Friday, August 24, 2007
Sin and Republican finger pointing
The personae of Republicans can be so frightening. On the one hand many of them seem so nice. But there is an evil lurking. The Evangelicals, who make up the bulk of Bush's remaining supporters for the war, seem to view God as a mean to become gods themselves. In their minds it seems heaven is not a place where one can commune spiritually with other kind loving souls, but rather a spot where they can never experience a moment of discomfort because their ideas are called into question. In a sense they are not Christians at all. Heaven is safety and another extension of their ego.I know this seems unrelated to the post, but Warner displays a rare degree of humility in demanding the withdrawal from Iraq. He does something that core Neocons can never do. The psychosis prone behavior that allows an individual to believe that God is there to fulfil one's personal goals allows Neocon Evangelicals the ability to believe the war had a morally sound basis. They can then fling insults about "hating the troops" with a clear conscience.The reason Democrats object to the war relates to their moral views. The war was started on lies or half truths. Iraq never posed a real threat. Deaths, lives ruined, etc... Morality is the basis for our objection to the war.Republicans even love to imply we have poor morals. Perhaps they should view the post in their own eye before searching for the mote in ours. If Republicans were ever forced to understand the moral decrpitude that surrounds the war in Iraq, how the corruption of the war's genesis and indeed how each consequent action there make victory impossible, they would either grow spirtually in a way they never thought they could, or be left profoundly confused. I wonder if judgement day will be like that, when one is forced to see the evil of one's ways in a light never imagined before. I wonder what my profound lack of sight might be. I wonder if I will grow in that moment or be left profoundly confused.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
lequino,
Back on July 25, you wrote the following:
The question remains, however, about whether it is more morally corrupt to abandon the mess we made, or remain and try to make amends for the horrors we have wrought. I must admit as a Christian I am torn. I do feel we need to somehow help the people we've worked so hard to destroy.
Five days after you wrote these insightful words, the New York Times published an op-ed piece by long-time Iraq War critics Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the progressive Brookings Institute entitled A War America Just Might Win
Since then, Senators Warner and Levin returned from Iraq and stated the following: "While we believe that the `surge' is having measurable results, and has provided a degree of `breathing space' for Iraqi politicians to make the political compromises which are essential for a political solution in Iraq, we are not optimistic about the prospects for those compromises."
Shortly thereafter, Congressman Brian Baird (D-WA), who voted against both the war and the surge, returned from Iraq and authored the op-ed Our Troops Deserve More Time.
And just yesterday, Moqtada al Sadr, long-time roadblock to Sunni-Shiite reconciliation, ordered his militia to start a 6-month truce.
In the meantime, the alliance between U.S. forces and Sunni tribal chiefs to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq has turned al Anbar province into a much safer place. Although the federal government is still a mess, provincial and municipal governments are much more stable.
Given these events over the last month, do you think the prospect "to somehow help the people we've worked so hard to destroy" is now better, worse, or about the same?
Let me put it another way: What Would Jesus Do?
That day when evening came, he said to his disciples, "Let us go over to the other side." Leaving the crowd behind, they took him along, just as he was, in the boat. There were also other boats with him. A furious squall came up, and the waves broke over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped. Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, "Teacher, don't you care if we drown?" (Mark 4:35-38)
Did Jesus:
a) Excoriate Himself for instigating this ill-fated voyage;
b) Walk back on the water of the Sea of Galilee to where He started, leaving the disciples to fend for themselves; or
c) Calm the storm, bringing Himself and the disciples safely to the other shore?
There are obvious flaws in this analogy - Jesus knew what He was doing when He suggested this journey (although you couldn't have convinced the disciples in the midst of the storm), and He had absolute power to calm the storm.
Was the War in Iraq well thought out from the beginning? Absolutely not. Were horrible mistakes made all along the way? Absolutely. Do we now have the proper military strategy and sufficient influence over Iraqi politics to resolve the mess we've made? Maybe not. But with storm clouds breaking a bit, don't we owe it to the Iraqis (and ourselves) to at least let the surge run its course?
Your comparison on Dubyah's actions to those of Jesus Christ is sickening. Jesus' actions on the boat were to teach his disciples he could be trusted even in the most difficult of times and did not lead to a single death.
Now listen...
This is a moral issue. The only reason to remain in Iraq is to clean up a horrible mess made by a arrogant leader whose actions can only be described as evil.
Tens of thousands have died...Remember thou shall not kill?
Millions have been driven from their homes.
Come on man you think this is just a matter of some bad decisions?
Saddaam Hussein...no matter how bad he was...never attacked our country...he had nothing to do with 9/11...Bush was told this fact by one of his closest advisors before the war, yet he hid that from the public... He was told the nuclear threat was a load of baloney and he outed the agents who gave him the information.
These FACTS GET II FACTS have been stated over and over again.
There will be no winner in this war...we've already killed too many and believe me...a majority of people around the world see the Bush regime not only as stupid...but downright evil...get it... most people think anyone who still believes the war is morally right are evil...
Is that you Curious...do you think the war is morally right?
If you do...then guess what?
I'm praying we can heal some of the damage we've done, not that we can win... Healing is the only reason to stay...Bush should be reviled as the arrogant stupid man he is.
Winning is just a ridiculous word that cannot wash the blood from our hands... Just because winning might allow us to rewrite history doesn't make anything about this situation morally right.
Curious I know you're a reasonable man, and I apologize for my tone in the previous post.
The war in Iraq leaves me morally outraged. I'm sickened that anyone who loves our country can even begin to defend our position there. Honestly, I think we should be begging the forgiveness of those poor families in Iraq and of the families of our own fallen.
War is just a hateful horrible business, especially a war that has no reasonable purpose.
Jesus' actions on the boat were to teach his disciples he could be trusted even in the most difficult of times and did not lead to a single death.
Had he not acted, there would have been 12 deaths. The disciples asked Jesus, "Don't you care if we drown?" Our question today is this: "Don't we care if Iraq drowns?" Sometimes inaction in the face of danger is immoral, too (remember how many people walked by before the Good Samaritan finally acted).
The only reason to remain in Iraq is to clean up a horrible mess ...
Agreed.
There will be plenty of time for recriminations after we safely reach the other shore.
Which is more immoral: a) to abandon the struggle (especially now that even those on the Left are admitting that we may be able successfully resolve this) and allow Iraq (and with it the rest of the Middle East) to sink into chaos; or b) to continue the surge into next year as originally planned, pacifying more of the country, and at least providing "a degree of 'breathing space' for Iraqi politicians to make the political compromises which are essential for a political solution in Iraq." Can we at least wait until we hear from General Petraus in two weeks, and if he says it can't be done, then we can pull out.
But make no mistake about it, the War in Iraq, though ill-conceived and poorly prosecuted, is part of a larger conflict - a conflict that is as old as Islamic fanaticism itself. In many ways, Baghdad in 2007 is Vienna in 1683. The current phase of this struggle will probably not be resolved in my life time; it took another 16 years after Vienna to resolve that conflict.
Iraq is not the end, no matter what we do.
There will be no winner in this war...we've already killed too many
Over 60 million people died in World War II. Was there a winner in that war? At what point in that war did we kill too many?
(I'm not equating WWII and the Iraq War - just pointing out the relative proportionality. Were those 60 million lives worth the lives of those who were spared the ovens of Auschwitz? A difficult question, to be sure.)
War is hell, but so is genocide. Some things are worth fighting for, others not. Knowing which things and for how long takes great wisdom.
Just to get you straight on a couple of your ideas.
On the notion of genocides. It should be noted that the genocides in Iraq ended many years before the current war. Following the first Gulf War UN sanctions and UN observers assured much greater security, mainly to the Kurdish regions in the north. In addition no fly zones in the northern and southern regions of Iraq provided added security. So, while some atrocious behavior still occured in Iraqi society before the war, the citizenry was much safer than they were after we invaded.
And that my friend is the problem with your entire arguement. We have not made Iraq a safer place than it was before we went in.
I'm sure Bush will drum up a lot a support by telling his constituents about all the advances we've been making with the Petraus surge. But if you check the facts, death tolls are up amongst our soldiers and amongst the citizenry of Iraq. Iraqis have water and power less of the time now than they did before the war. Millions are homeless, something that never occured, even during Saddaam's reign.
Curious I'm beginning to believe everything I've been told about you. You never listen or consider anyone's ideas exept the ones put out by the Republican propaganda machine. I'm sorry if that feels like a personal attack to you, but how can you morally excuse the suffering this war has caused?
You've danced around that question like Nureyev.
Finally another question.
If Saddaam Hussein didn't have anything to do with 9/11 and there were no weapons of mass destruction, how is this war morally justifiable? I'll say it again. We've caused massive suffering for no good reason. That's not a mistake, that's the work of the devil.
By the way if we get a Democratic president in the next election I'm going to remind of the line about how the time for recriminations is later.
If Saddaam Hussein didn't have anything to do with 9/11 and there were no weapons of mass destruction, how is this war morally justifiable?
In 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq.
After the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism.
Iraq both posed a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remained in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, supporting and harboring terrorist organizations [e.g. Salman Pak training facility].
Iraq persisted in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait.
The Saddam regime demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.
Members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, were known to be in Iraq [i.e. Zarqawi was in Iraq receiving medical treatment between 09/11 and the War].
Iraq continued to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threatened the lives and safety of American citizens.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorized the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949.
Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677".
In December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688".
The Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the Saddam regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.
On September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable".
The United States was determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups made clear that it was in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary.
Congress took steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations.
The President and Congress were determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations.
The President had authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40).
It was in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region.
(In case you didn't recognize it, the above are the "Whereas" clauses of the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, tweaked a little to strip out the contemporaneous references to WMD and put in the past tense those statements that were in the present tense in October 2002 when Congress passed it.)
But assuming arguendo that none of these non-WMD reasons were moral justification for the war, three undeniable facts remains:
1) We did go to war;
2) We totally messed up the first four years of said war; and
3) We're still there.
We can't undo the last four and one-half years. So the only question that remains is this:
What do we do now to minimize any future harm?
Having been in my early to mid-twenties when we pulled out of Vietnam and then withdrew our support for the South Vietnamese government, I'm still haunted by visions of re-eduction camps in Vietnam and the Killing Fields of Cambodia. And I think of the Crosby, Stills & Nash song, "Wooden Ships":
Wooden ships on the water very free (and easy);
Easy, you know the way it's supposed to be ...
We are leaving - you don't need us.
When I think of the one million Boat People, fleeing the carnage in wooden ships that were neither free nor easy, I'm convinced that they did need us.
Maybe we can withdraw now, before a stable government is in place, and the damage will be less than if we give the Iraqis until next April to do so. But in light of recent positive events, I believe we should stay until then.
You never listen or consider anyone's ideas exept the ones put out by the Republican propaganda machine.
I don't consider Michael O'Hanlon, Kenneth Pollack, Senator Levin, or Congressman Baird to be part of the "Republican propaganda machine." And by your own admission, Senator Warner, though a Republican, "displays a rare degree of humility." (By the way, he called for the withdrawal of about 5,000 troops for Christmas - that's only a 3% withdrawal - and made it clear that it any timetables for withdrawal should be set by the Presient, not Congress.)
Over the last year or more, I've remained conspicuously silent about the War, waiting until some on the Left began expressing cautious optimism.
Over the last year or more, I've remained conspicuously silent about the War, waiting until some on the Left began expressing cautious optimism.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I had forgotten that I wrote this comment on March 29th of this year.
I guess that makes me a liar.
I've read over your original post noticed something I hadn't commented on before:
[T]he corruption of the war's genesis and indeed ... each consequent action there make[s] victory impossible.
I'm not sure how you would define victory, but at this point, I'd be happy with a secure, stable Iraq capable of defending itself and rebuilding what we helped to destroy.
You seem to think that because this war began on an immoral foundation (and I won't argue with you there), nothing good can come from it. Since this is a blog that attempts to mix religion and politics, I'd refer you to the story of Joseph (Genesis, chapters 37 and 39-50).
Joseph's journey began when his brothers sold him into slavery, and after a series of ups and downs, ended with him saving the very same brothers from famine, along with their father. Joseph summed up the experience as follows:
You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. (Genesis 50:20)
If you think that by resisting any attempt at reconciliation in Iraq you'll somehow punish those who got us in there in the first place, you're hurting not only them, but also the Iraqis (and ultimately the Americans) who had nothing to do with that decision. If you think the Surge won't lead to a secure and stable Iraq, fine; I'll admit I have my doubts, too. Then offer a better solution. But to simply say that victory is impossible seems to say that there is no redemption for the wrongs of the past.
When I started this thread, I was sincerely trying to explore a middle ground between Left and Right. You had previously expressed that as a Christian, you were torn between "abandoning the mess" and "helping the people we've worked so hard to destroy." I offered opinions, not from "Neocon Evangelicals" but from progressives like yourself, expressing cautious optimism that the Surge might be a means to that end.
I appreciate your frustration and anger about how this war has progressed; I'm frustrated and angry as well. But what I don't appreciate is your willingness to accept the characterization of me as never listening or considering anyone's ideas except the ones put out by the Republican propaganda machine.
I would have thought you, of all people, would have known me better than that. By in essence saying that I'm a Republican stooge because I don't agree completely with all of your political opinions, aren't you doing the same thing to me that those "Neocon Evangelicals" do to you - saying you can't be a "real Christian" unless you buy the whole political package?
I started this thread by quoting something you wrote on July 25. That must have been a good day for you. Here's another one of your quotes from the same day:
I don't judge you by what you write here, unless you start hurling insults like some other Republicans I know. So far you seem like an intelligent guy who believes what he believes. Two reasonable people can disagree on an issue, and both can have valid points. I'm not a black and white kind of guy.
I apologize for any insults I might have hurled your way. I hope you haven't given up on this blog altogether; your original concept is a valuable one. Perhaps you're just too busy - it's hard enough for three people to keep a blog moving forward, let alone one.
I just wanted to let you know that I'm willing to resume the debate whenever you are.
The only reason to remain in Iraq is to clean up a horrible mess... 09/02/07
Is this what you had in mind?
Curious I know you're a reasonable man, and I apologize for my tone in the previous post. 09/02/07
Apology accepted.
I wonder what my profound lack of sight might be. I wonder if I will grow in that moment or be left profoundly confused.
Your very profound lack of sight is, reality. You truly are profoundly confused (dare I say ignorant).
I still continue to be amazed that someone so versed, so capable of writing and expressing in writing can be so totally ignorant of the realities of life.Read this www.ivorydome.us/2007/12/10/go-tell-the-spartans You are are a weary failure of your generation. You can not live up to the achievements of your elders. Your writings are an elaborate rationalization of your own cowardice and a way to dull the pain of the resultant self-disgust.
You with all obvious education don't even understand what a neo-con is. A neo is nothing more than a repackaged liberal. You, in different color paper. The 300 were conservatives, not neo's.
If you want to be free, you have to be willing to fight and die to stay that way, just as the Spartans did 480 years before the Christ you so obviously hate. And watch the liberal and neo critics throw their aprons over their faces and run, screaming, “Racist! Fascist!”
I dropped out of school in the 9th grade. I graduated from Vietnam university, and continued to train in all the shooting events from then to to 93.
It's funny how I know more of reality than you. It's funny how if folks like you had been running things blacks would still be slaves, (Lincoln was a Republican and not neo). The Jews would all be dead and you obvious education would have been in German.
When folks like you did get your way (Vietnam) we had the killing fields of Cambodia and the gassing of the Kurds.
Back to the beginning, your profound profound lack of sight is, reality.
That's a capital REALITY
Post a Comment