Of Christianity and the war in Iraq

Posted by ( Scott Harmon ) on October 09, 2008 at 10:22 pm

To Willow703:

I’m not sure what the crux of your argument is, because it follows many different scenarios and reasons for war and time periods in history that are difficult to compare without thorough analysis.  I was not attempting to debate one war on top of another.  Some of the wars you mentioned were a little more justifiable than others, though barely.  You missed WWI, which was a total fiasco and formed the basis for vile hatreds leading up to WWII.  Wilson should have been hanged for getting us into that one.  WWII may never have occurred had not WWI started—a serious line of debate today.  The Korean War and certainly the Vietnam War were both about containment in the guise of moral obligation and some fearmongering.  Just read about that from some of the engineers of the strategies (Kennan, for one, but Brzezinski talks about it as well).  Both wars were certainly dubious on moral grounds and costs paid (even today), though tactically and strategically arguments can be made for why we ventured in.  The Civil War is one of my favorites, though, for the moral ruse.  Lincoln, in his famous debates, was rather scornful of the “black man” (I forget the term he used), and he scarcely shielded his views about the importance of preserving the Union above all else.  But it was easier to whip up the northern Puritans over the issue of slavery—because Lincoln would be asking a lot of the northerners to die for a cause—easier to make it a moral one.  I think you missed Kosovo, what some like to call Clinton’s War, and that too is fraught with problems.  We have many genocidal actions in that one, but again that’s a shallow reason for more containment,  Wow, I’m running out of wars here, most of them that are forming my point—precisely why the people, who pay with their lives, are more important than the ones who are giving the orders.  The Elites, Globalists, Unilateralists, and unfettered Presidents, driven by some lofty agendas and world-building goals, like to shove the moral causes right down our throats.  It’s a good way to whip up the masses.  Precisely why we SHOULD be questioning everything that they do, in particular, spilling the blood of our sons and daughters for the sake of their parlor games.  A clue about Iraq/Afghanistan can be found in the 20 or so reasons that have been offered, most if not all debunked.  Colin Powell, already sticky with this debacle, recently admitted:  of course, Georgia attacked S. Ossetia.  Some honesty for once—but you won’t hear it from the politicians these days. 

Iraq and Afghanistan are not “just wars” in the religious/moral sense.  I haven’t analyzed the others on this basis.  My argument about that was simply that “moralists” among us argue to preserve an American infant’s life but care little about the mass annihilation of others (strategy and tactics aside).  If you are arguing about the “Taliban” overruling us (I don’t know if you are conflating that with all the Muslims in general), then since the Muslims will comprise a lofty percentage of the world’s population in 50 years, we have several choices:  1)  bomb and maim them and turn most of them against Anglos (kind of what we’re doing now); 2) annihilate them wholesale using nukes (not a good option); 3) create dictators everywhere and hope for the best (like in Egypt); or 4) try something other than warfare to achieve our goals, whatever they are.

If your argument is about the value of “leadership,” then my argument is that we need a lot less “leadership” and more involvement (and responsibility) by the people to solve our problems.  And that does include participation with our failing Congress.  We could certainly do a lot better than the Constiutional scofflaws in office now.  It also means a smaller and less active Federal Govt and more self-reliance at the local levels.  We can’t pretend to hate Big Govt at home and argue for Big Govt intervention overseas.  They’re both the same thing.  We may have to forego Empire and disappoint the Elitist “leadership,” but that won’t be a big loss.  Our fetishes with “leadership” and “good wars” and “noble interventions” have to end, and they will soon, one way or another.  That would be a positive development.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( willow703 ) on October 09, 2008 at 7:35 am

That which is found at catholic.com is no different that what I found at holyoke.edu.
It gives the responsibility & authority for starting & ending a “just war” to governments that the people must “trust”.
The people “trusted” Abraham Lincoln. Had the Confederacy not first fired at Fort Sumter, would the people have considered “just” a war to free a people that most citizens considered less than human?
Had Hitler not attacked France in 1940, would the people of Europe, considered “just” a war to free the people of Austria & Poland & stop the slaughter of Jews & others thought by Hitler (and a great many of the people of Europe) to be subhuman?
Why did the people of the United States feel it was “just” to end the war in Korea at a point when nothing more than the status quo ante had been achieved?
Did the people of the Unites States feel that it was “just” to relegate millions of Koreans to another century of the suffering that they had endured for more than fifty years?
Do the people of the United States feel that it was “just” to relegate millions of Cambodians, Laotians, & Vietnamese to death or enslavement to the brutal system of government favored by the likes of William Ayers, Vladimir Putin, & Hugo Chavez?
Do the people of the United States feel that it is “just” to allow the imposition of Taliban government on the world?
Do the people of the United States feel that the only “just” war for the United States requires a direct attack, by an established government, on the territory of the United States?
If you hear the majority of what is being said & read the majority of what is being written, you must conclude that the answer to all of those questions is, “yes”.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( Sammy B ) on October 08, 2008 at 9:20 am

Phdee, it seems that your “broad observation” is based mostly on religious institutions that make the news. The regular good works of religion are typically too boring to make headlines. My “broad observation” is that the good works of churches, synagogues, mosques, etc tend to be small scale (although “one or two families” is overly cynical) but that is because they are local organizations exemplifying the philosophy of “think globally, act locally.“ When they lobby the government, it is mostly to repeat in some manner their local works on the large scale that the government is capable of handling.
   
    Many will debate over who created religious institutions, but there is no denying that the day-to-day operations are in human hands and are therefore corruptible like any other institution. But to claim that houses of worship are “loaded with hypocrisy” is to allow one’s self to be fooled by the failure of homeless shelters, food banks and clothing drives to make headlines.

    If, after careful reflection, you find that religion has no meaning for you, fine. One can be a good human being without it. And I am sorry if those who use faith for their own self-aggrandizement have made religion seem ugly to you. But please do not assume that all, or even the majority of religious people are like that.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( Sammy B ) on October 07, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Willow, your analysis of WWII is quite correct. Our policy of isolation ignored the existential threat presented by the Axis and the rejection of the SS St. Louis and other refugees was inexcusable. The difference, however, is that Baathist Iraq did not present the same existential threat in 2003. I beg your pardon, but I should have stressed in my last post that there were other ways of removing Saddam. We conducted enough regime changes through subterfuge throughout the latter half of the 20th century to create such a plan for Saddam, but Bush’s drooling over “shock & awe” infected the defense and intelligence communities with myopia.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( scorpio ) on October 07, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Well, Ray, why don’t you write a letter to Osama bin Laden and tell him he was wrong to choose Iraq for the center of the war between terrorists and the western civilization. Or you do not believe in Al Qaeda and that they are trying to do harm either? And what makes you think that Saddam who had killed hundreds of millions before wouldn’t have done it again? Why don’t you talk to a few soldiers instead of watching CNN and hear what they are going to tell you whether Iraqis hate Americans. I know this will surprise you but Saddam has sponsored terrorism around the world too. For example he has given at least 2.8 millions in cash to Yasser Arafat to kill Israelis. Or you do not care about Israel either?

Report Inappropriate Comment