by petespal2002 31 Replies latest social current
I think the only way to salve it is for the west to leave them well alone to get on with things without interfering.
That way the only people dying in Iraq would be Iraqis and after all their lives aren't as important, right?
The trick is to choose not become a part of it ? even by speech
That sounds great. But if only one side participates do you think it works. Now I've been called idealistic on this site over cheating husbands but this thought is super idealistic.
Simon,
Diplomacy fails in the rush to war - it was never given a chance. It's been pretty well established that the reasons given for war were bogus and the intelligence invented or seriously suspect / flawed at best. The problem faced in Iraq now is that there is no end in sight - this could go on for years and years like a weeping sore.
You are so correct and if you caught PBS Frontline two weeks ago they explained that it was "Chalabi and his INC cohorts who fed intelligence linking Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda to a special intelligence office at the Pentagon established shortly after Sept. 11." It goes on to say, "The problem, some State Department officials say, is that the information Chalabi was providing was not only suspect, but in some cases had already been discredited by U.S. intelligence agencies."
"In "Truth, War and Consequences," Chalabi is questioned about the intelligence he provided U.S. officials regarding links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. After first insisting that he had "very strong evidence" in the form of documents proving such a link, Chalabi hesitates when asked to produce the documents for FRONTLINE. Despite months of repeated requests from FRONTLINE, Chalabi never showed FRONTLINE the alleged documents. He now says he has the documents, but can't find them."
The main reason given for going to war was that the Iraqi's had WMD that they could launch in 45 minutes. After six months of US occupation, where is the proof? That is why so many other countries did not support the US and are still not supporting them. So after the fact that they are now changing the justification of war seems to some no big deal. If the claims that it was for humanitarian reasons, why then didn't Bush or Blair state that as the main justification before the war? Why was Saddam no big deal for the last 12 years and was even supported by past American administrations? I like many others think it is a travesty that we have put thousands of American and Iraqi lives on the line for what? Faulty intelligence?
Will
Instead of crying about no WMDs or proof, try reading the links to David Kays entire speech about their efforts in seeking them in Iraq, not just the tid bits fed us by the media.
I am amazed that so many responses here indicate partisan feelings, which amazement is probably the result of my coming to the realisation some considerable time ago that mankind as a whole has never EVER dealt satisfactorily with its sad tendency to violence, and I believe will never The ability demonstrably is absent
Sadly, this is true. There are those throughout history that just want more than they are entitled too and they force others to fight to keep what they have. With tyrants, you surrender or fight them, no other choices. Convince them to stop building weapons and attacking others, you may solve the problem.
Of course ? previous to about 200 years ago everything, including war, was very local and therefore very much more personal, (but if you were in a field up the road you might not have even heard it) but the behaviour you advocate certainly did not and still does not ever begin to dissuade armies, nations or factions from making ever more deadly and efficient weapons - in fact it stimulates this very activity as you are now stimulated
You advocate identifying yourself so closely, with who you consider to be the enemy, by your identical behaviour, and to the observer the difference is actually undiscernible
Yes clearly there IS a choice
Jesus advocated surrender
Will you say that your choice is superior to his ?
expressed the usual anxiety and fear that the army is ok for a career and the hope that he would never be involved in any action, and didn?t relish him doing harm to others ? whoever they were
That is pretty much a normal anxiety for parents about their children. Police also don?t want to do harm to others, but many are forced into it, aren?t they? Entering the military believing it is a good career and that you will never be called upon to fight is foolhardy. There is no other need for military than to defend against others.
I read a book, many years ago, investigating what ?defence? really was, which came to the obvious conclusion that no such thing exists or has ever existed
Everything that was ever created, including medical services and gas masks, that might have been considered as having a defensive purpose, simply allows offence to be resumed earlier and more efficiently and is designed specifically to bring that effect about
All people feel they are ?defending? their interests in international conflict (or even inter personal conflicts) and choose to express this ?defence? by attacking whomever they consider their enemy
A Prime Minister of the UK, Lloyd George once said that ? men will only stop warring when they have outlawed war in their own hearts?)
He meant individuals
If you are prepared to kill another human being (for whatever reason ? there CANNOT be a justifiable one) your victim, inescapably, must be viewed as terminally less valuable than your self
What would the alternative be, to just surrender to terror? Do you relish your female loved ones wearing burkhas and facing beheading publicly for wearing makeup? Not be allowed an education or contributing to society in any manner other than having babies to be handed over to dictators for their use? When someone is coming at you shooting and wanting you dead, do you just stand up and give him an easier target? Or, do you shoot back and try to kill him first?
Well - you (and perhaps the rest of the world) must make your choice and I?ll make mine
This comment infers and perhaps asserts that the violent retaliatory (probably nationalistic and politically loaded) behaviour you advocate, contains a satisfactory solution to the horrendous realities you mention, which, of course it doesn?t and never ever has done ? beginning with Cain
Incidentally, you are converting war (or the threat of war, tyranny, oppression and/or despotism etc) into a personal attack on yourself, which it never ever is, although the real threat of damage and/or death is as real
There is no doubt about the extreme depth and intensity of the actual threat to people?s well being, physical or otherwise, that the warring factions of this planet wield
Neither is there the slightest doubt about the progressively worsening character of violence, of all kinds, in the world and also of violent thought and heart attitudes in the individual
If you place yourself nationalistically in this scenario, don?t you have to accept the reality of the possible cessation of your own life?
Realistically, yes. Everyone entering military service and not knowing this is only fooling themselves.
If you get in a boxing ring you are liable to get punched on the nose, and you DO have the choice
Modern military is also voluntary. You do have a choice there too.
Don?t miss the point here please ? You can make this neutral choice ONLY for yourself, not for any group, and clearly in the knowledge that it is NOT going to solve any military, political and/or nationalistic problems (or any for yourself personally either)
The world is simply going to continue on its long embedded catastrophic course with its irresponsible behaviour patterns almost indefinitely
Historical evidence guarantees that the vast majority of members of mankind will ALWAYS choose a retaliatory form of behaviour (in almost any circumstance ? not necessarily just war) and there is NEVER a point where a distinct and continuous choice towards peaceful co-existence is EVER made
It?s my belief that God views everyone (apart from JC) living or dead, as being PRECISELY equal and equally valuable, and so certainly cannot approve of either someone shooting down a helicopter or those within the military helicopter
Considering the scope of his history, mankind is certainly not EVER going to stop this sad activity
Neither of us can speak for God, but I wonder if he views that one bent on destroying others for their own personal gain and so equal? Didn?t he have the ancient Israelites time and again fight and kill many who weren?t peaceful and would not worship him, but worshipped false gods? If he truly wants mankind to actually get along, he could make believe closer to the same and wouldn?t have set the example on how to deal with enemies. Jesus taught peace and love, but wouldn?t coming to the aid of oppressed friends and fighting to free them be an act of love also? Didn?t Jesus state at John 15:13 that no one had a greater love than to lay down his life for a friend? We can?t all be crucified for mankind like he was, but those of us who have the will, can fight for their freedom.
If you know someone extremely well, I feel that it is very reasonable to be able to freely ?speak for them?The nature of your wondering about God?s views infers that you feel your concept of justice is superior to His You might think, along with many other people, that Hitler might already be perfectly condemned by God, and yet Paul?s pre conversion attitude of mind was extremely similar to his in every way If you begin advocating behavioural examples from the Israelite experience with God, you begin to thrust Jesus? sacrifice aside (as the WTS did in their interpretation of the ?law? on blood) As you know, he fulfilled the ?law? and succeeded, by his life course and behaviour, in putting it aside which means it can NEVER be used again in any respect ? except that its central principles always apply, as exemplified by Jesus There is not the slightest indication that God is on ANYBODY?S side at this time Your idea of Jesus coming to his friends aid in a retaliatory fashion, perhaps carrying a rifle, is how people erroneously, using your quote of John 15:13 that ?no one has a greater love than to lay down his life for a friend?, ?see? ?Jesus? in the soldiers who fought in WW2 Surely this is something different ? this is being ready to kill for a friend isn?t it? Do you really believe Jesus would have even contemplated this type of behaviour ?
The trick is to choose not become a part of it ? even by speech
Idealistically, this would be true. But, in reality, it doesn?t work. What part did over 2600 people play on September 11, 2001? What part did possibly millions of Shiites and Kurds play over many years in Iraq? Throughout history, innocent people have been needlessly slaughtered and it was only stopped by men and women standing up to and fighting, to the death, if need be, of those doing the slaughtering. Is it perfect or preferential? I don?t think so. But is it loving? Ask those that were saved and given their lives back and freed from tyranny.
You really surely aren?t now going to attempt to convince me that the latest supposedly significant piece of horrendous violence (to the recipient, all violence is significant, whenever and wherever it is committed) in the history of the world - 9 / 11 - justifies your seeing Jesus in a retaliatory role and advocating this approach to anyone who cares to listen ? are you ?
Are you really trying to advance the ludicrously facile argument that all or any of the retaliation which has ever happened in the entire pitiful history of mankind has actually ?stopped? oppression, tyranny, murderous exploitation etc ? Singing KumBaya and Give Peace a Chance are nice, but they don?t stop tyrants bent on dominating and harming others. What then will you be singing in yours and historically so many others, already failed attempt to wrestle the world into peaceful co-existence ? onwards christian?????? soldiers ?
SORRY - THIS WAS IN REPLY TO DAKOTA RED
(my original first comment)I am amazed that so many responses here indicate partisan feelings, which amazement is probably the result of my coming to the realisation some considerable time ago that mankind as a whole has never EVER dealt satisfactorily with its sad tendency to violence, and I believe will never The ability demonstrably is absent
Sadly, this is true. There are those throughout history that just want more than they are entitled too and they force others to fight to keep what they have. With tyrants, you surrender or fight them, no other choices. Convince them to stop building weapons and attacking others, you may solve the problem.
Of course ? previous to about 200 years ago everything, including war, was very local and therefore very much more personal, (but if you were in a field up the road you might not have even heard it) but the behaviour you advocate certainly did not and still does not ever begin to dissuade armies, nations or factions from making ever more deadly and efficient weapons - in fact it stimulates this very activity as you are now stimulated
You advocate identifying yourself so closely, with who you consider to be the enemy, by your identical behaviour, and to the observer the difference is actually undiscernibleYes clearly there IS a choice
Jesus advocated surrender
Will you say that your choice is superior to his ?
expressed the usual anxiety and fear that the army is ok for a career and the hope that he would never be involved in any action, and didn?t relish him doing harm to others ? whoever they were
That is pretty much a normal anxiety for parents about their children. Police also don?t want to do harm to others, but many are forced into it, aren?t they? Entering the military believing it is a good career and that you will never be called upon to fight is foolhardy. There is no other need for military than to defend against others.
I read a book, many years ago, investigating what ?defence? really was, which came to the obvious conclusion that no such thing exists or has ever existed
Everything that was ever created, including medical services and gas masks, that might have been considered as having a defensive purpose, simply allows offence to be resumed earlier and more efficiently and is designed specifically to bring that effect about
All people feel they are ?defending? their interests in international conflict (or even inter personal conflicts) and choose to express this ?defence? by attacking whomever they consider their enemy
A Prime Minister of the UK, Lloyd George once said that ? men will only stop warring when they have outlawed war in their own hearts?)
He meant individuals
If you are prepared to kill another human being (for whatever reason ? there CANNOT be a justifiable one) your victim, inescapably, must be viewed as terminally less valuable than your self
What would the alternative be, to just surrender to terror? Do you relish your female loved ones wearing burkhas and facing beheading publicly for wearing makeup? Not be allowed an education or contributing to society in any manner other than having babies to be handed over to dictators for their use? When someone is coming at you shooting and wanting you dead, do you just stand up and give him an easier target? Or, do you shoot back and try to kill him first?
Well - you (and perhaps the rest of the world) must make your choice and I?ll make mine
This comment infers and perhaps asserts that the violent retaliatory (probably nationalistic and politically loaded) behaviour you advocate, contains a satisfactory solution to the horrendous realities you mention, which, of course it doesn?t and never ever has done ? beginning with Cain
Incidentally, you are converting war (or the threat of war, tyranny, oppression and/or despotism etc) into a personal attack on yourself, which it never ever is, although the real threat of damage and/or death is as real
There is no doubt about the extreme depth and intensity of the actual threat to people?s well being, physical or otherwise, that the warring factions of this planet wield
Neither is there the slightest doubt about the progressively worsening character of violence, of all kinds, in the world and also of violent thought and heart attitudes in the individual
If you place yourself nationalistically in this scenario, don?t you have to accept the reality of the possible cessation of your own life?
Realistically, yes. Everyone entering military service and not knowing this is only fooling themselves.
If you get in a boxing ring you are liable to get punched on the nose, and you DO have the choice
Modern military is also voluntary. You do have a choice there too.
Don?t miss the point here please ? You can make this neutral choice ONLY for yourself, not for any group, and clearly in the knowledge that it is NOT going to solve any military, political and/or nationalistic problems (or any for yourself personally either)
The world is simply going to continue on its long embedded catastrophic course with its irresponsible behaviour patterns almost indefinitely
Historical evidence guarantees that the vast majority of members of mankind will ALWAYS choose a retaliatory form of behaviour (in almost any circumstance ? not necessarily just war) and there is NEVER a point where a distinct and continuous choice towards peaceful co-existence is EVER made
It?s my belief that God views everyone (apart from JC) living or dead, as being PRECISELY equal and equally valuable, and so certainly cannot approve of either someone shooting down a helicopter or those within the military helicopter
Considering the scope of his history, mankind is certainly not EVER going to stop this sad activity
Neither of us can speak for God, but I wonder if he views that one bent on destroying others for their own personal gain and so equal? Didn?t he have the ancient Israelites time and again fight and kill many who weren?t peaceful and would not worship him, but worshipped false gods? If he truly wants mankind to actually get along, he could make believe closer to the same and wouldn?t have set the example on how to deal with enemies. Jesus taught peace and love, but wouldn?t coming to the aid of oppressed friends and fighting to free them be an act of love also? Didn?t Jesus state at John 15:13 that no one had a greater love than to lay down his life for a friend? We can?t all be crucified for mankind like he was, but those of us who have the will, can fight for their freedom.
If you know someone extremely well, I feel that it is very reasonable to be able to freely ?speak for them?
The nature of your wondering about God?s views infers that you feel your concept of justice is superior to His
You might think, along with many other people, that Hitler might already be perfectly condemned by God, and yet Paul?s pre conversion attitude of mind was extremely similar to his in every way
If you begin advocating behavioural examples from the Israelite experience with God, you begin to thrust Jesus? sacrifice aside (as the WTS did in their interpretation of the ?law? on blood)
As you know, he fulfilled the ?law? and succeeded, by his life course and behaviour, in putting it aside which means it can NEVER be used again in any respect ? except that its central principles always apply, as exemplified by Jesus
There is not the slightest indication that God is on ANYBODY?S side at this time
Your idea of Jesus coming to his friends aid in a retaliatory fashion, perhaps carrying a rifle, is how people erroneously, using your quote of John 15:13 that ?no one has a greater love than to lay down his life for a friend?, ?see? ?Jesus? in the soldiers who fought in WW2
Surely this is something different ? this is being ready to kill for a friend isn?t it?
Do you really believe Jesus would have even contemplated this type of behaviour ?
The trick is to choose not become a part of it ? even by speech
Idealistically, this would be true. But, in reality, it doesn?t work. What part did over 2600 people play on September 11, 2001? What part did possibly millions of Shiites and Kurds play over many years in Iraq? Throughout history, innocent people have been needlessly slaughtered and it was only stopped by men and women standing up to and fighting, to the death, if need be, of those doing the slaughtering. Is it perfect or preferential? I don?t think so. But is it loving? Ask those that were saved and given their lives back and freed from tyranny.
You really surely aren?t now going to attempt to convince me that the latest supposedly significant piece of horrendous violence (to the recipient, all violence is significant, whenever and wherever it is committed) in the history of the world - 9 / 11 - justifies your seeing Jesus in a retaliatory role and advocating this approach to anyone who cares to listen ? are you ?
Are you really trying to advance the ludicrously facile argument that all or any of the retaliation which has ever happened in the entire pitiful history of mankind has actually ?stopped? oppression, tyranny, murderous exploitation etc ? Singing KumBaya and Give Peace a Chance are nice, but they don?t stop tyrants bent on dominating and harming others. What then will you be singing in yours and historically so many others, already failed attempt to wrestle the world into peaceful co-existence ? onwards christian?????? soldiers ?
What a terrible waste of human life. When will mankind stop killing and hurting each other?
I read a book, many years ago, investigating what ?defence? really was, which came to the obvious conclusion that no such thing exists or has ever existed
Oh yes, books telling us what life is like. Sorry, I live in a real world not one some idealistic professor or author thinks should be. You may live anyway you choose. Your freedom to do that and read those books has been bought for you many times over by the blood of many.
A Prime Minister of the UK, Lloyd George once said that ? men will only stop warring when they have outlawed war in their own hearts?
Great thought. Now, when do you convince the Hitlers, Mussolinis, Khdafis, Khomenis, Husseins Stalins and Bin Ladens of the world this is good? Convince all of them and watch how we are able to disarm.
This comment infers and perhaps asserts that the violent retaliatory (probably nationalistic and politically loaded) behaviour you advocate, contains a satisfactory solution to the horrendous realities you mention, which, of course it doesn?t and never ever has done ? beginning with Cain
Your solution is what, give in to them and allow them to have tyrranical rule of everything? Are you prepared to live under a radical Islamic state? Idealism is great in the classroom, but in real life, it costs more lives than even battle does. You wish to make everything safer, force them to follow your thoughts. But, when you try, don't call on those violent probably nationalistic and politically loaded people to save your butt. Just give in and allow them free will over you. See how long you last.
Incidentally, you are converting war (or the threat of war, tyranny, oppression and/or despotism etc) into a personal attack on yourself, which it never ever is, although the real threat of damage and/or death is as real
Why not try to explain this to the survivors of the over 2600 people killed on Sept 11, 2001. After you've convinced all of them, go find survivors of the Shiites and Kurds in Iraq that are buried throughout the country in mass unmarked graves and convince them. You're preaching to the wrong people, convince all of them first. As for personal attack on me, yes it is. That you won't understand that is saddest of all. Whether I knew any of those people or not is immaterial. They didn't deserve to die like that. Incidentally, my son-in-law lost 18 college mates that day. Makes it a little closer to home for my family.
Don?t miss the point here please ? You can make this neutral choice ONLY for yourself, not for any group, and clearly in the knowledge that it is NOT going to solve any military, political and/or nationalistic problems (or any for yourself personally either)
Yes, you can make that choice for yourself, it's easy to do when others willfully go off and put their lives on the line and face death so you have the right to make the choice. They also have a choice and choose to fight for freedom. If so many hadn't over the years, my friend, you wouldn't be free today. The pacifism you seem to embrace sound fantastic, but it really doesn't work. Some estimated 6 million Jews tried that approach in the 1940s and it didn't serve them very well.
If you know someone extremely well, I feel that it is very reasonable to be able to freely ?speak for them?
Funny, radical Muslims also claim to know God extremely well. So well, they can convince children to strap on explosives and detonate themselves in crowded areas. Many white supremacists groups over the years also made claims of just doing as God oredered them to do and lynched others for no other reason than to be born different. Should they all be allowed to freely perform these heinous acts because they also know God "extremely well?"
The nature of your wondering about God?s views infers that you feel your concept of justice is superior to His
Superior? No, just following his example since he seems to allow both sides to exist.
There is not the slightest indication that God is on ANYBODY?S side at this time
Sorry, I don't claim God on my side, just cite the example he left me. Seems to me, it's you claiming to have him on your side, along with the radical Muslims that are slaughtering innocent victims worldwide.
Surely this is something different ? this is being ready to kill for a friend isn?t it?
Different? I see it no different then helping defend a young lady being brutaliuzed by a lowlife scumbag rapist. What is your solution, to walk by and allow an innocent person harm when you can do something to prevent or stop it? What kind of God wishes innocent people harmed and no one to come to their aid? Not any God I wish to have anything to do with.
You really surely aren?t now going to attempt to convince me that the latest supposedly significant piece of horrendous violence (to the recipient, all violence is significant, whenever and wherever it is committed) in the history of the world - 9 / 11 - justifies your seeing Jesus in a retaliatory role and advocating this approach to anyone who cares to listen ? are you ?
What Jesus did or didn't do or may have or may not have done is immaterial. Nor is what you believe, that is your privilege. To me, to stand by and allow others to suffer needlessly and be maimed and slaughtered by the thousands is equal to doing it to them yourself. He is but one man, purportedly perfect, but a man nonetheless. Supposedly, he is the grand priest, but even military chaplains do not take up arms. However, they do realize that at times, others have to so even he may be free to practice what he believes. It is also stated, "live by the sword and die by the sword." Does that only apply to our side and leave the others free to slaughter and maim at will?
Are you really trying to advance the ludicrously facile argument that all or any of the retaliation which has ever happened in the entire pitiful history of mankind has actually ?stopped? oppression, tyranny, murderous exploitation etc ?
You're not marching down mainstreet USA goose-stepping and saying Seig Heil, are you? Where was your God during all that?
What then will you be singing in yours and historically so many others, already failed attempt to wrestle the world into peaceful co-existence ? onwards christian?????? soldiers ?
Not hardly. I was thinking more along the lines of the Ballad of the Green Beret.
You may have difficulty in grasping this, but we do believe in and practice peaceful co-existence here. However, when others don't and are hell bent on harming innocents, there can be no peace. You are preaching to the chorus. May I suggest, again, that you take your message to the Middle East and deliver it to those radicals that are looking forward to receiving their 72 virgins as their reward from God for killing innocent people. They need it much more than the rest of us. Convince them first, then come back and see whether we need to hear it.
I was hoping to get into some really interesting discussions on this site - oh well
Stephen if I tried to argue with Dakota on this subject in the manner which you did I would also tuck my tail in and run for the hills.
Who is feeding who lies? ABC and Yahoo are now reporting that the Iraqis were prepared to negotiate a peaceful resolution days before the war but was turned down. I know you will all draw your own conclusion but it seems like these entire American and Iraqi deaths could have been avoided.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 As American soldiers massed on the Iraqi border in March and diplomats argued about war, an influential adviser to the Pentagon ( news - web sites) received a secret message from a Lebanese-American businessman: Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites ) wanted to make a deal.
Iraqi officials, including the chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, had told the businessman that they wanted Washington to know that Iraq ( news - web sites) no longer had weapons of mass destruction, and they offered to allow American troops and experts to conduct a search. The businessman said in an interview that the Iraqis also offered to hand over a man accused of being involved in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 who was being held in Baghdad. At one point, he said, the Iraqis pledged to hold elections
