 |
| 
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 3/21/2003 10:19 PM (GMT -6) |   | Thanks I, for bringing up some excellant points...by the way, Mayflower, true journalists let the facts speak for themselves and do not need to bring their own views in to the article from the very first line. What sickens me most is his writing style. However,
as I (and I) brought up, the article only brings up OUR responsibility for the situation.
Mayflower, who do you think is worse? The US or Iraq? Who do you think is more evil, Bush or Hussein? Just curious...because in reading your stuff one would be hardpressed to think Irag (and Hussein) did anything worse than makes US mad.
It would be good to remember who is the villian here and the person who all countries admit has broken the UN resolutions.
And finally, diplomacy and peace negotiations have not been exhausted...are you for real? I cannot believe any rational person could make such a statement? How long 20 years perhaps? 30, 40. Such statements would make me laugh if I didn't want to cry...
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/22/2003 3:57 AM (GMT -6) | | As much as I enjoy the debate on the war? I don't think it gets to the bottom of it all, AT ALL. I mean we can argue about the specifics of the war (in almost child like tit-for-tat fashion "You did it!" "No, you did it!") without arguing about our Christian convictions. Personally, I'd like to see more of that.
Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 3/22/2003 5:28 AM (GMT -6) | | It should be noted that sincere Christians do disagree on the issue. However, being for the war doesn't make you any less loving just as being against the war make you any more loving.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 3/22/2003 6:42 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/22/2003 6:49 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
It should be noted that sincere Christians do disagree on the issue. However, being for the war doesn't make you any less loving just as being against the war make you any more loving.
Our invasion of Iraq is being led by a sincere Christian, our president, George W. Bush. It is also being opposed by Christians, ranging from liberal (e.g. the World Council of Churches) to conservative (e.g. the Pope has led the world’s one billion Catholics to oppose America’s invasion).
As Christians, we are called to love our enemies. How is this command at work in your decision to support or oppose the current bombing campaign in Iraq?
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/22/2003 7:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast: Are you okay with Saddam killing his own people with WMD?
Electra: No. Something should have been done about it 1988. It seems opportunistic to all of a sudden champion the Kurdish cause (who do not consider themselves part of Saddam’s “own people”—they are an ethnic minority fighting for independence). Is this about helping them or helping ourselves? And if we were really concerned about helping them, what does a bombing campaign have to do with it? What does hiring the Turks as mercenaries have to do with it? What is loving about this help, that comes over two decades late, that uses bombs to “shock and awe,” and that partners with Kurdish oppressors?
Iconoclast: Are you okay with Saddam supplying WMD to terrorists?
Electra: No. But I’m more concerned about terrorists getting WMD from the same sources Saddam did—first world nations like America. Besides that, terrorists do not need weapons to cause mass destruction, as we learned on Sept. 11. If we were serious about defeating terrorists, maybe we should take a look at our own foreign policy. The current invasion seems to reinforce many of the factors that have contributed to the deep hatred for America in the Arab world—and now in the European world.
I agree with you that the “Helping Iraq Kill” article was slanted. The only reason I posted it was because it was on the same website as the pictures of gassed Kurds, as support for invading Iraq. I have tried to post mostly from the mainstream media (which is also not unbiased, but is hopefully less biased). But most of all, I hope that people will read and consider the article by Kani Xulam on the Kurds and the Coming War.
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/22/2003 7:48 AM (GMT -6) | | I am not a pacifist. I don’t consider myself particularly liberal. My politics leads me to conclude that “democracy” is not something that can be imposed on people from outside. Democracy is the power of the people to govern themselves. Our invasion and occupation of Iraq has little to do with democracy.
Our nation is the most successful democracy in the world. Yet, for most of our history, most of our population did not have the right to vote. And as recently as the 1960s, our federal government had to intervene to ensure that the civil rights of all citizens were respected. This struggle continues to this day. Where does our confidence that we can set up a democracy in Iraq—a country with divisions that are even deeper and more ancient than our own division over slavery—come from? We have decided to destroy the current Iraqi regime and establish a democracy (in part) because we have grown impatient with diplomacy. If we do not have enough patience with a diplomatic process that may take 10, 20, 30 years or more, then we have no business taking on the responsibility of setting up a democratic government (which is a contradiction anyway—only the Iraqi people can create an Iraqi democracy).
As a Christian who is committed to a theology of the cross, this invasion whose intent is to “shock and awe” is against my deepest theological convictions. My theology leads me to conclude that “freedom” is not something you can force on people, that “liberation” is about empowering, not destroying, that I must lay down my own life before taking others’ lives, that I must love my enemy. That “conquering” looks like crucifixion outside the gate, rather than establishing ourselves on the pinacle of the temple. Even if my enemy (somehow) provokes me to defend myself and/or others in a way that will be hurtful for him, I must resist in love—in a way that has not only my, but also his best interest in mind. In every circumstance, no matter how threatening, my action must be motivated by love rather than fear. (I’m not claiming to succeed at this, but it is the ideal I strive for.)
So I am not persuaded by arguments based on the possibility that Saddam might have WMD that might find their way into terrorists’ hands, therefore we should rush to use our own WMD to destroy him. I highly doubt that our invasion will prove Saddam had WMD, but it will prove us to be hypocrites...again. This invasion/occupation seems to reinforce and deepen hatred—the real cause of terrorism, rather than healing it.
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
Edited by - Electra on 03/22/2003 1:18:44 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 3/22/2003 8:14 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/22/2003 12:42 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
As a Christian who is committed to a theology of the cross, this invasion whose intent is to “shock and awe” is against my deepest theological convictions. My theology leads me to conclude that “freedom” is not something you can force on people, that “liberation” is about empowering, not destroying, that I must lay down my own life before taking others’ lives, that I must love my enemy. That “conquering” looks like crucifixion outside the gate, rather than establishing ourselves on the pinacle of the temple. Even if my enemy (somehow) provokes me to defend myself and/or others in a way that will be hurtful for him, I must resist in love—in a way that has not only my, but also his best interest in mind.
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
A theology of the cross is a two-edged sword. The same cross that gives us the benefits of salvation is that which also makes all things new and has conquered the "fallen powers."
Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com
Edited by - BBBCanada on 03/22/2003 5:43:52 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/22/2003 12:47 PM (GMT -6) | | I realize American evangelicals don’t consider the the Pope authoritative. But he is authoritative for millions of Catholic Christians around the world, many of whom (esp. in Latin American and Africa) are devoting their lives to liberation.
Pope Says War Threatens Fate of Humanity
Sat Mar 22, 9:51 AM ET
VATICAN CITY - Pope John Paul II on Saturday denounced the war against Iraq as threatening the "fate of humanity" in his first public comments on the U.S-led attacks.
"When war, as in these days in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is ever more urgent to proclaim, with a strong and decisive voice, that only peace is the road to follow to construct a more just and united society," John Paul said. "Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of men."
The pontiff said that peace is "a gift of God and a humble and constant achievement by men."
John Paul, with impassioned speeches and Vatican diplomacy, lobbied against war and in favor of a negotiated solution in the months before the conflict.
He made his remarks Saturday in an address at the Vatican to members of an Italian religious television channel, Telepace.
A few hours after the war began, the Vatican expressed "deep pain" and faulted both sides for failing to find a peaceful solution, but until Saturday, the pope himself had not spoken publicly about the attacks.
John Paul has said there is no legal or moral justification for military action. He has also expressed concern that war would harm relations between Christians and Muslims.
Before thre war, the pope sent a cardinal to Washington to plead with President Bush not to attack, and another cardinal to Baghdad to press Saddam Hussein to cooperate completely with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
Edited by - Electra on 03/22/2003 5:48:03 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 3/22/2003 12:51 PM (GMT -6) | |
THE FACE OF WAR:
A CHILD, cries in a hospital in Baghdad Saturday:
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/news/photos/iraq/dayfour/images/child0322opt.jpg
==============================================
Inside Iraq
SHOCK AND AWE
campaign:
The Burning of Baghdad ...
City of Fire
A building in the government area of Baghdad explodes as it is hit by American missles during the third night of the "Shock and Awe" campaign
PHOTO GALLERY INDEX: shock and awe:
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/news/photos/iraq/shock/image1.html
________________________________________
CAUGHT
in the
"SHOCK AND AWE"
• An Iraqi girl, one of the first victims of the U.S.-led attack, lies in Al-Yarmouk hospital in downtown Baghdad
• An Iraqi child who reportedly suffered burns during the overnight bombing raid over Baghdad cries Saturday as he is picked up by his mother outside the emergency room of a local hospital.
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/news/photos/iraq/dayfour/images/burned0322opt.jpg
• A CHILD, cries in a hospital in Baghdad Saturday:
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/news/photos/iraq/dayfour/images/child0322opt.jpg
==============================================
[end]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ecclesiastes 3:4
"For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven"...
Yes,
..."a time to mourn."
<><
Edited by - Mayflower on 03/26/2003 1:23:50 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 3/22/2003 12:52 PM (GMT -6) | |
WAR:
TIME Magazine Photo Essay
"THE WORLD REACTS"
From protest to prayer, the reaction around the world to the U.S. attack on Iraq:
IMAGE NUMBER 1 (Index):
http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/iraqreaction/
IMAGE NUMBER 2:
http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/iraqreaction/2.html
IMAGE NUMBER 3:
http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/iraqreaction/3.html
IMAGE NUMBER 4:
http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/iraqreaction/4.html
IMAGE NUMBER 5:
http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/iraqreaction/5.html
IMAGE NUMBER 6:
http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/iraqreaction/6.html
IMAGE NUMBER 7:
http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/iraqreaction/7.html
IMAGE NUMBER 8:
http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/iraqreaction/8.html
IMAGE NUMBER 9:
http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/iraqreaction/9.html
IMAGE NUMBER 10:
http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/iraqreaction/10.html
<><
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/22/2003 1:15 PM (GMT -6) | | It's amazing. There are people out there who STILL believe that O.J. is innocent. 
Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 3/22/2003 1:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Really???!!
I will pray for you, brother...
BBBCanada wrote:
quote:
It's amazing. There are people out there who STILL believe that O.J. is innocent.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/22/2003 4:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Received with the day's e-mail:
quote:
Earthquake in France
Today it was reported that severe earthquakes have occurred in 10 different locations in France. The severity was measured in excess of 10 on the Richter Scale. The cause was the 56,681 dead American soldiers buried in French soil rolling over in their graves. According to the American Battle Monuments Commission there are 26,255 Yankee dead from World War I buried in 4 cemeteries in France. There are 30,426 American dead from World WarII buried in 6 cemeteries in France. These 56,681 brave American heroes died in their youth to liberate a country which is guilty of shameful unspeakable behavior in the 21st century. May the United States of America never forget their sacrifice as we find ways to forcefully deal with the Godforsaken unappreciative, forgetful country of France!
[French Canadian authorship]
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/22/2003 8:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Electra
As Christians, we are called to love our enemies. How is this command at work in your decision to support or oppose the current bombing campaign in Iraq?
Iconoclast
Love sometimes requires a “stop action”. It is not loving to allow an alcoholic to continue to destroy his or her life and the lives of those around them. Nor is it loving to allow a serial rapist or serial murderer to continue to harm other people. And not just because that person is harming other people but also because that person is absolutely destroying themselves.
Electra, do you agree that the US should have unilaterally engaged in a stop action against Hitler when Europe failed to do so? Wouldn’t it have been better for Hitler himself if someone stopped him before he actually committed genocide? Even if that stop action meant the taking of his life? Wouldn’t Hitler have been much better off to come before God with just a strong intention of genocide rather than having committed the actual act?
A part of me really struggles with what Bush has set in motion here. A part of me wonders whether it was really necessary to force the issue with Saddam right now. But then again I don’t have the data that Bush has regarding what Saddam is actually doing in terms of building up his capabilities to do damage. One thing I look at is that we got the entire UN (including Syria of all people!) to sign resolution 1441. They would not have done that if they didn’t also concur that Saddam is a serious threat to the stability of the region. Once we got 1441 signed the path was determined. The US had to take this all the way to actually enforcing this resolution or else the forces of terrorism would certainly grow very much stronger. Think for a moment of a basketball game. If the referee just lectured each person who fouled another how long would it take before the game was entirely out of control? If the police did not enforce traffic violations with actual sanctions how long would it take before our highways became the autobahn? Think about parents who don’t discipline their children. Ever read Lord of the Flies?
The world is at a crossroads right now. The bipolar world of the US and the USSR is over. The US is the one and only superpower. Rogue nation states are starting to arise and terrorism is threatening to be their primary means of diplomacy. Notice how North Korea is starting to behave. They want something so they openly go after nuclear weapons and start “testing” missiles in the vicinity of Japan.
We have no form of international government that can deal with this situation. We have a power vacuum and Bush fully stepped into it. I consider this a positive. Someone needs to take responsibility and leadership and Bush did. He was the only candidate – no other country could possibility take this role. Now, we can certainly criticize him for pushing the international community to fast and with too arrogant of a demeanor – however, this is largely Monday morning quarterbacking in my opinion. At the same time Bush worked through the international community. And the international community failed to take the commensurate responsibility and leadership. France refused to step up to the plate and follow. They don’t want to follow. They want lead. Yet they can’t lead because they are not in a position to be able to lead. Thus, they played the role of spoiler. This was terribly unfortunate as this conflict had the very best chance of being resolved peacefully if the entire international community had the necessary resolve to enforce their will.
Once resolution 1441 was signed it had to be totally enforced in order to effect a new world order where we can find stability again. The international community failed to do so. At this point we really have no rational choice except to fully enforce it ourselves. The long-term outcome will very much depend on how Bush leads us to behave after the conflict is over. Bush MUST fully engage the international community WITHOUT the arrogance but WITH the resolve necessary to win broad support going forward. If the US continues to come across with the same level of arrogance then we will be in a period where the challenges to our leadership and the will of the international community will grow. On the other hand if Bush goes forward in an inclusive way then this is an incredible period in world history where a strong international community can coalesce around a strong and humble superpower and can then reside over a major new expansion in the freedom and prosperity of people all around the globe.
I believe the best way that I can act to help this come about is by totally supporting this decision and also by seeking to influence our leadership to improve their diplomacy skills – to come across as more inclusive even though we have total resolve.
We love our enemy in this case by building a strong, just and swift source of governmental authority within which our “enemy” can get direct and clear feedback about how their actions are harming themselves and others without having to resort to what we have to resort to now. That governmental authority must have a mechanism for taking “stop actions” or it is not an authority at all but a façade behind which tyrants can seek and gain some measure of false legitimacy.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 3/23/2003 1:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast: Thanks you for your excellant response. Sometimes it is very loving to use force, just as sometimes we must force our children to do something.
Electra, a couple of things. First, the tags "liberal" or "conservative," are general and can be helpful, whether we like it or not.
The Pope may be conservative in some areas but he is not in this area, and, by and large is (save for abortion) is a liberal, not a conservative. Hence you would need to find a different representive (such as Billy Graham perhaps).
By the way, just as I don't always like to be view as a conservative (but I am) you might want to rethink whether or not you are a liberal. Sounds pretty much like you are.
For those of you who are anti-war, I am curious. Do you start your argument on whether or not military action is just in this situation, or do you start by simply saying war if wrong. If you start by saying war is wrong, than why are you debating? You already have your mind made up.
As far as how the world views us (per Mayflower's not responding to the debate with reason but more emotion and slogan), most of those people didn't like us anyway and the war is simply a reason to vent. I am unconcerned with how the world views us, just as, many times, I am unconcerned with how others view me. I am concerned about whether I view what my country is doing is right. We should desire to do right regardless of public (or world) opinion because we should desire to follow God not men. Christians are called by God to a higher path, a path that excludes opinion polls (save one).
But let me digress in a sense: for those of you against war, the issue is not whether or not Bush is wrong. That never was the issue. The issue is what to do with Iraq. Stay focused. Give alternatives, rather than just saying how wrong the US is. If you want to win the argument give alternatives...
Much of this debate is really an issue of multi-culturalism verse patroitism...which side do you fall on...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/23/2003 2:21 AM (GMT -6) | | I remember once posting a question regarding Hitler. I asked, "Assuming the open view is true, I'm still wondering why God apparently did little to nothing to stop Hitler. How many hundreds of thousands needed to die before God said, 'This is enough'?"
The answer I got from many was "The Allies WERE God's means of bringing Hitler to an end." I thought that was interesting.
I don't know how to confirm this number, but 2 million Iraqis murdered by Hussein (why does everybody call him by his first name Saddam? We don't go around calling the President "George". Oh well) keeps rolling around in my head. Let's assume it's a lot lower, say 1 million, or even 500,000 either murdered, tortured, or raped.
Also, I wasn't around then, but I believe that many wondered why America took so long to enter WWII to help rid the world of Hitler. We were blamed then for not getting involved. How many hundreds of thousands needed to be murdered before we'd act? Now, several hundred thousand have been murdered and we are asked not to get involved militaristically.
I hate war, but...
Unless one is a strict pacifist, I'm having difficulty understanding what further incentive one would need to support military intervention at this time. We're not perfect, and I'm sure we're interested in more than JUST making life easier for the Iraqi people. We'd like to make life easier and more comfortable for ourselves too. But, might we be a chess piece moved by God at this time? Not perfect, but perhaps all God has to work with given the situation.
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/23/2003 3:00 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Really???!!
I will pray for you, brother...
Don't get it.  Perhaps you don't see what I'm trying to say.
Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com
Edited by - BBBCanada on 03/23/2003 08:01:15 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/23/2003 8:53 AM (GMT -6) | | An Allegory of “Stop Action” as an analogy for the US invasion of Iraq
Cast:
Patron: USA
Guardian: Saddam Hussein
Brothers & Sisters: Kurds
Neighbors: Iranians
Neighboring Guardian: Turkey
Plot:
Once upon a time, a Patron got rid of an old Guardian and appointed a new Guardian over some Brothers & Sisters who shared a common history and culture and were seeking to govern themselves.
This Guardian horribly abused the Brothers & Sisters, so they appealed to the Patron who put him in charge of them. But the Patron approved of the Guardian’s abuse of his Neighbor, so it ignored the Guardian’s abuse of the Brothers & Sisters. In fact, it continued to help the Guardian grow stronger, so he could hurt the Neighbor more. The Brothers & Sisters continued to struggle for freedom from the Guardian—and continued to suffer for it.
Twenty years later, the Patron decided the Guardian needed to go. In order to prove how dangerous the Guardian was, the Patron shouted to the world, “Look how the Guardian abused his own people!” In order to prove how benevolent the Patron was, the Patron promised the Brothers & Sisters it would give them a new Guardian so they could be free. The Patron turned to a Neighboring Guardian, who also abused the Brothers & Sisters he was in charge of, to help the Patron get rid of the Guardian. This is not the kind of freedom the Brothers & Sisters have suffered and died for.
1. From a psychological perspective, is it helpful to perform a “Stop Action” twenty years after the fact? How does this delay impact the effectiveness of the Stop Action?
2. As a disciplinary measure, wouldn’t a Stop Action that destroys, rather than reforms, its recipient be a failure? How is this Stop Action loving?
3. How will those who survive our Stop Action know it is done in love? How likely is it that they will interpret the destruction of their government, their cities, their homes, the increasingly difficult access to food, shelter, healthcare, etc, as love?
4. Why should they believe we are doing them a favor, when the policies that created the need for the Stop Action remain the same—in fact, they are reinforced?
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/23/2003 9:09 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hmmm, whose view should I follow, Bush's or Byrd's the ex-KKK member. Hmmm, all these choices...
I didn't realize Sen. Byrd was associated with the KKK. I agree with his response to our invasion of Iraq, but I would not have refered to him as any kind of authority if I had taken the time to check out his background. Thanks, Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/23/2003 9:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Analogies to Hitler can go both ways. Saddam Hussein's treatment of the Kurds is analogous to Hitler's treatment of the Jews (though Saddam killed the Kurdish ethnic minority because they were attempting to create an independent state, not because of their ethnicity alone). The American bombing campaign of "shock and awe" in our invasion of Iraq is analogous to Hitler's "blitzkrieg" in his invasion of Great Britain. If you follow the world news, they are running with the latter analogy.
Hitler also believed that Germany was destined to rule the world. The German people supported him in his campaign to realize this vision. The reason nations became involved in WWII (including the US--we got involved after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor) was because of Hitler's invasions, not (unfortunately) because of his genocide.
How do you think Bonhoeffer would have responded to the US invasion of Iraq if he were in our position?
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
Edited by - Electra on 03/23/2003 3:37:24 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/23/2003 3:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Electra
1. From a psychological perspective, is it helpful to perform a “Stop Action” twenty years after the fact? How does this delay impact the effectiveness of the Stop Action?
Iconoclast
Sure. Imagine a couple who has been married for a long time where the husband became a raging alcoholic 20 years earlier. It would have been best for the wife to perform a stop action (intervention) early on. After 20 years she is most certainly completely co-dependent. Is it still helpful to get well herself and perform a stop action with her husband? Yes.
Electra
2. As a disciplinary measure, wouldn’t a Stop Action that destroys, rather than reforms, its recipient be a failure? How is this Stop Action loving?
Iconoclast
In the case of Iraq the recipient is a nation or more generally a group of individuals. Imagine a family where the kids are being abused by the father who is an alcoholic. The wife performs a stop action on the husband – she intervenes and gives him an ultimatum – no more alcohol or no more family. The husband is a free agent. He may choose his own destruction for the moment and thus find himself all alone. But even if he does the stop action is still the best thing to do for two reasons:
1. The husband actually experiences the full weight of the consequence – the full weight of the separation and thus now has the opportunity to make a more fully informed decision. In terms of Saddam, he is now experiencing more of the weight of his consequence and will continue to experience it more and more.
2. The wife and kids no longer have to be abused by the husband. In terms of Iraq, they will finally be liberated from a brutal dictator – isn’t that a good thing? Why wouldn’t God want the Iraqi people to be freed from Saddam?
The short of it is that ALL stop actions are harsh – they are a last resort.
1Cr 5:4-5 in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Electra
3. How will those who survive our Stop Action know it is done in love? How likely is it that they will interpret the destruction of their government, their cities, their homes, the increasingly difficult access to food, shelter, healthcare, etc, as love?
Iconoclast
They may not at first or ever. Imagine a young adult who has been brainwashed by a cult. They certainly don’t experience their rescue as a good thing to begin with. And if they never experience it as a good thing then that is a huge problem. For us to be successful in Iraq we MUST minimize the loss of civilian life, minimize the damage to the economic assets of the country, and quickly bring in better access to food, shelter and healthcare than what the Iraqis had before – shouldn’t be a huge challenge. Freedom of speech might be appreciated quite a bit also. Imagine living in a regime where the slightest negativity expressed about Saddam could get you killed. Seems like a frightening and dehumanizing sort of thing to me. I think that once the people are helped with their basic survival needs the very fact that they will be able to criticize the US openly WITHOUT being tortured and killed will show them the difference.
This is love - that unlike in Kosovo where we decided it was worth it to go and kill but not be killed (only fighting the war from 10,000 feet) in Iraq we decided that it was worth BEING KILLED to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam. We are going to extraordinary lengths to NOT kill civilians. We are not fighting this war from 10,000 feet – we are going in with our best and bravest on the ground right from the get go in order to minimize civilian casualties and to protect the economic assets FOR the people of Iraq.
Electra
4. Why should they believe we are doing them a favor, when the policies that created the need for the Stop Action remain the same—in fact, they are reinforced?
Iconoclast
If we install or support a new brutal dictator for our own convenience then we will have a problem. I do not expect that we will do this. My view is that the policies that got us into this trouble to begin with came out of the realpolitik of self-interest in a bipolar world order. I don’t see us doing the same thing at all this time. What specific policies are you referring to?
Also – would you agree that the most recent policy failure that led to this situation was Bush Sr’s failure to take out Saddam in 1991? Would you agree that Bush Sr. should have protected the Sunnis? and Kurds rather than let them be slaughtered by Saddam?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/23/2003 4:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Electra
The American bombing campaign of "shock and awe" in our invasion of Iraq is analogous to Hitler's "blitzkrieg" in his invasion of Great Britain.
Iconoclast
I am okay with this analogy from a strategic/tactical perspective. There is no question that Hitler was a good war strategist. In fact, we are very lucky that he was also a total megolomaniac who ended up overextending himself out of a despotic need to conquer and then overcontrolled his generals and wouldn’t take their advice.
The difference of course is that Hitler’s goal was to conquer and control. Our goal is to liberate and empower. Again, we will need to prove this to the world in how we minimize civilian casualties, how we bring in humanitarian aid and how we go about helping the Iraqi people form a new government.
Electra
Hitler also believed that Germany was destined to rule the world.
Iconoclast
This makes it sound like you believe that Bush thinks that the US is destined to rule the world. Is this what you think?
Electra
How do you think Bonhoeffer would have responded to the US invasion of Iraq if he were in our position?
Iconoclast
We know how Bonhoeffer himself behaved when he decided to try and kill Hitler. I would presume that if Bonhoeffer lived in Iraq he would behave similarly with Saddam, just like I think he would have behaved similarly with Pol Pot. And if he himself would choose to act unilaterally to take Saddam’s life then I don’t see how he would have any problem with the US acting multilaterally and with a unanimous UN resolution to back us up.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 03/23/2003 9:04:59 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 3/23/2003 4:20 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Electra
3. How will those who survive our Stop Action know it is done in love? How likely is it that they will interpret the destruction of their government, their cities, their homes, the increasingly difficult access to food, shelter, healthcare, etc, as love?
Shell: I have had very mixed feelings about this war. When I tucked my children in bed that first night after the bombing began all I could think of were the children cowering in their homes, unable to sleep and jumping in fear at every explosion. I just grieve for their traumatization, and for those that will be physically and emotionally harmed, and no, they may never get over that.
On the other hand, the the following day I saw an interview with five iraqi women living here in the U.S. They were risking the well being of their families back in Iraq by showing their faces in support of the war. They told of the atrocities against women in Iraq and how common-place it is to torture women there. They told of the dissidents that would be punished by bringing in a female member of their family in to be brutally raped and beaten as the dissident is forced to watch. They told of the pictures taken of this and then passed around by the officials for their enjoyment. They told of a 16 year old girl who had written a negative comment about the government secretly in her notebook. When it was discovered by her teacher she was turned over to government officials. She was brutally raped and tortured for months, and her family was forced to come in and observe her torture.
I can hardly stomach hearing these stories. The women had witnessed these events repeatedly throughout their years in Iraq. Over the last few weeks when they have communicated with family in Iraq, those still living there have had one question for them. When are the Americans coming?
Many Iraqis are seeing this as a loving "Stop Action".
Shell
Edited by - shell on 03/23/2003 9:33:18 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| 165 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:38 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|