Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christianity Today Poll | Christian Leaders and Politics
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 61 of 94 (418990)
08-31-2007 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Hyroglyphx
08-31-2007 11:14 AM


Re: You have to first changed how people view life
I'm simply asking what would have happened had the US not entered the war.
the german machine was already failing because of the terrible mistake of a two front war. it would have lasted longer and killed many more people, but it would have ended the same way.
We did know about it all along-- to include the Nazi concentration camps. And in that sense, I agree that we tried to remain neutral on the matter for as long as possible, but the gravest of concerns were still very much expressed during that time.
grave concerns are masturbation when innocent people are dying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-31-2007 11:14 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 94 (419005)
08-31-2007 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by macaroniandcheese
08-31-2007 11:19 AM


Re: You have to first changed how people view life
quote:
I don't inherently see war as vengeance.
you didn't say war. you said:
quote:
When someone insults you and mocks and you in to a fight are you supposed to turn the other cheek?
you were comparing whether to protect someone from being raped and whether to take vengeance for being insulted.
My apologies, Brenna, I thought you were referring specifically to war because that's how GDR framed the question. Then to answer it accurately, yes, not turning the other cheek would be an act of vengeance.
there's a lot more to just war than whether you struck first or not.
I agree.
there may not be a line between being justifiable and being an aggressor. we took action during the yugoslav conflict. it was aggressive and completely illegal under international law. but it was right. we defended civillians from millitary attack. if we were to act against the UN in sudan, it would probably be illegal and definitely be aggressive, but it would be justifiable, because we would be defending civillians from millitary attack.
I agree with this as well. Some things may be viewed as being illegal, but this might be where differentiating between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law collide.
iraq and afghanistan are very different. there were lots of times and lots of reasons for going into iraq. a good one would have been when he bombed our ship.
What ship? The USS Cole? If so, I don't think Saddam had anything to do with that attack, but if so, its thus far not provable.
another good time would have been when sadaam opened rape camps. but no. we waited until the wrong time and the wrong reason.
As I said to GDR, if humanitarian reasons were the defining criteria for going to war, as honorable a reason as it is, we'd be at war all the time. Unfortunately, each country has to determine for itself what is best for its people and its economy, because any leader has to first think about their own people before they can think of another's.
There is no reason not to go into Darfur right now to rescue people from tyranny. The sad thing is there is nothing we gain from it. And that's a very sad and unfortunate fact. President's only use this as a selling point to convince the public why a war is justified, even if there are more pressing matters of national security which are really the reason why they decide to act.
we waited for our president to lie to us and say they were a threat to us and had something to do with 9/11. it was flat, purposeful lies defended with treason and putting our intelligence force in direct deathly peril (maybe ms plame wasn't currently undercover, but anyone who had ever been associated with her was now suspect and in danger). funny you never hear about wmds anymore.
The debacle with the WMD's is just that-- a debacle. We already know that Saddam had such weapons and delivery capabilities. But bad intelligence is to blame for that. Unfortunately the President has to eat the failures of those in his Administration. That's how being at the top works. You pay for the screw-ups of everyone under you.
As for the assertion that Iraq and 9/11 were directly connected, I believe that it was Chenney and Rumsfeld that ran with this idea. And Bush signed off on it. Sure, we have hard evidence that Saddam has funded an insurgency, but the assertion that he was in cahoots with Bin Laden all along is unsubstantiated.
As for the real reason for the war: (listed in order of importance)
sure, you could say it's because he was a muslim, but that's a poor excuse.
Saddam was far too self-absorbed to actually worship anything beside his own image. True Muslims know he was a phony.
i'm only ideally a pacifist.
Sure, myself included. I mean, can you really say that people are bad for desiring peace? Absolutely not!
you absolutely must exhaust all diplomatic and economic means prior to warfare and we seem to be incapable of doing that. throwing money at problems doesn't fix them, but throwing bombs doesn't either. it only makes more angry people.
I agree that diplomacy must be exhausted, which, presumably, is why we are yelling at Iran to cease from their nuclear ambitions without actually doing anything about it.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : fixed italics
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Fixed html ocdes

"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." -Leonardo da Vinci

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by macaroniandcheese, posted 08-31-2007 11:19 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by macaroniandcheese, posted 08-31-2007 12:37 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 63 of 94 (419017)
08-31-2007 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Hyroglyphx
08-31-2007 12:09 PM


Re: You have to first changed how people view life
What ship? The USS Cole? If so, I don't think Saddam had anything to do with that attack, but if so, its thus far not provable.
no. it was before that. i dunno. my mom said something about it. might have been something other than a ship.
As I said to GDR, if humanitarian reasons were the defining criteria for going to war, as honorable a reason as it is, we'd be at war all the time.
that's why there needs to be more analysis about the chances of succcess and doing less harm when you consider a humanitarian cause, and why diplomacy and economic pressures must be used first. you don't just bomb every country who wrongfully imprisons someone or where women aren't paid enough.
Unfortunately, each country has to determine for itself what is best for its people and its economy, because any leader has to first think about their own people before they can think of another's.
we have this principle here that when our government stops considering our needs, we must rebell against it. i think this is a good guide. when a government stopds caring for all of it's people, it is the responsibility of the international community to take steps to care for those citizens.
There is no reason not to go into Darfur right now to rescue people from tyranny. The sad thing is there is nothing we gain from it. And that's a very sad and unfortunate fact. President's only use this as a selling point to convince the public why a war is justified, even if there are more pressing matters of national security which are really the reason why they decide to act.
what we stand to gain should not be a consideration, only if we have a good chance of being successful and do we have a viable plan for entrance, execution, and exit.
We already know that Saddam had such weapons and delivery capabilities.
i hope you mean no such
But bad intelligence is to blame for that. Unfortunately the President has to eat the failures of those in his Administration. That's how being at the top works. You pay for the screw-ups of everyone under you.
from what i understand, there was no such intelligence supporting it. the claims were fabricated. and the administration has paid for nothing. they certainly haven't paid for lying to us after it was very clear that the wmd information was fabricated.
As for the assertion that Iraq and 9/11 were directly connected, I believe that it was Chenney and Rumsfeld that ran with this idea. And Bush signed off on it. Sure, we have hard evidence that Saddam has funded an insurgency, but the assertion that he was in cahoots with Bin Laden all along is unsubstantiated.
sadaam did no such thing. the entire suggestion that iraq was anything but a bastion of isolated stability is crap. internal to it were horrendous human rights violations, but they were by the iron will and swift, calculated action of the government. we have the documents. a prof of mine worked on them. i've seen them.
1. The Currency War: The value of the US dollar is in peril as more companies, world banks, and nations are switching to Euro's and other forms of currency. The United States economy is intimately tied to the dollar's role as reserve currency in the world.
the british pound is worth roughly double the dollar. why aren't we invading britain?
2 Its an Ideological War: There is no question that the radical ideology of Wahhabi Islam has placed its crosshairs on the "Great Satan." The severity of the situation was never fully appreciated until it took a massive disaster like 9/11 to finally get what places like Israel have known for years. And now the US understands that reason will not win out over might, because you cannot reason with the unreasonable.
again, what the hell does wahhabiism have to do with iraq? our allies in saudi arabia house wahhabis, iraq was a brutally secular state. and btw, most of our problems now in iraq are coming from the shi'a majority. wahhabis are sunni. get it right. it can't have been a reason to start the war, and it's not playing a part now.
3. Weapons of Mass Destruction: Despite the cries otherwise, this was a very real and credible threat that faces this nation and its allies. Look no further than Iran to understand the seriousness of the issue.
iran has nothing to do with iraq. it's not a reason to start the war. sadaam already demonstrated his capacity to keep iran at bay. we destabilized the area by enterring iraq.
4. The Perception of Military might: The 9/11 attacks exposed the soft underbelly of a nation that has long been characterized as the most awesome military machine in the history of the world. With tensions on high with nations like China, N. Korea, Iran, Venezuela, etc, a swift, calculated ousting of Saddam was what the US needed to raise the level of expectation again.
going to war to prove you're still the biggest kid on the block is stupid. also, we've demonstrated our complete incompetence instead. at the very least, we should have completed our mission in afghanistan FIRST before ever looking at iraq.
Saddam was far too self-absorbed to actually worship anything beside his own image. True Muslims know he was a phony.
sadaam was strictly secular. i was talking about the second wave of the american civil rights movement and the leaders thereof. keep up?
I mean, can you really say that people are bad for desiring peace?
there's a difference between desiring it and practicing it. desire is empty and wasteful.
I agree that diplomacy must be exhausted, which, presumably, is why we are yelling at Iran to cease from their nuclear ambitions without actually doing anything about it.
that is not diplomacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-31-2007 12:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 64 of 94 (419091)
08-31-2007 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Hyroglyphx
08-31-2007 8:42 AM


Re: You have to first changed how people view life
NJ writes:
Very true, but have almost all of the key players been aligned in such a way as they are today? Some people are of the view that we shouldn't worry about prophecy too much, even though the Bible is comprised of 2/3 prophecy, because its always looking to future events. And if its looking only at the end game, then it neglects what Jesus called us to do in the here and the now.
On the flip side of the coin, you have some today that are unwilling to even be instructed by prophecy and kind of take the attitude that what will be will be, so we shouldn't worry about it at all. I see myself as being in the middle of that road. I believe that prophecy is very imortant, but not if we lose sight of the humanity we are supposed to glean from the gospel.
Most of what passes for end times prophesy in the Gospels isn’t in the view of many, including myself, about end times at all. Gospel prophesy is primarily about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Jesus warned the Jews that if they were going to insist on military means to depose the Romans that it would fail, and Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed.
The Bible also tells us that no one will know the hour or the minute so I can’t see that it is profitable to worry about it. Jesus was clear that we should live every day as if it were going to be the last, so whether it actually is or not, should not affect our thoughts or actions.
NJ writes:
The Western world is fickle. Al Qaeda leaders were right when they said America has no heart for an actual war. They get really pepped up but lose heart so quickly when people start dying, as if war never produced casualties.
When the Iraq and Afghan casualities are juxtaposed by Vietnam, WWII, WWI, etc, the net loss is no where comparable. People are forgetting that we're in it for the long road this time. Even if we left Iraq right now, its not going to stop nations like Iran. I don't know how else to say this, but expect darkness before you see the light, for it is always darkest before dawn.
I think that the western world loses heart when it sees young men and women dying when they don’t have faith in the cause for which they are dying. You say that people are forgetting that they are in it for the long haul. It wasn’t sold that way. It is being sold that way now, but it was just the opposite initially.
There is very little connection between Iran and Iraq now, and prior to the war there was virtually none. Don’t forget that it wasn’t very long ago that Iraq and Iran waged a particularly vicious war.
NJ writes:
All that may be. What then would you advise the US to do if you were in charge? We can all argue all day day along about how it was good or bad to have gone in to Iraq. But the plain fact is we are there now and nothing can undue the past.
At the present time though, is it better to leave Iraq immediately, establish a timeline wherein either an objective is met or not, or should the alliance stay in for the long road?
The US and others are now there. An immediate pull out would be a betrayal of the Iraqis as anarchy would reign supreme. If you just say that you are in for the long term then there is no motivation for the Iraqis to become self sufficient. Therefore, in my view timelines have to be established so that there is a clear recognition of the fact that the Iraqi people are going to have to sort things out themselves, even if in the end there is some form of civil war. I am of the opinion that the result will be the same if the troops are pulled out in 2 years or in 10 years.
NJ writes:
Consider your alternative. Did you know that the US was attacked 8 times, without provocation, over the course of 20-25 years? At what point should the US have said enough is enough?!?!
I agree that if Bill Clinton had done something about Al Queda after the African embassy bombings, that just maybe, 9/11 could have been averted. That however has noting to do with Iraq. The problem was the terrorist camps in Afghanistan as well as the international network run from there.
NJ writes:
GDR, do you think the US targets unarmed civilians and hate Iraqi's? Honestly, do you believe that? You do realize that if we wanted to end this war, we could incinerate Iraq in one afternoon. But because we cherish life, we painstakingly ferret through and attack those who attack us, at the expense of our own people, laying down their lives to save others.
I realize that the US does go to great lengths to avoid so called collateral damage. The fact is that it still occurs.
One other thing to consider in this. In war time nations send young men, (and now young women), off to kill amongst other things. Most people have trouble envisioning actually having to kill someone. It has to be rationalized. The normal way of rationalizing the killing is to see the enemy as somehow sub-human. Look at the number of racist terms for the Germans that were bantered around during WW II.
I’m sure that you have looked at the court cases involving the horrendous things done in Iraq by some of the US soldiers. The Brits have had the same experience, and as Canadians we read about a group of our soldiers torturing a young Somali to death. What war does to the hearts of our young people is heart rending. They wind up on foreign soil committing unspeakable acts that they would be absolutely horrified by prior to leaving home. Our leaders better be very sure that their decisions are “just” before we do this to our young people. Death isn’t necessarily the worst thing that can happen in war. War can be soul destroying.
There are many heart warming stories of brave, loving and caring acts done by western forces in Iraq but there does remain the other side of the equation. How many acts of generosity does it take to make up for one rape or one needless Iraqi death? I doubt that the Arabs in the end will ever see the western forces as anything other than occupiers.
NJ writes:
Loving our neighbors is as simple as offering a cold glass of water to a thirsty Iraqi grandmother. Loving our neighbor is praying for salvation of the man you've shot who just tried to kill you. Loving your neighbor is randomly stopping to help a motorist in distress. Loving your neighbor is picking up a prostitute and buying her time to listen to the gospel, rather than using her for her body. Loving your neighbor is stopping barbarism where it grows, so that untold innocent people can live in a free society.
Consider your alternative. Keeping them over there keeps them from being here.
Of course that is correct. The trouble is that I don’t think there is much of that going on that has much of an impact. Praying for a dead soldier is not going to noticed by the family of that dead soldier. Is there one western soldier in Iraq that wouldn’t look at a motorist in distress without wondering if he has a bomb strapped around his waist? The same goes for a prostitute.
I’m also not sure that freedom as we know it in the west is something that will not come easily to a people who haven’t known it in their life time. As far as keeping them over there is concerned, (I not sure who you mean by them), but the Iraqis weren’t a threat to the west anyway. As was pointed out Iraq was a secular country and not aligned with the terrorists.
NJ writes:
Surely you know Canada is not safe. The second your soldiers entered Afghanistan, you became another target. But moreover, the second you don't want to ascribe to their ideology, you became a target. The mere fact that you desire to turn the other cheek makes you a target. Consider your alternative, friend.
Canada wasn’t safe from terrorism whether we are in Afghanistan or not. To be very honest I don’t know have an answer as when turning the other cheek is the right course of action internationally. (Or even personally for that matter.) All I know is that as a Christian and part of God’s kingdom we are called to spread God’s message of truth, love and justice. I believe that there is a place for a military in that but all I can really do is pray for God’s wisdom for our leaders.
NJ writes:
That's because a government is mostly interested in protecting itself. We all know that going in to Iraq is not strictly a humanitarian effort to free untold Iraqi's. That's just a perk. The real goal is stamping out a threat. If we really wanted to save the whole world, we'd perpetually be at war because evil exists all the time.
I can’t see where Iraq was a threat. Afghanistan was so I do see a much better case to be made for Afghanistan than I do for Iraq.
NJ writes:
I should add that I'm not defending or protecting the Iraq war. I think there are great arguments made by both sides. And as you said, there are no easy answers in this game. But I do stand by the just war theory.
I agree that there is such a thing as a just war but we are all subject to subjective views as to what constitutes one. I wish that Iraq did but I can’t see it, and worse still it appears to me that the war has exacerbated the problem it was intended to help solve. In the long term the only way to win the battle against radical Islam is to win the hearts of the moderates first. I’m afraid that our actions in Iraq are making the winning of hearts more difficult.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-31-2007 8:42 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2007 8:16 PM GDR has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 94 (419251)
09-01-2007 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by GDR
08-31-2007 7:53 PM


Re: You have to first changed how people view life
Most of what passes for end times prophesy in the Gospels isn’t in the view of many, including myself, about end times at all. Gospel prophesy is primarily about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
I disagree. I see the timeline looking something to this affect:
TIMELINE:
  • Jesus comes as God in the flesh.
  • Jesus Christ is crucified for the remission of sin.
  • On the third day, the Temple (His body) rose from the dead.
  • Jesus Christ ascended to be with His Father and gave us the Spirit.
  • The physical temple destroyed, per Jesus’ prophecy, in 70 AD.
  • The time of Gentiles and the church-age, from 70 AD to May 14, 1948.
  • Under the Balfour Declaration, Israel was restored in 1948.
  • Approximately 365 prophecies have been fulfilled and are being fulfilled currently. (the increase of travel, knowledge, wickedness abounding, etc).
  • >You are here<
  • The time of the Gentiles comes to an end. So begins the Rapture of the Church.
  • The Anti-christ comes forth to establish a psuedo-peace for 3 years.
  • A covenant is confirmed by the Anti-christ with many aggressive nations; the Tribulation begins, which is the 70th week, described by Daniel.
  • Russia invades Israel; of the world’s population dies.
  • The midst of the Tribulation and the abomination that causes desolation.
  • The mark of the Beast required in order to buy or sell; those who do not accept the mark or worship the Anti-christ will be executed.
  • The kings of the east, China, march to Israel. A third of the remaining world population perishes.
  • The Tribulation ends.
  • The Battle of Armageddon explodes. Jesus returns for His remnant.
  • The judgment of the nations begins.
  • The Millennium: one thousand years of true peace.
  • The King of kings, and Lord of lords, reigns on the earth.
  • The Millennium ends, and a little season of evil passes.
  • The final rebellion.
  • The great white throne judgement.
  • New heaven, new earth, New Jerusalem.
  • Eternity with God for those saved / eternal separation for the unsaved.
Jesus warned the Jews that if they were going to insist on military means to depose the Romans that it would fail, and Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed.
He didn't say that military action would fail. He just prophesied that the Temple would fall.
The Bible also tells us that no one will know the hour or the minute so I can’t see that it is profitable to worry about it.
That's not entirely true. Lets read it:
"learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come."
-Matthew 24:32-42
This means that though will not know the exact date and time, when can still understand the times. All I'm saying is that I believe the times, based on the prophecies, are evident. That in no means that I, nor anyone, has the ability to tell you if it will happen in 60 seconds or 60 years.
I think that the western world loses heart when it sees young men and women dying when they don’t have faith in the cause for which they are dying.
All of the people that have joined the military in the last four years have either re-enlisted or knowingly joined while war was upon them. Therefore, its rather obvious that in many respects they agree with the decision made, even if it means they will not see their families for awhile or might possibly die.
You say that people are forgetting that they are in it for the long haul. It wasn’t sold that way. It is being sold that way now, but it was just the opposite initially.
As far as know, no one in Washington is a prognosticator. If they are dead set on not going to war, they can either not join, not re-enlist after their contractual agreement has been obligated, protest the action and possibly might serve their remaining years in prison, or do what I personally saw one Marine do to get out of his deployment-- shoot himself in the leg so they'd be forced to send him to the hospital rather than to Iraq.
For however much criticism Bush draws over the war, he was at least right about one thing-- its now a coalition of the willing at this point.
The lessons learned from Vietnam by the protestors were: don't blame the troops, blame the politicians. If you are truly against the war, that is 100% okay in my opinion. And I would encourage you to exercise your rights by protesting. I'm not trying to dissuade you. If anything, I'm trying to dispel disinformation of falsehoods which seem to pervade the culture these days-- as if people sitting in their living rooms 4,000 miles away from the conflict have a greater insight than the boots on the ground living it everyday.
There is very little connection between Iran and Iraq now, and prior to the war there was virtually none. Don’t forget that it wasn’t very long ago that Iraq and Iran waged a particularly vicious war.
No, of course. They were fighting an embittered battle with one another only 20-25 years ago. I'm not saying there is a connection between the Iraqi government and the Iranian government. I'm suggesting that arms are being funneled in to Iraq to arm the insurgency in order to fight a war by proxy.
An immediate pull out would be a betrayal of the Iraqis as anarchy would reign supreme. If you just say that you are in for the long term then there is no motivation for the Iraqis to become self sufficient. Therefore, in my view timelines have to be established so that there is a clear recognition of the fact that the Iraqi people are going to have to sort things out themselves, even if in the end there is some form of civil war. I am of the opinion that the result will be the same if the troops are pulled out in 2 years or in 10 years.
Which may very well be. It happened in Vietnam, a war that I see vastly more pointless than the current one, so I suppose it is by no means an impossibility. I agree that a time line should be established in Iraq. And if the Iraqi government doesn't stop holding our hand, I say that we leave them to their own devises after the time expires.
I agree that if Bill Clinton had done something about Al Queda after the African embassy bombings, that just maybe, 9/11 could have been averted.
Yes, I agree. At most he sent a cruise missile in to an asprin factory, and then tucked tail and ran out of Somalia as fast as he could without accomplishing one single objective-- except, perhaps, to have Rangers and Delta Force operators killed.
In his defense though, he, like all of us, forget what the world was like in retrospect. Our world has completely changed since the 9/11 attacks. He couldn't fully comprehend the magnitude of the problem as clearly as we see it today. But nonetheless, he should have been more decisive than he was.
I realize that the US does go to great lengths to avoid so called collateral damage. The fact is that it still occurs.
Its a war. Dead people are the unfortunate outcomes of wars even in spite of the best of intentions. There is nothing glamorous about war, to be sure.
In war time nations send young men, (and now young women), off to kill amongst other things. Most people have trouble envisioning actually having to kill someone. It has to be rationalized. The normal way of rationalizing the killing is to see the enemy as somehow sub-human. Look at the number of racist terms for the Germans that were bantered around during WW II.
Do you think of yourself as incapable of killing someone trying earnestly to kill you? I, myself, have no moral reservations. If an unarmed woman suddenly picked up a weapon and brandished that weapon menacingly, I would kill her. Would I be a puddle of tears after the fact? Yes, I believe I would mourn terribly for her. But I'd still do it. And even after I did it, knowing how I would feel after the fact, I'd still do it again.
I’m sure that you have looked at the court cases involving the horrendous things done in Iraq by some of the US soldiers. The Brits have had the same experience, and as Canadians we read about a group of our soldiers torturing a young Somali to death. What war does to the hearts of our young people is heart rending.
Can you, in good conscience, extrapolate those small, isolated incidents to the entire war effort and all soldiers? I can't. That's like people blaming the US murder rate on me, as if I had anything personally to do with it-- my only crime, being an American, somehow guilty by virtue of birthplace.
With the criminals, such as those you've mentioned, let military justice deal with these people.
The trouble is that I don’t think there is much of that going on that has much of an impact. Praying for a dead soldier is not going to noticed by the family of that dead soldier. Is there one western soldier in Iraq that wouldn’t look at a motorist in distress without wondering if he has a bomb strapped around his waist? The same goes for a prostitute.
Sure, he would probably second guess. I wonder whose fault that is though? Despite this, I know for certain that many have done wonderful things for the innocent, Iraqi people.
I see your plight as somewhat unfair. I cannot view all Romans, who were master torturers and who viciously slain my Saviour, as all bad anymore than I could indict all people of a certain group. Jesus himself was marveled by a Centurian, whom he said had greater faith than anyone else He'd seen in all of Israel.
I’m also not sure that freedom as we know it in the west is something that will not come easily to a people who haven’t known it in their life time.
Yes, agreed. This is precisely what I was meaning when I said that I doubt we can undo thousands of years of societal influence in so few years.
To be very honest I don’t know have an answer as when turning the other cheek is the right course of action internationally. (Or even personally for that matter.) All I know is that as a Christian and part of God’s kingdom we are called to spread God’s message of truth, love and justice. I believe that there is a place for a military in that but all I can really do is pray for God’s wisdom for our leaders.
That's it... That's the golden ticket right there. Somehow we have grown extremely cynical of the power of prayer. I indict myself in this. I do not pray nearly the amount I should, and occasionally during the times that I do, I am sort of half-assing it. This should not be.
I agree that there is such a thing as a just war but we are all subject to subjective views as to what constitutes one. I wish that Iraq did but I can’t see it, and worse still it appears to me that the war has exacerbated the problem it was intended to help solve. In the long term the only way to win the battle against radical Islam is to win the hearts of the moderates first. I’m afraid that our actions in Iraq are making the winning of hearts more difficult.
Amen to what you said about winning the hearts of the moderates. You are so right about that. And I understand how one might see the conflict as exacerbating it. But here's the thing: What in God's name did we do to them before that would compel a rational person to kill innocent victims? What did we do?
I'll tell you what we did. We exist. We don't ascribe to their sick and convoluted ideology. That is enough reason for them to kill us without batting an eyelash. There is no appeasement with people such as this. You can't tiptoe around them in hopes that they'll go away.
Appeasing the crocodile only ensures that you'll be the last one eaten... The point is... You'll be eaten one way or another.

"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." -Leonardo da Vinci

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by GDR, posted 08-31-2007 7:53 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 09-03-2007 4:48 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 66 of 94 (419278)
09-01-2007 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Hyroglyphx
08-31-2007 7:39 AM


Re: You have to first changed how people view life
This is what's innacurate about your statement made in post 48.
We relied on Russia to keep germany busy unitl we could launch a second front. And when we did, it wasn't the second front Stalin wanted.
Had the US not entered the war, Russia would have conquered the European continent.
You state another falsehood:
But you have to remember that the Nazi's were already well inside the UK
What? You'll have to remind me what armies Hitler sent to conquer London. Oh wait, that's right, none were sent. The RAF barely defeated the Luftwaffe and that was because Hitler was jumping to start his campaign against Russia. Had Hitler actually thrown all his might against the UK, there would be no UK. There would be no place for us to launch what's now known as the D-Day invasion.
Russia would control the whole continent if we never entered. Why? The Germans got stopped by the winter. Stalin moved the entirety of the industrial capacity of the USSR to Siberia. The Germans could not destroy the Russian war machine. Instead of controlling the Eastern European countries, Russia would have gained the industrial might of Germany (and France and Italy* and everything else Germany, under Hitler, conquered).
Here's a fun fact for you. How much stronger do you think the USSR would be if they had all of the European continent? What if you add the British Empire (if Hitler had actually thrown his might against Britain and not split his resources and thus conquer the UK)?
If I was the US against a USSR that controlled the continent plus Britain, I would be scared shitless. And the rest of the world would be speaking Russian.
*Italy was not conquered by Germany, but the protection of Italy was under German hands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-31-2007 7:39 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-03-2007 11:39 AM kuresu has replied
 Message 69 by GDR, posted 09-03-2007 4:05 PM kuresu has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 94 (419511)
09-03-2007 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by kuresu
09-01-2007 10:07 PM


Re: You have to first changed how people view life
Had the US not entered the war, Russia would have conquered the European continent.
Perhaps you forgot how Germany was all the way inside Leningrad, as opposed to the Red Army being in Berlin. You act as though the Red Army was so utterly dominant when they weren't. You say in the latter part of your post that the elements played a big role in stopping Germany. That's true. I hardly see how Russia can take credit for the weather. They conquered nothing. At most, they stifled the German onslaught. But that was it.
quote:
But you have to remember that the Nazi's were already well inside the UK
What? You'll have to remind me what armies Hitler sent to conquer London. Oh wait, that's right, none were sent. The RAF barely defeated the Luftwaffe and that was because Hitler was jumping to start his campaign against Russia. Had Hitler actually thrown all his might against the UK, there would be no UK.
That's right, there wouldn't have been an UK. So what are you complaining about? Have you not seen images of London totally shelled out by the Luftwaffe? You disagree with me in one sentence, and then corroborate my claim in the next??? Can you explain your dichotomy?
Russia would control the whole continent if we never entered. Why? The Germans got stopped by the winter. Stalin moved the entirety of the industrial capacity of the USSR to Siberia. The Germans could not destroy the Russian war machine. Instead of controlling the Eastern European countries, Russia would have gained the industrial might of Germany (and France and Italy* and everything else Germany, under Hitler, conquered).
Kuresu, you initially said that we would have been speaking Russian, as opposed to German. Well, Russia's efforts did impact the war, and in essence, won the war. So why aren't we speaking Russian?
Here's a fun fact for you. How much stronger do you think the USSR would be if they had all of the European continent? What if you add the British Empire (if Hitler had actually thrown his might against Britain and not split his resources and thus conquer the UK)?
How would you like me to quantify your "fact," a fact that never happened, in order for me to answer the question? You should have set up your question as an assertion, because that's what it is.

"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." -Leonardo da Vinci

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by kuresu, posted 09-01-2007 10:07 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-03-2007 1:32 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 78 by anglagard, posted 09-03-2007 11:00 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 79 by anglagard, posted 09-04-2007 1:00 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 80 by kuresu, posted 09-04-2007 3:08 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 68 of 94 (419551)
09-03-2007 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Hyroglyphx
09-03-2007 11:39 AM


Re: You have to first changed how people view life
Kuresu, you initially said that we would have been speaking Russian, as opposed to German. Well, Russia's efforts did impact the war, and in essence, won the war. So why aren't we speaking Russian?
because there's more to history than who won the war.
also, i came up with a discrete plan for specific humanitarian and economic solutions and you've yet to respond to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-03-2007 11:39 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-03-2007 4:24 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 69 of 94 (419572)
09-03-2007 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by kuresu
09-01-2007 10:07 PM


Re: You have to first changed how people view life
NJ writes:
TIMELINE:
Jesus comes as God in the flesh.
Jesus Christ is crucified for the remission of sin.
On the third day, the Temple (His body) rose from the dead.
Jesus Christ ascended to be with His Father and gave us the Spirit.
The physical temple destroyed, per Jesus’ prophecy, in 70 AD.
The time of Gentiles and the church-age, from 70 AD to May 14, 1948.
Under the Balfour Declaration, Israel was restored in 1948.
Approximately 365 prophecies have been fulfilled and are being fulfilled currently. (the increase of travel, knowledge, wickedness abounding, etc).
>You are here<
The time of the Gentiles comes to an end. So begins the Rapture of the Church.
The Anti-christ comes forth to establish a psuedo-peace for 3 years.
A covenant is confirmed by the Anti-christ with many aggressive nations; the Tribulation begins, which is the 70th week, described by Daniel.
Russia invades Israel; of the world’s population dies.
The midst of the Tribulation and the abomination that causes desolation.
The mark of the Beast required in order to buy or sell; those who do not accept the mark or worship the Anti-christ will be executed.
The kings of the east, China, march to Israel. A third of the remaining world population perishes.
The Tribulation ends.
The Battle of Armageddon explodes. Jesus returns for His remnant.
The judgment of the nations begins.
The Millennium: one thousand years of true peace.
The King of kings, and Lord of lords, reigns on the earth.
The Millennium ends, and a little season of evil passes.
The final rebellion.
The great white throne judgement.
New heaven, new earth, New Jerusalem.
Eternity with God for those saved / eternal separation for the unsaved.
In my view this timeline of events mixes in a lot of the prophesy concerning the events of Christ establishing His kingdom 2000 years ago, as well as the events of 70AD.
2000 years ago virtually the whole Jewish nation, using their scriptures, were looking for a messiah who would come and lead in battle against the Romans and who would rebuild the Temple. Sure with the benefit of hindsight we can see primarily in Isaiah the prophesies concerning a suffering servant who would be the Messiah. I don't see us doing any better.
There were many would be messiahs who tried to fill this role and simply became failed messiahs when they were executed by the Romans. Incidentally there was one called Judas the Galilean in 6 AD when Jesus was about ten. Actually, in my view, this is very strong historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. When Jesus was crucified all of His followers went back about their business in the same way that the followers did in the case of all other messianic movements. But, then that all changed. Obviously something rather astounding happened and the most logical way of finding out what happened is to listen to what those involved say they witnessed.
At any rate I see the history of God with His people this way.
1/ Creation
2/ Mankind receiving the knowledge of good and evil leading to the fall.
3/ God selecting Abraham and his descendants to be His chosen people to be the recipients of His message of truth, love and justice, and to prepare the way for the coming of the Messiah.
4/ Jesus comes to complete the old covenant, enact the new covenant and establish His kingdom for the whole world.
5/ As His church and part of His kingdom we are to carry and enact God’s message of truth, love and justice to the world, for the whole world.
6/ At this point we differ considerably because I contend that all we really know is that there will be a re-creation of our world, with the Kingdom that Christ established becoming complete. God’s heaven and our Earth will become one, giving us a new creation that is not subject to decay, where Christ will be Lord of all.
What happens between physical death and New Creation is pretty vague in my view but Jesus did tell the thief on the cross that today you will be with me in Paradise, so I assume that as Christians we do go to be with Christ until such time as the New Creation is established.
NJ writes:
He didn't say that military action would fail. He just prophesied that the Temple would fall.
I think that it was clear that the Temple would fall as a result of failed rebellion.
NJ writes:
This means that though will not know the exact date and time, when can still understand the times. All I'm saying is that I believe the times, based on the prophecies, are evident. That in no means that I, nor anyone, has the ability to tell you if it will happen in 60 seconds or 60 years.
Yes, but I believe that this is not about the end of civilization but about the destruction of Jerusalem. Don’t forget the Jesus was talking to a first century Jewish audience and it has to be taken in that context.
GDR writes:
I think that the western world loses heart when it sees young men and women dying when they don’t have faith in the cause for which they are dying.
NJ writes:
All of the people that have joined the military in the last four years have either re-enlisted or knowingly joined while war was upon them. Therefore, its rather obvious that in many respects they agree with the decision made, even if it means they will not see their families for awhile or might possibly die.
I wasn’t talking about the enlisted soldiers. I was talking about the general public, as was the quote that this was in response to. In order for the general public to support a war where they see their sons and daughters dying they need to have confidence in both the rightness of it, as well as some confidence in its eventual success.
NJ writes:
The lessons learned from Vietnam by the protestors were: don't blame the troops, blame the politicians. If you are truly against the war, that is 100% okay in my opinion. And I would encourage you to exercise your rights by protesting. I'm not trying to dissuade you. If anything, I'm trying to dispel disinformation of falsehoods which seem to pervade the culture these days-- as if people sitting in their living rooms 4,000 miles away from the conflict have a greater insight than the boots on the ground living it everyday.
I have never indicated anywhere that I don’t support the troops. As a matter of fact I have a bumper sticker on my car supporting the Canadian troops in Afghanistan. We are all governed by our perceptions whether we are watching the news on TV or in a tent in Iraq. Right now the perception, rightly or wrongly, is that the goals in Iraq aren’t being met and maybe never will be.
That aside, it may just be possible that someone 4000 miles away may have a more accurate perception of the big picture that some soldier who only sees a very small part of the war.
NJ writes:
Do you think of yourself as incapable of killing someone trying earnestly to kill you? I, myself, have no moral reservations. If an unarmed woman suddenly picked up a weapon and brandished that weapon menacingly, I would kill her. Would I be a puddle of tears after the fact? Yes, I believe I would mourn terribly for her. But I'd still do it. And even after I did it, knowing how I would feel after the fact, I'd still do it again.
It isn’t always my life or his. The vast majority of killings in that war are at long range against a barely seen or unseen enemy. My point is only that the killing of another human cannot leave anyone unaffected and scarred to some degree.
NJ writes:
Can you, in good conscience, extrapolate those small, isolated incidents to the entire war effort and all soldiers? I can't. That's like people blaming the US murder rate on me, as if I had anything personally to do with it-- my only crime, being an American, somehow guilty by virtue of birthplace.
I in no way suggested that these isolated horrific events apply to the entire war effort and all soldiers. All I was saying, that the particular soldiers in these events would up doing things that they would never have dreamt of in their own country, and I’m suggesting that this can happen as a result of dehumanizing the enemy.
In the case of one of the Canadians one of the perpetrators wound up attempting suicide and is now a vegetable for life. Look at how the young American soldier broke down over his role in the rape of a 14 year old and the killing of her family in Iraq. I suggest that in his wildest dreams he would never have dreamt of himself doing what he did when he first arrived in Iraq. War damages our young soldiers in ways that we can’t imagine and that is one reason I say that we better be pretty darn certain of what we are doing when we send our young people to war. Once again I realize that it is only a miniscule percentage who commit these acts but I am saying that no one comes back unaffected.
NJ writes:
Sure, he would probably second guess. I wonder whose fault that is though? Despite this, I know for certain that many have done wonderful things for the innocent, Iraqi people.
I completely agree, but it only takes one atrocity to undo the good of hundreds of positive acts in the eyes of the Iraqis.
NJ writes:
I see your plight as somewhat unfair. I cannot view all Romans, who were master torturers and who viciously slain my Saviour, as all bad anymore than I could indict all people of a certain group. Jesus himself was marveled by a Centurian, whom he said had greater faith than anyone else He'd seen in all of Israel.
Amen!
NJ writes:
Amen to what you said about winning the hearts of the moderates. You are so right about that. And I understand how one might see the conflict as exacerbating it. But here's the thing: What in God's name did we do to them before that would compel a rational person to kill innocent victims? What did we do? I'll tell you what we did. We exist. We don't ascribe to their sick and convoluted ideology. That is enough reason for them to kill us without batting an eyelash. There is no appeasement with people such as this. You can't tiptoe around them in hopes that they'll go away.
I agree but I think that we have to qualify it more than that. Who do you mean by they? If you say Muslims then I have a problem. If you mean the Muslim sect that is bent on destroying anyone, (including other Muslims), that doesn’t agree with their views then I do have a problem. Incidentally I know that you hold to the former view, but I was just making the point that we are not to judge all Muslims by the few. In both Canada and Britain terrorist plans were thwarted because of the co-operation of moderate Muslims. If in the west we start alienating the moderates they will be forced to choose and I fear that we will lose the hearts of many of them with the inevitable consequences.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by kuresu, posted 09-01-2007 10:07 PM kuresu has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 94 (419573)
09-03-2007 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by macaroniandcheese
09-03-2007 1:32 PM


Re: You have to first changed how people view life
quote:
Kuresu, you initially said that we would have been speaking Russian, as opposed to German. Well, Russia's efforts did impact the war, and in essence, won the war. So why aren't we speaking Russian?
because there's more to history than who won the war.
I just want to know why he thinks if Russia won the war, which they did, why we aren't speaking Russian as he alleged we would.
also, i came up with a discrete plan for specific humanitarian and economic solutions and you've yet to respond to it.
What didn't I address? Can you give me a link and I 'll be sure to respond?

"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." -Leonardo da Vinci

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-03-2007 1:32 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-03-2007 5:48 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 71 of 94 (419574)
09-03-2007 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2007 8:16 PM


Re: You have to first changed how people view life
That sounds like a fairly typical misreading of the Bible. Although I thought that Russia attacking Israel was out now.
Daniel clearly puts the End Times in the reign of the Seleucid Monarch Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
The Olivet Discourse puts it around 70 AD.
Nothing fails like Biblical prophecy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2007 8:16 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-03-2007 5:50 PM PaulK has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 72 of 94 (419583)
09-03-2007 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Hyroglyphx
09-03-2007 4:24 PM


Re: You have to first changed how people view life

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-03-2007 4:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 73 of 94 (419584)
09-03-2007 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by PaulK
09-03-2007 4:48 PM


Re: You have to first changed how people view life
no, he said china was going to march on israel. but i think that's pretty stupid. of all the people china might have it out for, israel isn't even on the list.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 09-03-2007 4:48 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 09-03-2007 5:54 PM macaroniandcheese has replied
 Message 76 by ringo, posted 09-03-2007 6:40 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 74 of 94 (419587)
09-03-2007 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by macaroniandcheese
09-03-2007 5:50 PM


Re: You have to first changed how people view life
He's got both invading Israel. First Russia, then China.
It's hard to tell which is sillier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-03-2007 5:50 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-03-2007 6:03 PM PaulK has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 75 of 94 (419589)
09-03-2007 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by PaulK
09-03-2007 5:54 PM


Re: You have to first changed how people view life
missed russia. oh well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 09-03-2007 5:54 PM PaulK has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024