Michael Berg's anti War/Bush letter

[Muscles]

I am sure all of you here know about Nick Berg's beheading. Im not sure if you are also aware that his father Michael Berg is a extreme anti-war/Bush individual. While his son Nick supported Bush in Iraq his father has been opposed to it. Here is a letter from Michael Berg written in the UK newspaper The Guardian.
I actually cannot understand the logic and thought process of anti-war individuals. After reading this, can anyone realistically justify an anti-war position?



Michael berg

George Bush never looked into Nick's eyes

Even more than the murderers who took my son's life, I condemn those who make policies to end lives

Michael Berg
Friday May 21, 2004
The Guardian

My son, Nick, was my teacher and my hero. He was the kindest, gentlest man I know; no, the kindest, gentlest human being I have ever known. He quit the Boy Scouts of America because they wanted to teach him to fire a handgun. Nick, too, poured into me the strength I needed, and still need, to tell the world about him.

People ask me why I focus on putting the blame for my son's tragic and atrocious end on the Bush administration. : They ask: "Don't you blame the five men who killed him?" I have answered that I blame them no more or less than the Bush administration, but I am wrong: I am sure, knowing my son, that somewhere during their association with him these men became aware of what an extraordinary man my son was. I take comfort that when they did the awful thing they did, they weren't quite as in to it as they might have been. I am sure that they came to admire him.

I am sure that the one who wielded the knife felt Nick's breath on his hand and knew that he had a real human being there. I am sure that the others looked into my son's eyes and got at least a glimmer of what the rest of the world sees. And I am sure that these murderers, for just a brief moment, did not like what they were doing.

George Bush never looked into my son's eyes. George Bush doesn't know my son, and he is the worse for it. George Bush, though a father himself, cannot feel my pain, or that of my family, or of the world that grieves for Nick, because he is a policymaker, and he doesn't have to bear the consequences of his acts. George Bush can see neither the heart of Nick nor that of the American people, let alone that of the Iraqi people his policies are killing daily.

Donald Rumsfeld said that he took responsibility for the sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners. How could he take that responsibility when there was no consequence? Nick took the consequences.

Even more than those murderers who took my son's life, I can't stand those who sit and make policies to end lives and break the lives of the still living.

Nick was not in the military, but he had the discipline and dedication of a soldier. Nick Berg was in Iraq to help the people without any expectation of personal gain. He was only one man, but through his death he has become many. The truly unselfish spirit of giving your all to do what you know in your own heart is right even when you know it may be dangerous; this spirit has spread among the people who knew Nick, and that group has spread and is spreading all over the world.

So what were we to do when we in America were attacked on September 11, that infamous day? I say we should have done then what we never did before: stop speaking to the people we labelled our enemies and start listening to them. Stop giving preconditions to our peaceful coexistence on this small planet, and start honouring and respecting every human's need to live free and autonomously, to truly respect the sovereignty of every state. To stop making up rules by which others must live and then separate rules for ourselves.

George Bush's ineffective leadership is a weapon of mass destruction, and it has allowed a chain reaction of events that led to the unlawful detention of my son which immersed him in a world of escalated violence. Were it not for Nick's detention, I would have had him in my arms again. That detention held him in Iraq not only until the atrocities that led to the siege of Fallujah, but also the revelation of the atrocities committed in the jails in Iraq, in retaliation for which my son's wonderful life was put to an end.

My son's work still goes on. Where there was one peacemaker before, I now see and have heard from thousands of peacemakers. Nick was a man who acted on his beliefs. We, the people of this world, now need to act on our beliefs. We need to let the evildoers on both sides of the Atlantic know that we are fed up with war. We are fed up with the killing and bombing and maiming of innocent people. We are fed up with the lies. Yes, we are fed up with the suicide bombers, and with the failure of the Israelis and Palestinians to find a way to stop killing each other. We are fed up with negotiations and peace conferences that are entered into on both sides with preset conditions that preclude the outcome of peace. We want world peace now.

Many have offered to pray for Nick and my family. I appreciate their thoughts, but I ask them to include in their prayers a prayer for peace. And I ask them to do more than pray. I ask them to demand peace now.

· Michael Berg is the father of Nick Berg, the US contractor beheaded on video in Iraq this month by a group believed to be linked to al-Qaida. This is an extract from his message of support for the Stop The War Coalition's demonstration, End the Torture - Bring the Troops Home Now, which will be held at 11am tomorrow at the Embankment in Lond

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by Muscles
And I am sure that these murderers, for just a brief moment, did not like what they were doing.

Ummm, then why did they go ahead and do it? They did it on videotape, yet, and proceeded to share that videotape with the world... but of course, they "weren't quite as into it as they might nave been".

That is quite possibly the most asinine thing I've ever read. This guy should go make friends with Michael Moore. They can get all cozy together and write lots of inane crap about how horrible Americans are, and how Republicans are the lowest of the low.

 

[ledhed]

Wow his grief melted his brain. delusional to the extreme, somehow I hope he gets proffesional help. I watched that video and all I can think of is that when these murders looked at his son they saw a goat or some other kind of animal . If anyone has been around a farm they can tell you that what happened to his son was similar to what happens to farm animals. It must be nice to be able to convince yourself that its possible to live in peace with the people who butchered his son that way.

 

[Kent]

You know, this fella has a lot of nerve to blame my president for what happend to his son.

First he is ignorant enough to act as if the terrorist respected his son.

Then he is foolish enough to suggest Bush is responsible for what happend.

And finally, he is rude enough to suggest such insulting ideas after an entire nation shows an un-necessary, but respectful grievence for this man's loss.

At first my only thoughts were simple anger for the terrorist and simpathy for this man and the victim (his son).

However, over time I have lost a great deal of that respect due to this man's behaviour.

Fact is, George Bush didn't ask berg, nor did he force berg to go into Iraq.

If anyone is to blame in this, it is Nick Berg, and his parents.

I feel bad saying that too, because I really do sympathize with this family.

Nick Berg was a victim, but not a victim of Bush or America, he was a victim of terrorists.

This letter is a perfect example of just how shallow Michael Berg is.

To blame the wrong party for your son's death just to further your own ignorant politics is unforgiveable.

I wonder how nick berg would feel to see that his father is more concerned with his personal, partisan politics, than the death of his own son.

btw, how about this muscles member...
Maybe the name is just his title for the RNC?

If so, I've got his back.

 

[the_cobbinator]

Originally posted by GoKents

Fact is, George Bush didn't ask berg, nor did he force berg to go into Iraq.

Good call.

 

[///M-Spec]

Transference of anger is a common side effect of grief. Mr. Berg can not focus his anger on the faceless, nameless villains who murdered his son, so he has found a much easier target for it.

I sincerely hope he is receiveing good therapy. Maybe one day he will realize hating Bush or America will not restore his son's life or minimize the pain he is undoubtedly feeling.


M

 

[87chevy]

I feel sorry for Nick now, not because of what happened to him, but because of what his father is saying. That man is missing a few sunflower seeds in his trail mix. I think, Nick would be embarrassed by what his father is saying. It sounds bad, but it is true that Nick was to blame for his death. WE, Americans, were the ones that told Nick to get out for his own safety, yet somehow we should be at fault for Nick not listening to us.....

and, yeah, this muscles guy has made a pretty good first empression on me.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Holy crap. I can't believe that this guy would spout out something like this. I dont' feel sorry for his grief or pain. Because this guy is living in such a delusional state, it doesn't matter to me what he feels.

Would you care if an obvious mentally ill person said the world was coming to and end tomorrow? No. Why? The same reason I why I don't care for this guy's grief and pain.

 

[Pupik]

Originally posted by Muscles
IAfter reading this, can anyone realistically justify an anti-war position?

Actually, his letter didn't sway me one way or another. It's a personal opinion, just like the one I'm going so say right now.

We have a nation that's tossing billions of dollars into a war that isn't remotely related to the self-defense of our nation. And yet, there's homeless, unemployment, drug addiction, and a capitalisit system that rewards corporations for sending jobs overseas so they can save a few bucks.

Please, tell me one good thing about the war, and how it's really improved your life? Even if your friends, your children, or your relatives are fighting in this war, can you tell me one positive thing about combat?

You can't fight idealogical war with bombs and guns. Sure, you can put fear into people, you can kill them, you can control them with subjugation, propaganda, and humiliation, but you can't have anything close to respect by threatening people with death.

War has never fully solved the problems of mankind. If it were so, then why, in 10,000 years of human civilization, does war still exist today? Obviously, if it was a sucessful tool for improving the lives of people, we wouldn't need it today. It would have done it's job by now. The Department of Defence has meddled in affairs that are none of it's business.

I see nothing but yet another act of senseless violence in this war. And thus, muscles, if your re-posting of a letter intended to make people have a pro-war attitude, then it failed to impress me. My mind was made up beforehand, just as anyone supporting the war had already done so.

Welcome to GTPlanet, by the way.

 

[Carl.]

^^^^^^^ What he said.

I don't see how seeking different ways to ensure that atrocities like what happened to Micheal Berg won't happen again is inane or delusional, or that we should label these ideas as unpatriotic or unamericain.

"I offer all of my sympathy and condoleances for your son... as long as you're for the war."
Great.

Or better yet, for some, it's okay to use this sad event as a justification for this war or as an excuse for some military mishaps, but when his father uses it to say his opinions on the subject, now it's awfully wrong and stupid.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by jpmontoya

Or better yet, for some, it's okay to use this sad event as a justification for this war or as an excuse for some military mishaps, but when his father uses it to say his opinions on the subject, now it's awfully wrong and stupid.

Consider this:

1) Nick Berg was there as a volunteer, of his own free will, and in fact had been warned by US authorities to go home because Iraq was dangerous.

2) The terrorists abducted, beheaded, and videotaped Nick Berg of their own free will, and in fact distributed their videotape to the world in pride of their actions.

Yet this is somehow Bush's fault? Mr. Berg Sr. needs a little remedial vocabulary lesson on the meaning of the words "free will". His understanding of it is awfully wrong and stupid.

 

[87chevy]

obviously pupik is not in the milirary or has ever been. What your saying, to me, shows that you have your head so far in the clouds you've lost site of the real world. No, war has not solved all of man problems, nor will it ever. What will? sitting on your hands and saying "it's not my problem" and "fighting will do nothing" when people are getting gassed and murdered in their own country by a Tyranical leader? So you probably also think we should have let the UN run it's course and solve the problem? HA Yeah, right. That's what we should do. So, if you lived in country A, and Country B decided it needed your gold mines more than you and invaded your home, you would not fight physically? Because that would solve nothing?

 

[Pupik]

Originally posted by 87chevy
obviously pupik is not in the milirary or has ever been.

Absolutely correct, sir! My grandfather fought in WWII in the European Theater, and my uncle served 2 years in Vietnam. Neither one of them ever wanted their fellow man to follow in thier footsteps, except for the purpose of national self-defence. Certainly, in my uncle's case, it was nothing remotely related to protecting our nation.

What your saying, to me, shows that you have your head so far in the clouds you've lost site of the real world.

This is always what people say when they hear something different from their own viewpoint. And we all know, only the masses have good ideas; the minority viewpoint must be useless in a democratic system.

So, if you lived in country A, and Country B decided it needed your gold mines more than you and invaded your home, you would not fight physically? Because that would solve nothing?

You must have missed my point about national self-defence, which is far different from fighting a war with a nation that had virtually nothing to do with any "war on terrorism". It's a waste of human life and our tax money, and historically, many nations have bled themselves dry on both human and financial scale to fight wars all over the planet.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[87chevy]

Originally posted by 87chevy
No, war has not solved all of man problems, nor will it ever. What will? sitting on your hands and saying "it's not my problem" and "fighting will do nothing" when people are getting gassed and murdered in their own country by a Tyranical leader?

I find it funny you failed to give a counter point to this. And, no, I actually listen to what people have to say. And Do not tell every one they have their heads in the clouds. Basically, what your saying is We should never help someone outside our own country? Or not? Ok, so you believe in national defense. But that's all you believe in. If i'm wrong again, please fill me in.

 

[Pupik]

I'm not condoning anything that Saddam did, but the chemical weapon strikes started in 1987, and continued until about 1990. What happened to the Kurdish people in the northern part of Iraq was nothing short of an atroicity. However, after the first Gulf War, he didn't use them at all; and despite all the checking and re-checking and Hans Blix visits, nobody seemed to conclusively turn up any chemical weapons. Nobody's turned up much but a bit of sarin gas (not used in any of the previous attacks) as of late, and even then, nobody's been able to prove it who it belonged to.

Sure, Saddam hasn't been the kindest of rulers or that kind to UN visitors, but it seems in recent years, he hasn't been any worse than say, Fidel Castro.

 

[///M-Spec]

It is refreshing to read a post from the war skeptic's camp that is well written and logical. Thank you pupik. On that note, let's revisit your main points from your previous posts.

War has never fully solved the problems of mankind. If it were so, then why, in 10,000 years of human civilization, does war still exist today? Obviously, if it was a sucessful tool for improving the lives of people, we wouldn't need it today. It would have done it's job by now. The Department of Defence has meddled in affairs that are none of it's business.

War sucks. It is the least productive action a society or a human being can perform. Any civilized society should be abhored to have any part of it. However, a civilized society should never forget that there is sometimes no other way to preserve itself. It is one of those things that you will never contain or entirely avoid. Your only hope is to be better at it than the ones who will use it against you because strict pacifism won't stop someone intent on killing. And there will always be those types of people in the world.

Yes, it reduces you to their level of barbarism. But I'd rather be a savage than dead.

Please, tell me one good thing about the war, and how it's really improved your life? Even if your friends, your children, or your relatives are fighting in this war, can you tell me one positive thing about combat?

Another good point. But it is easy to pay the price and count the cost than to see what you've bought.

What if in 1939, Roosevelt lead the US into war with Germany before his tanks rolled into Poland? Would anyone have supported him? I doubt it. America was in a depression. It was not interested in fighting another war in Europe, no matter how creepy the Third Reich (and the Empire of Japan) was. But yet, we all sit around today with the benefit of hindsight and no one questions defeating the Axis powers was a good move.

Should we have just waited around for Saddam to make the first move? There is no question he was willing to do so, given the means.

It is easy to condemn fighting a war. Thats because it is dirty and gruesome business (as I'm sure 87Chevy and 5Liter will tell you). Tougher to see is that a war today may save you from something worse later on.

You can't fight idealogical war with bombs and guns. Sure, you can put fear into people, you can kill them, you can control them with subjugation, propaganda, and humiliation, but you can't have anything close to respect by threatening people with death.

I'll presume you're talking about muslim extremism and the general anti-western mood in the Arab world. Let me ask you something: do you think this hatred is justified?

If it is, then maybe we should do something to make things right. But maybe it isn't by any reasonable standard that isn't outright bigotry. So far, I haven't heard anything to convince me that we have anthing to appologize for.

I made a post a couple months ago about the main reasons there is anti-western sentiment in the Arab world.

-Support for Israel-- or looked at another way, -- unwillingness to condemn Israel for its actions in Palestine.
-Support for unpopular arab regimes that are pro-western, such as the royal family of Saudi Arabia and the government of Egypt.
-Presence of western military forces in arab countries.
-General incompatibility of western culture with traditional muslim culture.
-General meddling in arab affairs for the last 1000 or so years.
-Afganistan.
-Iraq.

Okay. We can put Afganistan on Iraq on the table for debate. But aside from those, I don't see a single thing on that list that justifies killing 3,000 innocent people. Not by a long shot. But yet, in 2001, Arabs all over the place were dancing and cheering on 9/11. I find that pretty damn offensive. Yet, no one in the arab world gives a crap if my feelings were hurt.

Sorry for the length, I wanted to cover everything.


M

 

[Danoff]

Sure, Saddam hasn't been the kindest of rulers or that kind to UN visitors, but it seems in recent years, he hasn't been any worse than say, Fidel Castro.

Don't forget about the historical significance of our dealings with Saddam. Saddam invaded one of our allies and we deafeted him in a war. We set terms for ending hositilities. He did not live up to those terms despite the international community urging him to do so (those terms being allowing UN inspectors free reign of his country to find WMDs). So the cease fire terms and a decade of UN resolutions must be enforced or mean nothing.

You say war accomplishes nothing... I disgree. It changes governemnt. It freed us from an oppresive government when we were nothing but a few colonies, and it freed the Iraqi people from an agressive governemnt. It also changes the diplomatic landscape and changes national perceptions.

Obviously, if it was a sucessful tool for improving the lives of people, we wouldn't need it today.

Can you make this argument for the revolutionary or civil wars? What about WWII? Have people's lives not been greatly improved by these wars?

 

[87chevy]

I'll tell you what war did for me pupik:
It made me realize what i'm capable of enduring, and my family would probably say the same thing. My relationship with my parents is better. I helped keep innocent people safe, and helped spread freedom to people who had never had it. I helped these same people also realize that there is a better way of living, and that not all Americans are bad. I made some friendships over there with my fellow soldiers that will last forever. And, this war hardened my belief in my moral values. It made me a better person. I could go on and on. So now i really want to tell you to go **** yourself. but i won't. because i realize you are just ignorant on the subject. but maybe now you'll see that there is more to this than you think. And maybe you'll see that you've been wearing blinders, put on by a liberal society that spreads all these great ideals but refuses to admit to harsh reality.


and once again, a great post by danoff and ///M.

 

[Pupik]

Originally posted by 87chevy
So now i really want to tell you to go **** yourself. but i won't.

But you did. I'll just be the better man by not engaging in such name-calling, particularly on the internet.

And maybe you'll see that you've been wearing blinders, put on by a liberal society that spreads all these great ideals but refuses to admit to harsh reality.

By having and acting on ideals in a non-violent way, we can help society. It's when we have ideals and force-feed them into anyone, then we've gone beyond the very happiness we hope to impart. When I see a harsh reality, I turn to what works for me. And what works for me is to first solve problems in a non-violent, non-confrontational manner. That's what I believe in.

I don't hate America. I don't really believe that the whole world hates the US, nor that the rest of the world has it any better off than we do. I don't spit on troops, call them killers, nor burn flags. They have a job to do just like anyone else. They voluntarily chose their job, and like tax collectors, sanitation workers, corrections officers, musicians, or teachers, they choose their job in life and serve it because there's some realistic or idealistic end to their profession. However, my beliefs are to serve in a profession that doesn't directly influence harm to others (such as production/sale of weapons, use of such devices, theft, fraud, swindling, manipulation of others, nor undermine the inner happiness of other human beings).

And I do listen to all sides of an argument before making a decision. One with blinders would not do so, whether liberal or conservative, or whatever trite term fools call one another.

 

[87chevy]

Originally posted by pupik

Please, tell me one good thing about the war, and how it's really improved your life?

well, I answered that didn't I?

 

[Pupik]

Originally posted by 87chevy
well, I answered that didn't I?

Yes. That's why I didn't requote it. Rather pointless to re-iterate what I agree with.

Except cookies with peanut butter and chocolate in them.

 

[87chevy]

Originally posted by pupik

Except cookies with peanut butter and chocolate in them.

 

[Danoff]

And what works for me is to first solve problems in a non-violent, non-confrontational manner. That's what I believe in.

What happens when that doesn't work?

 

[Pupik]

I leave you hanging for an answer.

 

[Danoff]

I leave you hanging for an answer.

You have no answer because one can't solve every problem with diplomacy. It's a nice dream, but it doesn't work in practice.

Sometimes you just have to stand up to the kid that takes you lunch money and give him a nice smack in the nose.

 

[ledhed]

War is a continuation of politics using a different method. War is also a form of diplomacy. war or the threat of war is needed to keep those who would enslave or eradicate whole peoples under thier rocks. war is called for when a country wants to free itself from tyrany. War is used to protect free trade, when other countrys try to pirate or otherwise restrict the flow of resourses.
And war is used to protect the security of a nation. I cant really see war going the way of the dodo anytime soon.