The Futility of War

By Ernest McIvor

Wars have been used as a means of settling territorial and other political disputes since the dawn of human civilisation. The Futility of War takes the reader through the long history of human conflict in all its forms, and considers the reasons why wars still exist today. In so doing, it offers a fascinating insight into how people in key positions of leadership have reacted to the threats and opportunities that have been presented to them.

Any discussion of this topic raises the question: “Is there something about the nature of war that makes it an ongoing necessity for mankind, or is human nature such that we are fundamentally incapable of learning from the mistakes of past generations?” These and many other thought-provoking questions are skillfully tackled by Ernest McIvor in this absorbing account of a phenomenon that has both fascinated and dogged mankind throughout human history.

• Language: English
• Publisher: National Pacific Press
• Release date: Apr 20, 2014
• ISBN: 9781311338839

Book preview

The Futility of War

E. G. McIvor

Smashwords Edition

Copyright 2014 E.G. McIvor

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

This eBook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This eBook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to your favorite eBook retailer and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

First published in

New Zealand in 2008 by

National Pacific Press

PO Box 57-202

Mana 5247

Porirua, New Zealand

Ph 64 4 233 8204

E-mail: [e-mail]

This is a work of non-fiction. Descriptions of, and references to, places and events to which the stories relate are believed to be true and accurate, but any inaccuracies in this regard are beyond the knowledge or intent of the author and publisher.

Cover design by TBD Digital, Wellington: www.tbd.co.nz

CONTENTS

Preface

1. Pre-emptive War

2. Early Warfare

3. The Romans

4. Greece, Persia and Carthage

5. Christianity

6. The Arab Empire

7. The Christian Empire

8. The Crusades

9. Christian Violence

10. Feudal Times

11. The Reformation

12. Revolution in Europe

13. Trade and Colonies

14. Napoleon Bonaparte

15. World War I

16. Preparing for World War II

17. World War II

18. The Aftermath

19. The Oil War

20. The Futility of War

21 Sequel

Preface

Shortly after 1500, Erasmus of Rotterdam complained, Who being a good man in deed, does not see and lament this marvellous corrupt world? When was there ever more tyranny? When did avarice reign more largely and less punished? When did our iniquity so largely flow with more liberty? When was ever charity so cold?

Men and women are the most remarkable creations on this planet, and yet they are also the most dangerous and unpredictable of all creatures. History records the good and the bad side of human nature, and history has proved that mankind has developed certain characteristics that make it impossible for him to live in harmony with nature, despite all the opportunities for peaceful existence that have come his way. Over the last two hundred years in particular, past generations have been given every chance to develop suitable forms of government that will be protective as well as progressive, but the records show that mankind has been unable to learn from past experiences.

A small attempt has been made in this book to explain the reasons why men and nations conduct wars, and why wars are ultimately futile. Every political leader or military commander is motivated by his own psychological attitude to a given problem, and therefore it is impossible to determine how other men might have reacted if they had been faced with the same set of circumstances. Each man’s reason is an interesting study in its own right. Despite the complexity of the topic, however, a pattern can be discerned which shows that there is some uniformity of behaviour, and that each generation repeats the same mistakes made by those that have gone before them.

Every person will have his or her own opinion regarding the necessity for wars. There are some political scientists who steadfastly support wars and there are just as many who are strongly antagonistic; the subject has been argued over since the first recorded histories were written three thousand years ago. The topic continues to invite controversy, but that only adds to its interest and unearths essential material and ideas for new debates.

The records also suggest that nothing could have been done to change the course of history, because every generation tends to make the same fundamental errors of judgement and no man will listen to reason if it interferes or stands in the way of his own ambition. The endless use of war throughout human history suggests that wars are caused by man’s inability to develop psychologically beyond a certain point. As very recent history and current events clearly show, these same causes apply equally today. History has revealed that brothers will kill brothers, mothers will kill their sons, and sons will kill their fathers to be kings and to conquer others to satisfy their greed, their selfishness and their ambitions. These facts suggest that, although man’s intelligence may have been of a very high standard for the last five thousand years, his conscience has not improved. Mankind is still hopelessly cruel, despite modern culture. Men and women listen to the daily news and a few moments later they dispel from their minds the atrocities that have been committed everywhere. There can be no difference between carpet bombing of defenceless cities, burning people in concentration camps, and slaughtering them with swords and pikes. Men and women have not changed or improved in that respect since the beginning of time.

Because the limitations of man’s mind and conscience essentially make wars inevitable, it is this fact that forms the primary focus of this book. Personal and national greed and selfishness are the seeds that lead to war, even in our present century. Why else would we witness presidents and prime ministers of powerful nations falsifying facts and lying to their people to achieve their foreign policy objectives?

At the beginning of civilisation, men were concerned with acquiring land upon which to live, but this simple desire was interrupted by conflicts between those who possessed the land and those who wanted to rob them of it, until a kind of equilibrium was reached. Once this phase was completed, attempts were made to expand their holdings in an effort to safeguard their property and the nation’s future, and this was achieved by undermining the strength of opposing factions. Greed then made it necessary for the more powerful states to invade their neighbours to acquire their accumulated wealth and assets. This stage was always offset by the aggressor discovering in time that he had exceeded his resources and was unable to protect his gains. It may have been reasonable for conflicts to occur during the period of nation-building, as there were probably no other alternatives, but in our modern age wars are inexcusable, as there are always other means by which disputes can be resolved. This fact has applied since 1900 in particular. The two world wars, and more recently the Vietnam conflict and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, are both immoral and unjustifiable in this modern age – they should never have occurred.

The religious aspect recorded in this book is intended to show that religion does not curtail greed and selfishness, because all psychological boundaries are destroyed when the question of ambition, greed and selfishness arise. There are many good points about religion, but the religious wars confirm that all religious groups are able to sell their conscience as easily as anyone else. Whether it be in war, business, international trade, or simple family disputes, selfishness and greed come to the fore and overcome all other considerations. President George W Bush claims that he is a religious man, but he did not refrain from using religious arguments in his attempts to demonise the Moslem religion and begin a modern crusade against Islam. His aim was solely to guarantee that the USA will dominate the Middle Eastern states to control the vast oil resources of those nations, and he did not hesitate to use devious means when he decided to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. In our modern age man is prepared to destroy the world for personal or national gain. In this respect, man has not advanced psychologically beyond the Stone Age. Learning and science have increased our knowledge dramatically, but man’s psychological and religious levels of attainment have been unable to curtail his selfishness and greed, despite the advice and teachings of great religious personalities.

Man is beyond psychological help because each generation repeats the same mistakes, except that in our modern age a mistake can destroy the world, while in the past that was not possible. Psychologically, man appears to be beyond improvement, because he will never control his ambitions and is prepared to destroy countries and kill whole populations to achieve his ends. Power intoxicates men, especially when it involves the imposition of one’s will upon others; man concedes nothing without demand or conflict, therefore the greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse of power becomes. No man is wise or good enough to be trusted with unlimited power, because power dazzles the beholder and propels him to seek more power than is justified.

Many centuries ago Menander remarked, Everything is destroyed by its own particular vice: the destructive power lies within. . . the greatest evil of all is envy, impious inhabitant of corrupt souls, which ever was, is, and shall be a consuming disease. Montesquieu added further that Experience constantly proves that every man who has power is impelled to abuse it. (‘The Spirit of the Laws’. )

Wars are futile because they can only achieve temporary gains, despite the huge loss of lives and treasures. Where are the Roman, British, French, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese empires today, for example? What permanent gains did mankind receive from World War I and World War II, despite the enormous loss of life and the huge amount of destruction that took place? The climax today is the present conflict in which the year 2006 saw the destruction of Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon and the possibility that the USA will attack Iran, Syria, Sudan and Somalia, and even possibly North Korea. When ordinary citizens observe President Bush of the USA and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain desiring to pirate the wealth of other nations and, when they look upon the corruption of the US Congress where Representatives willingly vie with each other to acquire campaign funds even if they have to sell their country for money, the average man or woman is filled with wonder and disbelief.

This combination of factors threatens the whole of civilisation, as well as endangering the environment and destroying nations. Science cannot help, as modern science is also out of control and, psychologically, the scientist cannot keep pace with the changes that are taking place in this mixed up world. Scientists have willingly manufactured terrible weapons of mass destruction, and they admit quite candidly that they cannot solve the problems of atomic waste disposal. Politicians, military men and scientists spread depleted uranium atomic particles throughout the nations to destroy whole populations with a slow but assured death, and they do not seem to care about suffering humanity. Thus it must be understood that a university education can never be a substitute for wisdom and restraint.

It would be impossible to closely examine all the events of history in a book of this size. The focus throughout has been placed on the motives that caused leaders to react in the way that they did (and still do), and the following psychological response. Because we cannot undo the past, any effort to suggest alternative means for solving past indiscretions would achieve no purpose, but we can examine the past in an effort to find ways to protect future generations, who happen to be our children and their offspring. For that reason we must ask, ‘what caused wars to happen, and could they have been prevented?’ Answers to these questions may help us to answer the next one: ‘can we prevent them in future?’

This work has not been written to provide a comprehensive textbook of history, nor does it pretend to be an academic treatise explaining the psychological reasons for continual conflict between men and nations. The author is fully aware that each chapter could be turned into a separate book, and that a truly authoritative treatment of the subject would require many volumes involving more detailed analysis. In this instance he has been content to offer a point of view.

What are the alternatives to war in our modern age? Political and economic conditions have usually determined the causes of wars in the past. Each war was confined to a limited area, but that set of circumstances was changed completely by the events of World War I. World War I and subsequently World War II made it clear that local events could bring all the nations of the world within the compass of a single war. Nations were no longer totally independent, as their politics affected the world at large. Having recognised this essential fact, the nations realised that a universal approach was necessary to solve international problems, and the League of Nations was the result. This body proved to be a failure and was superseded by the United Nations, which has also come to grief because certain world powers are determined to cast aside the rule of law. President Bush not only violated international treaties, but he has also defied his own nation by not complying with the US Constitution. Conditions in the USA and Britain confirm that the will of the people, the Congress and Parliament were ignored. President Bush and his Executive used tactics that very closely resembled those of Adolph Hitler and his government during World War II, and the same could be said of President Nixon, thus proving that modern democracies can be as corrupt as dictatorships. During the last two years in particular the world has witnessed a president defying the United Nations and the laws of his own country. Britain and the USA illegally attacked Afghanistan and Iraq without the consent of their governments, and President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair have resisted all efforts to bring them under the control of the US Congress and the British Parliament. The rule of law in each respective country gave way to power politics and both leaders defied the wishes of their people. These are dangerous times, and the improper actions of both men revealed conclusively that the old ways that led to wars in the past are being perpetuated in our modern era. They both revealed again the psychological limitations that have plunged man into war since the beginning of time.

What can be done to solve these and similar problems that will arise in the future? How can the nations of the world control men who misuse powerful positions, and how can the world control other countries that abuse power and defy justice? Wars will always occur unless some powerful, united, international body can limit the ambitions of rogue governments and ruthless politicians. The only solution is a rejuvenated United Nations that has been stripped of veto powers and it must be strong enough to curtail national ambitions. International courts must be established to ensure that all men and governments without exception can be held responsible for their deeds. Justice must prevail to combat the irresponsible instincts of human nature which lead to lawlessness, civil wars, smuggling, piracy, attacks of violence, and other methods of dissension. History has proved that wars are futile, but men habitually close their eyes to the inevitable and want to continue to accept the old ways rather than adjust to the changes that modern times have forced upon them. There is an absolute need for change in this modern era. It is the only hope for world salvation in a time of diminishing resources, an ever-increasing world population, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

European nations were forever at war until 1950, but now they have united peacefully to form the European Community, which is working constructively for the benefit of the member nations. This model for peace can easily be emulated by all the other nations of this world to make the United Nations a progressive and strongly united body.

Chapter 1

PRE-EMPTIVE WAR

Who clothes you with piety, meekness, humility, charity,

patience, and all other Christian virtues?

Who feeds your souls with the milk of brotherly

love, and diets them with all the dainty food of

holiness, which at once cleanses them of all

impure carnal affections, and patterns them with

the truly rich spirit of grace?

Parson Adams in Joseph Andrews, by Henry Fielding

When the sun shines brilliantly to herald a new dawn and casts its brightness over the surrounding countryside, we wake up in the morning with gratification as we view the bounties of nature. The citizens of wealthy nations, such as those in western Europe and North America, can enjoy these privileges. Their hearts thrill to the appeal of great open spaces, to the mysterious sounds of the seas, to the serene charm of pure starlit skies, and the little unobtrusive beauties of nature. The song of a bird, the poise and tint of a flower, and the winter traceries of the frost on trees do not go unnoticed. They move about in peace as they humbly dwell in lands that overflow with milk and honey. But not all people live in such prosperous, fertile countries as we do. In fact the vast majority live in poverty and awake to look upon deserts, forests, or swamps that are unproductive and offer the most meagre means of existence. When we see mothers in these sterile lands standing with tears in their eyes, grief throbbing through their hearts, and anguish causing them pain, we stop to wonder that such sorrow should visit so many innocent victims. Starvation is their lot, and they suffer because the quirks of nature have determined that they must be born in less prosperous countries. They survive on the most meagre means of existence while wars, drought, or floods plague their countries. Obesity in the west contrasts with hunger in the east, and one cannot help thinking that there is something drastically wrong in the world when some populations in the twenty-first century are still struggling for mere survival, while others eat themselves to death.

World War I (1914–1918) and World War II (1939–1945) were portrayed as the ‘wars to end all wars’, and they were supposed to have been fought to bring peace and goodwill to all mankind. Sixty years after D-Day, the Allied landing in Normandy during World War II, Time Magazine had to begin a commemorative article with the words ‘Every war is born with hateful qualities, like the promise of waste and cruelty.’ War has always featured highly in the minds of men, and it appears that it will continue to do so. The discipline of the conquering Roman armies in earlier centuries had left their mark, only to be superseded by the advancing hoards of Mongols who burst into Europe from Asia without reason or warning. During the Middle Ages, the returning Crusaders brought back with them to their respective countries in Europe the codes of chivalry that they had learned from their Moslem opponents in the East. They were the days when men stood face to face in battle to strive for mastery over those who challenged them.

War has always been a monstrous art, but it is even more so today. The combatants no longer face each other on equal terms. The wealthier nations fire missiles from beyond the horizon and, somewhere in the path of those missiles many hundreds of miles away, the lives of innocent civilians are snuffed out in a moment. These modern wars, such as those which heralded the opening of the twenty-first century, have been witnessed by all mankind in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Palestinian occupied territories, and they are becoming a fashionable means of exerting power by men in authority. Those who view these terrible acts with expressions of dismay and abhorrence, or loathing, need to look back historically to find their cause so that they can be understood.

When the colonists of North America fought the War of Independence and finally achieved freedom, King George III and the British Government wished to continue the war but William Pitt, later to become one of England’s greatest prime ministers, denounced the plan, saying, ‘I am persuaded, and will affirm, that it is a most accursed, wicked, barbarous, cruel, unnatural, unjust, and diabolical war. It was conceived in injustice; it was nurtured and brought forth in folly; its footsteps are marked with blood, slaughter, persecution and devastation; in truth everything which goes to constitute moral depravity and human turpitude are to be found in it. It is pregnant with misery of every kind. The mischiefs, however, recoil on the unhappy people of this country, who are made the instruments by which the wicked purposes of its authors are affected.’ These words aptly describe the miseries of war, and apply equally well today.

The twentieth century was noted mainly for its two world wars in which countless millions of people died as the democratic Christian nations of Europe and North America fought for supremacy in trade and territory. All the nations of the world hoped that the next century would be a peaceful one that could offer a new beginning. But, in the name of democracy, powerful nations like the USA, England and Israel sought to subdue the Moslem states by using fallacious arguments and methods similar to those that prevailed before and during World War II.

The leaders of the most advanced states, namely President George W Bush and his allies, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, and Prime Minister John Howard of Australia, declared that pre-emptive warfare should be the order of the day. Prior to the commencement of the second Iraqi War in 2002, they spurned the United Nations and the combined resistance and criticism of the major European and Asian states, and they sought and used dubious arguments to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. Their claim in doing so was that they were fighting terrorism and taking democracy to the Middle East, though many suspected that their real intention was to commandeer the oil wells and control the flow of oil from those regions. Prime Minister John Howard of Australia tagged along in the hope of acquiring trade concessions from the USA.

President Bush’s precipitate action was based on the argument that terrorism must be destroyed, but he gave scant attention to analysing the causes of terrorism. Instead, he assumed the mantle of Germany’s guilt when Germany advanced into Poland on 1 September 1939, and Japan’s guilt when it conducted its pre-emptive strike against Pearl Harbour on 7 December 1941. Against the wishes of his people, Britain’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair, allied himself with Bush in much the same way that Benito Mussolini allied himself with Adolph Hitler.

President Bush should have recalled President Franklin D Roosevelt’s scathing remarks at the time. His words still ring in the ears of history, ‘7 December was a date that will go down in infamy’. He chose the word ‘infamy’ because it meant ‘extreme vileness’, but these political methods are not new. Adolph Hitler attacked the Soviet Union and other European states in the same way during World War II, and the world witnessed similar pre-emptive strikes by Israel during its first 50 years of statehood against Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Jordan. What was new following these acts was the curtailment of civil liberties in the USA, Britain and Australia, acts that were contrary to every democratic and political principle that Britain and America had stood for in the past. These countries introduced imprisonment without trial for long periods of time if a person was merely ‘suspected’ of a crime, despite the absence of proof. Furthermore, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were based on flimsy excuses that were not substantiated with truthful evidence. These methods, and the systems which came into vogue in the USA, Britain and Israel, reeked heavily of the stratagems used by Nazi Germany during World War II. Excuses can always be found for war, and President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, and Prime Minister Howard stretched the truth to breaking point to justify their illegitimate actions. President Bush expected the world to acquiesce to his plans simply by claiming that a war against terrorism was necessary. We may listen to William Pitt again when he said, ‘Is not necessity the plea of every illegal exertion of power? Is not necessity the pretence of every usurpation? Necessity is the argument of tyrants.’

After the iniquitous terrorist actions of 11 September 2001 in New York, President Bush demanded that the death of nearly 3,000 Americans must be paid for in blood, and that aim has been accomplished by the deaths of countless thousands of innocent victims in Afghanistan and Iraq. He clearly stated at the commencement of the war that he would pulverise ‘enemy’ cities from the air with ‘shock-and-awe’ tactics before his troops advanced for the kill, and the invading forces subsequently refused to publicise the number of dead men, women and children in Afghanistan and Iraq who were the innocent victims of American bombs. The Americans had learned 40 years earlier during the Vietnam War to cruelly refer to dead civilians as ‘collateral damage’ that did not even deserve to be counted. American atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan were later publicised in the press and on television but, while the world watched, the American administration sought to avoid or deny responsibility. Both of these invaded countries remained in desperate straits, and a permanent solution to their problems could not be envisaged without more prolonged bloodshed.

Terrorism cannot be condoned, but those who indulge in these methods do so out of desperation. Until peace and justice rule in their countries, there will always be people who will take up the gun. Terrorism is only a matter of degree, and every country is subjected to terrorism in some form or other, the difference being that most countries give it the name of ‘criminal behaviour’. Daily we read in our newspapers of the horrors of murder, rape, assault, accidental deaths, and a host of other incidents that torment stressed parents and residents. These tragedies have increased over the years, and there seems to be no end to their occurrence. Overseas, we see the same picture of death and misery in countries that claim to be democracies, or those countries that are oppressed by their neighbours or invaded by the more powerful states of the world.

The inhabitants of North America, Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand may well count their blessings, for they were born into lands of unprecedented wealth and opportunity. They can easily look over their shoulders to view those who are less fortunate and, depending on their moral values, they can afford to ignore them or seek some means to share with them the wealth that belongs to the few. Those who have much secrete their wealth in hidden vaults with scant consideration for the struggling multitudes in distant lands, while those who have not wait in anticipation and hope. Human nature breeds compassion in a few souls but generates indifference in the vast majority. Thus, the most powerful nations of the world will always seek to exploit those countries that are less fortunate than themselves, and they will always exert the weight of their wealth and military power to compel those who are weak to comply with their wishes and prescribed desires.

But are those in wealthy countries always satisfied and content? We may well ask these questions in our modern ‘civilised’ age as we look about us and see the dissensions of everyday living, be it on the domestic scene, the civil scene, or the international scene. Every edition of the daily newspapers and every showing of television network news shows that the most ‘civilised’ and prosperous nations of the world are filled with concern, worry, fear, and puzzlement. Lawlessness and violence prevail everywhere, and each year seems to accentuate the rate of moral decline in the community as people commit viscous crimes with ever-increasing regularity. ‘Virtue’, the very essence of civilisation, is in full retreat.

Virtue has been defined as being a life ordered and arranged according to the dictates of nature and, theoretically, virtue was supposed to be the very foundation stone on which the civilised community was expected to base its values. Aristotle stated that ‘Nothing can harm a virtuous man’, and it has been said that ‘virtue is its own reward’, but it seems today that the virtuous man is just as likely to succumb to a volley of machine gun fire or a rocket fired from a helicopter gunship overhead as the most evil man in the community. In this age of political assassinations carried out by rogue governments that wield weapons of mass destruction, all virtue and moral laws have been superseded by the Machiavellian desires of world leaders. How else can we interpret the invasion of Iraq in 2003, or the indiscriminate actions of successive Israeli governments against the beleaguered Palestinians during the first 50 years of their nationhood? The world looks on and is powerless to intervene because American presidents have willed otherwise. Who would have dreamed after World War II that an American president would curtail civil liberties and imprison people indefinitely without trial, and who can claim justice when an American president vetoes a UN resolution condemning political assassinations?

During the latter half of the twentieth century, American presidents abhorred the Berlin wall and castigated the USSR for its erection and, after many years of argument and confrontation, President Reagan was able to celebrate with the rest of the world when it was torn down. Ten years later, and immediately after the commencement of the twenty-first century, President Bush watched Israel construct an equally ominous wall around the whole state of Israel and, while the rest of the world objected, he turned his gaze elsewhere and surreptitiously granted his approval. He then wondered why his unequivocal support for Israel generated so much hostility in the Moslem world. The International Court of Justice and the United Nations condemned the Israeli wall and ordered its removal, but the state of Israel refused to comply. Law and order thus succumbs at the national level while criminals and liberal groups undermine law and order at the civil level.

The principles of morality have been distorted and often overthrown by liberal groups who seek to disown God and defy religious beliefs both in the political sphere and on the domestic scene. The laws, so carefully assembled over many centuries of gradual evolution from the Dark Ages of past millennia to the present, are now cast aside as antiquated thoughts of bygone ages. It appears that personal discipline must give way to carnal and other desires at the individual level, and national good must succumb to personal and national wants on the international scene. Present day civilisation is the antithesis of all that has been promulgated by the great thinkers of past generations. Whether it be on a national scale or the personal scene, we see the fabric of life gradually disintegrating and gathering pace with each succeeding year.

Education is supposed to instil higher values into the human soul, and the whole purpose of religion is to cultivate the very best qualities of human nature, so that mankind may work for the benefit of the human race rather than for its destruction. Altruism, regard for others as a principle of action, has been discredited, the rationale today being that the fundamental reason or basis for living is to satisfy personal emotions with little or no regard for all else. Those who are more enlightened are forced to look upon this deterioration in values with despair and misgivings.

We have been inheritors of a great past, but there can be no progress in a society where even the church is built on sand and divided against itself. And it would appear also that modern psychological advice and methods of treatment may have also swept out the house of life and left it dark and cheerless. There are still some individuals, however, who believe that only a glorious religious experience can relight the glowing lamp in every room. If we seek in history and the biographies of eminent men for the real secrets of their greatness, we shall discover that they cultivated, as well as possessed, great intellectual prowess that was derived from or belonged to a higher moral plane. All these exceptional qualities seem to be missing in this modern age. Instead, we find men and women of dubious moral character being installed in political posts where they wield power out of all proportion to their abilities, and where they can do immense harm to communities, nations, and the various peoples of this beleaguered Earth. Many of these politicians are very rich, particularly in the USA, and they are often associated with big business in various ways, therefore it is difficult to believe that their activities are completely devoted to the welfare of nations, or to the humble poor. Politicians need to be entirely divorced from personal business activities and other means of private financial gain if they are to avoid corruption and other shady activities.

By probing into the interstices of human knowledge throughout the centuries, man sought to expand his superficial conception of the truth of living but, despite the years of hardship that mankind endured, a sense of frustration arose. Nowhere could he find what he was seeking, because all that he could see was a system of behaviour that arose out of an immature outlook of greed and selfishness that was designed to breed individual or national power. From the earliest days of Egyptian civilisation, man reflected upon life in all seriousness, and he had the leisure to select those odd moments from the flux of time to do so, but he discovered only that the cup of fame was a melting pleasure. Fortune proved to be fickle, cold, crafty, and senselessly cruel. It was like praying for the bright celestial star of love on a cloudy day. Night had gone, and taken her stars with her. Man had overlooked or forgotten the lessons of past ages.

There were very few avenues or resources that destitute populations could turn to for help, for they did not control governments, nor were the law courts in their favour when they were confronted by powerful tyrants. They turned to religion, for though religion may have been born in an age of superstition, it evolved despite all opposition until it gave rise to philosophical thoughts that had in mind the betterment of mankind. Whether it be Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or any other kind of belief, converts flocked to the fold because they suffered and endured and were overwhelmed by the frustrations and emptiness that haunted their lives. It was not without reason that religion arose and, regardless of the great opposition that it encounters in our modern age, it continues to expand. Religion in its highest manifestation gives rise to a peace of mind for those who are receptive, and the increasing power of endurance that comes with it is an added bonus. Each year this Earth is visited by natural disasters in the form of earthquakes, floods, and battering storms. The roar of the foam, the rushing rivers, and the gushing of turbulent volcanic energy flung up high by the force of subterranean powers may lend a state of constant agitation and ebullition to receding landscapes, but they cannot destroy the courage and resilience of mortal man. The rocks alone do not continually repulse the cruel waves of sorrow of their own accord. Tears alone cannot conquer grief, and distress cannot be vanquished by any emotion of the heart and mind, when despair throbs through the heart and anguish causes unsupportable pain.

All life is a poem of pity where the gentle, chivalrous, delicate features that represent tenderness in the highest sense are nurtured by the disasters of life to motivate man to act communally for the benefit of all in the face of disasters. Those who dispel the words of Jesus or Mohammed, and other men of their calibre, do so because they do not seek the true meaning of the messages that they brought to us. Men like Jesus, Mohammed, and Mahatma Ghandi marched into the soul of humanity to uplift the human mind because man needs religion for his survival and to heal his sorrows in times of torment. Jesus and Ghandi taught us that kindness is the mark of a generous heart, and a generous heart is proof of a gentle spirit. Both men were the embodiment of their own ideas, men who matched their capacity to suffer against the capacity of others to inflict suffering. They challenged the physical force of governments with spiritual force and power. They would not obey, nor would they hate, but they wore down all resistance by their infinite capacity to absorb pain and suffering. They performed non-violent acts of strength against the power of nations and armies that acted in bad faith. They allowed others to prepare the cauldron of hate to receive their love, and they refused to bargain with deceit or sell their souls for the safety of their bodies. They believed that hate was something never to be feared but only to be conquered, therefore they were not parties to deception or hypocrisy. They found their solutions in their faith, and we are all witnesses to what they achieved. They acted on the basis that God is for us, therefore who can be against us? The kingdom of God is within us and it is conceived as being the realm of complete and absolute spiritual purity. By their faith ye shall know them. It is this quality that helps mankind to attain perfection of spirit and full goodness, but only if they listen to the inner voice of God. Is it any wonder then that, in his book Modern Man in Search of a Soul, Jung, the eminent psychiatrist, wrote, ‘Among all my patients in the second half of life – that is to say, over thirty-five – there has not been one whose problem in the last resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life. It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill because he had lost that which the living religions of every age has given to their followers, and none of them has been really healed who did not regain his religious outlook.’

If we are to understand how both Jesus and Ghandi taught the art of passive resistance, we must understand the meaning of the word ‘passive’ in its original root form: ‘to suffer quietly, patiently’. It was resisting not by inflicting suffering, but by taking suffering on oneself. It is not really a passive resistance – it is an active resistance at a higher level. The opponent strikes you on the cheek and you strike him in the heart by your amazing spiritual audacity in turning the other cheek. You wrest the offensive from him by refusing to take his weapons and, by keeping your own humanity, you strike him in his conscience from a higher level. He hits you physically and you hit him spiritually.

Despite these supreme examples of godly behaviour, the vast majority of human beings turned their backs on both Jesus’ and Ghandi’s approach to life. These extraordinary teachers were no sooner dead than most of mankind reverted to its old ways of killing and oppression. Jesus taught that God is for us, therefore who can be against us, but in this modern age we witnessed an American president, George W. Bush, turning these words around and saying to all the nations of the world, ‘If you are not with us, you are against us.’ With these words, he began a senseless war against Afghanistan and Iraq on the mere pretence that the world is at war with terrorism. Terrorism is the outcome of individual acts; it is not something that can be expunged by firing volleys of weapons of mass destruction against defenceless cities, villages, and innocent civilians who are not participants in acts of terrorism. Terrorists are moving targets who cannot be pinpointed and destroyed through carpet bombing by massive squadrons of aircraft.

This kind of military terrorism can also be termed a figment of the imagination because it can only take root in the minds of individuals who have no common sense. In this respect, two prime ministers and the ruling cabinet members of the American administration succeeded in deceiving the world at large into believing that a war against two countries, and possibly more, was necessary. After years of combat, the terrorist groups continue to exist and function while countless innocent people have been killed or maimed for no good purpose in Afghanistan and Iraq by the military might of invading Western armies. The world was asked to participate in a war against terrorism that was generated by an American president for political and commercial gain. The adoption of ruthless aggression by the American and British coalition, and the hate that was generated against the American nation as a consequence of this action, only encouraged more individuals to enlist into those terrorist groups. President George W Bush, like Adolph Hitler before him, was suffering from a massive kind of delusion that is generally called megalomania.

But what is a terrorist in reality? A terrorist is supposed to be a person who employs violence to attain certain political objectives. In some countries they are called saboteurs, or guerrilla fighters. During World War II, they were called ‘freedom fighters’ and ‘members of the underground’ if they fought on the allied side, and ‘quislings’, ‘vichyites’, ‘fifth columnists’ or simply ‘traitors’, if they assisted the enemy. Many countries foster spy systems that carry out clandestine activities that include murder, political assassinations, and destructive acts. Two well-known subversive agencies are the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the USA and Mossad in Israel, both of which are funded and maintained by their respective governments, but they are still terrorist organisations. Nearly all the prime ministers of Israel were terrorists before they were installed in office as heads of government (having been leaders in either the Stern Gang, Haganah, or Irgun Zwai Lumi, which were terrorist organizations before 1948). Israel’s Prime Minister Sharon, who was struck down by God’s wrath at the end of 2005, committed acts of terrorism in Palestine before and after 1948 and, during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, which he instigated, he was held responsible by his own government and the Israeli Law Courts for the deaths of massacred civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps on 16 September of that year.

Mao Zedong (commonly known as Mao Tse-tung) was called a terrorist until he established the communist government of China. Therefore, what is a terrorist? Is a terrorist a dangerous, despicable man if he fights for freedom and better conditions in his country, but a respected individual if he wins his battle and becomes a prime minister or president? A simple definition could be that a terrorist is a man who fights for freedom or against political oppression in his own country. This description automatically eliminates the criminal element that suggests that terrorists fight only to achieve some personal monetary or territorial gain.

Very few people had heard of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda organisation before 11 September 2001, and it is possible that President Bush himself was not aware of the existence of Al Qaeda before he became president of the USA a few months earlier. After 11 September 2001, Osama bin Laden suddenly came into prominence and it seemed thereafter that President Bush wanted to lay all the world’s problems at his feet. Within days, the American propaganda machine was repeating small titbits of information that found ready assimilation in the minds of traumatised civilians until the population of the world was saturated with stories of his guilt. The incredible thing is that, over the intervening years, no extra information of worth about this man has been forthcoming, and no real independent evidence has been presented to the world to allow individuals and neutral governments to judge for themselves.

Three years later, the American administration admitted publicly that its information about the events that led up to the tragedy of 11 September 2001 and the invasion of Iraq was seriously flawed and therefore unreliable. Yet this false evidence was used as a pretext for the invasion of two sovereign states. Indeed, the propaganda machine is a wondrous thing, and it seems to be able to sway the minds of whole populations to accept false or dubious information without analysis. Propaganda is not only a powerful political weapon, but its very connotation implies that its use is deliberately designed to practise intentional deception. Its purpose was to propagate information to the world that was knowingly false. One must ask, therefore, what moral causes can arise in national affairs that can justify governments lying to their own people to precipitate unjust wars? What merit is to be found in adopting these dubious means for political gain?

Paul Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Germany’s Minister of Propaganda, took propaganda to new heights of effectiveness during World War II, and his achievements were emulated by the Israeli propaganda machine of the state of Israel in 1948. These were the two previous prime examples, though propaganda during the Vietnam War closely matched them for effectiveness. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq brought forth another development, which was equally dangerous – state control of the press and of war news. The publication of actual events witnessed by war correspondents was censored or prohibited, and the public was expected to believe only what the military divulged, thus making it impossible to verify the facts. These methods gave added power to the executive branch of the American government, which refused to give evidence even to the US Congress. As Commander-in-Chief, a president of the United States of America can withhold information of national importance from the governing body of Congress with apparent impunity. Comparable forms of deception were also practised by Prime Minister Blair in England and Prime Minister Howard in Australia.

These stratagems of deception were not new. Democratic President Lyndon Johnson and Republican President Richard Nixon also practised deception during their administrations at the time of the Vietnam War. An earlier example of national deception was Prime Minister Anthony Eden’s collusion with France and Israel to attack Egypt in 1956. Of these men, possibly the most puzzling was the case of Anthony Eden, because he served as Britain’s foreign secretary throughout World War II and should have known better, especially as World War II was claimed to be a war of defence against international aggression. When President Gamal Nasser of Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal and expelled British occupation troops from Egypt, England and France conceived the idea of encouraging Israel to attack Egypt so that they could use that action as a pretext to invade Egypt themselves, claiming in doing so that their intentions were to safeguard the Suez Canal and defend Egypt. It was only President Eisenhower’s threats of financial retaliation that forced these invading armies to withdraw. Anthony Eden’s conduct was such that he was forced to resign by his own party and parliament.

President Johnson was so heavily opposed by an electorate that distrusted him and deplored his actions that he chose not to attempt re-election. President Nixon, in his turn, was impeached and finally forced from office. President Ford’s controversial act of granting a presidential pardon to Nixon as soon as he assumed office raised other important questions that received no answers from Congress. Are politicians who cause the deaths of many thousands of innocent civilians and combat troops exempt from punishment, whereas the lowly murderer of a single individual is taken to task before the courts of justice? Were the lessons of the Nuremburg trials so easily and so quickly forgotten, or do they apply only to ‘adversaries’ who commit similar crimes? It would seem that men who serve in high office and enjoy the fruits of their position are excluded from punishment. Double standards of justice should never be condoned, but they still seem to be evident in many countries today.

Man has been a war-like animal since the beginning of time and civilisation has not removed his appetite for blood in our modern age. Nor can women be excluded from blame, for not only has history produced women who are equally prone to warfare, but it has also produced women who are just as cruel as their male counterparts when it comes to action. In their writings, historians expound on the history of warfare and the greatness of the famous captains and commanders of armies, but they tend to excuse the perpetrators of evil and they find justification for their actions, even in modern times. Do the wives of those presidents and prime ministers who go to war restrain the actions of their husbands? They may do so quietly in private for a few moments, but more usually they are seen smiling and supporting their husbands in public. Similarly, the colleagues of presidents and prime ministers support their leader’s decisions and seek every opportunity in the public arena to explain or justify the need for military offensive action, even where it is contrary to international law or in clear violation of human rights. It is all well and good to condemn leaders like Adolph Hitler, but what about officials such as President Nixon and his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, who attacked Cambodia without provocation?

The proud faces of President George W Bush and his cabinet supporters did not show any sincere remorse over the deaths of so many young American lives in the armed forces, or the deaths of helpless civilians in the bombed cities and towns of Iraq and Afghanistan. To save their own lives, these men went to great lengths to avoid combat duty during the Vietnam War, but when they achieved power, they believed or decided that other human lives were expendable. Stalin was prompted to say on one occasion that one death is a tragedy but a million deaths is only a statistic and, when Mao Tse Tung was asked what his reaction would be if America attacked China with atomic weapons during the Korean War, he replied simply that, even if a