We Cannot Afford War (by Susan Mark Landis)
"Now, more than ever, America needs our moral witness. We need a surge in troops in the nonviolent army of the Lord. We need a surge in conscience and a surge in activism and a surge in truth-telling for a change." (Rev. Dr. Raphael Warnock, Christian Peace Witness service at the Washington National Cathedral, 3/16/2007)
"Love your enemies" wasn't on any of the valentines I received this year, or on that heart candy so popular in elementary schools. I didn't notice "pray for those who persecute you" either.
Yet across the U.S., Christians are sacrificing their time and money to live these words of Jesus. One movement, Christian Peace Witness for Iraq (CPWI), invites Christians to hold local vigils as long as the war lasts, and to come to Washington, D.C., on March 7 for worship and a public witness.
CPWI gathers Christians because we believe in Jesus and that he has it right—humans cannot bear the cost of war. This year we join with our peace-minded sisters and brothers of other faiths, proclaiming together that we are committed to the way of peace and we stand firmly against war.
Society cannot afford war. For what we spend on just ONE DAY of the Iraq War (approximately $720 million), we could provide:
· 12,478 elementary school teachers, or
· 163,525 people with health care, or
· 6,482 families with homes.
Soldiers cannot afford war. Early reports are that one in six soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, and one in three show symptoms. Increasing numbers of military parents are losing custody of their children following deployments as judges rule their home life is unstable. And the number of American military casualties in Iraq will soon reach 4,000.
Iraqis cannot afford war. In October of 2007, the average home in Baghdad had electricity only six hours a day. Most people lack clean drinking water, which is electrically pumped to residents. We are unable to count the number of Iraqis who have died because of the war; estimates vary from 81,000 to well over 1 million .
The U.S. cannot afford war. No country, especially one that seeks moral standing throughout the world, can afford to make war. As Christians, our hearts are wrenched when our sisters and brothers around the world associate the actions of the U.S. government with Christian beliefs. We at CPWI believe all torture is wrong, because we honor each human being as a child of God. We believe that violence overseas is directly related to the violence in our communities.
Please join us in Washington, D.C., on March 7! We need your help to create an authentically Christian, nonviolent witness to end war and speak the love of Jesus to our communities, our country, and our government. Next year, see if you can fit this on a Valentine: "Enemies: ya just gotta love 'em!"
Susan Mark Landis is the peace advocate for the Mennonite Church USA and a organizer of the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq. + Click to watch a slideshow of past actions
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
In Jim's first post of this series I expressed my hope that we raise strategic vision for a just shalom. As a starting point I would find it helpful for the framers of the dialogue to define the war you are talking about.
It is very hard to get to strategy in regards to a conflict without defining the conflict.
Are you talking about all war--as in "We are against all war and for all peace." And within that saying we are against all forms of conflict aimed at harming another (whether with guns, economic policies, food policies, etc.) or just against armed conflict?
Or are we opposed to any use of the military? Or just use of the US military? Or for US military intervention that would stop Turkey from bombing Kurdistan but not stop terrorists in Kurdistan? Or for us to be present but not use force?
Are we talking about the US intervention in Iraq and not the forces of other countries? Are we talking about UN sanctions on Iraq? Are we talking about the religious, tribal, ethnic, political, socio-economic, historic, geographic conflicts within and without of Iraq? Are we talking about Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Are we talking about the full exercise of American influence throughout the region and the undergirding vision, values, purposes, and policies?
I know Sojo takes these issues very seriously. Please be serious enough to give a defined focus so we might actually address something real.
Otherwise we will pontificate 'til the cows come home' about war, violence, pacifism, etc.
Working strategically for shalom does require defining what we are working on.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 22, 2008 5:58 PM
As Christians, I believe that we must be defined by what Jesus Christ taught us, regardless of what the practice of the world at large defines. The practice of the world at large, takes as a given that some measure of warfare is justified in resolving conflicts.
But according to the Savior, this is sin. His clear teaching in Matthew 5, 6 and 7, however, has been relegated to a kind of purgatory by most of the organised church since the time of Constantine, who mainstreamed Christianity into a secular power religion that supported violence. Constantine himself was never baptised as a Christian. And for all the unChristlike Catholic popes and Protestant "reformers," there sure was a load of compromisin' on the road to our horizon.
Many commentators have remarked that Jesus' teachings are, in the words of J. Vernon McGee, "I must insist, not for us." But just who, then, are Christ's teachings and commands for, if not for Christians?
After many years of prayer, agonising, discussion, reading and practical experience now of the consequences of belief in the "Just War Theory" - which always turns to mean, just the same old war - I have had pressed on my heart the clear direction and heavy burden that Jesus' words and teachings, with due respect to Dr. McGee, are for us.
Therefore, regardless of who sits in the seats of power, or wants their place at the table of power, the Christian is called to exercise uncommon sense instead of common sense. It might mean, and most often will, that a Christian who determines to follow Jesus' teachings won't able to get elected, for it's a given that in many situations, you will be expected to support war and burgeoning militarism - including threatening or in actuality launching nuclear armageddon - in a most unChristlike fashion.
For this reason, and with deep regret, I withdrew from the Southern Baptist conference, precisely because of the example of Jesus being downgraded in the statement of faith and a conservative scriptural stance that can't allow me to explain away Jesus' clear teachings, as the SBC has consistently done of late, especially with their disingenuous invocation of Just War Theory, without ever defining how the criteria were met - and it was not met, even if the falsehoods of 2003 were then believed. Moreover, in retrospect, it was a remarkable act of faithlessness to the Holy Spirit, who will lead us into all truth. Moreover, even the efficacy of war to achieve human rights aims became practically discredited, removing the last illusion about the emperor having any clothes.
More than a year ago, in the midst of the Foley Follies of Republican hypocrisy, where the upholders of family values, including a conservative megachurch pastor, were revealed to have a propensity for underage and same-sex relationships while claiming to be protecting children from the same, a traditional Christian Peace and Justice church, the Amish, suffered a terrible atrocity. Children were murdered in their community schoolhouse by a mad trucker in the throes of torment by who knows what demons. The response of compassion and forgiveness, and the expression of love and forgiveness were an example that stood in contrast to all the hypocrisy and violence justifications by my own church leaders, such as Albert Mohler and his colleague, James Dobson.
With much trepidation, we left the Southern Baptists, whose practices we believe have become increasingly syncretic with the same sorts of deadly secular compromises authored by Constantine and his codependants. We felt called to the theologically conservative but traditionally non-violent Mennonite Church as truer expression of growing in and being nurtured by the faith delivered to us through Jesus Christ.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 22, 2008 7:31 PM
It would seem to me, that if we as Christians are going to seek to affect political outcomes, we should AT LEAST be accurate in what we use to argue the point.
But this article is NOT accurate.
There is more electricity useage and availability in Iraq than before the war. A higher percentage of people have drinkable water, functional sewers and garbage disposal than ever before.
And progress on all those things continues to be made, and will continue... Reversing the decades long decline under Saddam.
And the numbers are very suspect, as well.
Sadly, it appears that politics has now corrupted even so called Christian appeals to conscience. How can you even HOPE to raise the integrity and morality of others, if you're untruthful in trying to influence them?
Posted by: The Watcher | February 22, 2008 8:35 PM
Watcher, please watch what you say.
Nothing you cite has credibility. You need to supply sources and citations, for those claims are in conflict with every credible source and even administration reports.
Calling truth lies, and then spreading lies and calling them truth doesn't serve the cause of Christ.
Even if you try to use the Rahab defense as a Biblical rationale for spreading lies, as has become populat in some Biblicist circles, this kind of obvious propaganda just discredits the ability to take your arguments seriously.
Posted by: N.M Rod | February 23, 2008 2:02 AM
Watch what I say? I'm sorry, I'm standing up for truth here. The author is cherrypicking details to lead people to incorrect conclusions.
I have NO sympathy, no interest, and NO respect for people who do that in the name of God. They anger me, for they slander the name of Christ for political gain.
It galls me to the core to see it. I am not spreading propaganda, the whole blog post WAS propaganda. One sided, unobjective, misleading. And done under the guise of calling for revival. How could they? Have they NO shame at all?
Posted by: The Watcher | February 23, 2008 3:34 AM
Just in case you're wondering what this is all about...
Pre war Baghdad DID have better electricity ... "continuity", because most of Iraq's production was directed to Baghdad and almost everyone else had little or none. Since then, the focus has been to not "starve" the south or west, or out of favor populations. Baghdad has less availability than it used to. But production is up around 40 percent since just before GW2, and is much wider spread than before. As the violence has so dramatically subsided, electricity production and delivery will continue to improve.
source? wide array of compiled news reports over the last few years.
The suplemental budget which funds both Iraq and Afghanistan and a number of related and unrelated items was about 170 billion. This doesn't come anywhere near the stated amounts in the blog post. I wonder why they can't do simple math?
As to the "we can't afford our military", kvetch, let's examine that.
Here's a Wikipedia entry about US military spending for 2007.
The United states spends 3.7% of its GDP on its military, more than France's 2.6% and less than Saudi Arabia's 10%.[9] This is historically low for the United States since it peaked in 1944 at 37.8% of GDP (it reached the lowest point of 3.0% in 1999-2001). Even during the peak of the Vietnam War the percentage reached a high of 9.4% in 1968.[10]
Even with the supplemental budgets of Iraq and Afghanistan, military AND war budgets are ...
right about 5% of the GDP. Not exactly the picture we've been painted, is it?
Source? DOD, wikipedia, other websites for GDP and spending information.
Let's see. It took me under 10 minutes to decidedly debunk a bunch of the post. Seems the author had no time to be bothered with truth... Just "get the message out" and hope it's never checked up on.
Posted by: The Watcher | February 23, 2008 3:59 AM
Watcher--I can hear your argument for truth better if you just choose a couple of the details that you find misleading; follow the writer's links; and then identify the information you believe is more truthful.
As of right now I have the writer's piece, and then you stating how galled you are. That doesn't convince me of anything other than that you are galled. I hear that and that is fine. If you are also clear on the 'truth' issues we might all have more 'light.'
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 23, 2008 6:50 AM
I did just that. I provided information, and it was censored.
Posted by: The Watcher | February 23, 2008 12:17 PM
So, go to wikipedia, search for united states defense budget.
Provided are numbers for the defense budget, supplmental budgets for Iraq and Afghanistan, and the percentage of GDP.
Work out the percentages, the costs.. Understand that the entire defense budget is NOT about Iraq, and that the budget dedicated to that is NOT all about the military (much of it is humanitarian and rebuilding money).
And the numbers come nowhere close to those provided by the original blog entry.
And then there's the argument about electricity in Baghdad. Wow, now there's a winner for you. Saddam kept the lights on in Baghdad, at the expense of just about everywhere else. And he wasn't building new power plants, either. I've followed the issue of power in Iraq, and find that unless you really twist things around, there's more power generated now, and the process of building and rebuilding continues. Much of the domestic terrorism in Iraq has focused on power transmission and generation. Why? So it could be used as propaganda. Why would any Christian let himself be used by terrorists to advance thier cause?
Saddam had his people confiscate the incoming medical supplies and keep them from the people. One can HARDLY blame the tens of thousands of deaths that caused on anyone else.
Should we know the plight of the people in Iraq? Of course. Accurate information is invaluable. But this isn't information to inform. This is information to promote a political agenda - by definition, propaganda - and done in the name of Christianity.
I could overlook without a second thought minor errors. Or incomplete information - it's hard to get information out of Iraq, especially about anything outside Baghdad and about anything GOOD going on - and lots of good is going on. But I have a really, REALLY tough time when it takes me less than 3 minutes with google to demonstrate that the easiest to obtain statistics are woefully wrong, and that one of the major assertions is misleading, and apparently deliberately so.
What's galling is that I'm supposed to be repenting. And the people demanding I do so aren't being truthful. Ouch. What could ANY of us think? It isn't pretty.
Posted by: The Watcher | February 23, 2008 1:05 PM
Watcher aka mark
You seem intent on continuing with insults without facts or substance. Have you been banned already as mark? Shouldn't you politely find somewhere else to fight imaginary evildoers and non objective slanderers?
Posted by: jonabark | February 23, 2008 2:16 PM
Watcher,
NMRod's point is a good one. Landis provides sources for her claims, but you don't. If you want your claims to have validity, then document them.
Posted by: squeaky | February 23, 2008 2:28 PM
I tried. Twice. I provided solid numbers and data and the sources for that. Once was deleted, once was held.
Posted by: The Watcher | February 23, 2008 3:07 PM
Sojourner Truth:
Thank you for your superb assessment of what following Jesus' life and ministry is truly about, and the kinds of introspection and assessments it truly entails.
It is perhaps ironic that the person best-known for truly following Jesus' precepts was not even a Christian. I refer, of course, to Gandhi. More than perhaps any well-known figure in history, he followed as closely as possible (and with little or no hypocrisy) the eleven basic precepts of Jesus' ministry: love, peace, forgiveness, compassion, humility, patience, charity, selflessness, service, justice, truth.
He DID understand that Jesus' comment to "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you..." was meant literally. It was not just some nice words, or a suggestion: it was essentially a COMMAND, from He whom we call our Savior.
Howeer, in answer to LJRD, even taken to its logical conclusion (as Gandhi himself noted), this would not completely preclude a "standing military" of sorts; except that that military would have a somewhat different function and approach to its work. (For more on this, read Gandhi's brilliant treatise, For Pacifists.)
Finally, re Watcher's comment that "There is more electricity usage and availability in Iraq than before the war. A higher percentage of people have drinkable water, functional sewers and garbage disposal than ever before."
I think he is misreading the data. What IS true is that all of those things are at their lowest levels SINCE THE INVASION. However, the levels of those services were FAR greater under Saddam than they have been SINCE the invasion.
Peace.
Posted by: Maani | February 23, 2008 3:46 PM
Shouldn't you politely find somewhere else to fight imaginary evildoers and non objective slanderers?
I fully agree with Jonabark. Maybe Watcher isn't the right nickname. It should be Quixote.
D
Posted by: Don | February 23, 2008 4:01 PM
Watcher, I agree with the others. While I think a diversity of viewpoints is a healthy thing, I really resent that you posted things (electricity, drinking water) that anyone who has been paying attention would know to be false. It was obfuscations and outright lies that got us into this costly war in the first place. And I for one do not believe that you provided citations and they were censored, unless you accompanied them with personal attacks or vulgarities.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.
Posted by: I and I | February 23, 2008 6:42 PM
I and I, and Don Quixote/The Watcher/Mark:
Regarding "censorship" of citations--I haven't tried this myself, but I recall reading others who have tried posting multiple hyperlinks who said that it doesn't work. It isn't censorship, it's just that the Beliefnet system isn't able to accommodate it.
D
Posted by: Don | February 23, 2008 6:56 PM
Don,
I think you are correct--I tried to post a link a couple days ago, and my post was held up and never posted. So that may be the problem with Watcher's comments (I'm not convinced it's Mark yet--there is a flag I haven't seen yet that would tell me it is). (it's kind of odd, though, because I don't remember this being a problem before...)
Watcher--if you have links, try posting them in a way that isn't recognized as a link. As in
www dot hereismydocumentation dot com
Posted by: squeaky | February 23, 2008 7:01 PM
I have asked Watcher 2 times if he is mark. No reply. But after reading the thread on Jim's repentence post I think it is, the style and issues are the same. I don't know what's up here with his status on GP, but if one has a website it is easy to have multiple email addresses.
As far as links squeaky's method is the obvious solution.
Posted by: jonabark | February 23, 2008 7:28 PM
But after reading the thread on Jim's repentence post I think it is
His response to Sojourner Truth on Logan Laituri's "Criminal War" thread pretty much convinced me.
Posted by: The Watcher | February 22, 2008 4:10 AM
D
Posted by: Don | February 23, 2008 7:52 PM
Don,
Hmmm--yes, I see what you mean. Same style of putting words into people's mouth, inability (or stubborn refusal) to understand what someone is saying, jumping to conclusions, etc. I'm pretty sure you are correct.
Posted by: squeaky | February 23, 2008 8:33 PM
You're right, Squeaker, if WatcherMarkCallit was as creative in supplying his alternative info as he is in other areas of his communication, he could easily supply the essence of his "facts" so we could trace them w/o necessarily having to list links.
Posted by: babble on | February 23, 2008 8:58 PM
HA! The mark-Watcher connection has now been confirmed! In his latest posts on the Lenten Call for Repentence thread, he repeatedly and consistently misspells the word "their" as "thier". I, like most others here, suspected it was the same person, but have been waiting for that misspelling to give me 100% proof. It's like the English spy who got caught by the Germans because he was eating with the wrong hand! (or was it a German spy caught by the Brits?)
Posted by: squeaky | February 23, 2008 10:03 PM
Squeaky--Or it's like the case we were working on in an insurance fraud unit related to a woman who had hurt her arm and wore a sling. The physician's documentation noted, "Told patient she was wearing the sling on the wrong arm."
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 23, 2008 11:37 PM
I am against solutions that involve the use of the state, but another use of the money spent on the war in Iraq might have been to move them here.
We have spent enough to offer each man woman and child in Iraq over $16,000 to move here. If they had moved here, they would have to live under our laws, but would not have to worry about an evil dictator.
We ought to advocate this type of solution in Darfur and Burma.
Nathanael Snow
ndsnow@gmail.com
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | February 24, 2008 12:10 AM
he repeatedly and consistently misspells the word "their" as "thier"
You're right! I had noticed that, but rather subliminally. Funny that I didn't take particular note of it, and I'm an editor and all that.
But maybe since most of my students, if they're going to misspell it, will write "there," I didn't pay such close attention.
Thanks, Squeaky.
D
Posted by: Don | February 24, 2008 7:56 AM
Juris--
"but another use of the money spent on the war in Iraq might have been to move them here."
Good point. Of course then you will have the issues of immigration to contend with (I'm being tongue in cheek here).
Letjustice--funny example!
Don--why is the word "misspell" such an easy word to misspell?
Posted by: squeaky | February 24, 2008 11:19 AM
mark--false choice. Isn't it possible we could have effectively dealt with terrorism without going to war and the tens of thousands of deaths that resulted?
Posted by: squeaky | February 24, 2008 11:21 AM
I appreciate Watcher explaining two details in original post that were galling.
Susan Landis cites the daily cost of war at $720 million and provides a link that states the cost is $275 million a day. I don't think she wanted to debate numbers--but when she used them, then they should be applied truthfully.
The CBO places appropriations through mid-2007 at $566 billion (about $370 million per day). Watcher's $170 billion number is apparently supplementals only (for what period?).
Regarding electricity, Ms. Landis only stated electricity in Baghdad at 6 hours per day. She made no allegation as to whether this was more, less, or different than pre-war numbers.
Bad facts and bad, manipulative, arguments (i.e. "I'm galled you would lie to me") are both out-of-place in my book.
Play it straight, folks. There are plenty of interesting facts and legitimate arguments to be made. Listening in love that grows me up is great fun.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 24, 2008 11:57 AM
"HA! The mark-Watcher connection has now been confirmed! In his latest posts on the Lenten Call for Repentence thread, he repeatedly and consistently misspells the word "their" as "thier". I, like most others here, suspected it was the same person, but have been waiting for that misspelling to give me 100% proof. It's like the English spy who got caught by the Germans because he was eating with the wrong hand! (or was it a German spy caught by the Brits?")Posted by: squeaky
Good catch, Squeaky! Giving you your due credit, we will dub the new science that you have employed as - "Squeaky's Troll Forensics"!
Posted by: JamesMartin | February 24, 2008 12:07 PM
"Well, we certainly can't afford to let the Muslim terrorists blow up any more American cities either. America didn't ask for this war. Muslims did. They already attacked New York and Washington. How many more innocent American office workers must die before you wake up and smell the coffee?"
We've drunk the coffee like you've drunk the Kool-Aid. You seem to actually still believe the discredited idea that Iraq was behind 9-11. Poor thing, I can't really blame you if you've been getting all your news from WorldNetDaily and Rush Limbaugh.
Posted by: I and I | February 24, 2008 12:45 PM
Thanks, James! I am honored! Now to get that guest spot on CSI!
Posted by: squeaky | February 24, 2008 1:03 PM
How many more innocent American office workers must die before you wake up and smell the coffee? Posted by: Mark
Hmmm, I wonder, now that Mark has been unmasked, is he going back to his old name? Or is this a different Mark?
I sorta liked The Watcher. But I still think Don Quixote is appropriate, too. Tilting at imaginary "evidoers," as Jonabark said.
Letjustice--funny example!
Lejustice's example reminded me of that character in Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein. You remember, the one with the fake arm which had a stiff elbow that he had to manipulate with his other arm. But sometimes it was the left arm and sometimes it was the right.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 24, 2008 1:26 PM
"It is perhaps ironic that the person best-known for truly following Jesus' precepts was not even a Christian. I refer, of course, to Gandhi."
Jesus' primary precept was to follow him, so it is ironic indeed, but indicative of the manner in which Jesus is perceived by most.
"I think he is misreading the data. What IS true is that all of those things are at their lowest levels SINCE THE INVASION. However, the levels of those services were FAR greater under Saddam than they have been SINCE the invasion."
Electricity production is up, but that doesn't necessarily tell the whole story.
Part of the problem is that the ruling minority class had access to (and control over) infrastructure. Broadening access to, for example, computers created a double-whammy by placing a greater strain on infrastructure at the same time.
Clearly, America dropped the ball there, though it should be noted that the Sunni elite who had access to infrastructure played a strong hand in their own demise by supporting an insurgency (and aligning with Al Qaeda in the process).
Posted by: kevin s, | February 24, 2008 2:12 PM
Isn't it possible we could have effectively dealt with terrorism without going to war and the tens of thousands of deaths that resulted?
Posted by: squeaky
Remember Powell's address to the UN . Not too many people effectively had any kind of way of addressing those points then. Except folks like Obama , and I give him credit and he gets points on judgement from me for it . So what was your point back then , just wonering ?
Many of the folks debating those points against the war were the fringe , and the reasons they used never addresed the issues Powell gave .
But the issue is what do we do now , and indeed that is something that confuses me .
Knowing that information was false ,indeed makes everything different .
Those fringe voices took control of the democratic party once and what caused the republicans to take in the early 90's. You really think Squeaky Americans are self centered and need of repentance because they think their taxes are too high . Or that republicans are basically racist, that politcal advertisements like the one in gerogia depicting republicans if elected may cause LYNCHINGs TO START UP AGAIN .
When people who support these kinds of racist fears to access power gain acknowledgement and special status on blogs like these , self examination perhaps is in order.
So with us knowing that now , saying this war was a terrible mistake is not much more then agreeing with Powell back then .
I give folks like Obama and MCCain much credit , and neither need to repent to God for their support or non support of the policy now in Iraq .
.
I think I will get a bumper sticker that says obama save me from your followers.
Posted by: Mick | February 24, 2008 2:27 PM
How does the Turkish military incursion into Kurdish-dominated northern Iraq change the variables? Easier or harder for the U.S. to withdraw militarily from Iraq?
Posted by: carl copas | February 24, 2008 9:21 PM
Not that I accept Ms. Landis' argument, but it might have more oomph with moderates and conservatives if she mentioned the possibility of tax relief. Accepting her $720 million figure, that works out to $2.40 every day for every man, woman, and child in the US population of 300 million. Over the course of a year you have $3,600 in tax relief for a typical family of four.
Not that anybody would be interested in that...
Yes, I'm back and badder than ever...
Posted by: Wolverine | February 25, 2008 10:51 AM
Uh, Wolverine, since this war is being financed almost entirely through deficit spending, where on God's green earth is anyone going to find the tax relief you are talking about?
If the conservatives who got us into this war had any guts at all, they would be talking about financing the war on a pay-as-you-go basis, rather than racking up huge deficits for our grandchildren to pay off, or (what may be more likely) to tell the creditors [mostly investors who buy gov't bonds] why they can't pay it off. And yeah, if that means raising taxes to pay for this war, then we should have been doing that a long time ago.
But they knew they couldn't get any public support for this military misadventure if they did that. Or if they asked us to sacrifice in any way. This kind of snake-oil salesmanship is precisely the kind of "conservatism" that I can no longer stomach and is the primary reason why I am no longer a part of the "conservative" movement.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 25, 2008 11:39 AM
Welcome back, Wolverine!
:-)
D
Posted by: don | February 25, 2008 11:50 AM
One fairly serous problem with the incredibly high amounts spent on a bloated military, an illegal and massively destructive invasion and occupation of a country that did not attack us and is being fled in the millions is that this is not our money. It is all deficit spending. America is a debtor nation run by billionaires who line their pockets with war profits and oil, coal, pharmaceutical and media scam money, while passing the bill on to our children and their children, and borrowing billions from a country run by the thugs who have risen to the top of the Chinese communist party.
Has anybody noticed we are at the beginning of a massive financial meltdown. All the trickle down theories are shifting the balance of wealth to fewer and fewer hands. How much torture, spying, loansharking,and wars of greed and aggression , how many Katrinas, how much graft and political abuse of the Justice department and of scientific research does it take to convince us that the agenda of the Republican far right has been an unmitigated and overwhelmingly repugnant ethical and practical disaster?
Posted by: jonabark | February 25, 2008 11:54 AM
I think that what is being attacked as "conservatism," morphed into something else along the way. Dr. Jekyll, the reasonable, practical and wholly moral conservative, drank deeply of the potion of Washington's power and money, and became the raging id, a reactionary, elitist, militaristic, domineering, irresponsible, unaccountable, financially irresponsible bete noir.
Don't worry, taxes won't be raised, except in Weimar style. Even Democrats are afraid of Mr. Hyde.
Everything, in the time-honored coward's way of irresponsible government, will be "paid off" on the backs of the responsible through inflation. More like a "kiss-off" to the fiduciary duty owed to the nation, and having made at least financial empire of the rest, the world.
The conservative Jekyll in us all can't control his morally dark doppelganger. The Fed's deep discount window rate is simply the modern equivalent of running U.S. treasury printing presses full bore, 24/7. There was no will to put the brakes on easy money when it's artificially inflated availability was fuelling the debt and price runup in real estate and stocks, and when that could have imposed some reality on the situation.
And there isn't now. Unpleasant medicine and news aren't on the political horizon. Oh, we want change alright - away from the unpleasant and inevitable realities looming. Tell us some more lies, sweet Obama and Sugar Daddy McCain.
But do we want responsibility and accountability, real conservative attributes? Not in the financial realm, we don't. Maybe in theory, for everyone else - the poor? (soon to be us) - but not for own entitled selves.
The id had to rage. Anyone counselling fiduciary caution and reason was screamed at as a "party pooper!" (denying others the American Dream) and Greenspan certainly didn't have the fiscal cojones to do anything other than revel at the "irrational exuberance" as he worshipped "market" dynamics. A market isn't a market, but a casino, when it's mostly greed-driven by exotic permutations of speculation delusions flogged like snake-oil - even when applauded by and colluded with by bankers.
Now we have the fiscal liberal, the loose Keynesian Ben Bernanke, who aghast at the political fallout to the morning after, and all the hung-over partygoers, with the sheriff's bailiff coming down the street foreclosure papers in hand, counsels the hair of the dog that bit everyone. Sign the sheriff's papers, drink deeply again, and party on like there's no tomorrow - until there is.
I'm no liberal. I'll grant liberals good intentions, but anyone who was appalled at what liberalism had morphed into thirty years ago, had to seriously look elsewhere to what an enlightened conservatism had to offer.
Now we survey the looming horizon littered with wreckage we have yet to pass through and it's all too evident that conservatism too has become just another vehicle for the expression of the more banal universal human foibles.
Mr. Hyde is going to have to be hunted down, and Dr. Jekyll can't avoid responsibility.
Morally and financially serious conservatives are going to have to repossess and restructure the currently bankrupt conservative enterprise.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 25, 2008 12:21 PM
"Yes, I'm back and badder than ever..."
Wolverine, welcome back brother!! I look forward to your comments raising my blood pressure. :)
Posted by: carl copas | February 25, 2008 12:25 PM
N.M. Rod, why all the hostility toward Henry Hyde?
:D
Posted by: I and I | February 25, 2008 12:58 PM
Yes, I'm back and badder than ever...
Posted by: Wolverine
welcome back
Posted by: Mick | February 25, 2008 1:26 PM
Perhaps everyone should just ignore Mark/The Watcher/whoever he is. When he posts don't respond. He'll either stop posting or change his style.
Posted by: Eric | February 25, 2008 1:31 PM
Don you could not have been at home in the conservative movement anyway .
The spending when conservatives got power has been their downfall . Most of thee conservatives I know don't consider them selves to be republicans for just some of the reasons you gave . But I would say you use to be a republican , not a conservative .
You don't stop being a Christian because people of our faith don't live up to Christ teachings , well I guess some do stop if their eyes are on man and not God . But you know what I mean I think .
Posted by: Mick | February 25, 2008 1:34 PM
Don you could not have been at home in the conservative movement anyway .
Um, I don't know how you could know that. Isn't this a bit presumptuous?
I was indeed involved in the conservative movement. I swallowed it all at one time. So don't tell me where I could have been at home and where not.
But I'm still registered as a Republican. And I'll likely stay there, because the party, if it wants to survive, will have to abandon "conservatism" sooner or later.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 25, 2008 1:52 PM
Don you could not have been at home in the conservative movement anyway .
Um, I don't know how you could know that. Isn't this a bit presumptuous?
Who me , "0) I guess so . Did not mean to insult , just from your posts you mis represent what conservatism is and believe. , As an example equating run away deficit spending with conservatism . Like all conservatives would disagree with you on that being bad ?
.
"I was indeed involved in the conservative movement. I swallowed it all at one time. So don't tell me where I could have been at home and where not."
I did not know you swallowed a conservative movement ? I look at things from a conservative lens '
Less government , more freedom . opportunity . Conservatism basically has core beliefs that promote positive things . I would say the same is true is with liberalism . I disagree with the philospy of liberalism , not the person or the intent to help people . Remember according to Wallis conservatism is immoral because it does not want to spend to help the children . You aggreed with him did you not ? Anyway disagreement is cool Don , this blog would be much better if the motives of different philosphies were not smeared or swallowed .
Actually why I could not see you being at home in a conservative camp because your posts appear to discredit motives which shows a lack of understanding or a sincere nastiness . You do not appear to be a nasty person to me .
Blaming more spending and blaming making government bigger on conservatism makes no sense at all Don . Conservatism supports less spending , smaller government .
God bless Don ,
Posted by: Mick | February 25, 2008 3:12 PM
The deficit money being spent on the war in Iraq does not appear anywhere in the military budget. It is an unfunded liability on our part, with the Chinese providing the dollars, of which they have a surfeit. The GAO has tried for years without success to get an accounting from the DOD. I suspect chicanery and also a system so broken that people simply do not know where the money has gone.
Posted by: John Zeigler | February 25, 2008 4:14 PM
"That's the problem, isn't it? Conservatives, who supposedly believe in smaller government and fiscal restraint, have become supporters of big, intrusive government and big spending on their pet causes "
The libertarian wing of the party shares this sentiment, but when typical conservatives use the term "limited government", they mean that government should generally be devoted to the protection of it's citizens. Expenditures to that end, therefore, are entirely acceptable within conservative ideology.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 25, 2008 4:27 PM
"That's the problem, isn't it? Conservatives, who supposedly believe in smaller government and fiscal restraint, have become supporters of big, intrusive government and big spending on their pet causes
That is the problem Don with DC / I guess the language barrier we have is what is really happening . You using the conservatives in DC as the scapegoat .I don't see thm as conservatives .A few yes , but not the majority or the corporate controlled . They may play to conservatives to gain power . Sort of like Bill Clinton supporting womens rights , maybe he sees it as important , but down deep he has little respect for women . I don't identify DC republicans , especially Bush with conservatives.
Tax cut but make government bigger ? Not conservative at all .
"But this is what is still popularly identified as conservatism and Republicanism both, thanks to the identification of George W. Bush with conservatism. Right or wrong. But even though this isn't conservatism in its historical sense, this is where the conservative movement has taken us. You can't deny that."
Why would I deny it ? You stated it correctly , Bush is not following conservative principles.
Times have changed , and conservatism has not adaped to the change in my opinion . But conservatism has still played a role in the public debate . We no longer will even consider a tax hike for the middle class , not too long ago that was not off the table . Bush 1 and 2 have used Conservatism to gain power, but have shared little of the core beliefs there of . Geroge W because of Conservatives was given a House and Senate majorities . I totally agree that they betrayed that trust . But I don't blame conservatism for that . But it is kind of interesting that under Bush spending on public education has DOUBLED , aid to Afria has got off the map , and he gets the left more angry then Reagan did . I don't hate Bush and believe he is a drunken liar , evil and racist . I just think he was a medicre president . Who made one lousy decision with Iraq. Who knows history may prove him right , we most likely will both think he was wrong , but the hatred he has received and the religious hatred seen in some of the protesters is revealing also .
"Remember according to Wallis conservatism is immoral because it does not want to spend to help the children . You aggreed with him did you not ?
I have never said on this forum whether I agree or not. I stay away from those debates, normally."
I bad on that Don , sorry . But I wish a few folks on the left had spoken up more to that kind of rhetoric . When recently deceased preachers with living family members are eulogized in political motivated rhetoric or motives of disregard used to win debates when ideas should have been sufficient the nasty blog comments seem to get worse. When I and I spoke up few blogs ago , he instantly achieved respect in my mind , therefore allowing my smaller conservative mind to be able to receive and digest his viewpoints is a much better and with less bias . That should be civics 101 for all of us i think . .
Posted by: Mick | February 25, 2008 4:38 PM
Henry Hyde wasn't a blood relative of Dr. Jekyll, so he and Edward aren't related at all!
BTW, if "conservatives" believe it's OK to spend without limit on wars of choice, since that's a "legitimate" state responsibility while the general non-military health and welfare and community infrastructure are not, just how do they propose to finance wars without end while reducing revenues?
It quite literally does not add up.
I don't agree with those assumptions from a moral perspective of following Jesus, but even from a perspective solely of fiduciary duty they make no sense - unless "conservatives" are trying to bleed all non-military, non-prison, non-law-and-order programs they don't believe in dry, by siphoning off all available funds into the military-industrial-congressional complex.
The problem with this approach is we get a society that will most resemble a garrison state as a majority of economic activity will be geared to supporting those structures, without any lowering of general state expenditures.
Long term, it's a recipe for financial disaster and the end for freedom, just as Madison predicted.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 25, 2008 5:10 PM
BTW, if "conservatives" believe it's OK to spend without limit on wars of choice, since that's a "legitimate" state responsibility while the general non-military health and welfare and community infrastructure are not, just how do they propose to finance wars without end while reducing revenues?
Posted by: N.M. Rod
This is like saying since liberals believe government has no right to support traditopnal families while expecting to tax the heck out of its citenery, just how do they expect to have these kids grow up and be citizens that contribute and pay taxes and not to depend on the only consistent mommy in their life , the government .
.
Posted by: Mick | February 25, 2008 5:57 PM
N.M. Rod I should have put if liberals believe not since they believe . Noticed you stated if , I apolgize.
Posted by: Mick | February 25, 2008 5:59 PM
"BTW, if "conservatives" believe it's OK to spend without limit on wars of choice"
I was referring to Don's statement, not suggesting that every conservative must support every war.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 25, 2008 11:49 PM
Mick,
liberals aren't against supporting traditional families; if anything they are against supporting traditional families to the exclusion of non-traditional ones. Very few would favour state run parentage (aka 1984), that level of state control and interference is in fact anti-liberal.
Be Blessed,
Trent.
Posted by: Trent | February 26, 2008 12:07 AM
Lotta talk about what a group believes. What a group does is what matters. What the bush republicans do is break laws it is their job to enforce, spend money "they " don't have, take lives and countries that don't belong to them, spy on people they have no constitutional right to spy on and torture people contrary to 220 years of US constitutional history. They have not made us safer, they have not made us more prosperous, they have not improved anything . Most of what they do is tell lies and try to frighten and bully people.
They are very good though at finding themselves innocent when they investigate themselves. It is hard to find a religion better suited to foxes than the fox in charge of henhouse faith.
Posted by: jonabark | February 26, 2008 12:16 AM
There is a new article by Chris Hedges about Iraq that summarizes the current realities. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/25/7271/
Might be a little too reality based for some. Not much pie in this sky.
Posted by: jonabark | February 26, 2008 12:28 AM
"Mick,
liberals aren't against supporting traditional families; if anything they are against supporting traditional families to the exclusion of non-traditional ones"
Hey Mr. Trent , that was my point in my non gramatically style . Rod was setting up a strawman arguement and I was going tit for tat . But you proved the point , it is irritating when others provide a less then complimentary method of stating your view so they can ridicule it better . I am shameless .
Came upon an interesting article speaking to the topic if Jesus was capable of sin , reminded me of youself and the excellent debate that you and others were having on it on this forum.
Posted by: Mick | February 26, 2008 2:12 AM
Jonabark,
Political rheotoric is fine , but when you go to speak about your faith , you just lost your platform to someone who may disagree with your political rhetoric .
Maybe no big deal , especially if you are as sure of your politics as believing only those who accept it accept your faith .
Anyway , something to consider . But I don't blame liberal people of faith because Bill Clinton lied his butt off , used the military to strike out at times , cheated on his wife and made a national public disgrace for the world to see . And by the way , used some methods of keeping tabs on people that the ACLU considered Un Constitutional themselves .
Put better , blaming the Civil Rights supporters and saying they were responsible for the LBJ Vietnam War would be considered not even possible to Conservative minded people i know . Hence i figured rational minds may consider that people of philospical differences could come together and discuss issues .
For your information , sometimes aliberal view point has merit to a conservative , it does not stop the conservative lens a conservative sees through , but the idea regardless where it comes from can have potential .
Why only allow those who past your political litmus test of being able to be treated with respect ?
Posted by: Mick | February 26, 2008 2:31 AM
Mick I was intending to use words comically and in obvious exaggeration about an ideology, because these often become a kind of faith.I was not implicating any sincere faith. Everything you say about Clinton has validity and I will vote for Nader before I vote for Hillary. However the scale and degree of constitutional abuse is far worse with Bush and the human consequences far worse than improper sex in a culture saturated with improper sex.
I also knew conservative Republicans who opposed the war in Vietnam, my best friend in HS and his father for example. and was influenced by their ideas. What I am really talking about is the imperial bullying , trickle down attitude and methods of the Reagan ,Bush years with its dismantling of ecological and safety regulations, the abandonment of a self sufficient industrial base, and continual expansion of weapons production and extremely costly and ineffective militarism. My real point was that the ideals of a given party often have little to do with the substance of how they use power and we shouldn't be fooled by words, and especially by elaborate explanations of how white is black.
The political arguments in America are like a pair of puppets on the 2 hands of the corporate vultures; both sides derive all of their energy and animation from the same corporate money and media. My post above is about the ugliness of the Bush lords, not about the excellence of the Democrats. The 2 party system pressures us into camps that are too compromised to effectively represent the diversity of Americans. I am very far from being a loyal Democrat. I abhor the imperialism and militarism of Dems as much as that of Reps. Same with the recent move to all embracing economic "globalism" ( Let the corporations run the world). I would prefer a parliamentary or similar structure but definitely we need a party transcending reform movement. My biggest problem with Obama is the knowledge that the Democratic party shows scant evidence of reflecting the changes we need to make as we move toward a post-oil based economy. Also it is time to acknowledge that the American Empire has not fulfilled its promises and it is time to abandon it and live as a nation among nations.
Posted by: jonabark | February 26, 2008 11:31 AM
Thanks Jona ,
email causes some of our best communication methods to loose its impact . I just watched a Nader Documentary because of his running agian , did not know too much about him in how he got from fighting GM to here . Certainly can say he has integrity .
I was only 18 in 73 , I wrote anti war letters to politicians and such , but was not very political . I wanted Mcgovern , but I was still a conservativelens minded person I believe who supported liberal thinkers if that makes sense .
Posted by: Mick | February 26, 2008 12:02 PM
Hear ye, hear ye! Jesus NEVER SAID even once to lay down and let your enemies kill you. Jesus NEVER SAID once, not to protect the weak whom cannot protect themselves.
God said homosexuality is an ABOMINATION unto mankind, and DESTROYED Sodom and Gomorrah because of it! That is pretty strong language for that which we accept and tolerate in in America and around the world today.
I suggest you re-examine the scriptures more closely, and do not cherry-pick, twist, and bias them the way you want them.
Posted by: Dan | March 20, 2008 6:30 PM
Hear ye, hear ye! Jesus NEVER SAID even once to lay down and let your enemies kill you. Jesus NEVER SAID once, not to protect the weak whom cannot protect themselves.
God said homosexuality is an ABOMINATION unto mankind, and DESTROYED Sodom and Gomorrah because of it! That is pretty strong language for that which we accept and tolerate in in America and around the world today.
I suggest you re-examine the scriptures more closely, and do not cherry-pick, twist, and bias them the way you want them.
Posted by: Dan | March 20, 2008 6:31 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?