Syria

By

Francis William Bessler

Laramie, Wyoming

Sept 5^th, 2013

Note:

My oldest daughter, Anita, asked me what I think about the current Syrian crisis.  What should we do about the civil war going on in that country?  This article is my response to her inquiry.  Thanks, Anita, for asking; but keep in mind, what I offer is only personal opinion.  In the end, each of us should ask our own questions and provide our own answers.  This article only reflects my opinion and should not be assumed to be that of any other - including my lovely daughter, Anita.  FWB

Hi, Anita,

       My way of resolving conflict between two warring camps - regardless of what the conflict is - is to never act according to the conflicting camps.  That only delays solution of a conflict.  In other words, if two parties are at war with one another, never enter that war on the part of one of the conflicting parties.  So, what should be done?  That is easy.  Commit to humanitarian relief practices, possibly agreeing to use military practices to get that done if necessary.  But never attack some party or warrior faction simply for that reason alone.  If attacking some warrior faction is necessary to perform some humanitarian relief effort, then make allowances for that, but never attack for the sake of attack as if the only motive of your attack is to "crush" some perceived enemy.

        The reason for my "non militant" approach for trying to resolve conflict in this world is that no matter what you do, it all comes back to impact you in the same way you acted.  If you think you can attack someone just because they have attacked you or someone you love, then you are wrong.  To attack another person is to impact yourself by doing the same thing that the initial attacking person is doing that you resent.  It makes no sense to go to war to defeat war when all you are doing is pursuing the same violence you are supposedly opposing.  Now, how sensible is that?

        We all have to die, but like I offered in my previous article on FALSE STANDARDS, in all likelihood, upon death we only take ourselves.  Death leaves us naked - in a manner of speaking.  It is totally unlikely that there is a God or a Jesus or a Mohammed or a Moses or a Buddha or whomever or whatever facing us when we die.  We are simply "all alone" - even if some fellow compassionate souls are there to greet us.  What matters is not who is there beyond the grave, but the person we are that we take with us.  That should be all that matters; and the way we die is the way we will inherit when we die.  We won't inherit anyone but ourselves.  So, it behooves each of us to die like we really want to live.  It just makes sense.

       I realize that many think now as I used to think that God will be standing about wherever I go when I die, but that is totally without credibility because God is not a person to stand about anywhere - be it where I am when I die or anywhere else.  God is not a person - as I once believed - but rather an Infinite Presence; and God must be a Presence that is in everything because how could it be otherwise - if Existence is really Infinite?  If God is not a person that can be individually located because God must be equal to Infinity, then no one can claim to be a representative of God - be it a Jesus (my favorite sage) or a Moses or a Mohammed or a whomever.

       With God out of the picture as a person to judge me, that leaves me without a judge - in a way.  Now there are many who claim they are "God's representative," but they think so because they think that God is a person.  In truth, since God is not a person, no one can claim to be a judge - which a "person God" has been used to reflect.  That means that if I am judged at all as a soul without a body to control, then my soul must be its own judge.  How can that happen?  By having to inherit my own attitude. 

       If the soul is an individual entity like so many of us believe, then without a body, it can have no memory because memory is a function of the brain - which passes upon death.  With what does that leave you - or me?  An attitude - and that is all.  Again, it is an "if" argument.  "If" I have a soul that continues after death, then without a memory attached to a brain, my soul must be equal to its attitude; and that is why I cannot take another person's life - or even injure him or her - without retaining the "attitude" that it is right to do so.  If I consider it right to injure another or punish another or whatever, then when I die, I will retain that attitude; and that attitude will be my judge.  It is as simple as that.

        Now, put your soul in the body of a warrior - even if it is one who is "doing what is right" by defending some person in agony.  If we kill another in the defense of the one in agony, that killing will impact our soul.  What we do to another comes back on us.  So, why impact yourself negatively by doing to another what you would not want that other to do to you?  And then add in the possible factor that when you are trying to kill someone else, you are killed.  What have you got?  You have a naked person - yourself - having to go on with another existence with no idea on how you reached the state you are in.  Remember, as a soul without a body, you are naked when you die.  All you have is an attitude, but in death you probably will have no idea how you acclaimed that attitude; but, again, it is that attitude that is your judgment, in a manner of speaking.

        In regards to Syria, I have no idea what the "real issues" are in that conflict, but regardless of the issues, America should get involved, but primarily for humanitarian reasons - to be there as much as possible to provide food for the weary and care for the wounded while trying to mediate between the two warring factions.  It may not work, but that which will definitely not work is to do what the warring parties are already doing - killing each other.

        It is nonsense, too, in my opinion, to argue that some way of killing is more acceptable than another way of killing.  To say that you will go to war for one side or the other based upon some condition is nonsense.  Some claim that we must attack President Assad because he used chemical weapons.  What if those opposing the ruling party in Syria were to "use chemical weapons"?  Would we spring to action on the side of President Assad?  I doubt it.  I think using conditions to enter a war is only an excuse to go into it on the side of one you favor - but use some condition of war infraction as the excuse to do it.  What stupidity!

        When will we ever learn?  It was only "yesterday" that this country entered a war with Iraq under the pretense that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.  That turned out be false, but we invaded Iraq under the pretense that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction - based, as it turned out, on false reports by some Iraqi dissidents who wanted Saddam gone.  Our ideals were solid.  We wanted to "rescue" a nation from a terrible dictator.  So we spent a trillion dollars going into Iraq, making much more of a mess than what was there before, and then we still act like what we did was just fine.  A country has been devastated.  Warring factions have increased - not decreased.  Many thousands on all sides were killed; and many of our returning soldiers - as well as Iraqi citizens - have lifelong injuries to body or mind.  For what?  What did we accomplish?  Tell me that.  Who gained anything by that act of stupidity?

        Ah, but Saddam Hussein is dead - and that is what we really wanted.  So we were willing to invade a country, an entire country, to kill a dictator we did not like.  Amazing!  And yet those who drove that war still stand fast in arguing it was worth it.  Yeah, it was worth it for them, they think, because they had something to gain from it, but what about all of those who lost far more than they gained?  I say that some who gained only think they gained because, in fact, with death, they will inherit their same insecure attitudes that drove them to think as they did in this life.  Or so I Believe!   

        So, Anita, you ask what I would do about Syria?  I would do the same thing with Syria as I would have done with Iraq.  I would sit down with Assad - and Syrian rebels - like I would have sat down with Saddam Hussein - and I would try to offer humanitarian aid.  If that is not enough, then at least my soul will not have been impacted negatively by resorting to a violence that could hurt me as much as the one I might kill.  It might be selfish, but I think my soul is worth protecting.  Don't you?

       But thanks for asking, Anita. 

Until next time, Adieu!

Your Bella Vita host,

Will Bessler

(Francis William Bessler)