Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I've got a cool one.

"...ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
(Matthew 5:39)

Okay, well, revenge doesnt exactly constitute a noble and holy cause, does it? Revenge it hat this verse is signifying, not goinginto war and fighting for your rights. I don't have specific scripture, but just look thru the Bible and you'll find several instances of God calling his people into war.

_________________
New Banner Soon...

And that's the part about the Juedo-Christian religions that really bothers me.

Well, Didymus can explain it better than I can. I'm just a humble Christian trying to help the doubters, not a scholar like he is.

_________________
New Banner Soon...

And don't think I'm trying to sway you from your beliefs. I'm just trying to make mine established.

Context, Mike. Study the whole of the Old Testament Law, not just part.

2 Samuel 22:35 – the Lord teaches the king the art of war. Why? So that he might fight for justice and peace (that is what is meant by “breaking of the bow”).

Romans 13:4 – Leaders do not bear the sword in vain. The point (ha ha) is that they are to act for justice, even if it means executing justice through warfare.

In fact, one of the most popular names for God in the OT is YHWH SABAOTH, which roughly translated means, The Lord of Armies (or Hosts, in some older translations). The significance? That God is a warrior who fights for justice.

How about this? Jesus heals the servant of a Roman soldier in Matthew 8:5ff.

The only person to recognize Jesus as the Son of God at the crucifixion? A Roman Soldier (Matthew 27:54).

The first Gentile Christian? A Roman Soldier named Cornelius (Acts 10).

Lesson? God is not altogether opposed to warfare, but those who enter into warfare must do so righteously, not for their own personal gain, even when that personal gain is disguised as “national security.” Theologians and philosophers through the ages have considered what constitutes a just war, and I will, to the best of my ability, list those criteria:

1. There must be a clear aggression against one’s nation or one’s allies. In the case of the First Gulf War, Iraq attacked Kuwait. Regardless of whether they were directly our allies or not, it was necessary that Iraq’s act of aggression be countermanded by force. In the case of the current Iraq situation, the “threat” of WMD’s did not constitute an overt act of aggression.

2. Only appropriate force can be used in retaliation. In the case of the current situation in Iraq, the political maneuverings of Saddam and his officials did not warrant a full-scale invasion on our part. Much less force could have been used appropriately to secure the necessary goal, which was to force Iraq to open its facilities to inspection.

3. The goal of retaliation should always be to secure peace, not to remove leaders or to achieve one’s own political gains. Again, in the case of the current situation, the removal of Saddam was Pres. Bush’s personal political goal. This is an irresponsible use of his power as our president. While in power, Saddam was no real threat; to remove him was not necessary to secure peace in the region.

4. The goal of peace must be obtainable. In the case of Iraq today, this goal is still not obtained. It was unrealistic to start with.

There is one other, but I cannot remember it right now.

But the point is, yes, there is such a thing as a just war. WWII is a perfect example. The modern conflict in Iraq is not. Warfare is not declared inherently wrong. Nor is it declared inherently right, either. Further, there is a distinction between what a leader must do for the safety of his own people or his allies, and what individual Christians are to live their lives as citizens and members of a community. The leader’s responsibility to his people will sometimes require that he fight. It is his duty.

_________________

There you are, Mikes! That should suit you well enough.

_________________
New Banner Soon...

Bush has so many reasons for going to war, stuff like this is just bantha fodder for The Daily Show.

_________________

I figure when he said to love your enemies, he didn't mean kill them.

But that's just my personal belief...

_________________
"CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR AWESOME!!!!"

- Unknown

Let's not forget the Saddam Hussein regime, under which citizens had limited to nonexistent freedom of speech or expression and were liable to be assassinated for saying anything that didn't completely flatter the government. Iraqis were forbidden to leave the country unless they had government connections that could get them a visa. Police officials were strict and tyrannical.

And before you accuse me of speculation, I've been to Iraq in 1999 or so while he was still in power. I know what I'm talking about it, because I have experienced it and have spoken with relatives and friends in the country.

Yes but...

There are many many countries like that, in horrible political and militaristic situations. That logic simply does not account for the war or for his decision. Take, for example, Sudan, Cote d'voir, Iran, North Korea, Somalia, Iran, Syria, Venezuela...all with some sort of governement (or lack thereof) which controls and destroys their populations at will. We use diplomacy, power projection and forward presence of the military to try to change what they are doing. However, from a policital standpoint, Iraq was a target that the entire nation could wrap itself around. Everything seemed so clean about it.

Playing to his base is nothing new, it just so happens to be that the Evangelical right has a more powerful moral voice than that of the mixture of views on the left. Unity is power, and power drives the political world.

That article doesn't seem like a hoax, nor an overstatement, based on statements and sound bites previously said by the president and his most powerful constiuents. What Bush is probably trying to say, but again, doing so ineloquently, is that the Christian thing to do is protect friends and family, and to stop harm from occuring, you must stop those who cause harm ie terrorists. Whatever his political motif may be, we don't know. However, statements like that play well in the Bible Belt, and that's where the Republican Party now gets most of its voice.

_________________

Didymus, InterruptorJones ... do the both of you ever keep a close eye on the actual events of what happened in the invasion of Iraq, and what's happened after?

Even if you were a former military man, Didymus, I have to wonder if you even care to keep a pulse on actions in Iraq, what the U.S. and others have been doing.

Here's some things to consider:

According to reports from the AP as far back as 2003, electricity is ABOVE prewar levels now. German firm Elbe Maschinenbau is going to build three new power plants in Iraq, and three new ones have already been completed in the Anbar region.

The U.S. Army's engineering corps is continuing to improve the power grid in Najaf and elsewhere--eventually, all of Iraq will have access to power, all the time.

Mosul's local dam is being stabilized and repaired, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers having a significant hand in the job--developing a system that will keep the dam stable (it constantly requires injection of grout ever since it was built 20 years ago because it's prone to leakage).

All the schools and universities in Iraq have been open for some time, now. Many are being renovated and modernized, too.

A water purification plant has been built near Kirkuk that benefits the city and many smaller villages (whom have never had access to running water) surrounding it, up to 25,000 people in that area have access to clean, running water now.

Early in July one was built in Sadr City by the U.S. Army. It's the first of a network that will be built, a bunch of small compact water treatment plants that will produce a combined total of 405,000 liters a day.

USAID has helped build two landfills which are built to international environmental standards--the first modern ones Iraq's EVER had. They can handle something like several cubic kilometers of waste per day.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I could go on and research more into the various projects which have been completed for some time or recently completed--and list them along what is being undertaken now.

Given the wording and tone of their posts on this subject, it would seem that Didymus and InterruptorJones would have all of you believe that Bush carpet bombed the country with B-52s, then left the place to rot after getting Saddam's head mounted on the wall of his office in the White House as a "huntin' trophee."

Look, I've argued before in the past thread I linked to that the Iraq invasion is a just war because removing Saddam and promoting a democratic government corrects a mistake former American governments made in aiding Saddam, as well as former CIA actions aiding him to power--the statements that mention just wars include correcting a mistake come from Didymus' own sources, too. I wonder if he recognizes this.

As far as claims that the war is illegal, that comes from claims it violates the U.N. Charter, correct?



If we examine the pretext Bush used to invade Iraq, we find that yes, he decided to act even though the U.N. didn't fully agree, including much of the security council who threatened to veto.

When we look at the past, we see that Ba'athist Iraq did act as if it was hiding WMDs, pushing around inspectors and throwing them out or denying them access to places. Not many objections at the time, from Clinton's administration or the other world governments.

According to Saddam's captured aides, they intentionally did this to keep the United States or a multinational force from trying to invade and overthrow Saddam. Apparently they were good enough to fool even the CIA and MI-5. Ironic, isn't it?

Bear in mind that many U.N. resolutions have been passed from Operation Desert Storm to now. Or, to quote Wikipedia on the last U.N. resolution which Bush used as his fulcrum for justification:



Honestly those serious consequences were overdue. Yet there have been many U.N. resolutions threatening action. It sounds like some angry old man on his porch yelling "One of these days, Alice! One of these days, POW! Right in the kisser!"



You're putting quite a big spin on events there yourself, Didymus. Are you friends with Michael Moore at all?

Bush and the administration were already rhetorically speaking of liberating Iraq and changing the regime before the invasion began, before any evidence of lack of WMDs was found. Note that the operation to invade Iraq was called Iraqi Freedom. They didn't change the operation's name to this after WMDs were found not to exist, Didymus.

No, Didymus, we aren't bombing the country to the stone age. We didn't blow up every city, mass murder the civilians and then deep-fry the stragglers and eat them.

Yes, we did inflict damage to cities and we've accidentally killed innocent civilians (which is a tragedy, I don't deny that at all).

I think it should be noted that a significant amount of infrastructure that was damaged or destroyed suffered this by Saddam's government before it collapsed--in the same vein that Saddam set free all criminals held by the government towards the end of his reign. I also think the fact that the British broadcasted footage of Iraqi soldiers firing on fleeing civilians underscores that.

No Didymus, we did not invite al-Qaida and every other terrorist organization into the country. We're trying to do the OPPOSITE.



I still argue that there has been plenty justification for this war--and yes, Didymus, we do have a moral obligation to repair and restore Iraq ... but not because Bush invaded Iraq.

Instead, it's because past administrations helped him do all this.

_________________

Well, the past administrations, as many people know, dragged their feet in regards to any military action in the Middle East because of the fact of the knowledge that any type of US-backed military operation that would overthrow a regime/goverment would cause quite a stir in the region. Extremists already use the US-Israel alliance as a recruiting objective, and history has shown that the US has backed revolutions, uprisings and governemnt changes, and afterwards only more terror rises. They have history on their side when it comes to US-backed governments, although those without the hedging of the US can easily grown out of control. The real issue at hand isn't the war...that has already proven to be a mistake. The problem now is purely societal and politcal; how do you form a new government in a religious state, how do you bring peace to a war-torn country, how do you fight an idealogical war with bullets? With good leaders.

The problem that often arises is the fact that people like to find the scapegoat, the person to blame, and point their fingers (or in this case guns) at him or her or whomever deemed responsible. Extremists hate Westerners for their culture, for leaving them behind, and for not staying behind (a conflict of interests). Westerners blame the religious leaders, Republicans blame Democrats for lack of action, Democrats blame Republicans for not doing research before action...old news. Anyway, my point is that you can't point to someone who did something wrong in your view, but is deemed right by another person. But we can't point the finger just at Bush or just at Democrats or just at Iraqis.

Trev-MUN, Iraq has progressed significantly, but at what price? Why is it that the world is seemingly bursting at the seems with bad news?
It isn't just Bush or Kennedy or Bill O'Reilly or Michael Moore or political spin...lack of proficient leadership is what is causing most of the strife in the world right now.

Look at the misinterpertation of pre-war intelligence, the "Slam-dunk case," the ignorance of the economic and job situation, the haste with which we left Afghanistan and OBL to focus on Iraq, the lack of forceful action with the Sudanese government, the lack of diplomacy in the Middle East, the unwillingness to fully attack the diseases in Africa, the horrible decision making during the Katrina clean-up.

Instead, our leaders focused on the things they thought they would have an easy time controlling. Steroids in baseball, nudity on television, the Department of Homeland Security, the Ten Commandments outside a courtroom in Alabama, the evils of Saddam Hussein...are those real issues? Do they seriously have such a negative effect on our society that our leaders have to focus on them? Can they not take the time to seriously analyze the world around them?

Leadership has broken down on all levels in the civilian world. The term "ignorance is bliss" comes to mind when I think about Washington. President Bush gave George Tenet an award for his service to the country, immediately after he resigned after fumbling the Iraqi WMD reports. Mike Brown blames other people for the lack of aid to Katrina victims, when an inherent part of leadership is taking responsibility for the outcome of the situation you have control over. Donald Rumsfeld has made many, many tactical and operational mistakes, yet he still has his job? What is going on here? If you mess up at your 9-5, standard cubicle career as bad as our leaders have, you would be ousted immediately.

Why can't we take a step back from our political comfort zones and see that the problem isn't one person, but the entire leadership infrastructure. The US has few good leaders in place, the UN has shown huge gaps in what they say and what they do, the military is strained beyond what you can even comprehend, foreign countries dilly-dally in their own double-speak, and Iraq has not stepped up into its place as a true free government.

What we have here is, failure to communicate, delegate, and make calculated decisions. The only thing I'm sure of is that if one of our leaders screws up again, most likely, the Navy/Marines will be used, because they're the only thing that has shown some consistency in leadership over the past few years.

_________________

...

I like how everyone thinks that just because the media is not focusing on happenings in Afghanistan, that the U.S. pulled every last soldier and government worker out, stopped trying to work with the Afganis, and focused all possible resources on Iraq.

That's not the case, sorry.

Here's what's been going on in Afghanistan:

First off, we're providing financial aid for mine-clearing activities and other humanitarian assistance to Afghans through international organizations. On top of that, we are the largest provider of humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan period (against all other contributors combined, we make up 38% of the pie. The World Bank and European Commission, the next two largest individual groups, offered $200 million or so in aid each, amounting to 8% for both). Total U.S. reconstruction assistance for Afghanistan since 2001 has been 4 billion, including 2 billion in 2004. Another billion's been requested this year.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a significant presence in Afghanistan. Through government programs and the assistance of the engineering corps, they have accomplished things such as the repairing of power plants and repairing the Kandahar-Kajaki Dam ...

Providing roughly $3 million in fuel per month for local urban generators ...

Building and repairing the roadways of Afghanistan (about 1.3 thousand kilometers have been brought to good condition already, including the Kabul-Kandahar highway) ...

Constructing or rebuilding over three hundred schools, producing millions of textbooks through USAID (16 million or so I think), while promoting education (Afghanistan, according to the United Nations, has had the WORST educational system in the world prior to U.S. invasion, and apparently over half of all enrolled students of any age are starting out in first grade-level education) and providing education for teachers ...

Vaccination and medical aid given by Army medics to innumerable villages (according to the military they've vaccinated 4 million children against measles and polio) ...

Assisted in developing of over seven thousand irrigation and farmland projects ...

Currently they are in the process of repairing important bridges and tunnels in the country's netwoork in the midst of all this.

U.S. and coilation forces--a multinational task force of roughly 20 countries--have been providing assistance and aid to Afghanistan even during the most taxing parts of the Iraq invasion.

Work is continuing and they are showing NO signs of stopping just because Bush decided to invade Iraq. They've been going strong for years. New projects to further develop and restore Afghanistan are underway, including forays into improving water treatment and sanitation.

Sure as heck doesn't sound like we "hastily left Afghanistan to focus on Iraq," now does it, DanBo?

Not saying this is what you're doing, but apparently some people take comfort in the concept that Bush carpet bombed Afghanistan, screamed "YOU'RE MINE SADDAM" and threw the weight of the U.S. military on Iraq while completely ignoring Afghanistan, leaving two countries in ruin. This kind of tone was prevalent in that "Bush's Resume" that was passed around in the '04 elections.



Should Iraq become a stable democracy able to stand on its own and not collapse due to the work of insurgents, I think the benefit for Iraqis and the Middle East in general will FAR outweigh the price.

At the same time, the consequences of invading Iraq, as evidenced by the posts here, shows that while I wholly support initiatives to right wrongs (especially those perpetuated by past governments), it is hard to feasibly do in the face of the world.

How many times have people compared Bush to Hitler? Remember when Colin Powell wanted to visit Athens and it caused violent protests, labeling Powell as a 'murderer' and 'barbarian?'

But do people really take a critical eye to the events? Do they even REMEMBER what kind of guy Saddam was?

I'm going to quote a Canadian general who had commented on the 'War on Terrorism' ...

"There are things worth fighting for. There are things worth dying for. There are things worth killing for."

I'm an isolationist at heart, even though I wish we could fix every wrong we've committed during the Cold War in the name of fighting the Soviet Union. The tacts we employed to stop their concept of 'communism' (which was the same that they used to promote its spread) have done much to make our country as a whole seem hypocritical and give boldness to people like Noam Chomsky (ugh).

But I know it's impossible--it took the geopolitical pretext of 9/11 to even allow such a thing to happen in Afghanistan. When the same thing was tried in Iraq, well. The strain on our nation--social, political, economic--shows why even though the world hates us for what we did in the Cold War, they'll hate us for trying to fix it. Darned if you do, darned if you don't.



I'm going to question again whether or not you're just assuming that's all the government does, based on what you watch from CNN or FOX News.

You honestly don't believe the U.S. government is that narrowly focused that it spends absolutely NO time addressing other issues, do you?

_________________

Trev, the snide tone that you have taken makes your arguement, valid or not, hard for people to agree with. Just sayin.

I'll admit, I did generalize the situation in Afghanistan. However,the message I implied was that Afghanistan was not the problem. In fact, I supported and still support the efforts there. However, in lue of the situation in Iraq, attention has been pulled from progress in Afghanistan to the progress in Iraq. That is because of the debacle that is the war in Iraq. For many reasons, we will not be entirely successful there. And that is where our leadership fails, because they assumed too much about the leadership of the terrorists and insurgency.

You clearly show the civilian growth of Afghanistan, yet do you understand the military side of the Afghan. conflict? The fact that many resources have been pulled from Afghanistan, including human resources, is a fact. Most of the work is done by a Joint Task Force of Marines, 10th Mountain Division, the Rangers, a lot of Reserves and for more dangerous missions, SpecOps forces. The fact is we dont need a large force there, like an MEU or something, but we still need to keep the same percentage of people for mission readiness. That means that we are taking away from other places that need these men. The Navy SEALs, the enlisted Army, and Marines, have all lowered their standards to keep the recruitment numbers they need. What that can lead to is a lack of discipline, a lack of knowledge, and eventually, very much like Abu Gharib, a lack of humanity.

Are all military people like that? Heck no! And anyway, I hope not, as I am one of them! Yet like I said earlier, so far the only constant the past few years has been the success and hardwork of the military, and that's why they are stretched so thin. They do so well, they are wanted everywhere. It was a miscalculation by our civilian leaders, despite the warnings of JCS, Army HQ Abu-Dabhi, and NAVCENTCOM, and everyone now depends to much on the military to solve their problems.

On your writings about the insurgency breaking down a stable government, I have to disagree. The insurgency is without a doubt causing the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure. However, even without the insurgency, the country would have a really, really tough time as a stable, democratic country. With the strife they have between religions, it is too easy to say that the country would fall apart, but I'm afraid that the populace might look bad to Cold War era tactics, think of the new leader as "a US puppet" and bad stuff could happen...but you must admit it was foolish for our leaders to think they would welcome us with open arms. A large overstatement. Like you said, darned if you do, darned if you don't.



You said He-whose-name-should-not-be-spoken-of's name! I never mentioned that at all. What I was saying was that our country, as well as many of the countries around us, lacks the proficient leadership capable of sustaining a stable world in the information age. We have idiots running amok! Well, maybe not that bad, but it seems that way sometimes.



That's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that our leadership chooses to focus on every issue at hand, but specifically on the ones which really do not have that much of an impact on our everyday lives. They fight the battles which can be won, and have made bad decisions in the meantime. The leaders we have in the Leg. and Exec. branches are too focused on pleasing the constiuency that it seems they have lost focus on what really matters. Iraq did not matter to us, I am sorry to say. We needed to oust Saddam, no doubt. But it seemed shortsighted to believe that Iraq would fall so easily with such little planning. That's why I believe the article is not a hoax.

Admit it. Our civilian leaders worldwide need a good wakup call. Perhaps Folgers?

_________________

I admit to having a somewhat snarky tone to my posts on this subject, but I am so freaking tired of the same falsities and lies being bandied about that I have a hard time keeping the shortness out of my words. As confirmed by some of my more liberal friends, the concept of the United States having completely abandoned Afghanistan to carpet bomb Iraq and then leave THAT country in ruin seems to be quite popular.



According to reports I read on the subject this is not the case. The remnants of the Taliban and other insurgents in Afghanistan are losing big-time. From what I've heard and read, things in Afghanistan are far more quiet than they are in Iraq.

I have a friend whose cousin is deployed in Afghanistan right now. Through him I can get some first-hand perspectives when my friend gets his computer fixed.

You do realize, however, that despite the strain actions on Afghanistan and Iraq have caused, well ... we're still doing tons of other things in other places? Here's an example. In the Phillipines we are participating in a "Shoulder to Shoulder" military exercise with the Filipino army (I am not sure, but I believe our assistance was requested by the Phillipines), and the Army Corps of Engineers is there too according to pinoy friends I have, rebuilding and renovating places wracked by terrorism.



If there's no rule in place at the HR Wiki forbidding saying his name, then I don't really care. (I've personally never seen one when I consulted the rules ... ) It was a statement concerning the insane amount of villainizing the world and Americans themselves have done of the government, and I do believe that the context of my words absolutely did not imply your specifically doing so.

Also, I should point out that Godwin's Law states that an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. Given that I was not comparing what you were doing to what has been done concerning anti-war movements (again, read the context of my post ... I was discussing the effects of invading Iraq and Afghanistan concerning world opinion), I feel that I didn't break Godwin's Law--I was pointing out instances where Bush was compared to Hitler, but wasn't actively comparing anyone to Hitler.

Like Godwin, who created the meme as an attempt to stem wild overreaching rhetoric on USENET, I am pointing out the lengths some people go to in order to defame Bush and his administration.

I was specifically thinking of an anti-war banner put up in ... I believe it was New York City, with Hitler and Bush side by side, and the respective flags of their countries, with the caption "Same whatsit, different bum!" (of course it was far, FAR more vulgar).



Some do hate us and want us out--others welcomed us with open arms. In the last thread about this that I linked to on the first page, I quoted a Canadian Iraqi who talked about his dismay over the anti-war movement and how many Iraqis really feel. You might want to go look at it.



The Saddam's government and the military supporting it did, however, fall quickly. However, insurgencies are a different question.

I am aware that insurgents are causing damage to the infastructure--however, I was raising the point of Saddam's government, in its last actions before collapsing, did much to throw a monkey wrench into the plans of the U.S. "If I'm going down, I'm going to leave this country ruined!"

_________________