Reading Politics

If one doesn't take into account the fact that Saddam has lied to the entire internation community and played games with the UN for the past twelve years, they could see the war as a waste of time and injust to the people of Iraq. Yet this is not the case. Everyone knows that the worst humanitarian in the world is Saddam Hussien. Lets take a look at how he slaughters his own people and how it relates to the current war. Lets say that each year Saddam unjustly kills 1000 people for either religious persecution, disagreeing with the government, unfair trials, or what not (i'm sure we are being very generous with these numbers). Now Saddam has been in power since 1979, about 24 years, but lets be generous once again and say it took him 5 years to reach his 1000 person per year quota. So from the start of his killing to the Persain Gulf War, he killed 7000 people. Since after the gulf war Saddam got really nasty, lets say that he increased the number of innocents that he kills by 5% (very generous) each year. So from 1992 to 2002, Saddam killed an additional 13179 innocents with a total of 20179 dead (all rounding down). Now the year 2003 has begun, and Saddam only had 2 months of full power, so about 284 people have been killed. Now that we have invaded, there will be no more innocents killed by Saddam, ending his 20463 'record'. If in this conflict the allies kill greater than 20463 innocents, then we have done a horrorable thing. Yet if we kill less than the 1420 people that Saddam would have killed this year, then we have done a very noble thing. We would save lives. Already have have kill 63 innocnces in the bombing runs. We will not come close to killing as many people as saddam would have, so our cause is just.

2nd Corinthians 5:7 "for we walk by faith, not by sight" ............I might be wrong...............

This post was edited by Jaz on Mar 24, 2003.

You know, the problem I personally have (and I'd say I'm not the only one) is not the question whether Saddam is evil or not. I wouldn't try to justify his deeds in any way, and I'd be the last to feel sorry if something nasty happened to him.
The problem is the current President(??) of the USA, George W. Bush. Take away the big US mass media (TV) propaganda corporations, it's beyond any doubt that he's not waged this war because of humanitarian concern (Saddam may be a bad guy, but by far not the worst), but for nothing else than personal greed - of his own, Dick Cheney, Donald "Duck" Rumsfeld.

Problems:

• Some additional 2,5 million jobs lost since he took office.

• Started with a big budget surplus, and ended up creating the worst deficit in the country's history ever.

• Half his government seems to have ties to big corporate fraud. While Democrats are being bullied for peanuts, no one ever bothered to investigate any of Shrub's friends' shady involvements with Enron et al. Some people are pointing that out in a (to Shrub) rather unpleasant way.

• The stock market has become a real horror show.

• Half of the American people don't know if they will ever see any of their retirement money.

• Popularity (if this word is still appropriate) has reached an all-time low.

• (etceterapepe.)

A war against a possible threat, whether real or imaginary, distracts people from all these problems (I take a blind shot and guess that you didn't hear much about unemployment or corporate fraud these days, maybe let alone some speech explaining why Clinton and the Democrats are to blame for everything). A common enemy unifies people, lets them forget their own problems and concerns in favor of a bigger thing, and makes them most willing to follow the leader who promises security for all. Anybody who is opposing can be called unpatriotic, since he's obviously not willing to defend his country from the Big Evil Threat.

Shrub is manipulating people, and I suppose he's being manipulated by others (ask Dick Cheney). He's a liar, he's a hypocrite, he's far too dangerous to be left in such a powerful position. (Remember, Congress authorized him to use nukes, and the voices screaming "unconstitutional" were quickly silenced.) The USA are isolated now, virtually on their own, with anti-Americanism having reached a new all-time high and still rising. Can anybody claim this all happens because we're having so much empathy for poor little Saddam? Nope. Shrub is ruining his own country just so he and his drinking mates can make some additional 100 millions. That's what the rest of the world is worried about.

As a bonus, check this out: (Taken from some other place)
Clinton bombed Al-Qaida, tried to get the Taliban to give him up, created the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act (which the GOP gutted), caught the Cole bombers, and commissioned the Hart/Rudman study to see what to do next.
Bush ignored the warnings of the Hart/Rudman report and Ashcroft cut the FBI anti-terrorism budget by $58 million. Rumsfield cut $800 million from the defense budget targeted for anti-terrorism. Then it came out that Bush had warnings that Al-Qaida was going to hijack planes months before it happened. What did Bush think that Al-Qaida was going to do with the planes? Fly them to Cuba? He did NOTHING. And then lied about not knowing.
But he told his brother Jeb. Jeb changed an executive order to mobilize Fl. National Guard in cases of terrorism 4 days before the attack. The executive order was not due to expire until 2003.

So much about foresight.

Maybe I should apologize to some readers. Maybe I'm writing too much about this topic. Well, the only excuse I have is that I'm very very concerned about what's currently going on in the world, and that I'm probably always ranting too much when I feel that a great injustice has been done. I'll try and hold myself back in the future, so you get a chance to read about more positive things. :-)

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

I don't think that the domestic affairs really a significant role with this war. The United States does not stand alone at all in this war. It seems that way to some because The United State's usual key allies, Germany and France, do not agree with what they are doing at the present moment. The United States is leading a coalition of 42 (99% sure of the number) nations such as Spain, Japan, Italy, and Bahrain. This shows that The United States has support and is not 'acting alone'. Anti-Americanism is not a new thing to this world, it has always been a major problem. Why did 9-11 happen if not for strong anti-americanism feelings? The war is far from acting as some sort of shadow used by the government to hide current domestic problems. The country has problems, but what countries do not? Our country was put under attack by terrorists and several countries expressed strong support for the actions done by these known terrorists. Saddam especially made it known that he was happy with what had been done to The United States and it's interests. The issue is not about the president at all, it is about the international community. Many people know that the current administration has some less than glamorous issues. Yet it is silly to compare the Bush administration to the Clinton's. For example, Clinton and his supporters lied to the entire American population several times. It is also extremely hard to make statements about what Bush knew and didn't know about the attacks on 9-11. None of us know Bush or what information he comes across. I'll say that is completely feisable that he knew all that you prepose that he did, but it would also be wise to say that he didn't know as much as you believe. Although, the issue is not the domestic affairs of the United States. After 12 years of lying to and playing games with the entire world, Saddam needs to be held accountable for his actions. If such a leader were in charge of a western nation, he would be eliminated swiftly. Such as with Milokavich in Bosnia. Saddam is like a child testing the patience of his/her parents, he keeps trying to see what exactly he can get away with and eventually, he could try something that would harm everyone. War is horrible yes, but so is allowing a madman to be in charge of a country. A leader who does unscrupulous economic things cannot be considered worse than one who slaughters his own people.

2nd Corinthians 5:7 "for we walk by faith, not by sight" ............I might be wrong...............

Well first of all, thanks for giving such a calm and polite reply. :-) I'll try to return this favor.

This shows that The United States has support and is not 'acting alone'.

Well, the problem with this is that while it's true that the governments of these countries officially support the US position, in most of these countries an overwhelming majority of citizens is anti-war. Most of these governments support Shrub's war plans against the will of their people, so to speak.

France and Germany might very well have their own reasons to oppose the war, supposedly having multi-billion oil contracts with the Saddam government, which would be worth el zilcho without Saddam. Note that I'm only referring to some top-rank government guys, not the French or German people, which I'm sure have much more noble motives to be against the war.

You know, what annoys me the most is Shrub's ignorance and refusal to see the facts. When dozens of millions of people worldwide protest against the war - in fact the biggest protests since Vietnam, or even bigger as some claim - he calls them "focus groups" which are not to be taken seriously. In the meantime Congress people are busy with quests as important as renaming french fries to freedom fries in their local canteen.
The 'reasons' he brings up for the war are implausible at best. Let me pick just a few examples:

• Not so long ago, he used to scare the people by telling that Saddam has 'nucular' weapons. A few weeks later, he stated it's important to get rid of Saddam before he can get hold of nukes. Now the war seems to be justified by his determination to rid the world (and the Iraqui people) of a dangerous and cruel dictator. Which argument is next?

• His best buddy and supporter Tony Blair (who is waging war against the definitive will of his people) presents a "special" Intelligence report which turns out to be some 10 years old schoolwork downloaded from the 'net.

• Forget Saddam, where's Osama? Nobody's talking about him anymore, and Shrub has still failed to provide the link Al Quaida-Iraq which he so much liked to allude to.

• While Saddam is probably a cruel dictator, and while he may be a threat to some other country sometime in the future, there's one far bigger threat - North Korea has officially stated that they're having nukes, that they're gonna build more of them, and that they're willing to use them should they feel it's appropriate. Saddam only has conventional weapons (the stuff the US sold him some years ago) and at least isn't openly threatening to attack with WMDs or even nukes. Why does Shrub send a bunch of diplomats to Korea and some 1000 troops to Iraq?

The pathetic part to me is that every time his 'arguments' obviously become too flimsy, he silently moves to a new 'reason' to invade Iraq. All of his communication is one-way, he is talking to the people and that's it, nobody ever gets a chance to ask him an unpleasant question. He chooses the topic and can draw people's attention to whatever subject he wants (and away from other, past, topics).

This is what mostly bothers me. What worries me is that the ways Shrub got his position and is leading the country have awfully much in common with how Hitler got to power and formed the Third Reich, and his 'vision' of the USA more and more reminds me of Orwell's 1984. (Note that I'm not saying Shrub is like Hitler - the latter had definitely far more screws loose. My only concern is that he's using some of Hitler's methods, which were so awfully successful. Check my user profile for an example.)
People can be manipulated. The more they support somebody's cause(s), or the more they think somebody is supporting their cause(s), the more prone to manipulation they become.

For example, Clinton and his supporters lied to the entire American population several times.

Heck, it's not like Shrub and his supporters are telling the truth all the time. :-)
I could now bring up one of those paroles, like "which is worse, screwing an intern or screwing the country", but then I'd have to prove why Shrub screws/screwed the country in my eyes, which would probably break NAO because it's not made to handle posts in the range of several Gigs. :-P
Again, just one example (in order not to exceed the 400MB-limit on NAO's server), taken from some site of which I don't remember the URL:
Q: If Martha Stewart makes two or three calls to an executive before dumping $200,000 worth of his company's stock and Secretary of the Army Thomas White (a former Enron executive) makes 77 calls to Enron executives while dumping tens of millions in stock, why is the SEC only investigating Stewart?
A: Guess which one is a Democrat.
Here's a bet nobody picked up so far: Assume the Shrub government dethrones Saddam and installs a 'democratic' leader of their choice. I say that within two years, Big Oil will have a new pipeline installed, with the blessing of the new Iraqi government, preferably built by Halliburton, with the lion's share of the oil being exported to the USA.

Oh, yeah, and forgive me, but I just love to tell this story. :-P Clinton was once caught screwing an intern. Shrub's three recorded arrests: drunk driving, stealing a Christmas tree (sic!) and football hooliganism.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

lol.....get it all out of your system...I said what I thought before Bush ever started putting our soldiers in place...

Hoped we voters had enough influence on our President to take a step back and rethink.

Sure did count on our Senate and Representatives to collectively look around and choose us or this war.

Our stock market is influenced by "tv" they said today.....lol..lol.

Services we voted on, that our tax dollars supported, for us, health, education....etc. down the line, they are slashing, downgrading, laying off and cutting clean out of the budget.

Guess which group this most affects?? It isn't going to be the "welfare" group so much as our low and middle income taxpayers. Basically the base of our tax dollars.

I have really not much to say on the war itself....it's a done thing...we're in it. I, and I think a great deal of "baby boomers" are gonna have a lot to say when election time comes around...democrat or republican or independent or whatever that was present in our government that didn't stand up and be counted trying to stop this after being stupid enough to vote to give Bush the right to go to war without a consensus from them......(and I don't recall anybody standing out and saying Nay loudly and clearly) they are going to be replaced...Their length of service is going to count AGAINST them. Their skills and "knowing which doors to knock on"....is no longer their ace.
We can ill afford short sighted leaders in office.

But that's just my two cents.

But.....Democrats.....I'd sure be shaking the trees for up and coming young go-getters. Make sure they are squeaky clean and have a lot of energy and want to make a better world. If you can't do that...we'll find a way around you..too.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

This post was edited by gentledeepwaters on Mar 25, 2003.

Just to note, not really directly on topic or anything, but have you noticed how well the American dollar has been doing since the war started? And the Aussie dollar too. And the price of oil is really low.

Which world is Plato in?

How is it really in Australia?.......here in Texas....our gas prices started going up right before the war and continue to rise.

We had a sudden rise in stock market...then yesterday it dropped like a rocket. I suspect from investors knowing there was going to be a surge once the war started.....(the stock market hates indecision) and then a big drop yesterday as once it rose they sold out to get the cash.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Well I don't personally pay that much attention to anything economical, but generally I think oil is going down, everything else is going up. I saw this cartoon in the newspaper this moring. I'm going to see if I can reproduce it on here. It pointed out that war is good for money...ot something like that.

Which world is Plato in?

This post was deleted by request of the author.

The public would have never ceased the start of this War no matter if it had 0% of the publics backing.

We had a chance until our Congress voted to let him start a war without checking with them first.

And yes, once that was in effect.....we do not have any say.

Maybe you should read up on Bush's statistics when he was Governor of Texas.

I didn't vote for him for Governor......and I was right on my assessment and I didn't vote for him for President.....and so far he's making me a political genius. lol

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

This post was deleted by request of the author.

On a separate note we should carpet bomb Baghdad with MOAB's. KILL KILL KILL!

Sieg heil.

One more proof that people tend to forget history's lessons within too few years.

What a wonderful world we're building.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

This post was deleted by request of the author.

This post was edited by frank on Mar 26, 2003.

I knew somebody couldn't resist replying to that statement.

All I can do is hope that what you posted wasn't your true belief.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

Inflammatory last line.....eh wat??

Don't worry Frank, we have enough history with our various Presidents to weather this storm.

Consider the outpouring of statewide support to Abraham Lincoln on the Emancipation Act.

I think your view is mostly a product of your training. And I'm not putting that down. It is a useful tool.

I'm a product of my training....if you get caught up in the sturm and drang....you become part of the problem.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

This post was deleted by request of the author.

A significant part of basic training is the phsycological aspect. AKA, brainwashing. This does not mean that you or any other soldier are brainwashed, but an attempt was made.

"I've formed my own opinions about my leaders."

Everyone believes that they've formed their own opinion. However, their opinion is dependent upon the information they have and if that information can be controlled their opinion can be controlled.

"I don't want you to think that Army life is some kind of way for the US Gov't to produce a bunch of brainwashed individuals who will die for any cause."

That is the idea.

"We operate on the premise that our Soldiers are volunteers wanting to be here and wanting to protect the American public."

That's bullshit. If a soldier gets orders to go to iraqi can he/she say that they disagree with the cause and not go without facing any repercussions? Can a soldier enlist, go through traing, get to their unit and then decide that the Army isn't what they thought it was and go home? The Army is all about coercion. That's why they prey on impressionable youth.

This post was deleted by request of the author.

Thanks for helping me make the point that the military isn't a voluntary affair :)

"There are infinite ways to get out of the military."

not honorably. And all the "well meaning" sergeants tell you that you will never be anything but a burger flipper if you don't have an honorable discharge.

"The whole idea is you volunteer because you want to be there. If you change your mind after you're in then thats your fault."

Most people volunteer when they are kids and don't really understand what they are getting into. But lets make a different point. Let's say I join the army because I want to defend my country. Then while I'm in some idiot gets elected president and tries to turn america into the roman empire. I, as a voluntary soldier, should be able to say "this isn't what I joined for" and be able to leave with an honorable discharge. War should be completely voluntary. You know a war is just when people truly volunteer to give their lives for a cause. Tricking some lower class high schooler into joining the army for college money and then forcing him to invade another country to control oil isn't my idea of a voluntary system. Don't act like all the people in the military want to be there for ultra patriotic reasons. I'd say that half of the E1's to E4's can't wait to get out. For those of you that don't speak military an E1 is the lowest level private and an E4 is the rank right below SGT.

Your repeated discussion of absolute freedom has nothing to do with the points I made in my last post.

This post was deleted by request of the author.

This post was edited by frank on Mar 28, 2003.

Quien Es???

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

This post was deleted by request of the author.

Grins......k........now.....about that problem I have with setting up mail to my icq numbers. Frank...can you...if you have time...give me step by step instructions...in the simplest language....a freaking clue as to how to do it!!

So far all I've achieved is getting to see I do have mail...but it won't let me SEE the mail itself. And I think I may still have some that are stuck in there for months.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

This post was deleted by request of the author.

s'ok.....sigh....I'll either figure it out sooner or later....or talk someone else into figuring it out....

If I hadn't promised Bill's Mom to help keep him in business...I'd go Linux too.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

The question is do we wanna accept responsibility for a stupid move like going AWOL.

Considering Shrub did it and got away with it perfectly fine, it can't be all that difficult, can it?
Ofcourse not everyone's daddy can settle this by making a few phone calls.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :-P

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

This post was edited by null on Mar 27, 2003.

Considering Shrub did it and got away with it perfectly fine, it can't be all that difficult, can it?

Hey, Bush had a perfectly valid reason for this!

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion

This post was deleted by request of the author.

This post was edited by frank on Mar 28, 2003.

However, their opinion is dependent upon the information they have and if that information can be controlled their opinion can be controlled.

I think you've brought up a very important point here, which isn't restricted to military but applies to civil live just as well. You can manipulate anybody by manipulating the information they get.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

Absolutely! I firmly believe this is the reason the majority of americans support the war and the majority of the rest of the world opposes it.

Let's not forget that the reagan administration helped saddam gain power, helped him get a lot of the weapons of mass destruction that he used, and supported him while he used them. If saddam is evil, and he is if there is such a thing, then so is reagan.

Point 2:
The combination of our bombing of their infrastructure (water) and sanctions have killed far more iraqis than saddam.

No one is saying that saddam is a good person. Everyone agrees that he is the opposite, but we (americans) need to take a hard look in the mirror before we believe that this push for war is about the people of iraq or wmd.

This post was edited by jdonnell on Mar 25, 2003.

I have actually been reading a bit about damage caused after the first Gulf War. Alot of people I talk to don't buy the sanctions argument. They say if Saddam really cared about his people he would give some of his money back and stop hoarding it. That when he withholds is is harming. However, I don't totally buy that.

One figure I read said 500,000 children have died as a result of the war, not to mention the few hundred thousand that have died as a direct result of the military (including ones killed while trying to surrender or were killed while running away).

I'm not sure that even if Saddam was the nicest guy in the world and wanted to give out of his pocket that he could have saved all those children. Health care costs lots of money, and I really don't think as much money has Saddam has could have saved all those people. It seems reasonable that were Saddam turned into a saint overnight, that sanctions would still kill a good many Iraqis. I also don't think it's reasonable to think that Saddam would ever do that. I mean American politicins could give a real boost to the economy if even for one year they would refuse payment and put the money back into America. So if American leaders don't do it, how reasonable is it to expect dictators to.

That's what ticks me off about this war, our govt. claims that they are doing this for the people of Iraq when quite possibly they have killed more than Saddam did.

Well i'm in again and as usual have to throw my two cents in....
i'm sorry i haven't read all the posts yet (i know i should do it before i enter the discussion, so forgive me this time ;) )
I think that the american "way" is comletely irresponsible and "janusheaded".
Now to come to some things America was doing in the early 80s and what just a few people know.:

1. The Iran-Iraq war: In the early 80s Irak (under the president ship of Saddam Hussein) attacked Iran and was supported by the USA. The US wanted to embank the moslem fundamentalism which came up in Iran under the new leader Ayatollah Kohumeini. But after the Iranish moslem made a counteroffensive and entered Iraq, the USA deliverd chemical weapons to the Iraqis which they used against Iranish militairs and civilians. The world wasn`t interested in that.

2. The kurdish "problem": After the Iran war the Kurdish people in north-Iraq tried to made a rebellion and to get autonomy. again the Iraqi army used nerve gases agains civilians, delivered by the USA and France, and again all the countrys looked away. About 15,000 civilians died.

3. Another rebellion: In the beginning of operation "dessert storm", the Americans ensured the Kurdish people in the north and the Shiite populution in the south, that if they make a rebellion against Saddam Hussein, the americans will do the very best to help them and to secure them. But instead of helping the rebellioun, the US army waited and watched as the Iraqi Army slaughtert down the rebellion. And just after the victory of the Iraq army, the US army "helped". The same situation as the Warsaw Rebellion in 1944. And that's why you now hardly see cheering iraqi people who are happy because of their "liberation". They have never forgotten what the american army staff did 10 years earlier. and that's why the south front doesn't collapse as the pentagon belived it would do.

That are just 3 examples i had to say. Now let's see if this is a war of "good" agains "evil", of a nation fighting agains inhumanity and for justice.
For my oppinion, things are not like a Pentagon propaganda machinery want's to show us.
Well i don't want to offend anyone and as well as my oppinion to this war might be obvious i just wanted to tell some history aspects as neutral as possible. And please forgive me some mistakes i could have made in this early morning time ;)

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.

artrus, great well informed post, I can see that it took a lot of effort. As for the gas prices falling, I am so happy about that, it's about time!

Everyone knows that the worst humanitarian in the world is Saddam Hussien.

First of all, that isn't true. There are hundreds of banana republics with dictators that torture, rape, mutilate, and murder their populations. Our government supports many of them. Including Saddam Hussein in the 80s when he was gassing his own people and the Iranians, and we were supplying the intelligence to show him where to drop the chemical weapons. Further, Bechtel built a chemical plant that was likely used in the construction of CWs in Iraq, and might have helped Iraq build conventional weapons.

Second of all, even though Saddam is odious and Iraq has a bad human rights record, that isn't a justification to go to war either morally or under international law. Think about the fact that the United States sponsors Israel, a state which engages in constant terrorism against Palestinians, a state which has over twice as many UN resolutions against it than Iraq. If poor humanitarian records are justifications for war, then several of the US's allies would have to be considered targets before Iraq. Need I remind you that the United States supported genocide in East Timor?

Thirdly, the United States has led sanctions for the last 12 years that have strangled Iraq's population and caused thousands of deaths due to unclean water and otherwise treatable or preventable illness. So it could be argued, based on this and numerous other actions abroad, such as the bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, that the United States has the world's worst humanitarian record.

Now that we have invaded, there will be no more innocents killed by Saddam, ending his 20463 'record'. If in this conflict the allies kill greater than 20463 innocents, then we have done a horrorable thing

A strange assumption. Interesting how you spelled "honorable" "horrorable." I think your spelling of the word is a more accurate characterization of what we have done than "honorable." Massacreing an army without a shred of hope against our superior armaments, and killing civlians, and risking soldiers' lives for oil cannot be considered "honorable," but is certifiably "horrorable," deplorable, demented, evil, and illegal.

Anyway, to address your point, how do you reconcile this logic with the fact that the US has trained and sponsored state terror and massacres of hundresds of thousands of civilians around the globe? We are the only country to have ever been prosecuted for global terrorism in the ICC, our corporations are responsible for such disasters as the Union Carbide Bhopal disaster, which killed 12,000 people, and Unocal's use of slave labor in the construction of a pipeline in Myanmar, or Bechtel's privitization of Bolivia's water and then doubling of the price, or Chevron/Texaco's support of terror groups in Nigeria against indigenous people who are squatting. My point is, the US is clearly not interested in saving any lives, based on careful scrutiny of their actions both in Iraq and elsewhere. So I wish I could share your high-minded idealism, but it is way out of synch with reality.

I notice your signature has a verse from Corinthians. If you are truly a Christian, I would encourage you to study Jesus' message of peace. Why is it that the Christian fundamentalists in this country are so mercenary and bloodthirsty? This is a massive hypocrisy. Never once did he say "get them before they get you," which is literally conceptually what Bush's foreign policy is based on. I am not a Christian, but I understand the doctrines and the teachings of Jesus, and I know that the men running this country, while they claim to serve him, only serve one god: power. Do you really think Jesus, the pacifist who said "turn the other cheek," would sanction mass murder? Do you realize that early Christians allowed themselves to be boiled in oil before they would fight? Theirs was a passive resistance, like Ghandi's.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

Why is it that the Christian fundamentalists in this country are so mercenary and bloodthirsty? This is a massive hypocrisy.

Amen to that. I am a Christian and it frustrates me that many of my fellow evangelicals have chosen to ally themselves with the wielders of temporal power instead of embracing the true power of peace and love that is the message of Christ. And they have the nerve to say that Gandhi will go to hell because he never accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior. It is ironic that it was Gandhi who faithfully followed Christ's sermon on the mount while the Church has been casting its lot with those who rule with power. Indeed, this is a massive hypocrisy.

During the Iraq war, churches were, at best, drawing the people's attention away from the war and the pulpits echoed with messages to keep the faith in these trying times. At their worst, churches were twisting and overemphasizing the message of Romans 13 that told people to be subject to their rulers.

My fellow Christians, it is true that St. Paul told us to be subject to our rulers, but in the same passage he reveals his assumption that rulers are there to enforce the will of God. But in cases where governments are acting in the interests that contradict the will of God, peaceful resistance is the answer. Let the prophet Daniel be our example. The Emperor himself commanded him to practice idolatry. His response was neither to give in and do so nor to fight and shed the blood of those who force him. Instead he remained steadfast and allowed himself to be thrown into the lions' den, in the same way that Gandhi and his followers allowed themselves to be abused physicaly--and turn the other cheek. But we Christians have become idolatrous. We have decided not to be thrown into the lions' den. Instead we have decided to worship the god of Bush--the Prince of this world and the Father of Lies. After all, has he not lied time and again to fabricate justifications for this war? How long will we be so naive? We never learn. The Church did nothing when Hitler was in power and was being used by Satan. And we are doing nothing now even as Bush has been used by Satan to deliver the devastation of war to the two countries of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Look within your hearts and tell me that this massacre has been the will of God! And yet we have allowed our pulpits to echo with the voice of Death and Destruction.

“To God, there is no zero. I still exist.” Scott Carey, The Incredible Shrinking Man

This post was edited by childeoftheblood on Jul 10, 2003.

During the Iraq war, churches were, at best, drawing the people's attention away from the war and the pulpits echoed with messages to keep the faith in these trying times. At their worst, churches were twisting and overemphasizing the message of Romans 13 that told people to be subject to their rulers.

Most of the National Episcopal churches, and many Catholic (the Pope, fer cryin' out loud!) Churches denounced Bush's belligerent intentions, as did many, many Protestant churches (predominantly Methodists, I belive).

In fact, the new rector at my church (Episcopalian, though I, technically, am not an Episcopalian) gave a pretty good sermon about 'morally upright' conservative Christians in power, not naming names of course, who were contradicting the teachings of Christ at every chance.

Thbbbbt

Well, that's good to hear. and i do know about the pope, so i should not have used the capital "C" on "church" on my generalizing statement since i was referring mostly to protestant evangelical groups. still, i think there are more pro-war than anti-war christian orgs and individuals. a lot of christian journals and online publications are so pro-war, like Christianity Today. If you can give me some links that are not, i'd be very thankful because i'm sick of the usual crap i get to read.

“To God, there is no zero. I still exist.” Scott Carey, The Incredible Shrinking Man

I was thinking as I read this last post about the Old Covenant and the Law from the Old Testament, which is less pacifistic than the New Testament. In the Old Testament, it has the commandment commonly interpreted as "Thou shalt not kill," possibly more accurately translated "Thou shalt not murder." It also says "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," and Old Testament Jews were heavily militant--mainly to defend themselves against rival societies encroaching them. My point in noting these things is that the Old Covenant appears to hold that self defense, particularly against heathens, is acceptable. If we were to use OT doctrine to justify war, however, we would need to have either a direct threat, or a direct eye or tooth knocked out, so to speak. Despite Bush's attempts to convince the public that a) there is a direct threat from Iraq and b) Iraq was somehow involved in 9-11, it is clear that neither of these is true and that, if anything, we owe Iraq an eye or a tooth. It appears as if our government intends to take a liver, brain, and heart.

Mac

Ewige Blumenkraft!

The message of Jesus and the New Testament (which is what matters to Christians more) is one of pacifism. Take what is dealt to you and accept it; don't seek out violence, and the like. Definitely not a message of "let's get the bad guy before he gets us". The fact that Christian churches are promoting a message of patriotism and faith in our leader above all reason means that they are abandoning true Christianity for a political agenda.

But the entire point about Christianity justifying the war is irrelevent. This nation is a SECULAR country, and in a secular-dominated nation with freedom of religion, one cannot justify national policy using religion. One must justify policy with other arguments (social, economic, etc.)

Sure, Saddam may have killed 20000-30000 people in his 20 year reign. We killed over 4000 Iraqi civilians in less than a month. And the argument about the US having a policy of rooting out aggressive, oppressive dictators is just bullshit. While going after Saddam, we support Pakistani President Musharraf (who clearly sponsors cross-border terrorism against India and likely harbors Bin Ladin and other al-Qaeda members), and give tacit consent to the much more dangerous Kim Jong-Il of N. Korea (who, I might add, already has nuke(s) and is developing more). Those are just the two most relevant examples right now; we support, and have supported, many more dictators than we have removed (we supported Castros regime, let him in power, until he turned to the Soviets in 1961 or 1962).

And in Iraq, Iraqis have not welcomed us, their conqueror, with open arms (why the hell did we naively expect this... no one greets a conqueror with joy). Our government is surprised by the resistance, when in fact, we should have anticipated it. Iraq is going to be a HUGE drain on our military and economy for a long time.

P.S. I had little time, so I kept this relatively brief... a list of reasons why the US shouldn't have gone into Iraq could take up pages and pages ;)

"It was not God who created man, but man who created God." --Santa Caserio

But the entire point about Christianity justifying the war is irrelevent. This nation is a SECULAR country, and in a secular-dominated nation with freedom of religion, one cannot justify national policy using religion. One must justify policy with other arguments (social, economic, etc.)

This wasn't brought into the argument to debunk the policy, but as you'll note if you trace it back and read the posts, it was mentioned in order to call the moral majority out for their hypocrisy. Bush, an alleged Christian, is a hypocrite in his actions, as are those "Christians" who support him. Obviously, if you've read any of my posts, you know I am the furthest thing from a Christian. But by invoking Christian doctrine as a reason for the moral wrongness of the war in the public discourse, significant chunks of popular opinion could be swayed against it. So it is an important component of the battle for minds, considering the number of professed "Christians" in the Unioted States.

Ewige Blumenkraft!