Thursday, January 11, 2007

More Troops in Iraq


More Troops in Iraq, what's everyone think about that?

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's sinful and immoral

Sean McKee said...

How so?

Socialist Christian Hippie said...

Well, for one, Jesus says "Love your enemies". Not "Bomb them back to the 11th century".

Jesus also says "Love thy neighbor". He doesn't add "unless they are muslim".

There's the concept of "Turning the other cheek". There's the concept of "not judging others". Killing them is pretty much an act of judgement.

I'm not the previous poster. I just happen to agree.

Love George Bush, hate the sin. Love the children. Do not forget the pain of the Iraquis, and all of our parts in that pain.

God bless.

Sean McKee said...

There is no question that the Iraq war has turned out to be a bad deal and is not going the way that we (US Gov.) thought it would.

The Iraqi government does not want us to pull our troops till they can “handle it” themselves. I would guess that most of the Iraqi people don't want us to up and pull out for the same reason.

If we are going to talk about this in sinful and immoral terms don't your think that it is sinful and immoral to walk out on the Iraq government that we help start just because it is hard situation?

If you are going to start quoting the bible then what about the Good Samaritan parable? Are we to just leave the injured man laying beside the road because it is an inconvenience to us?

Good or bad we have started something in Iraq. The “sinful” and “immoral” thing is to walk away because it has become difficult and a burden to us. We started this thing and we have a responsibility finish it if possible. As long as the Iraqi government is doing their part (starts doing their part) we must finish the job. If the Iraqi government becomes a hindrance to the mission then that is a different story.

thescoundrel said...

No war ever goes as planned. The North was on the verge of losing our Civil War throughout most of the war. It is not uncommon for Presidents and their generals to have conflict on the method of warfare. Lincoln changed commander of the armies several times before he put Grant in charge. And Grant’s eventual solution to winning the War would have made most of our generation cringe. Despite winning, it was not uncommon for Grant to lose more men in his battles than he killed. And Sherman’s March to the sea was full of killing, looting, pillaging and intentional destruction of private property. Simply kill, steal, scorch and burn tactics. There was no taking it easy on the opponent or their infrastructure as we do in this century. Every major War that we have ever entered into the fight has seen dark and gloomy results. They just get glossed over as time passes and memories fade. The major escalation of the Vietnam War lasted through three presidents and different ways of addressing the conflict, none were overly effective. The one thing that is constant in every war is that the ultimate decisions on how it is managed lies at the feet of the President.

Socialist Christian Hippie said...

The good samaratin didn't go and gun down the people who beat the man, or gun down his neighbors, or anyone else that just happened to be hanging around.

Actually, the good samaratin shows how we should respond: Help those hurt in the conflict. Give them support and refuge. I'm all for that!

Of course, the good samaratin parable was more a slap at the Israelites of the time and about what it means to accept hospitality from the unclean.

God bless. Peace.

Sean McKee said...

The Good Samaritan didn't go and "gun down the people who beat the man" because those people were gone. If he had happen upon the man as the man was in the process of being assaulted and robbed should the good Samaritan stand by till the robbers had finished their business then help the man or should he assist in fending of the robbers?

If you happened upon someone being robbed and assaulted would you stand by patiently till the robbers had finished or would you do everything in your power to fend off the robber from the person being assaulted?

Socialist Christian Hippie said...

Well, this has changed from what is moral/biblical into what I would do.

As I pacifist, I would not intervene in a way that would be physically harmful.

If I thought I could physically restrain the assaulters with little damage, I would do so.

If I felt I could bluff my way through it, I would do that too. (using an unloaded gun, or a starters pistol, say. Again, given the vagueness, it is hard to say).

If I had to hurt/kill said people to get them to stop, I'm sorry, I would back off.

When they came to arrest Jesus, and his followers drew swords, Jesus told them simply "He who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword."

I would hope that no one would intervene violently on my behalf.

Again, this is a biblical/moral stance. Real life is messy, and we are all called to repentance and forgiveness.

I can't judge my own heart. Something might happen to prod me violence.

Morally, I am against it.

Sean McKee said...

Unfortunately passivity does not work in protecting a nation against terrorists. I actually emboldens them. You can not pacify someone who says “off with your head if you do not agree with us”.

Europe tried that with Hitler as he slowly took over the continent. It was not until he was in position to move against Brittan that the English realized that you can not pacify someone who wants to take over the world.

“If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.” (Romans 12:18) Sometimes it is just not possible, especially when you are responsible for others safety, not just your own.

Socialist Christian Hippie said...

Should one strive to live morally? Or should one simply live.

Jesus died rather than rise up against the Romans.

Again and again he calls those who would follow him to sit with their enemies, to love them, to serve them.

"If one is a slave, then be the best slave you can be in the name of Christ" Paul (in one of his letters, no bible handy)

"Do on Earth as it is in Heaven".

Period.

Is there war in heaven?

Where does Jesus justify war?

We are imperfect. There is war.

Yet war should be avoided at all costs.

There were 30000 Iraquis killed just last year. The death toll is well over 100000 now.

Afghanistan's numbers are less well known. Let's say 10000. Probably low.

We lost 3000 on 9/11 and a further 3000 in war. We have returned 10 fold our vegence. Yet it goes on.

Hitler killed 5 million jews? 6 million? 10 million?

World War Two killed 20+ million. Led to the death of 20 more million in Russia. Led to the Korean War, the War in Vietnam, the deaths of millions in China. The deaths of millions in Japan.

Millions died in Asia, and continue to die in Africa. We lift not a finger. Millions will die from global warming. Nothing is done.

WWI led to WWII. WWI led to Iraq today.

How many millions do we condemn fighting onward with war?

How sickened is Christ when his cross is raised above it all?

Sean McKee said...

Christ is sickened by it all. People made in His image rejecting Him every day sickens Him too.

Governments are in place to protect it's peoples. Sometime that means aggression must be stopped. If not by words, then by force.
This Iraq things started years ago. Many word and U.N. resolutions later nothing worked. Now here we are.

The Inside Dope said...

All conservatives are saaaaaying, is give war a chance.......

After all, it's what Jesus would do. (cough)