Easter in Iraq - The War Goes On (by Jim Wallis)
Five weeks ago, we began a series of posts on the cost of the war in Iraq. We have focused primarily on the human costs – the death and suffering of Americans and Iraqis after five years of war. There have been moving posts from soldiers, veterans, their parents, Iraqis, peacemakers, and theologians. We launched a statement – "A Call to Lament and Repent" – which more than 26,000 of you have now signed – and publicized it with ads in the online editions of Christianity Today, Relevant, and The Christian Century.
While that series is formally ending, the war and the suffering go on. On Easter Sunday, four U.S. soldiers were killed in Baghdad, bringing the total to 4,000. Around the country of Iraq, more than 60 people were killed in attacks. The Iraq Body Count database has now documented 90,000 civilian deaths – other estimates go into the hundreds of thousands. And this week, new fighting is raging in several Iraqi cities, causing additional casualties.
More than ever, as our statement says, "The American occupation must end, a transition to an international solution to Iraq must be found, a peaceful resolution is possible and must be pursued. Our country should end this war; not try to "win" it; and we must help the Iraqi people build a safer and more peaceful country."
While the media pundits continue to debate levels of violence, "surge" successes and failures, and the lack of political progress in Iraq, we must continue to raise the larger and deeper issue of how fundamentally wrong it was to launch a pre-emptive and primarily unilateral war against Iraq. There were far better ways to deal with the evil of Saddam Hussein and the threats of terrorism - which this war has only made worse. Repentance means a fundamental change in direction; and that is what we must now call for in U.S. foreign policy.
On Easter we celebrated the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the new life he brings. Where is Easter, that new life, for Iraq? How long will the suffering and killing go on? The need to lament, to repent, and to continue praying and acting to end this war is more important than ever.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Is the 'surge' working?
I don't think so.
Do you?
Posted by: justintime | March 27, 2008 11:28 AM
Looking at how apathetic most people are "in the west," Saddam and his children and regime, would still be torturing and slaughtering human beings with no cease. He wouls still be financing terrorism and the Kurds and others would still face genocide daily. Bush tried to stop all that.
Posted by: Another day | March 27, 2008 12:14 PM
Looking at how apathetic most people are "in the west," Saddam and his children and regime, would still be torturing and slaughtering human beings with no cease. He wouls still be financing terrorism and the Kurds and others would still face genocide daily. Bush tried to stop all that.
And failed miserably, because he didn't know or refused to know what just we were dealing with over there -- it's the mentality that "we just need to eliminate a few key people and voila! instant freedom." We took out Saddam, to be sure, but al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups took his place, and persecution of Christians has actually increased because of our efforts at "liberation." Furthermore, the Kurds still don't have a state of their own.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 27, 2008 12:24 PM
I agree with most of the sentiments that drive Jim's writing here, but simply saying we need to "end" the war isn't helpful. What does that mean? A withdrawl of U.S. troops wouldn't "end" the war. It would only "end" U.S. military involvement in it for the time being. Let's not delude ourselves.
Jim's comment are very useful for future discussions about possible future wars and for looking back on how the U.S. should have done things differently, but they're of little use in discussing what should be done in Iraq now.
Posted by: Eric | March 27, 2008 1:50 PM
OK Mr. Wallis
Let's put together a petition that says we will never go to war for any reason. (I believe that I read in some mag. that you supported Clinton and the Bulkins - wish I had saved that one) Diplomacy will be the only means that we will use. (we will only talk - no guns, bombs, missles we be used ever again by the USA)
I have asked the question of you and others that write articles for Sojo that if it works out and Iraq becomes a shinning example for democracy in the Mideast. Wouldn't that be a good thing. The silence from you and others is deafing.
So - no more war on the part of the US. Others can do what they believe needs to be done for the best interest of their countries, but don't ask us for help. We are going to stay home, stay safe, we will not shead another drop of blood on foreign soil for any reason. (that means evangelism will be limited bigtime world wide)
Don't worry - our little fat backsides will be comfortable and warm at home.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 27, 2008 2:25 PM
Don't worry - our little fat backsides will be comfortable and warm at home.
Thank ya Gomer
Posted by: barney google | March 27, 2008 2:45 PM
Posted by: barney google | March 27, 2008 2:45 PM
So - how are your eyes doing?
blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 27, 2008 2:58 PM
Like many people have said, I understand the sentiments and exactly where you're coming from. This war in Iraq has been a disaster from the get-go and should never have been fought.
But moving beyond that point because it is virtually agreeable across the U.S that this war should have never happened - I agree we should withdraw troops indefinitely, but we cannot simply exit Iraq, bring all our troops home, and forget about it. We need to be responsible and help forge away towards peace or Iraq will become another Taliban and another terrorist haven, and there will be hell to pay if we simply withdraw everyone. The issue is not black and white at all (for both liberals and conservatives). We need to maintain a presence to help combat terrorism and Al-Qaeda that has now landed in Iraq, but we need to help begin reconstruction.
What we need now is to forge an effective peace-making plan that will begin reconstruction and help forge democracy in Iraq. Calling for an international presence is too ambiguous and is not enough (God knows the United Nations needs reform, although it is still an important asset to our global society). I cannot tolerate ambiguity - I want a very concise, clear plan that can be executed - this means bringing in terrorist experts (such as Louise Richardson, author of "What Terrorists Want"), religious leaders, global leaders, and everyone. The future of Iraq is also an important for stability in the Middle East, and ultimately the world.
Should the U.S repent? Big time. But how should we repent? By helping forge a way towards peace in the Middle East, which may ultimately mean maintaining a troop presence in Iraq to ensure stability and prevent the country from plunging into anarchy, but simultaneously we need to bring in the rest of the world to help, as the humanitarian crisis in Iraq is becoming very deadly and worsening (according to Amnesty International).
Posted by: Episcopalian | March 27, 2008 3:01 PM
Nothing positive can happen in Iraq until the Bush administration is removed from power.
McCain is Bush, only older.
Posted by: justintime | March 27, 2008 3:19 PM
I have asked the question of you and others that write articles for Sojo that if it works out and Iraq becomes a shinning example for democracy in the Mideast. Wouldn't that be a good thing.
Ain't gonna happen. That's the point.
You need to undo about a hundred years of history of Western interference in the affairs of the Middle East. We know that the British cobbled Iraq together, redrawing boundaries to include traditional ethnic enemies who, weakened by warfare, wouldn't challenge the Crown. Then you have the oil issue, which muddies the water even more, and also Israel (which is considered a Western colony, which is why the Arabs want it out of the way). And then you have the two strains of Islam that are fighting, often literally, for supremacy. That is the backdrop of the quagmire we find ourselves in.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 27, 2008 3:24 PM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 27, 2008 3:24 PM
Ain't gonna happen. That's the point.
But what if it did?
If we did succeed in helping to establish a gov't that could determine their desires and keep the peace on their own with little or no foreign assistance.
Wouldn't that be a good thing?
Wouldn't it be better for all?
Wouldn't the world be a better place?
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 27, 2008 3:39 PM
Justintime - What do you think of the theory that only McCain could bring troops home from Iraq?
Meaning - if a President Obama or Clinton actually tried to make good on their promise to bring troops home within six months, they'd get hounded to no end by Republicans and called all sorts of names (waving the white flag to terrorists, defeatists, etc). They'd be so hounded by this that they'd not follow through on their promises (i.e. LBJ).
A President McCain, on the other hand, could actually start withdrawing troops slowly without Republicans objecting because he's "their guy". Sort of "only Nixon could go to China" without being called soft on communism.
It's just a theory...
Posted by: Eric | March 27, 2008 3:49 PM
If we did succeed in helping to establish a gov't that could determine their desires and keep the peace on their own with little or no foreign assistance.
I just mentioned why we can't do it. The culture of Islam in that part of the world has a real problem with foreign influence -- it believes the land is holy but corrupted by our presence. That is what Osama bin Laden is trying to reinstitute there, which is part of the reason he masterminded 9/11. (It's also why taking out Saddam played right into his hands; he also wanted to have such Arab dictators removed from power in the process.)
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 27, 2008 3:51 PM
"Saddam and his children and regime would still be torturing and slaughtering human beings with no cease. He would still be financing terrorism and the Kurds and others would still face genocide daily. Bush tried to stop all that."
Boy, you really drank the Kool-Aid. While Saddam and his children and regime were torturing and slaughtering, and committing genocide against the Kurds, Rumsfeld and Cheney were supporting him, shaking his hand and giving him weapons and lots of your taxpayer money. Until he did something we didn't like: invading Kuwait in 1990. So don't you think it is incredibly naive to believe these same men designed this war to protect Iraqis and Kurds from Saddam? Isn't it obvious that there were other reasons for invading that had nothing to do with protecting the Kurds?
Don't worry, you're not the only American who has been asleep about this very pertinent fact.
Posted by: I and I | March 27, 2008 4:19 PM
Eric, your point says more about the character of Republicans in power than it does about who would actually clean up this mess in the most efficient and humane way.
Posted by: I and I | March 27, 2008 4:21 PM
I and I - I'm not niave enough to think that politicians, regardless of political party, wouldn't scream bloody murder about something someone of the other party did while looking the other way when a member of their own party did the same. It has nothing to do with Republicans, but politicians in general.
Posted by: Eric | March 27, 2008 4:31 PM
>>On Easter we celebrated the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the new life he brings. Where is Easter, that new life, for Iraq?
The new life for Iraq and the Iraqis is in the same place as that new life is for all of us, in the person of Jesus Christ. Period.
Let's not confuse political and ideological arguments, no matter how valuable, with the clear message of the gospel. This question belittles Jesus' death and resurrection, and reduces them to a political bumper sticker.
Posted by: j | March 27, 2008 4:33 PM
"It has nothing to do with Republicans, but politicians in general."
I'll concede that to a degree. But the Democrats in 1990 weren't screaming bloody murder and accusing Bush the Smarter of waving the white flag when he pulled out of Iraq without capturing Saddam Hussein. Nor did they do so when Nixon claimed to have had a secret plan to get us out of Vietnam, or when Ford actually did withdraw the troops from Vietnam.
Posted by: I and I | March 27, 2008 4:43 PM
I and I - You're confusing two different types of situations.
1) The one we have today (under my theory) would be one party giving a wink and nod to their President doing something that they would strongly object to the other party's president doing.
2) The situations you describe are ones in which one party went along with the other party because they agreed with what the other party was doing.
To prove your point, you'd have to find a situation in which Democrats were consistent in objecting to something Republicans proposed or did as well as when their President did it.
Either way, this is really off topic and one could find plenty of counter-points to disprove your supposed point.
Politicians will be politicians. No party is any more principled when it comes to the game of politics than the other.
Posted by: Eric | March 27, 2008 4:59 PM
and the war goes on; what will wallis do when his "party" (the dems)get power and continues the war on terror? of the 90,000 iraquis he counts as civilian war casualties, how many were killed by u s troops? will al queda stop killing when we leave, jim? if jim has a solution, what is it? is it pull out the troops , then talk with the terrorists? what is jim's plan.
why don't i see God in jim's comments?
Posted by: jerry | March 27, 2008 6:27 PM
Moderatelad wrote:
Let's put together a petition that says we will never go to war for any reason. (I believe that I read in some mag. that you supported Clinton and the Bulkins - wish I had saved that one) Diplomacy will be the only means that we will use. (we will only talk - no guns, bombs, missles we be used ever again by the USA)
I'm afraid you're creating a straw-man here. Very few people here are the 100% pacifist type, although I do respect their sincerety. What is being argued is that this particular war was and is wrong.
I have asked the question of you and others that write articles for Sojo that if it works out and Iraq becomes a shinning example for democracy in the Mideast. Wouldn't that be a good thing. The silence from you and others is deafing.
I am not Jim; however, I would like to point out that if the war was wrong, then regardless of what "good effects" come of it, the war still is wrong. By analogy, even if I can save 100 (or some other large number) of lives by deliberately killing 1 person, it is still wrong for me to do so.
So - no more war on the part of the US. Others can do what they believe needs to be done for the best interest of their countries, but don't ask us for help. We are going to stay home, stay safe, we will not shead another drop of blood on foreign soil for any reason. (that means evangelism will be limited bigtime world wide),
The "best interest of the country" stuff seems just a bit materialistic, don't you think? Oh, and BTW, the war is costing a financial fortune, in addition to the lives. Is this in our country's best interest? Is acting amorally in the interest of the country or the world? And FWIW, the war is probably a good negative witness, considering how almost no one outside of the USA really believes that the war was fought for noble, holy reasons. Does anyone really believe the war was motivated by spreading the gospel? The "sword" is a horrible way to spread the message of Christ's love and forgiveness.
Posted by: Ngchen | March 27, 2008 6:56 PM
Posted by: Ngchen | March 27, 2008 6:56 PM
I am not Wallis either - but I don't think there would be a conflict that he would support and neither would most of those who write articles. Their opinion is that the war was wrong and they are intitled to their opinion. Others (not here) have made a great and just argument that it was the correct thing to do and it was 'justified'. But by labeling it 'wrong' you do not have to deal with anything else and so you are safe in your own little corner.
No war is good - popular - correct. But sometimes is it the last thing you have other than turning away from the situation and pretend that is it not there.
Killing one to same many. So on conjoined twins the one that is paracidic and killing the other - we should just leave them together so they both die? If by lowering the life bridge so that a train load of passingers can cross the river safely but the child that is playing next to the gear that operate the bridge will be killed in the process - is it correct? Sometime the needs of the many superseed the needs of the one.
The cost of war is too high - everyone looses. In today's dollors this war is costing per day much less than WWI - WWII or several others - not to mention the lives of all the civilians. But to do nothing - we are fine but they still die with no hope of it ending.
This is not a 'christian war' - no Pope started this to drive out the infidel. No one is carring a Cross into battle in front of the troups.
But this is war in the new mellenium. I don't think we will see too many wars where one country is crossing the borders of another to grab land. But this is war the way it will be now and in the future. Look at Gaza - Israel would just like to live in peace and be left alone. Yes they have responded when provoked and finally attacked. Now the Palistinians in Gaza have rockets. They have to technology or ability to produce them. They are supplied by Iran. If Iran would stay at home and not supply the fractions with weapons to cause terror - then maybe the countries in the west could do the same.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 27, 2008 7:33 PM
Look at Gaza - Israel would just like to live in peace and be left alone.
ROFL!! Stop!! You're killing me!! LOLOL!!
Where do you get this drivel??? The Onion?
Posted by: lloyd crump | March 27, 2008 8:01 PM
"justintime - What do you think of the theory that only McCain could bring troops home from Iraq?"
Naive to the point of delusional.
Neither Bush nor McCain believe in negotiating an end to the occupation of Iraq.
They both still believe in a military solution.
Yet there are almost no competent diplomatic, political or military observers who believe there is a military solution to this tragic mistake - the worst foreign policy disaster in American history.
Even if Bush or McCain DID believe in a diplomatic approach they would be incapable of negotiating a solution, for the simple reason there are no nations left in the Middle East who trust them enough to engage with them diplomatically.
Posted by: justintime | March 27, 2008 9:45 PM
Posted by: lloyd crump | March 27, 2008 8:01 PM
LOL - keep listening to that little voice in your head.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 27, 2008 10:06 PM
Very few people here are the 100% pacifist type, although I do respect their sincerety. What is being argued is that this particular war was and is wrong.
And let's keep that in mind. Did you notice that nobody argued against sending troops into Afghanistan in response to 9/11? That was why even our more "pacifist" allies supported that military action. But you see, Europe understands war close-up and thus is not likely to go to war unless it has a compelling reason to do so.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 27, 2008 10:23 PM
Currently I am begining to believe that we should just pull the &*() out of Iraq and forget it. I mean - that is what Kennedy and Co had us do in Viet Nam. Kennedy starting dismantling all of the financial agreements of the Paris Accords within months after they were signed. North VN saw that and just waited out till they knew that the US was unable to up hold their end of the bargan. We have dis'd people before and so why not just do it again. Then all this bickering about right wrong - he said she said - just and unjust can just stop. We stay at home and lend our verbal support to international affairs because that doesn't cost us anything.
Let's get our within the year and I will sign any $%^& petition that Wallis and Co want to bring forward as long as there is a claus or statement that we - the US will never go to war again - no matter what.
Finished!
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 27, 2008 10:26 PM
Yes they have responded when provoked and finally attacked. Now the Palistinians in Gaza have rockets. They have to technology or ability to produce them. They are supplied by Iran.
I have to agree that Israel simply playing self-defense being a bit over the top. After all, it is by far the number one military power in the Middle East, likely with more arms than all the Arab countries combined. The Arabs coming after Israel with rockets is analagous to a BB gun against a .357 Magnum.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 27, 2008 10:32 PM
Yes they have responded when provoked and finally attacked. Now the Palistinians in Gaza have rockets. They have to technology or ability to produce them. They are supplied by Iran.
I have to agree that the belief that Israel is simply playing self-defense is a bit over the top. After all, it is by far the number one military power in the Middle East, likely with more arms than all the Arab countries combined. The Arabs coming after Israel with rockets is analagous to a BB gun against a .357 Magnum.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 27, 2008 10:34 PM
But what if it did?
If we did succeed in helping to establish a gov't that could determine their desires and keep the peace on their own with little or no foreign assistance.
Wouldn't that be a good thing?
Wouldn't it be better for all?
Wouldn't the world be a better place?
Blessings -
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 27, 2008 3:39 PM
But what if I won the Lotto tomorrow?
But what if Pamela Anderson wants to marry me?
But what if I'm named King of Burundi on Saturday?
Wouldn't that be a good thing?
Posted by: canucklehead | March 27, 2008 11:35 PM
Moderatelad says:
"Kennedy starting dismantling all of the financial agreements of the Paris Accords within months after they were signed. North VN saw that and just waited out till they knew that the US was unable to up hold their end of the bargan."
The assassination of John F. Kennedy, the thirty-fifth President of the United States, took place on Friday, November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas.
The Paris Peace Accords were signed on January 27, 1973 by the governments of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV or North Vietnam), the Republic of Vietnam (RVN or South Vietnam), and the United States, as well as the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG) that represented indigenous South Vietnamese revolutionaries.
Moderatelad,
Before you make any more pronouncements on the Vietnam War, I recommend you read an accurate historical account.
The Republican noise machine cannot be relied upon for historical accuracy.
Posted by: justintime | March 27, 2008 11:42 PM
Posted by: justintime | March 27, 2008 11:42 PM
I am not the simpleton that you seem to think - it was Teddy. Not John (Da) and not Robert. There were more than one - at least that is what I remember.
According to part of the Paris agreement, the US would come to the aid of South VN should the North break the treaty. We were going to financally support the gov't in the south so that they would be able to defend themselves. Teddy made it so that would not happen and the rest is history.
So lets just not always believe what Rather and Co have to say - they do have a history of developing their own evidence.
Whatever -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 28, 2008 12:20 AM
Moderatelad wrote:
Killing one to same many. So on conjoined twins the one that is paracidic and killing the other - we should just leave them together so they both die? If by lowering the life bridge so that a train load of passingers can cross the river safely but the child that is playing next to the gear that operate the bridge will be killed in the process - is it correct? Sometime the needs of the many superseed the needs of the one.
There is a nuance you might not be aware of. Although I'm not Catholic, I find their moral reasoning with regard to double effect to be quite sound. You bring up the parasitic conjoined twin. It is (I'm guessing here) licit to separate the conjoined parasitic twin, knowing full well that without a miracle the parasitic twin would die. Why? There are several tests for double effect to apply. (1) The dillemma is unavoidable. (2) The good effect outweighs the bad effect. (3) Key here-The bad effect is merely forseeable, and is not intended, and the good effect is not caused by the bad effect. Some people have rephrased it this way. Suppose God intervenes divinely to stop the bad effect from happening. Would the good effect still take place? Finally, (4) the action one takes is either good, or at least morally neutral.
For the case of the conjoined twins, the act of physical separation is morally neutral or good. If God works a miracle, say making the parasitic twin a healthy adult, the saving of the other twin would not be thwarted. The fact that the twins exist is obviously unavoidable, and saving one twin is better than having both die. So double effect applies. Same would apply to the bridge scenario.
OTOH, if one has to commit an evil act to achieve a good, then it's illicit. See especially Romans 3:8 (NIV)
Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.
Now, the notion that sometimes the needs of the many supercede the needs of the individual may be true; however, when fundamental rights (life being the most fundamental, IMO a clear line has to be drawn. FWIW, all manner of atrocity has been "justified" in history through similar appeals, so we should tread especially carefully in this arena. I find it ironic how supposedly conservative people can make this argument; after all, they are the ones who denounce liberals for using "needs of the many trump the few" to justify progressive taxation and so on.
The cost of war is too high - everyone looses. In today's dollors this war is costing per day much less than WWI - WWII or several others - not to mention the lives of all the civilians. But to do nothing - we are fine but they still die with no hope of it ending.
True, this war costs less then WWII. But the threat of world domination was real back then from the axis. The threat from Saddam was clearly hyped. Pres. Carter, in spite of all his faults, put it best by noting that it's simply unnecessary.Furthermore, there was the Pearl Harbor attack. And this talk of spreading democracy via the gun I suspect is a smokescreen. Otherwise, we'd be pushing for invading Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, and many other not so savory regimes. War crimes trials at the end of WWII included multiple defendants charged with conspiracy to and actual waging of aggressive war. The engineering of faux "incidents" like what the Nazis did with Poland was no defense. So if the Iraq war was motivated in reality by conquest and domination, it was aggressive per the Nuremburg standard. What's sauce for the goose (ought to) be sauce for the gander.
Posted by: Ngchen | March 28, 2008 12:28 AM
I am not the simpleton that you seem to think - it was Teddy. Moderatelad
Thanks for reminding us. We need that from time to time after we read your comments.
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 28, 2008 4:13 AM
The cost of war is too high - everyone looses. In today's dollors this war is costing per day much less than WWI - WWII or several others - not to mention the lives of all the civilians.
I don't know whether this is true or not, but I'll presume it is. Nonetheless, WWII was financed through sale of war bonds and through personal sacrifice on the part of citizens (meat rationing, gasoline rationing, etc.), not with mounting federal deficit "pay later" spending. Further, the requests for war funding are not being included in the regular federal budget process. We're financing this war on the backs of our grandchildren, with no personal sacrifice on the part of the citizens at home. And we have been told by our President--on more than one occasion--that the best way we as citizens can support this "war on terror" is to indulge in our consumerist spending habits (though of course he didn't phrase it that way).
Regardless of how one feels about the justice of the war itself, the inherent dishonesty of our funding for this war should be regarded as an outrage by all citizens. We're bankrupting ourselves, just like the Soviet Union did in Afghanistan. The current economic downturn may only be the first chickens coming home to roost. We'll be paying the piper--one way or another--for a long time to come.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 28, 2008 8:42 AM
Posted by: Ngchen | March 28, 2008 12:28 AM
Good arguments - thought provoking.
The 'double effect' is something that I have thought about. We delt with Saddam for how many years? His anexing of Kuait, the inspectors, paying the families of homiside bombers, Kurds, etc, etc, etc. How many UN Resolutions did he flip off, the 'oil for food' debockle. (thank you France and Phonies)
No - I do not believe in spreading democracy with a gun or the Gospel with a sword. But Iraq now has a constitution with in months of Saddam being taken out of power. (I believe it took the founding fathers years - 8+) We are rebuilding the infrustructure, opening schools even for girls, (those nasty western ideals) etc.
Your accessments of war in the final paragraph are compelling. We could spend a lot of time on them. But armed conflict in the new millenium will not look like that of the last century. The radicals today know that and I believe have figured out a way to wage war on their enemies. We are think conventionally and with a western logic and philosphy. (dare I say Judeo-Christian mind set) They are not. They will operate outside the box because they know that we stay inside the box. By doing so they know that the Geneva Accords do not fit and they can keep doing what they are doing while we try to make sence of what is going on and construct a paradyme that we can work within.
As my second cousins husband - retired military and card carrying Demoncrat has told me. We can fight them here or over there - where do you want us to be? (this guy does not like Bush either)
This is not the war we thought it would be - but it is the one we have. We either settle it now or forever fight them all around the world where ever they raise their ugly head.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 28, 2008 8:52 AM
As my second cousins husband - retired military and card carrying Demoncrat has told me. We can fight them here or over there - where do you want us to be? (this guy does not like Bush either)
This is not the war we thought it would be - but it is the one we have. We either settle it now or forever fight them all around the world where ever they raise their ugly head.Blessings -
Posted by: Moderatelad |
And that pretty much sums up a war mindset. I wonder what our image would be in the Muslim world if we spent half the money we spent on this war building schools, hospitals and universities in their countries?
Yep it's easier to tear things down than to build them up, isn't it? Besides what would CNN, FOX and all the other media vultures do if peace and goodwill were to break out instead of this senseless killing? I guess it is more exciting to cover piles of rubble than it is to cover building projects. Just a thought.
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 28, 2008 9:47 AM
We can fight them here or over there - where do you want us to be?
As I've written before, I wonder what the Iraqis thought when they heard the president say this? Another way of putting it: We Americans have no qualms about laying waste your country to keep from having to deal with them here in ours. After all, it's so important that we not sacrifice our American way of life.
Posted by: Don | March 28, 2008 10:17 AM
A question for Moderatelad. If Iran supplies Palestinians with missiles to attack Israel, who is it that supplies Israel with the latest weaponry which they use with our blessings against the Palestinians? The Israelis have a blank check from us for whatever aggressive action they wish to take in their neighborhood; and there have been many. Moreover one of the reasons we went to war with Saddam was because he violated UN Resolutions; Israel has ignored every UN Resolution related to its situation in Palestine since 1948.
Posted by: George De Vries, Jr. | March 28, 2008 10:21 AM
The 'double effect' is something that I have thought about. We delt with Saddam for how many years? His anexing of Kuait, the inspectors, paying the families of homiside bombers, Kurds, etc, etc, etc.
Then kindly explain the photo that he had taken in 1983 with Donald Rumsfeld. Remember, in those days we were trying to enlist him as an ally to isolate Iran, but he was no less of a bully then; why did we turn on him all of a sudden?
As my second cousins husband - retired military and card carrying Democrat has told me. We can fight them here or over there - where do you want us to be? (this guy does not like Bush either)
Red herring. Since bin Laden knows the value of money -- his family is in oil, you know -- I presume that he really wanted to wreck the American economic system, which he felt caused at least some of the problems in the Middle East. (That was the symbolism of destroying the Twin Towers on 9/11.) In fact, the war in Iraq played right into his hands in two ways: 1) The Americans would possibly go bankrupt prosecuting it and fanning Islamic resentment in the process; and 2) Saddam, whom he despised as a blasphemer of Islam, is removed from power.
Further, al-Qaeda is well aware of political situations in other countries. Remember when it blew up the trains in Madrid four years ago? However, it was not a simple matter of scaring an ally out of the Middle East, which was the conventional wisdom at the time -- al-Qaeda knew that 90 percent of the Spanish people opposed the war but the conservative government had sent troops anyway. On top of that the timing of the blast was no accident, as there was an election in two days. Well, the government, trying to cover its butt, originally said that Basque separatists committed the crime. (They said later, "No, we didn't.") When that lie was exposed voters threw out the government and elected Socialists, who had run on a campaign of getting the troops out.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 28, 2008 10:44 AM
Demoncrat? Cute.
Posted by: I and I | March 28, 2008 10:49 AM
why don't i see God in jim's comments? (Jerry)
because you wouldn't recognize God if he walked up and smacked you in the face.
Posted by: lloyd crump | March 28, 2008 10:53 AM
Posted by: George De Vries, Jr. | March 28, 2008 10:21 AM
'...supplies Israel...'
It is no secret that the US and other countries have come to Israel's assistance. For the most part - Israel has used their weapons in a defensive manner. (there are a few times that they were used in an offensive manner)
'...check from us for whatever aggressive action they wish...'
The 'aggressive action' has been the retaliation to being attacked. During Gulf War I at the request of the US - they did not return fire when fired upon by Saddam - we protected them. (now does that make sence - Saddam invaded Kuait - the UN demanded that he leave. The US and Allies moved against Saddam to get him out of Kuait. Saddam tells the world that if he is attacked - he is going to attack Israel. Welcome to warfare in the 21st Century)
'...every UN Resolution related...'
I will have to check this one out. I don't know of a resolution from the UN against Israel where the US (and at other times other countries) has not objected - making the resolution moot.
Also - every Arab country around Israel doesn't want the Palestinians. Syria killed 15,000+, Jordon killed 8,000+ to mention a few.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 28, 2008 10:56 AM
I don't know of a resolution from the UN against Israel where the US (and at other times other countries) has not objected - making the resolution moot. (modirutelad)
Classic. Never mind majority decision, never mind world opinion ("a decent respect for the opinions of mankind"). If Amurraka don't like it, then it's no good.
Oops! Gotta run....."HeeHaw" reruns are on cable.
Posted by: lloyd crump | March 28, 2008 11:27 AM
Posted by: lloyd crump | March 28, 2008 11:27 AM
'...Never mind majority decision...'
USSR/Russia and China have done this all the time in the UN. Security Council decisions have nothing to do with 'majority' it is the minority that can ride shot gun over the majority. Just my opinion - morality and wisdom are missing at the UN in many of their decision on world policy.
YES - the US has done things wrong in the past. We will make mistakes in the future. But as 'bad' as we are according to some, why is it that we are the first place other countries for help in time of trouble wheather from nature or another country. They are not running to the UN for assistance - they would be dead by the time they got their act together. But I would rather live in the US with our mistakes than any other country in the world.
HeeHaw - enjoy. My motto is 'if it is country - it's not music'. (my daughter hates it when I say that)
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 28, 2008 11:42 AM
We went into Iraq like a bull going into a china shop and we broke everything in sight. It is naive and unrealistic to think we can put everything back together again before we leave. nor do I see any evidence that they want to be put back together. Was togetherness ever their wish? Saddam held them together by force. Is that what we want to do for the next 100 years?
Dubya's daddy was right not to invade. Son should have listened! Maybe partition is the only thing that will work now. We are the ones that split it in pieces and we cannot put it back together...there is not enough glue for that.
Posted by: Beevo | March 28, 2008 11:54 AM
Moderatelad wrote:
The 'double effect' is something that I have thought about. We delt with Saddam for how many years? His anexing of Kuait, the inspectors, paying the families of homiside bombers, Kurds, etc, etc, etc. How many UN Resolutions did he flip off, the 'oil for food' debockle. (thank you France and Phonies)
Of course we dealt with Saddam for many years. As the hawks are quick to point out, we did not win the cold war by buckling to the Soviets. But then we didn't win it by bombing Moscow either. After Gulf War I, which incidentally was justified based on a rejection of Saddam's aggressive war, he was pretty well boxed up. If the USSR can be contained, why couldn't he have been?
No - I do not believe in spreading democracy with a gun or the Gospel with a sword. But Iraq now has a constitution with in months of Saddam being taken out of power. (I believe it took the founding fathers years - 8+) We are rebuilding the infrustructure, opening schools even for girls, (those nasty western ideals) etc.
So the war rationale seems to be ever shifting. First it was UN resolutions, then WMDs that didn't exist, next it's to "liberate" the people, the "beacon of democracy," and so on. I don't doubt that infrastructure improvements are taking place, albeit intermittently (look up the stats on how they have more, rather than fewer blackouts than they did under Saddam for instance). Nowadays, it most commonly argued that "since we broke it, we have to stay in to fix it," and "credibility," and such.
The radicals today know that and I believe have figured out a way to wage war on their enemies. We are think conventionally and with a western logic and philosphy. (dare I say Judeo-Christian mind set) They are not. They will operate outside the box because they know that we stay inside the box. By doing so they know that the Geneva Accords do not fit and they can keep doing what they are doing while we try to make sence of what is going on and construct a paradyme that we can work within.
True, there are groups such as al Qaeda that want to destroy us and any one not exactly like them. So what's a proper response? Mindlessly lashing out does not solve problems; in fact, as others have pointed out, probably al Qaeda wants us to lash out in a way that makes us look bad. Bruce Schneier (a computer security expert) notes that a democracy like ourselves has two threats that both need to be addressed. First is the threat from without. Second, is the temptation to become so fearful of the threats from without, that we turn ourselves into a totalitarian state. Consider this alternative cold war ending: we, fearing the USSR, ironically become a mirror image of the USSR due to the fear. Yet fear seems to be what the GOP is selling these days.
I believe a proper way to deal with the radicals is to target them carefully. Taking out the Taliban was probably the right thing to do. Deny the radicals sanctuary anywhere. Don't engage in actions that would make it easy for other countries to demonize us. In the longer run, quit sticking our noses into other countries' business so forcefully. The non-PC question of why 9/11 was against us, rather than say Sweden or Mexico, shows that even the radicals don't choose their targets at random (they have a few legitimate grievances against us, but none against the Swedes or Mexicans). Let our actions not be dictated by fear, but rather by a love of justice and fair play.
Posted by: Ngchen | March 28, 2008 11:57 AM
Wallis wrote: "Repentance means a fundamental change in direction; and that is what we must now call for in U.S. foreign policy." Amen for that comment! I was hard pressed in finding something newly written in this blog, as it has the taste of warmed up (for the umtenth time) Jimbo stew. Isn't the writers strike over???
Despite the seriousness of the issue being discussed here I must say there has been a few really funny comments back and forth between some of you guys. I appreciate the efforts of those that try and stay on subject, but the humor has been refreshing to my day. As if that was anyones objective.
All kidding aside though, regardless whether it is Obama or Clinton sitting in the hotseat of the oval office next it will be as if history repeats itself once again. One merely has to look back at the Jimmy Carter era to see the challanges that will be faced in terms of potential economic collapse and disasterous foreign issues. The effort to run for a second term by either one will once again will be void of any hope as was Carter's.
Again the Democratic president will take one for the team, yet will begin a process of getting us back to where we need to be both at home and abroad only to leave it for the next Republican to complete.
At some point repentence (as Jim calls it) will come - not sure if it'll be soon enough to make a lasting impact on our generation, but it most certainly will add hope for the next.
Blessings to all.
Posted by: d.e.sharp | March 28, 2008 2:33 PM
Posted by: Ngchen | March 28, 2008 11:57 AM
'...USSR can be contained, why couldn't he...'
Because the conflict was between USSR and the USA. The new conflict is not with a 'country' with uniforms etc. You have a radical fraction that has member that look like any other person in the community. They could be standing with you at the check out counter at the store and placing a bomb somewhere in the community that night. It is not over territory as much as influence over people. War in the 21st.
'...rationale seems to be ever shifting. First it was UN resolutions, then WMDs...'
No - not shifting. But as things change and your enemy refocuses their efforts you have to change with them. There are good things that can happen as the war is won. (and not so good if the war is lost) The Civil War started to save the Union. Lincoln thought that as long as we are fighting - let end slavery at the same time.
'...easy for other countries to demonize...'
These people were demonizing us long before 9-11. They were growing in numbers that was almost out of control. Now that they see that things can be better, that the US is not the 'great satan'. That we are trying to make life better for them. Those that were on the fringe could and are coming over and joining their peace loving friends hoping that Iraq can again be a country for their people. (interesting conversations with 3 of my sons friends that have gone over there and come back. One is there for a second time and another will be returning in 8 months)
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 28, 2008 2:41 PM
One merely has to look back at the Jimmy Carter era to see the challanges that will be faced in terms of potential economic collapse and disasterous foreign issues. The effort to run for a second term by either one will once again will be void of any hope as was Carter's.
I would agree with this except for one thing. Hillary or Barack are not playing the role of Jimmy Carter. George W. Bush has been playing that role. Except that Carter, I think, had a sense that he was in over his head.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 28, 2008 3:42 PM
Because the conflict was between USSR and the USA. The new conflict is not with a 'country' with uniforms etc. You have a radical fraction that has member that look like any other person in the community. They could be standing with you at the check out counter at the store and placing a bomb somewhere in the community that night.
That's not exactly true -- the Communists pretty much did "look like you and me," while most Arab/Muslim terrorists clearly have Middle Eastern features. That is, of course, not to say that Middle Easterners are by definition terrorists; most, of course, are not.
These people were demonizing us long before 9-11. They were growing in numbers that was almost out of control. Now that they see that things can be better, that the US is not the 'great satan'. That we are trying to make life better for them.
Oh, no, they're not. Most of the people still want us gone, although some of the leadership has other ideas. Also keep in mind tha persecution of Christians is up since Saddam was overthrown.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 28, 2008 4:10 PM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 28, 2008 4:10 PM
'...not exactly true...'
War in the 21st Century will not have countries with borders and military personnel with uniforms. The terrorists today look and act like your neighbor and are willing to bomb your community at night. It is a whole new paradyme that we in the West for the most part do not understand - and the sooner we do the better we will be able deal with this in the future.
Oh, no, they're not.
Yes - there are some that want us gone so that they can make every effort to take over. So we should leave so that they can achieve their goals? The terrorists do not have free reign in Afganistan - Pakistan - Iraq etc. (Iran is another discussion) We are cutting off their ability to raise funds and transfer them. They can not set up camps all over the place at will. They have been stopped on several occasions from setting a bomb off. I believe that we are winning - not as fast as all of us would like. I continue to pray that we can be vigilant and keep us safe. If the White House changes parties - I will pray even more for the safety of all from terrorists.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 28, 2008 4:32 PM
War in the 21st Century will not have countries with borders and military personnel with uniforms. The terrorists today look and act like your neighbor and are willing to bomb your community at night.
What are you talking about? How's that any different fron any other age? Terrorists are by nature home-grown. Terrorism thus cannot be stopped by military action; it's a police matter.
The terrorists do not have free reign in Afganistan - Pakistan - Iraq etc. (Iran is another discussion) We are cutting off their ability to raise funds and transfer them.
Watching Fox News again?
I believe that we are winning - not as fast as all of us would like. I continue to pray that we can be vigilant and keep us safe. If the White House changes parties - I will pray even more for the safety of all from terrorists.
If the White House changes parties, and especially if Obama gets there, we will have less terrorism. Terrorism's roots are political in nature and a change of policies, which what the Democrats represent, will likely benefit everyone.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 28, 2008 4:55 PM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 28, 2008 4:55 PM
'...Terrorists are by nature home-grown.'
Oklahoma was 'home grown' - WTC was not. To say that the police need to handle it, sorry they are not equiped. It needs to be a colaborative effort, but we need to keep them out of our country.
Watching Fox News again?
Please - the day that CNN has a program like Hannity and Combs - I'll watch it. First CNN needs to appologize for spiking evidence that caused the deaths of a few people. They have admited that they knew but would not let the story out. They have blood on their hands for their silence.
'...especially if Obama gets there, we will have less terrorism.'
No we won't. His instant removal of our troups from the Mideast will be a sign of weakness and will embolden them to strike us at will. (when confronted by someone telling the blind Sheek in NYC that the towers are still standing. His reply was 'we are not finished'.)
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 28, 2008 9:24 PM
"His instant removal of our troups from the Mideast will be a sign of weakness and will embolden them to strike us at will."
What's amazing about this mindset is that we have the mightiest military the world has ever seen, and despite that, that provides no security from the threat of a rag-tag band without any such capabilities absolutely bringing us to our knees.
We are simultaneously without peer or competitior, the world's sole superpower, yet so fragile as to be in danger of being destroyed absolutely by the person "standing next to us at the checkout counter."
I keep hearing the refrain of Mick Jagger and the Stones'
"Neo-con" song in my mind...
Somebody's peddling paranoia and fear -- too many are buying.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 28, 2008 10:33 PM
Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 28, 2008 10:33 PM
Somebody's peddling paranoia and fear -- too many are buying.
No one is peddling anything - but to be fore warned is to be fore armed. Even Goliath had his weakness along with Sampson. I wish the enemy wore arm-bands with little swastickas on them. You could identify them. But this enemy knows no geographical boundries, no national orgin, age, etc. They also believe that anyone that is not one of them is worthless and their God smiles when they kill an infidel. They do not want to live in peace and harmony with people that do not believe as they do. The have to be superior, incharge and control. They do not respect life in fact to die while at war with the enemy is a 1st Class ticket to their paradise. They even will use the mentally challenged to achieve their goals.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 28, 2008 11:54 PM
To say that the police need to handle it, sorry they are not equiped. It needs to be a colaborative effort, but we need to keep them out of our country.
That is why I called it a police issue rather than a military one -- we need cooperation from the host country to do that. Our military is not designed to do that.
Please - the day that CNN has a program like Hannity and Combs - I'll watch it.
Ever hear of "Crossfire?"
First CNN needs to appologize for spiking evidence that caused the deaths of a few people. They have admited that they knew but would not let the story out. They have blood on their hands for their silence.
If CNN didn't have sufficient proof of whatever it was that story shouldn't have gone on the air. Depending on when this took place, it learned from CBS and the TANG story that it botched. See how people complain about stories being spiked when it suits theiragenda? We can't win!
His instant removal of our troups from the Mideast will be a sign of weakness and will embolden them to strike us at will.
1) Obama has yet to say he would do that and in fact would be crazy to do so.
2) That we went over there in the first place and still there after five is itself a sign of weakness, because it means that we trust in our military first and don't have the moral gumption to change policies when they don't work. We went into Iraq out of sheer arrogance, and look what it's cost us -- and I don't simply mean in $$$.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 29, 2008 12:06 AM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 29, 2008 12:06 AM
Ever hear of "Crossfire?"
Not even in the same league. I don't think that Crossfire is on CNN.
'Obama has yet to say he would...'
Yes he did. He would start to remove the troups as soon as he took office and would be willing to send them back if needed.
You and i will never come to an understanding about Iraq so i will not comment - and save my fingers for something else.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 29, 2008 12:14 AM
Not even in the same league. I don't think that Crossfire is on CNN.
It was cancelled some years ago, and I used to watch it regularly until its last few seasons. A lot of conservatives like Hannity and Colmes because Hannity, the conservative, is dominant.
He would start to remove the troups as soon as he took office and would be willing to send them back if needed.
This is news to me.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 29, 2008 12:25 AM
"They have blood on their hands for their silence." Moderatelad
Hmmm.... I wonder if that same standard could be applied to silence about innocent civilian deaths in Iraq. Naw, America can do no wrong.
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 29, 2008 7:55 AM
"They also believe that anyone that is not one of them is worthless and their God smiles when they kill an infidel. They do not want to live in peace and harmony with people that do not believe as they do. The have to be superior, incharge and control. They do not respect life in fact to die while at war with the enemy is a 1st Class ticket to their paradise. They even will use the mentally challenged to achieve their goals."
An impartial observer from space, whose thoughts are not as our thoughts, whose ways are not as our ways, might find the above to be an expression of a universal kind of reductionist thinking among a divided and alienated mankind.
I myself have met many in my own country (the America I love) who express a version of those same mistaken thoughts.
Many of us believe that our soldiers who die killing those our leaders have designated as "enemy" have given their lives so that we might live, that we might be free, and so their sacrifice is as great as that of Jesus: "No greater love than he who lays down his life for his brother." Our national cemetary has become a religious shrine to these holy sacrifices. Do we not assume, even demand, these noble fallen warriors to be in heaven?
Moreover, some of our leaders have often expressed violent thoughts couched in moral crusades of religious dimension. Patton's words, "we give the enemy the maximum chance to die for his country," "kill them all and let God sort out His own" are expressions of the same sort of thinking. We always imbue our warfare with holy purpose - even revenge - rather than the pragmatic self-interest of the elites who manufacture war fever that are too often the underlying reality.
Contempt for and demonization to the subhuman are rife in the slang of our soldiers regarding the people of the lands we occupy - and not just towards those who take up arms.
Some of us believe we have to stamp out, pre-emptively, every sort of society that isn't modelled after our own, as a potential threat to our own way of life. We have to keep even allies permanently weak - so that no possible competitor that might become a threat to our supremacy can ever emerge.
We have to fight the rest of mankind, everywhere, so we won't have to fight them here. It's an oxymoron, because the "here" is this small planet we all share. What kind of mentality sees our nation as a gated community and the rest of mankind as a very bad neighborhood?
Sadly, even the last line is true, as failing policies shown to have not been based on reality no longer attract the best-educated, and standards are dropped to attract IED fodder, that is, people who are called upon to kill and be killed, while those who decide they are to be sacrificed remain comfortable.
I'm sure this is how it appears from on high, for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are His ways higher than our ways, and His thoughts higher than our thoughts.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 29, 2008 1:03 PM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 29, 2008 12:25 AM
So - you are saying that Alan Combs is a light-weight? I wouldn't. The guy is very intelligent and articulate and I enjoy listening to him - even on radio. He is very direct in his questioning and debate. But then again - are we playing the victim card so that 'poor liberal' is weak and the conservative is unfair?
If anything Hannity and Combs is one of the major reasons that FOX is fair and balanced. But you can believe that Combs is a weakling.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 29, 2008 1:34 PM
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 29, 2008 7:55 AM
'...same standard could be applied...'
OK - so are we talking military or journalism because they are two different issues in my book. You want to lump them together so that we can just blast conservatives at will - go ahead. CNN by their own admission is not a news channel for the US the are for the world - which is fine. But when they were today that Saddam was going to make nice with his two sons in law who he believed had betrayed him and he was going to murder them. CNN knew this prior to it happening and did nothing to warm them directly or through contact that they have in the State Dept. They showed their true colors. Getting the news and being able to get the news is more important than any life in the world.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 29, 2008 1:42 PM
"If anything Hannity and Combs is one of the major reasons that FOX is fair and balanced"
If one has a certain conservative perspective that those prototypes (stereotypes?) accurately reflect the reality of what conservatives and liberals respectively actually do look and behave like.
I think it's pretty obvious that the "conservative" is seen as masculine and strong, while the "liberal" is goofy and weak, on that program.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 29, 2008 2:10 PM
So - you are saying that Alan Combs is a light-weight? I wouldn't.
Because you disagree with him but he's "nice" about it. I resolved long ago never to be "nice" when it came to the political right because many of them have no respect for those who don'g agree with them. And BTW, I refuse to watch the Fox News Channel because its journalistic integrity is always in question; it's never on in the newsroom where I work because we understand that too.
And speaking of journalism, if you want to talk about getting the story at the expense of everything else, how about the MSM chasing down Clinton's alleged corruption based on false or misleading information? (I would have to do some research on what you said about Saddam and his sons-in-law because I simply don't believe what you say about it.)
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 29, 2008 3:13 PM
Ngchen (or whoever originally quoted Romans 3:4)
, don't forget to view Romans 3 in context.
Here is the entire chapter...
" Romans 3 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
Romans 3
God's Faithfulness
1What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.
3What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? 4Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:
"So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge."[a]
5But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" 8Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.
No One is Righteous
9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better[b]? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."[c]
13"Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit."[d]
"The poison of vipers is on their lips."[e]
14"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."[f]
15"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know."[g]
18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."[h]
19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
Righteousness Through Faith
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law."
I would comment further, but i'd prefer to just let people see this chapter in context of the original comments.
Posted by: jwlnler | March 29, 2008 3:34 PM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 29, 2008 3:13 PM
'...never to be "nice" when it came to the political right because many of them have no respect...'
Nice liberals like many of my friends have a great impact on me and have changed my thinking. So has Alan Combs because he is nice - respectful and challenge others thinking without disrespecting them. This is why I can not listen to a Michael Savage - it is a respect issue.
'...I simply don't believe what you say...'
Silly me - and I had a great respect for you and what you said even when I disagreed with you. I have not questioned you intellengence or integrety. I now see how you size me up so there is no need for further discussion. You have solidified my resolve. Your arorgance and holier than thou attitude is now yours and your alone.
Blessings - BYE!
(please do not respond anything that I may write in the future - I know how you feel and I will have nothing to say)
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 29, 2008 4:24 PM
Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 29, 2008 2:10 PM
'...the "conservative" is seen as masculine and strong, while the "liberal" is goofy and weak...'
That is not what they see in the polls they have done. Alan has support from several and various groups. I find him a person of integrety and intellect. Do you really believe that anyone - regardless of political affiliation - hang in on a program like that just to be the other ones baffoon? I do not see Alan doing that.
I can wait to tell him on his show what so many think about him on this site - this is too funny in some ways and extreamly tradgic in oh so many other ways. (I am shocked - I understand the need to dismiss people on the other side of the fence - but one of your own to be labeled more or less a 'stooge'. I am speechless - almost)
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 29, 2008 4:31 PM
Silly me - and I had a great respect for you and what you said even when I disagreed with you. I have not questioned you intellengence or integrety.
It's not yours that's in question; it's the media you subscribe to. They have shown themselves to be less-than-forthcoming about the truth because their ideological agenda is to be defended at all costs, even if they have to lie in the process.
Do you really believe that anyone - regardless of political affiliation - hang in on a program like that just to be the other ones baffoon?
If the money is right, certainly. Remeber, folks have to be paid.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 29, 2008 6:13 PM
"I am shocked - I understand the need to dismiss people on the other side of the fence - but one of your own to be labeled more or less a 'stooge'. I am speechless - almost"
Well, they could have gotten somebody who looks and sounds like Hannity to be the liberal and someone who looks like Coombes to be the conservative, but from Roger Ailes on down everybody knows they wanted a "liberal" foil to play off Hannity.
However, these shows are scripted to make money through polarisation and controversy by boosting ratings, not by genuine engagement, and the agenda of the network owners is in service of their own interests.
They are cartoons and caricatures of the issues, at best.
The people playing the roles are happy to be so handsomely paid to play them on cue, regardless of which role they've been assigned.
Rotating dazzling graphics of "Fair and Balanced" and saying, "We report, You decide" in stentorian tones is transparently manipulative - in truth, Murdoch doth protest too much.
It reminds me much of "Network," with Peter Finch as Howard Beale - remarkably, in similarly stagflated and quagmired times as these - confessing to being a purveyor of bull****.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 29, 2008 8:43 PM
"OK - so are we talking military or journalism because they are two different issues in my book." Moderatelad
You speak of innocent blood. I think that an consistent ethic would denounce the shedding of innocent blood whether in the realm of the military or in journalism. The ethic that you have consistently articulated on this blog is one of callous indifference to the shedding of innocent blood by this war and its effects on Iraqi society in general. You chalk that up to "liberating" the Iraqis when in fact they weren't asking for your simplistic John Wayne style of "liberation". Then you get your undies in a wad over some alleged thing where CNN didn't warn Saddam's sons or sons-in-law about danger. Two or three lives verses A MINIMUM of 85,000 lives. The only rational explanation I can find for the disconnect is that you have made the U.S. your "god" that can do no wrong.
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 29, 2008 9:52 PM
"So has Alan Combs because he is nice - respectful and challenge others thinking without disrespecting them." Moderatelad
Hannity and Colmes is a staged show to have the dominant conservative and a weak, ineffectual liberal. Sure you like Colmes- he doesn't say it like it is.
You want the liberal to be "respectful" but I somehow doubt that you worry too much about how gratuitously nasty the likes Rush Limbaugh can be- like when he plays on his show the song "Barack the magic negro" song on his pithy, useless little program.
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 29, 2008 9:59 PM
Pox news is the propaganda arm of the radical right and Alan Colmes is Sean Hannity's mild mannered stooge.
How long do you think Hannity could last in a debate with a real progressive like say, Thom Hartmann or Rachel Maddow?
By the way, check out the breaking news from Baghdad and Basra and ask yourself if the surge is working.
Posted by: justintime | March 29, 2008 11:22 PM
Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 29, 2008 8:43 PM
'...everybody knows they wanted a "liberal" foil to play off...'
Not according to Combs' book. I purchased it for a friend of mine to read while recovering from surgery. I read a few protions prior to giving it to him. (he is a Mondale liberal) I plan on reading it after he is done with it. Alan is no shrinking violet to any conservative. Articulate and to the point.
They are cartoons and caricatures of the issues, at best.
Sorta the Lauer - Curric - Rather form of journalism? Manufactured evidence for reporting. Cutting interviews short when you got the sound bite you wanted. Loading the questions so that any answer would be wrong or embarrissing - huh?
CNN - news you can trust - NOT!
'...Howard Beale...'
Beale never exsisted in real TV anchor news and the title 'Network' was approiate for the time. (it was not 'Cable' it was 'NETWORK'!)
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 30, 2008 12:37 AM
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 29, 2008 9:52 PM
No - I will talk military/political and the mistakes that we have made and what could have been done different.
OR
I will take journalism and their mistakes in reporting or lack of reporting and what could have been done different.
You just want to throw everyting in the same pot and blame conservatives - will not go there.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 30, 2008 12:42 AM
"ANd your side has praised the Daily Kost.." Moderatelad
Thanks for the tip. Never had heard of them. Will have to look them up.
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 30, 2008 8:07 AM
"Beale never exsisted in real TV anchor news and the title 'Network' was approiate for the time. (it was not 'Cable' it was 'NETWORK'!)"
Paddy Chayefsky, the writer, explained that it was a satire about the entertainment and ratings distortions applied to to "reporting" the news applicable to "TV" and mass media in general.
Ratings are still king, regardless of whether you're talking broadcast or cable.
Chayefsky was prophetic about the trends. The Wright brouhaha falls neatly into just how he predicted cutting a half hour into 15 seconds effectively makes it entertainment, not news. That inaccuracy knows no political bounds, either.
How can any complexity or issue be accurately turned into soundbites, even if there were no bias? It's impossible.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 30, 2008 11:15 AM
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 30, 2008 8:07 AM
Thanks for the tip. Never had heard of them. Will have to look them up.
Never heard of them - where have you been? (LOL)
Blessings -.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 30, 2008 8:47 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?