TO: Defender - Wars, ex-JWs, and stuff

by Amazing 10 Replies latest jw friends

Amazing

Hi Defender:
First and foremost, the silly little Watchtower god they call by the English name Jehovah plans to kill billions of people at their battle of Har-Megeddon. Thier little god supposedly has already killed every human and land animal save Noah and Company about 5,000 years ago. Thier little diety called Jehovah used Israel to go in and take land away from people who lived there hunderds of years ... and then their little divine entity also had Israel go in and kill all the people in the land, including, but not limited to women, children, and even babies. Israeli soldiers under Joshua even ran swords up the vaginas of women of the enemy camp, and killed the babies by cutting off thier heads.
And somehow, as an ex-JW I am now deemed a war-monerging nationalist bent on killing innocent people! That is pure bovine excrement!!! I NEVER SAID SUCH THINGS. Nor did I condone the USA having chemical weapons or even nuclear weapons. However, the USA is in the process of eliminating these. Although it will likely never fully terminate its nuclear stockpile.
Yes, the USA used nukes in WWII. It was something that brought an early end to the war with Japan, and the USA regreted using nukes ... and the USA has not used them again. WWII was far different from what Saddam Hussein has done, or will likely do, as he has proven he will do when he has the means ...
As for killing innocent people. I never once suggested such. I only acknowledged that it does happen... but good nations seek to limit this to zero if possible. Whereas Saddam, Hitler, etc. don't give a hoot and will kill anything in their way. Well planned military strikes can be done with minimal risk to non-combatants ... far better than the little Watchtower Jehovah who kills everyone in sight.
Is war Un-Christian? No. When Cornelius and his household were saved in the Lord, not one word was said about Cornelius being a Roman Army officer (A Centurion) ... and nothing is said about him ever leaving the Roman Army. The point is, war, like police activity is a dirty business ... but necessary at times ... and even the little Watchtower diety said that Caesar serves as His minister to execute with the sword of justice.
My leaving the JWs is irrelevant to now having political views. I had them before I became a JW. I retained them while a JW. And I dare say that 99.9% of the JWs today have secret political views, but they are just not free to express them. I am not for running around starting wars, but there are times when taking action is better than waiting until the bad guys have overwhelmed you.
PS: On my other post, there are comments (not by you) that allege that the USA has started more wars, killed more people, and blah, blah, blah. These comments originate with historical revisionists who do not understand or care about accurate history, and that much of these revised accounts originate with old Marxist propaganda.
Edited by - Amazing on 6 September 2002 22:13:46
larc

Amazing, as you might guess, I agree with everything you are saying. I have read the extensive threads on this subject and only commented once to those who say we should not intervene. My question to the pacifists, is, what should we do in this situation, and what are the implications of what we should do? In my opinion, doing nothing will kill millions in the future.
Brymichmom

Amazing: I totally agree with your post because of the common sense employed. I had political views (secretly) also while I was a JW, and continue to have those same views as an Ex JW.
Sometimes the only way to deal with evil dictators is to have a war. What if no one had fought back against Hitler, where would Europe be today? The U.S. is the one who went in there after WW2 and rebuilt them. I understand that many of the Europeans are pacifist in their views, because they abhor war. They don't want their land torn up again by wars. The thought of war to them still stings even after 60 years or so.
I do believe in "give peace a chance", but I don't think it's realistic when dealing with evil. We can't deny that there is evil out there, whether it be embodied in people like Adolph Hitler or Sadaam Hussein.
Cynthia
Edited by - brymichmom on 6 September 2002 23:27:44
Max Divergent

Hi Amazing - Based on the evidence that's been made public so far and notwithstanding the points you've made, I still have concerns about the authority for any proposed action against Iraq and (presumably) any states that give support to Iraq.
The West has (nearly) always sought to be seen to have the unquestioned high moral ground before taking military action. It's the actions where the proper authority has been doubted that has undermined the West the most (the A-bombs, Vietnam, Grenada).
Conversely, where the West's authority has been undoubted, their authority has been enhanced (WWI, WWII, 92 Gulf War, imposition of the No Fly Zones, East Timor).
In this case, the higher moral ground is ambiguous if the Commanders-in-Chief of the attacking powers act on their own authority given to them only by the people of their own countries at a past election. (Opinion Polls are just so irrelevant on these issues in a Representative Democracy!)
The question here is not of proportional response to hostile action or violation of a UN Resolution (Iraq is already being bombed almost daily under UN authority for violation of the No Fly Zone rules), or selective strikes on weapons plants to which access for inspection has been denied - it's a bloody, pre-emptive first-strike and invasion and prolonged occupation that's being advocated.
In my view, there needs to be proper higher authority, like an unambiguous UN Security Council resolution, for the West to use its military supremacy to invade anywhere. If that authority is granted, then there's a horrible job to go and do against an evil and powerful dictator.
The alternative to proper higher authority IS to wait for an Iraqi attack on the West. If that means waiting for an Iraqi Weapon of Mass Destruction to be launched at or detonated in the city I live in, well obviously thats a horribly bad thing for me and my neighbours, but it's that kind of 'bad thing' that gives just cause for an invasion of a country by the 'Good Guys'.
That's the same kind of clear authority given by Hitler's invasion of Poland, Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, or the September 11 attack that gave authority to the campaign in Afghanistan (but is irrelevant to invading Iraq except for the hawkish mood its put the West in).
As I understand it, Liberal Democracies were not built to withstand being the 'bad guy' or being above attack by their enemies. On that basis I say its bad for the West to invade Iraq without a clear and valid mandate from a higher authority (like from the UN) or in direct response to overt military or proved terrorist action by Iraq.
The West needs moral supremacy as much or more than military might if it's to survive and thrive as the dominant culture in the world. I think were in serious danger of loosing that status.
Cheers
Divergent, Max
Edited to repair punctuation damaged in flight
Edited by - Max Divergent on 7 September 2002 6:36:24
Amazing

Hi Max, Cynthia, & Larc: I appreciate your thoughtful responses. Essentially, the USA already has the moral high ground with Iraq. Saddam has been fighting the weapons inspections since the end of the Gulf war. Its time to end the charade that somehow more inspections requests will be honored or really work. The USA will have extra moral high-ground if President Bush is able to at least give some good evidence that Iraq is connected to the acts of terrorism on the USA, or at least give such evidence to world leaders because of security concerns.
Kingpawn

Max,
In my view, there needs to be proper higher authority, like an unambiguous UN Security Council resolution, for the West to use its military supremacy to invade anywhere. If that authority is granted, then there's a horrible job to go and do against an evil and powerful dictator.
No. You'll never get that from the UN. How many "no" votes would it take to make an endorsement of force by the UNSC "ambiguous?" And would you, for example, advocate the same kind of political lobbying in the UN should Australia face a similar danger?
The alternative to proper higher authority IS to wait for an Iraqi attack on the West. If that means waiting for an Iraqi Weapon of Mass Destruction to be launched at or detonated in the city I live in, well obviously thats a horribly bad thing for me and my neighbours, but it's that kind of 'bad thing' that gives just cause for an invasion of a country by the 'Good Guys'.
Having the moral "high ground" is nice; having all those people who died because we let him draw first blood alive again, or rather who never died because we acted first, is nicer.
At the risk of sounding caustic I'll just say that you being in Australia makes this an easy position to take. Has he made threats against Canberra, Perth, Brisbane, or Syndey?
Pathofthorns

I came across an interesting quote (imo) in today's Toronto star..
Public policy, even if based on reasonable fear, must be examined rationally and weighed not just against possible threat but against the ideals we claim to believe in.
If you can appreciate the essence of the ideals America and the free world claims to live by and uphold, you would appreciate a broader picture and the need to make a clear case for war beyond the belief that someone might attack you first. No one can claim to live by certain ideals and then expect credibility when they abandon them when put to the test.
It would seem Bush has decided to go the route suggested in Max's post and give the UN one more try. I think if this fails then he will have more justification to take care of unfinished business. [url] http://www.msnbc.com/news/804800.asp[/url]
Of course, why he didn't choose this route innitially is beyond me and his inflammatory comments in the meantime haven't exactly helped to win over support. Just because you have military supremacy doesn't mean you can dispense with playing the political games where you need to win over, not just your own country's support but also much of the world's.
Path
gumby

Jehovahs witnesses , when asked about what Christians should do when saddam, or others, threaten us is.....let Jehovah take care of it....trust in him...do not fight.
What do you suppose would happen if this REALLY were the case. The US adopts the witness attitude and says....we will not retaliate.
Let's say saddam attacks us.......would Jehovah step in and save us? What would he do? Would Jehovah guard the U.S. for being faithful and not fighting? If we believe this....then we believe as christendom....that God looks after our nation when we do things his way.
Fact is.....if we didn't fight or protect ourselves.........we would be history.
Amazing....Your attitude about this expresses my feelings also.
Max Divergent

Hi KingPawn - Saddam is of course dangerous and should be challenged. The issue is whether or not the American (and British) people have the authority through their President (and Queen) to remove soverignty from Iraq by invasion and occupation without either a specific UN mandate or actually suffering a military attack from Iraq becuase they are concerned they may come under threat of WMD.
I'll just say that you being in Australia makes this an easy position to take. Has he made threats against Canberra, Perth, Brisbane, or Syndey?
To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any US cities under specific credible threat either.
I have close family who live wthin 150 miles of the Iraqi border. In fact, a ruin 100 meters from their home was finally demolished last week after being hit by a Scud in 1992. This focuses the mind.
No. You'll never get that [mandate] from the UN. How many "no" votes would it take to make an endorsement of force by the UNSC "ambiguous?"
US and UK aircraft bombed Iraq yesterday under authority of fairly unambiguous UN resolutions.
If the West can't convince the UNSC with evidence and political imputus to authorise an invasion and occupation of Iraq, then maybe the evidence and political imputus dosn't really exist. Always good to 'Take a Bex and have a good lie down' before engaging a power presumed to have WMD that has a track record of bombing a nuclear power (the currenty grumpy Israel) when theatened.
And would you, for example, advocate the same kind of political lobbying in the UN should Australia face a similar danger?
Yes. If Australia was actually threatened, I'd damn well expect the support of the UN.
A case in point: When Australian values were threatened by Indonesia's actions in East Timor recently, Australia sought and recieved political and military backing from the UN before the military entered Indonesian territory under UN mandate.
Path put it really well...
No one can claim to live by certain ideals and then expect credibility when they abandon them when put to the test.
If Elder Jones lashed out when threatened, we'd righty critisise him for failing to live up to Christain principle. Likewise, the West must live up to Western principles even when (especially when?) worried about being hurt.
I say, 'Put Iraq under pressure, sure... But don't actually invade or attack without authority and just cause'.
Cheers
Edited by - Max Divergent on 7 September 2002 11:8:48
Granny Linda

Morning, Amazing.
What struck a note with me was your commet regarding revisionist historians "who don't understand or care about accurate history." Are you suggesting (and please, I'm not interested in a flame war, just curious) that anyone who does not swallow the popular party line is disinterested in truth?
Why is it almost criminal too discuss the Myth of Six Million...or question the workings of Zionism? And please, don't try and tell me that there is freedom of speech in the good ol' USA...Too many lives are put in harms way when even suggesting that what we have been taught to believe, might just be a pack of lies in order to further the New World Order agenda.
Personally I have more respect for Revisionist Historians who dare question status quo; I mean, who wants both sides of the story placed in the open for honest investigation and discussion, hey. We might have to change our belief system.
Granny

TO: Defender - Wars, ex-JWs, and stuff

Share this