War After Weary War?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by KenH, Oct 30, 2003.

  1. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    War After Weary War?

    David Alan Black

    I often wonder why people get so perturbed over the much-deserved criticism the president is receiving from opponents of the Iraqi war. Even if people back the war effort, they should still be outraged by the fact that our troops lack sufficient body armor, that they were lied to about the length of their deployments, that they were unprepared for guerilla style combat in the war zone, etc.

    Evangelical Christians who speak out against the war and who share a strong commitment to Jeffersonian republicanism need not hide their heads in shame. If an alleged war in the interest of “democracy” does not interest them, they are very much in step with Americans who through the years have opposed all imperialistic ambitions, whatever veneer of benevolence they may have been disguised with.

    Even those Christians who support the war should still abhor war per se and at the very least refrain from glorifying it. The fact is that America has become a hotbed of military ardor and nationalist enthusiasm. The country seems to be rushing into a permanent state of military involvement in nations that pose no threat to our national security. Certainly this is not healthy for the country. For example, military sociologists are now predicting that the high level of demoralization among our troops deployed in Iraq will almost certainly lead to a rise in the number of soldiers deciding against reenlisting after their current tour of duty is over. The end result will likely be a fresh move toward a policy of compulsory military service in our nation, entailing increased interference of the state in individual and family life. War will follow wearily upon war, while at home the war bureaucracies will continue to multiply, contempt for civil liberties will continue to increase, and free speech will continue to be assailed.

    The good news is this: just such a national situation may be the necessary precondition for a nation-wide spiritual revival. More than ever, the gospel of Jesus Christ will be seen for what it truly is—a blessed relief from mankind’s utterly sinful state of affairs, whether that state of affairs goes under the name of humanism, nationalism, or any other -ism.

    For the time being, however, Wilsonian interventionism is likely to continue to be the name of the game. President Bush, unless defeated in the 2004 election, will go on promoting the New World Order. Our nation may indeed attain security, but if it does so it will be at the expense of the great principles of political liberty and economic freedom upon which it was founded.

    October 21, 2003

    David Alan Black is the editor of www.daveblackonline.com. He is currently finishing his latest book, Why I Stopped Listening to Rush: Confessions of a Recovering Neocon.

    - www.daveblackonline.com/war_after_weary_war.htm
     
  2. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ken H,

    You said, ' President Bush, unless defeated in the 2004 election, will go on promoting the New World Order.'

    Our President may believe in a one world order, but it sure did not feel like it when we went into Iraq nearly by ourselves. England, as you know, was our greatest supporter of this conflict. Spain also made her contribution, but for the most part our allies like France and Russia refused to get involved. In fact, they are not our allies; nations change and their political views also.

    Some may wish not to destroy terror coming out of these Muslim nations, but I personally like it better than having them revolt in our American streets. Some officials seem to think that 2/3rds of the leadership of these terror groups are already killed or in custody. We as various nations have done a lot to stop their wicked efforts. I say a good job so far and well done.

    Modern Americans want a war without casualties. How many men are buried in France because of our vested interest in destroying Hitler and liberating France? Multiple thousands . . . and yet we want a war in Iraq with no loss of lives. This is more than a little incongruous in the light of the losses in WWI and WWII.

    We did not start the war in Iraqu; the Muslim nations started the war with their attack on 9/11 in New York City.
     
  3. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would you say the same thing if we attacked, for instance, Brazil? I would be all for the war against Iraq if there were good evidence that Iraq was behind 9/11. But even the President admits that there isn't You can't have it both ways. Well, I guess if you're President with a Congress sitting it out for their pensions maybe you can.
     
  4. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    The Ba'athist Party, the Fascist Party, the Nazi Party, the Communist Party, and the Imperial Japanese are all in the same category. The term "crimes against humanity" hardly applies to what the innumerable monsters of these parties have done to ordinary people in the hundreds of millions.

    Now the Islamofascists of the Middle East have gathered in Babylon to mass kamikaze attacks on American soldiers, who are the finest soldiers in the history of the world by any means of measurement. God Bless Our Troops And Their Families! God Bless The USA!
     
  5. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen. And, God, please give us a president who cares about the troops and the interests of the citizens of this great land.
     
  6. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,816
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen. And, God, please give us a president who cares about the troops and the interests of the citizens of this great land. </font>[/QUOTE]Ken, Since Jesus Christ himself said, There would always be wars and rumors of wars and the poor would be with us always, you must be talking about the interests of middle class citizens like yourself who DON'T LIKE the president. I think that firmly puts you in the minority camp! But go for it - That's what America is all about.
     
  7. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Support the troops. Bring them home.
     
  8. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,816
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep - Better to fight on streets of Washington, New York, Chicago, Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Atlanta and Dallas. That way the troops can have supper with their families.

    We have two beachheads in the Middle East which are attracting all kinds of bad guys from all corners of the muslim world. Like moths to the lightbulb they are coming.

    So what's better? Soldiers dying in the battle against terrorism over there or Firemen and Policemen and Civilians dying over here?
     
  9. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    How long will our troops be dying in Afghanistan and Iraq? Mr. Rumsfeld has admitted that the enemy is producing terrorists faster than we can kill them.

    The point is that while there was a need and a reason to invade Afghanistan, there was no need and no reason to invade Iraq(except to try to carry out the neocons desire for American Empire).
     
  10. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hardsheller, you're behind in your reading. Even Bush admits that Hussein/Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

    But I don't think that will stop you, because that line ("I'd rather fight them there than here") is a clever sound-bite even if it has no connection with what's really going on.

    In what numerical order would you place these three things: 1) the number of terrorists we're killing (a good thing), 2) the number of civilians we're killing (a bad thing for most of us), 3) the number of terrorists we're creating(a bad thing).

    I was going to mention the enormous financial burden that this will place on future generations, but remembered that you consider the printing presses at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to be an infinite supply of money, so I left it out.
     
  11. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    Hardsheller, I agree with you one hundred percent! Every Islamofascist in the Middle East has crawled out from underneath his rock and is slithering towards Babylon to commit kamikaze against the innocent. The crimes against humanity done to the common people of Iraq under the Ba'athist Party are sickening.

    People who want Bush removed have set aside their reason to find any point from which to launch a political attack. To proclaim the Ba'athist Party was not a threat to the USA when we had to pay in blood and treasure for ten years of no-fly zones in north and south Iraq is to just forget history. Were we supposed to have continued this military effort of air power until the end of the world? Indeed, the political enemies of Bush seem to be the isolationists from the 1930s who did not want to stop Italy in Ethiopia (those people live in mud houses), Japan in China and Manchuria (those people live in mud houses), or Germany in Czechoslovakia (those people became the first displaced persons of World War II for "peace in our time").

    Hardsheller, I would tell the political enemies of Bush that one cannot appease Islamofascism. Clinton tried it. But these people are going to force the Democrat Party to nominate Dean to give them a referendum on the war. And Bush will win in a landslide against Dean.
     
  12. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    This talk of an empire sounds like warmed-up French, German, and Belgium leftovers. That was the European propaganda line. Have you been reading Pope John Paul II? Why would anyone in his right mind try to make an empire out of Babylon? LOL!
     
  13. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see that you are continuing to drink the Bush administration kool-aid, church mouse guy.
     
  14. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    It is a Hoosier tradition to drink kool-aid, Ken. Jim Jones, a Disciples of Christ denomination minister, got his start here in Indianapolis--try to get someone from Indianapolis to talk about it. (I am from rural Indiana originally.) Jim Jones (Peoples Temple cult, for you young folks) was very popular here in Indianapolis because he gave big baskets of food to the poor when the cameras were on him. Afterwards he talked people into signing their property over to him and moving to California. His building here burnt down soon afterward. It is no surprise that whenever Jim Jones moved away, his old building burnt down.

    You Libertarians frightened me away when you linked to famous people in your political party and you listed Howard Stern and Dr. Demento. The Libertarians have two problems: 1. No issues. 2. No worthy candidate for President.

    You would be better off voting the Democrat Party in 2004, Ken. Not even you can find an issue for the Libertarians, Ken.
     
  15. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is actually a very major difference between the parties. The Democrats tend to favor a strong, federal government with social spending financed by taxes and tariffs, while Libertarians want minimal government (of any kind, but a particular horror of federal intrusion into private business) and no, or almost no, taxation.

    If I understand it correctly.

    Then, there seem to be two factions of Libertarians: some want a pure, unfettered free market (let the strong be strong and the weak perish) and some don't mind some regulation of business, but want freedom in their private lives.
     
  16. Kiffin

    Kiffin
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    You Libertarians frightened me away when you linked to famous people in your political party and you listed Howard Stern and Dr. Demento.

    Hmmm...don't forget those GOP voices of morality like David Duke, Arnold, Ted Nugent, Jim Kolbe, Bo Derek. Clean up your own house before throwing stones at someone else.
     
  17. Kiffin

    Kiffin
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmmm...A strict literal interpretation of the US Constitution is the Libertarian issue. Something neither the GOP or the Democrats believe in anymore.

    Have you read any of his posts? The Libetarian party as well as the Constitution party (a party I greatly respect and might consider some day) are all about issues and Constitutional authority and not about power which is what the Democrats and the GOP are about.
     
  18. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    And the GOP include four presidents among the worst in American history:

    Abraham Lincoln - unjustly invaded the South.

    Ulysses S. Grant - one of the most corrupt administrations in U.S. history.

    Warren Harding - also a very corrupt administration.

    Richard Nixon - also involved in a horrific scandal and forced to resign from office.
     
  19. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    Really, Kiffin, you are starting to sound like Tip O'Neal. You know perfectly well that David Duke has been shunned by the GOP. Why do you say things like that? How does it help your cause? And how does it prove to other Americans that you are anything but a fringe element that will say anything to gain power?

    The natural alliance should be between the Democrats and the Libertarians since both are out of power and both are vehement critics of the GOP. Why would any self-respecting Republican join with the Libertarians after the strictly partisan attacks that the Libertarians have mounted against the GOP? Notice that most of the material used by the Libertarians is discarded Democrat ideas. And notice that the Democrat Party has been getting a pass from the Libertarians. One wonders if most of the members of the Libertarian Party are not more like Howard Stern than anyone else?
     
  20. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will give you credit for one thing, church mouse guy, you are a good smack talker. Are you a former athlete? [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...