[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics. - Page 96

rextorres · #**951** April 15th, 2003, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
[BUSH] has some faith in God, so he is a pure Christian Fundamentalist? I don't think so.

Yes, W is a Christian Fundamentalist - it's common knowledge. Are you denying it!!?

One of the scary aspects of this is that W's brand of Fundamentalism believes in "the end of days" scenario. Which includes - you guessed it - war in the middle east and a strong Israel.

The funny thing about these "Christians" btw is that they act as far from the way Jesus would as you can imagine. I actually heard one of them try to rationalize the war in Iraq as something Jesus would have done.

[ April 15, 2003, 20:35: Message edited by: rextorres ]

geoschmo · #**952** April 15th, 2003, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
yea rex i believe the anti war people stated their ground on the immense human suffering war would bring and the consequences of the war.

I have been incapacitated for a few days, but I would like to respond to this. If these are the reasons for opposition to the war, then those opposed are truely misguided. I won't stoop to the level of many of you here and try to equate this being wrong with somehow being dishonest about your true intentions. You may sincerely believe these two beliefs require an oppostion to the war, but you are still wrong.

The first point is shown to be obviously wrong by low number of casualties in the war compared to the number of deaths, and horrible atrocities commited by the regime. No, the real aim of the war was not the liberation of the Iraqi people, I don't attempt to claim that. But the horrible human suffering commited everyday by the regime upon it's own people and it's neighbors remove any weight from that particular argument by the anti war crowd.

The second point is not so easily dismissed, as only time will tell the true consequences of the war. And since action was taken we now have no way of knowing the true consequences of failing to act and weigh those against the consequences of taking the action we did.

Much of the anger in the arab world can yet be amiliorated if the rebuilding of Iraq is handled properly and the colaition troops are withdrawn quickly. But there will always be those that hate and seek to demonstrate their hatred in volient ways. Many of these individuals and Groups may in fact commit heinous acts in the future and point to the Iraq war as justification. But this is not a logical argument as the former regime killed and maimed many more muslims then this brief war has, and the regime displaced and killed many more muslims then even the "great evil Isreal."

By saying it's not a logical argument I don't mean it won't be used. However, if those that hate will use a illogical argument to hate, then there us really nothing that can be done to prevent it. If not for the Iraq war they would find some other reason to hate.

Geoschmo

General Woundwort · #**953** April 15th, 2003, 10:01 PM

(popping in to the thread to see what's up...)

Well, it may be heated, but it seems to be losing whatever connection to Iraq it may have once had...

Wardad · #**954** April 15th, 2003, 11:48 PM

Sadam is not dead...

http://www.madbLast.com/view.cfm?typ...h&display=2186

Bomb Sadam...

http://www.madbLast.com/view.cfm?typ...h&display=2183

Smaky that Iraqi

http://www.politicaltoons.com/flash/saddam_smacky.cfm

[ April 15, 2003, 23:01: Message edited by: Wardad ]

Master Belisarius · #**955** April 16th, 2003, 12:04 AM

The human life is cheap, very cheap. And more when we consider the death of people in the context of relations between countries.

I'm old enough, to remember the times when Saddam was the paladin of the western democracies, fighting against the evil Iran. He was the front line of occident against the evil Ayatollah Homeini!
During these times, occident was not worried about the use of chemical weapons against the soldiers or civilians of Iran or against the Kurds... and in fact, Saddam was helped by USA and other western countries.
Also, after the first GW1 occident had the opportunity to demote Saddam, but finally was decided to let him continue, because he was considered the lesser evil... and because this, he was able to kill more Kurds and Shiites and more people of the opposition.
At the end, the people that Saddam killed during more aprox 25 years, was considered by occident as "collateral damage".

Then, why use the argument that Saddam killed more people during his government than this War, when for action or for omission, occident was his accomplice?
I can't accept that the current "collateral damage" was needed to fix the previous "collateral damage".

TerranC · #**956** April 16th, 2003, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Belisarius:
I'm old enough, to remember the times when Saddam was the paladin of the western democracies, fighting against the evil Iran. He was the front line of occident against the evil Ayatollah Homeini!

Are you saying that Saddam should be commendated for invading a neighboring country, killing thousands of people in a war they started and they lost, and putting the world into an Oil shortage just because the guy he was fighting against was "evil"?

I hope you aren't.

raynor · #**957** April 16th, 2003, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rextorres:

quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
[BUSH] has some faith in God, so he is a pure Christian Fundamentalist? I don't think so.

Yes, W is a Christian Fundamentalist - it's common knowledge. Are you denying it!!?

One of the scary aspects of this is that W's brand of Fundamentalism believes in "the end of days" scenario. Which includes - you guessed it - war in the middle east and a strong Israel.

The funny thing about these "Christians" btw is that they act as far from the way Jesus would as you can imagine. I actually heard one of them try to rationalize the war in Iraq as something Jesus would have done.

If we went to war simply to assure a steady supply of oil, then yes, I agree Jesus would have opposed the war. But if we went to war to liberate the Iraqi people from a harsh dictator intent on the perpetuation of evil deeds against his own innocent people, then I think there is ample Biblical support to show that Jesus would have supported the war.

TerranC · #**958** April 16th, 2003, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rextorres:

quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
[BUSH] has some faith in God, so he is a pure Christian Fundamentalist? I don't think so.

Yes, W is a Christian Fundamentalist - it's common knowledge. Are you denying it!!?

One of the scary aspects of this is that W's brand of Fundamentalism believes in "the end of days" scenario. Which includes - you guessed it - war in the middle east and a strong Israel.

The funny thing about these "Christians" btw is that they act as far from the way Jesus would as you can imagine. I actually heard one of them try to rationalize the war in Iraq as something Jesus would have done.

You're confusing Dubya with Ashcroft; he's the one who's a feverent christian.

And how would dividing up Israel make it stronger? Giving birth to a Palestinian nation would seem to be on dubya's to do list; even Shraon himself that Israel would have to give up some Israelite settlements in the west bank.

[ April 16, 2003, 00:13: Message edited by: TerranC ]

MegaTrain · #**959** April 16th, 2003, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rextorres:

quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
[BUSH] has some faith in God, so he is a pure Christian Fundamentalist? I don't think so.

Yes, W is a Christian Fundamentalist - it's common knowledge. Are you denying it!!?

One of the scary aspects of this is that W's brand of Fundamentalism believes in "the end of days" scenario. Which includes - you guessed it - war in the middle east and a strong Israel.

The funny thing about these "Christians" btw is that they act as far from the way Jesus would as you can imagine. I actually heard one of them try to rationalize the war in Iraq as something Jesus would have done.

Bible-believing Christians (that's all "Fundamentalist" means, anyway), don't all agree on every issue, including the use and role of military force or the various "end times" theories.

Sure, there are some out there that can't put forward a rational argument or defend a position with anything more than out-of-context Bible verses or "What would Jesus do" arguments, but just because there are some who defend a position poorly does not mean that the position itself is poor.

And just because there are others who set a horrible example by their behavior, that doesn't mean that all Christians are hypocrites or that Christianity is hogwash. All it means is that the church is made up of (GASP) people too.

Regarding eschatology (end times)--there are very very few who hold that it is our ROLE as Christians to actually BRING ABOUT the Last days by our actions or behaviour. Just because someone has a religious belief that someday the world will end doesn't mean that they are supposed to bring it about.

Regarding war/fighting--I was raised in a church that held to the doctrine of pacifism--that all fighting is immoral, even to defend your own life or family. I had just graduated from high school when the first gulf war broke out, and I actually prepared documents to declare myself a conscientious objector (CO) if a draft was instated.

More recently, however, I have become convinced that war/fighting is not always the greatest evil. The most persuasive argument that led me to this position was: "If good men do not fight evil, then evil will prevail." So there is something actually WORSE than war--and that is to allow an evil dictator like Saddam Hussein to torture his own people.

Now this is a MORAL argument, and doesn't speak to all relevant political issues, but I do believe that this is a major part of the reasoning behind this war. This is surprising to many people from around the world, because there are lots (even in the US) that would say "Good and Evil are such archaic concepts--who are you to say that you are better than another--who are you to decide what is good and what is evil?"

This is a huge issue, and ultimately comes back to fundamental philosophical and religous beliefs (on BOTH sides--"there is no absolute standard of good and evil" is a "faith-based" position as much as "there IS a standard").

There is a lot of good writing and thinking out there on these kinds of issues, and they are not trivial in the least. A man I admire uses a phrase that I'll end with: "Clarity is more important than agreement."

Master Belisarius · #**960** April 16th, 2003, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TerranC:
Are you saying that Saddam should be commendated for invading a neighboring country, killing thousands of people in a war they started and they lost, and putting the world into an Oil shortage just because the guy he was fighting against was "evil"?
I hope you aren't.

I'm saying that occident (USA included), helped Saddam to fight against Iran during the 80's. It's a fact, and if you want my personal view, don't think was good.
I'm saying that at the end of the GW1, he was not demoted, and occident let him to continue with their crimes.
I'm saying that people who died under his bloody rule, died (specially after GW1) because occident was "looking to other place".
I'm saying that to use the argument that Saddam killed more people during his government than this War, when for action or for omission, occident was his "accomplice", is in my view absurd.

Edit: added a few things, and removed the Last phrase, because I don't wanted be aggressive but after read the post again, it looked to me something "violent".

[ April 16, 2003, 01:32: Message edited by: Master Belisarius ]