In examining the cost of the war; what dollar amount did Joseph Stiglitz place on the decision to execute Sadaam instead of placing him in prison? Did that reduce the cost of the war; or increase it? What about the precise cost of Abu Ghraib? What will the cost/benefit be to the world global oil economy? These are impossible questions to answer. And we could likely list hundreds of thousands of such questions (without exaggeration) that would have to be answered to come up with a "Total Cost" calculation. It's interesting in terms of posing a question and perspective--and extremely silly in suggesting there is an answer.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 4, 2008 11:31 AM

The US and England have always brought peace, whether it be by force or negotiation. This is a reality.

We stand for peace and we have been the arbitors of peace since we have ruled the world for the last century

Please stop your polluting of these great Nations' achievements for your own political purposes.

Posted by: Paul Jamieson | March 4, 2008 1:58 PM

Paul Jamieson: "The US and England have always brought peace, whether it be by force or negotiation. This is a reality.

We stand for peace and we have been the arbitors of peace since we have ruled the world for the last century."

That statement is so demonstrably false that it has to be intentionally provocative.

Did anyone see the latest piece in Vanity Fair on White House schemes to spark civil war in Gaza? And just because it's in Vanity Fair doesn't mean it's not true.

From the article: "Vanity Fair has obtained confidential documents, since corroborated by sources in the U.S. and Palestine, which lay bare a covert initiative, approved by Bush and implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, to provoke a Palestinian civil war. The plan was for forces led by [Muhammad]Dahlan, and armed with new weapons supplied at America’s behest, to give Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power. (The State Department declined to comment.)"

Posted by: carl copas | March 4, 2008 3:19 PM

We stand for peace and we have been the arbitors of peace since we have ruled the world for the last century

Posted by: Paul Jamieson

It makes sense within our idealogy , but those who want this government to get larger for the most part and do more , respect it less but want it to get larger . Those who respect our government and sysyem , want it smaller . Are we strange or what .

Anyway my solution if I was King . Put about 400,000 on the government payroll to come up with a renewable energy resource and system it works within . I think this all have a great influence on world peace also .

We did it with our march to the moon , the manhatten project is another example .

Together we are pretty good at doing great things

Posted by: Mick | March 4, 2008 3:34 PM

Paul Jamieson,

I suppose you’d like to believe that the U.S. does nothing but promote democracy around the world too.

Have you ever heard of Operation Ajax?

The CIA led a coup against the democratically elected president of Iran in 1953 to reinstate the Shah.

I lived in Iran in 1978. The Shah was a despot of the worst sort – the U.S. put him in power and supported him.

Have you ever heard of the SAVAK? The CIA trained and supported the Shah’s secret police. People disappeared off the streets for making negative comments about the Shah. The SAVAK used methods of torture they learned from the CIA.

That’s just one example with which I happen to be very familiar. If you do your homework, you’ll find many others.

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 4, 2008 3:46 PM

Oh yes, do you know why the CIA sponsored Operation Ajax and the Shah?

One word: OIL.

Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 4, 2008 3:49 PM

Fair enough, Mick, but as Sarah Chayes told Bill Moyers a couple of weeks ago (loose paraphrase):

-NATO will tell you that things are much better now in Afghanistan, the road from Kabul to Kandahar is paved, for example. What they don't tell you is that nobody drives that road b/c of the explosives that are buried there or b/c of the 5 Taliban checkstops along the way-

Thus the question remains: what constitutes the kind of peace that Paul Jamieson claims the U.S./England have consistently brought?

Posted by: canucklehead | March 4, 2008 4:43 PM

Ted Voth Jr,

For the most part, I agree with your post - except for this:

What on Earth makes you think that God would WANT to claim the U.S. as "His Republic?"

His Creation, His Earth, and His people certainly, but His Country? I don't think so.

The Old Testament Prophets weren't just speaking to the Hebrews, Israel, or the Jews, they were speaking to US. We – all of us, myself included - have turned our back on God and have become idolaters - we worship money and power.

When I see signs that read "God Bless America," I think to myself, "That 'B' doesn't belong there."

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 4, 2008 5:25 PM

Thus the question remains: what constitutes the kind of peace that Paul Jamieson claims the U.S./England have consistently brought?

Posted by: canucklehead

I think you are speaking to two points . One because the enemy is very strong , and actually may win , does not mean we should not have gone into Afhganstan . The policy and how we did it I totally agree appears to be bogus . I guess I am trying to say because you swung the bat at a 100 mph fastball over the plate does not mean you were wrong to try and hit it . But we should have sent up a better batter and not saved him for another country . That make sense ?

I would not say England and the United states consistently brought peace , but compared and rest of the world , we are not terrorists and we should be credited for doing some great things to promote world peace and trying to stop human suffering . Paul statements are perhaps being taken as Gospel , I think perhaps he was responding to some statements that were new to him , and that failed to respect some of the sacrifices and desires of so many Americans to do what is right . I am glad i am an American , we are diverse , we respect more rights and allow more freedoms for a reason . We goof up sure .
Power going to unchecked agencies apparently does that . I do like the Bourne movies however .

I put Canada in the context of a nation standing for right and justice also by the way .

By the way , how did the Canadians feel about Obama saying he was going to use a "hammer" to renegotiate NAFTA.

Sounded good to this man's Union , but I figured those in Canada may have thought this was not the way to start making America appear to be a more freindly and upright nation , using a hammer on your neigbor sounded a bit harsh .

Posted by: Mick | March 4, 2008 6:48 PM

The other thing that's being thrown around a lot are stats indicating that the Ohio car-manufacturing sector didn't so much lose their jobs to the Cdns and Mexico as they did to the Chinese

Posted by: Canucklehead | March 4, 2008 7:38 PM

helen; the author has no concept of the cost of freedom.
(peace) ...is the supreme goal of the kingdom of God.... what ever happened to spreading the gospel? did Christ want to make peace amoung all nations? or bring salvation to men and women?
this is a typical statement from a politically active, professional religious man. the pursuit of peace in the world is a noble cause. bringing salvation to one person is more noble. so,,,,,think peace, pray for peace and ...act peace????
those of you who continue to whip this government will have your day after the elections.

Posted by: jerry | March 4, 2008 8:54 PM

You should add that the cause of peace is also the reason soldiers are fighting on our behalf. Yes, it's strange and ironic that we have to fight for peace. However, the rules of this world changed when sin entered this world. We must strive for peace, but we must also understand that until Jesus comes back, evil will exist and mankind will continue to turn against mankind. We can not let evil triumph and must protect our peace and freedom that we have.

Posted by: Tom | March 4, 2008 10:56 PM

I realize it's not conventional wisdom; but the sermon on the mount seems clear.
Igor

Igor would Jesus have said allow Hitler to go unchecked ? That by confronting evil it went against the meaning of no greater measure of love that one lose his life for another / That loving your neigbor means allowing him to be buthchered , family members separated and enslaved , were those liberal NorthEastern Christians who volunteered in the American Civil War and who fought in the civil war to free us from the evil of slavery not actually carrying out the Love in the Sermon of the Mount ? I believe it is something that should be held with strict understanding of each others personal faith , its a personal issue , not one that has anyone holier then another , let no one injure another faith over this , But let us all work to keep our government accountable . That is really what putting our faith in action means anyway, right ,

I think context in scripture is needed , and perhaps we can always find reasons not to go to war , and I would agree with all those reasons , except when it is clear by doing nothing , evil and death would grow . Then would not suppose to tell anyone what Jesus would tell Him .

I have never understood the scriptures to mean defending ones family , ones fellowman from tyranny and evil as going against the Scriptures .

Gandi in India worked well , Gandi in 1938 Germany means he is killed and all his followers also . God would not want that either .

Posted by: Mick | March 5, 2008 1:16 AM

Yeah, swords into plow shares!

Farmland on the rise in the US.

It's odd that the symbol of our economic power came down and we behaved like Russia did before their collapse.

Hillary mocks hope and those who think "might makes right" and "the end justifies the means" would make US follow them over the precipise of destruction.

We left our farms and families
To put our trust in the likes of these
Money, not man they hold dear
Heaven sheds another tear

They put up themselves and took God out
Now we suffer a mighty bout
They treated God like make believe
For power and pride they decieve

Put down their weapons for heaven's sake
Their reliance unworthy, their value fake
Open will another gate
It's up to US to love or hate

Posted by: Barbara | March 5, 2008 9:49 AM

"Would Jesus have said allow Hitler to go unchecked?"

It's always convenient to one's argument to make statements that don't have context and can therefore prove anything one wants them to.

Hitler wasn't alone and Nazism didn't grow up in a vacuum. We couldn't possibly have been absolutely moral in our reasons for going to war. Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel said that when Jewish families were suffering in Germany, they prayed for President Roosevelt. Yet he later suffered a crisis of faith when he learned that Roosevelt known and had been indifferent to the fate of the Jews.

"We felt abandoned, forgotten. All of us did.

"And our only miserable consolation was that we believed that Auschwitz and Treblinka were closely guarded secrets; that the leaders of the free world did not know what was going on behind those black gates and barbed wire; that they had no knowledge of the war against the Jews that Hitler's armies and their accomplices waged as part of the war against the Allies.

"If they knew, we thought, surely those leaders would have moved heaven and earth to intervene. They would have spoken out with great outrage and conviction. They would have bombed the railways leading to Birkenau, just the railways, just once.

And now we knew, we learned, we discovered that the Pentagon knew, the State Department knew. And the illustrious occupant of the White House.

"The depressing tale of the St. Louis is a case in point. Seventy years ago, its human cargo -- maybe 1,000 Jews -- was turned back to Nazi Germany. And that happened after the Kristallnacht, after the first state sponsored pogrom, with hundreds of Jewish shops destroyed, synagogues burned, thousands of people put in concentration camps. And that ship, which was already on the shores of the United States, was sent back.

"Why did some of America's largest corporations continue to do business with Hitler's Germany until 1942? It has been suggested, and it was documented, that the Wehrmacht could not have conducted its invasion of France without oil obtained from American sources. How is one to explain their indifference?"

IBM's New York office, under president Tom Watson's signature, supplied all the computing machines and punchcards and did onsite maintenance at the concentration camps for all its equipment, used by the Nazis to allow the bureaucratic extermination machine to function - right through the war.

We have forgotten that Fascism and Nazism had great appeal among many in depression-era America, an America still virulently racist with its many racist laws prohibiting voting, ownership, membership and accomodation and even marriage, all on the basis of race.
Race-baiting and lynchings were still common. Black women were forcibly sterilised using the same pseudo-scientific racist "data" the Nazis used. The popular radio hosts of the day, like Father Coughlin, were overtly racist and fascist.

Which brings us to this statement:

"Were those liberal NorthEastern Christians who volunteered in the American Civil War and who fought in the civil war to free us from the evil of slavery not actually carrying out the Love in the Sermon of the
Mount?"

Clearly, they were not. They were not loving their neighbor, but hating their enemy. When you hate, you have justified killing and are already guilty of it as Jesus explained in those same passages. Another hundred years passed before real change came to the South - but only through Christian non-violent resistance.

Anyone who says that you are loving your fellow-man by killing him by automated means on gargantuan scale is misusing language in a most Orwellian way. Even Lincoln said the cause of war was secession, not the issue of slavery and that he put maintaining the union before slavery. He did not even believe Africans were genetically equal to Europeans.

The Civil War was the single greatest loss of life in a single conflict on the planet up to that time. Is that milestone one to be proud of? It has became a crucible of the holiness of redemptive violence that has become a defining part of the American civil religion, imbuing all subsequent conflicts of America with a sacrosanct messianic aura that is undeserved.

"We can always find reasons not to go to war, and I would agree with all those reasons, except when it is clear by doing nothing, evil and death would grow."

Yet in sheer numbers, going to war, whether in World War I, World War II, the Vietnam conflict or in Iraq, deaths have vastly proliferated over not going to war. No side managed more than a fraction of the hundred million last century (at least) by itself.

"Gandi in India worked well, Gandi in 1938 Germany means he is killed and all his followers also . God would not want that either."

The example of non-violent resistance by Christians and others committed to loving their neighbors, the Jews, in Denmark shows practically how non-violence could succeed and did against the Nazi occupation. The Jews in Denmark were saved by the Danish bureaucrats' non-violent noncompliance and the will of their people to resist by any non-violent means possible.

Christians in Germany - and the world - preferred to remain indifferent and feign ignorance. Martin Luther's own diatribes against the Jews in his time, calling for them to be burned out of their homes and synagogues in pogroms, helped stoke a justification for Protestant indifference, not only in Germany but elsewhere in Europe and America as well.

We did not enter war with Japan until our own imperial outpost was attacked by Japan and then not even with Germany until Germany itself declared war with America by announcing alliance with Japan.

"I have never understood the scriptures to mean defending ones family, ones fellowman from tyranny and evil as going against the Scriptures."

There is a hard but principled answer to this, that has to do with just how far one is really willing to go for in following Jesus.

The Apostle, writing in scripture says,

"For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain."

"Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord -- for we walk by faith, not by sight -- we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord."

If we use deadly violence to defend our lives, we are laying down the life of another so that we may continue to remain at home in the body. When we end that other person's life, unlike us, he or she will have no more opportunity to repent or to undergo redemption.

What about our children? Our children go to be with the Lord when they die, not having reached the age of accountability.

Do we really believe, with the apostle, that to die in Christ is preferable, if for the cause of Christ?

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

And rather than take up His hand against murderers and torturers, he allowed them to kill Him, praying for their salvation and redemption: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

And many of those participating, Jew and Roman alike, were thereby saved and did repent, fulfilling the Father's will. One of the executioners was moved to cry out by His non-violent sacrifice, giving life instead of taking it, "Truly this man was the Son of God."

For 300 years, our Christian faith spread through martyrdom, non-violent resistance to evil, until its influence had grown so mighty that the Emperor Constantine sought to compromise it through making it a unity with the power of the imperial state.

Can we take up our cross for Jesus, instead of yielding to temptation and wielding the sword for those kingdoms of the world that were under Satan's authority to offer Him?

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 5, 2008 2:26 PM

"Are you saying to me, that Jesus is telling us to give the person about to murder our family food, clothing, and perhaops even rounds of ammo for his weapon?"

I guess you added in the bit about giving the ammo to try to sarcastically make your unscriptural point.

"Or are we suppose to fight back?"

The Lord commanded, "Peter, put up your sword." Moreover, He said that "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword." Some of us are certainly dying by it now.

The real battle is fought, scripture tells us, against "principalities and spiritual powers in high places," against "the things that are in the saddle, and ride mankind," as Emerson observed.

"I think this is where you loose my understanding , but if your concerned , perhaps help me on this one . Because right now that kind of theology to me is like saying you can not have a blood transfusion . Yes their are scriptures you can point to that make that belief appear Bibical , but in over all context , nope . It makes no sense ."

Again you've added in something about "blood transfusions" to confuse the issue, which is rather about Jesus non-violent resistance to evil, by "doing good to those who spitefully use you" and "loving your enemy."

"The Lord wants us to live , and not allow evil to destroy oor ability to give him Glory and praise."

Yet what is Christian martyrdom? What made our faith powerful before we allied it with Roman power, where Rome gained and we lost?

Why does Jesus say we have to be ready to give up our lives - to take up the Cross, and follow Him? That he who seeks to save his life will lose it? Why does the apostle say that "to die is Christ" and is gain, not loss? Why did all the apostles suffer martyrdom, all of them without taking any human life, even that of those who sought to kill them?

"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition" is not a scriptural passage.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 5, 2008 2:53 PM

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition" is not a scriptural passage.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth

Nor is praise the Lord and demonize those who honestly seek him .

Posted by: Mick | March 5, 2008 3:40 PM

It's always convenient to one's argument to make statements that don't have context and can therefore prove anything one wants them to

"I guess you added in the bit about giving the ammo to try to sarcastically make your unscriptural point"

There's some sort of mental ju-jitsu going on, to accuse others of what one is guilty of oneself, as if that expiates the offense against another.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth

No actually I was following scripture , if someone is trying to steal from you , the Lord told us to give him more . Your judgements were sarcasti , not mine . I was actually trying to understand , trying to have a balanced understanding with a brother , you have shown that is not possible with your superiority understanding of my mental process as i am being convicted accordding to you by the Holy Spirit .

My Son In Law , in an armed ship just off the coast of Costa Rica was involved in a hugh Maritime Bust . no one was injured , but the use of force was used , It is very possible that the drug King pins at times will use force . I find your belief non based in WJWD .

I was seeking understanding , I find your false pride and constant unfounded ability to see into hearts when you share a different view injurious to the Body of christ . I hope you do not do this with those who are new to the Gospel , as you have no idea who the people are you are talking to , or who is listening . Jesus has always met us where we are , you tend to believe we are all up to your speed .

Nevermind I guess , but I was hoping to have an exchange with Deryll about this , my limited knowledge would be something of the old Sargeant ork story , a conscientious object in ww1 who came into a situation that led his heart to believe by killing the germans in front of him was saving lives .

How you believe your answer is above his heart or feel you need to believe honest questions regarding so are purposely planted to not come to truth is a reflection of your heart , not mine .

You broke into a conversation without any understanding of me , and promoted a belief of scripture if followed must certainly could leave loved ones dead . If this is a true teaching , your embracing of it is one thing , your following it is another , your misconceptions about those who do not agree with you is callous . No stronger faith was found then the centurion according to the Lord . So yes I have questions , honest ones . Obviously you can have Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ , in your heart . And never have the advantage of owning or reading the Bible . The Bible is not a hammer where you use it to thump another over the head with it , its God;s Love story to us .

In my heart , in my Faith , the lord would not want me to allow aperson murder my firends , my family , or strangers . I would do everything in my ability , talk , reason , fleeing , before i had to resort in violence , but if it was the life of the murderer or the life of the innocent family or strangers , i would attempt to physically stop the murderer . I do not believe that goes against the sermon on the Mount , and i know it defintly does not go against the Love of Christ i have , or His love for me ,

If I am wrong , I am Faith he will point it out to me . I suggest , you may be .
Peace and God bless you ,

Mick

Posted by: Mick | March 5, 2008 4:44 PM

Muddled thinking. Peace is a good thing, but we should support "our" soldiers, who are deemed to be fighting for "our country." Maybe this muddle makes sense to a priest for a state church, which almost by definition tries to worship God and the state simultaneously, but to me this doesn't make much sense. I'm not sure why it was published in this blog, but then a lot of what Wallis writes is pretty muddled too - he seems pretty conflicted about both war and abortion.

Posted by: Bill Samuel | March 5, 2008 8:47 PM

"mr puffed up"

"your perverted testimony"

"Neither do I find Christ or the love he expounds in your hatred"

"you spout off your religious dogma"

Those are quite the responses to a traditional faith position! They are not the first of yours, either, to contain insulting and demonizing language.

First, let me apologize to you for giving you offense from anything that is not of Christ in my words, or of His Spirit's leading. I repent of anything that has crept in that is not of Him. I don't believe I have ever disrespected you as a person, only disagreed with and countered arguments, using reason and scripture to support a strong position for non-violent resistance as the core of Jesus' teachings on how we are to live while opposing evil.

You might not be aware that you have denigrated not just me personally, rather than responding to the evidence, but that you have impugned the position of entire church communities, notably the anabaptist traditions like the Mennonites, Brethren and Amish.

You must really be upset with the strength of this scriptural position, which is based on a conservative reading of Matthew 5, 6 and 7 as well as the internal consistency of Jesus' words and actions and the teachings of the apostles in the New Testament.

Why should this provoke you to have to unfairly resort to demonization of another? Why not prove the merits of your contentions that Jesus' words aren't to be taken literally, or are not for us?

I would welcome you reading the above chapters and then addressing each of the passages, so that you can make sure of what Jesus actually said and so that we can reasonably address your contentions that I have lied, distorted or perverted His words.

Would you do that? If we are Christians, we ought to be ready to let Him have the last word.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 6, 2008 10:58 AM

Mick:

When you first began posting here, I posted some tips for you regarding how to argue fair. You seem to have forgotten some of the things I said at that time. One of the most important of them is not to attack the character of the person you disagree with.

I suggest you reread some of your more recent postings, and recognize that you aren't helping make a case for your point of view by calling people names. Sojourner Truth is right to call you on it, just as I did those several months ago.

You will do a much better job of making your case and persuading others if you concentrate on discussing and debating ideas rather than attacking others' character.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 6, 2008 1:07 PM