Probably to come home safe, right? If so, then why go in the first place? There has to be more to ask for than just that, like hatever reason for entering the armed forces. To protect something, but does God agree with what you are protecting, does God love America over the other countries?
What about winning? If they pray for winning, they are praying for God to support their killing of people (innocent and guilty, as is the case in war). Thay are also praying God likes us better than them, but I don't remember God creating people that he doesn't want to live?
Do they pray for the bombs to "do their job", and blow people up and destroy, etc...?
Does God grant wishes to those involved in a system of killing? If one single person of the side of America is not a Christian, then we are not the chosen people, how does that work? God would then have to support a non-Christain against a possible Christian on the other side. Perhaps Iraq is a bad example of that, since they are most likely Muslim on the "other side", but what about Vietnam, WWII, Korea, etc... where there was Christians on the 'other side'?
If God does grant these wishes, why for some and not others? And why do we have drag out wars that don't end? For some mysterious 'greater' cause? Like what? We still have war after all this praying, so what is the greater cause? Weeding out people, population control, seems a bit problematic to me, since God is supposed to 'give the gift of life' just to take it away?
Anything I am forgetting? If you can justify any of this, then you must be in the mind of God, because the word does not support any of this.
So why pray? Their guns protect them better than God can.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 63
I have my own dogma, in that I say "Everything is holy", and I'm perfectly aware that that's the same as saying "Nothing is holy." Still, I prefer to say everything is holy, and this world is a wonderful place. Despite all our efforts to screw it up, there are far more peaceful places than not. Ninety-eight out of a hundred people on the freeway drive respectfully. I've never met a "bad" person, only some who are on bad drugs or otherwise confused.
I guess people pray because it makes their fear easier to handle, but for me that's treating the symptoms, not the disease.
Also when you get to the New Testament and talk about the end times it says "there will be wars and rumors of wars."
As long as we live on earth there will be wars of some kind. If we pull our troops out of Iraq today the war there will continue without us. Afghanistan is a place we don't talk about much any more, everyone thinks they are doing fine, but since we are not a big presence there the Taliban has almost completely taken the country over again. The media doesn't cover that. So no matter what happens in Iraq with our troops, the war there will go on, and mark my word when we pull out and bring our troops home the terrorist attacks are going to come home with them.
First I want it known that I respect all people's beliefs (no matter what they are they are important to that person).
Tyler, your essay and the questions it raises are valid. I find it odd that this is a featured article under Politics. This is not a political question, but a moral and religious one.
It might be time for Gather.com to add a new category to their main page to focus on these type of subjects.
Namaste, Wayne
In either case anyone who puts themselves in harms way and stays thru the horror then returns for duty another day is not a fool or deviant. It require character, conviction and training. Perhaps we will see the day when ideology is moot and resourse fairly distributed then war might diminish. But that would involve a new creature ruling the earth instead of man.
I don't know whether my God takes sides, I believe that he is intereseted in each individual and what they do an believe. He gave us life so we choose.
Each person that goes to war makes a choice, and that decision is not made lightly. For today there are no illusionsof was they will face, death and/or mutilation [just watch the evening news]. They have found something so important that they are willing to risk that sacrifice. I for one am grateful that there were those willing to do it in 1776 and each time they have been call ever since.
Why they do it in Iraq, it maybe that they feel that freedom an liberty is not only for the strong and to battle tyranny in the far corners of the world is a battle for our freedom and liberty.
Anyone that has been in combat for an extend period has seen God's hand, if not for his life then for someone around them.
Congratulations on an excellent article! The moral quandaries of war are a never ending mystery to all of us! What does a soldier pray for, reminds me of the old song, The Preacher and The Bear. When the preacher goes hunting on Sunday morning and comes across a great big grizzly bear he says, among other things, "I say oh Lord if you can't help me for goodness sakes don't you help that bear!" I suspicion that is the basic attitude of those in the heat of battle. From my own fathers description I got the clear message that in battle, he didn't have any time to even think about praying. He was too busy trying to do his job and survive in the battle of the Argonne!
Someone mentioned "wars and rumors of war" and these have been with us since recorded history! I believe it behooves man to do the very best he can to achieve peace in this world and I further believe it is imperative that we start yesterday and achieve it pretty much within about 50 to 75 years or there may no longer be anyone left to accomplish it! Man holds the power to erase himself and most other living creatures off the face of the earth! This is a scary and ominous responsibility which we must not take lightly!
Thanks for the article!
He has courage, he found something he is willing to risk his future for.
Tyler you seem awfully quiet, drop your nugget of 'wisdom' and then move on.
As for past wars, I believe that the Vietnamese are predominately Buddist and the North Vietnam was Comunist, in Korea it was the Chinese and I think they would have been considered atheists.
Is your issue the Christians' God or the fighting in Iraq? I am surpised that you aren't asking "why people pray" or "why people pray in combat".
Ron, their are bad people, and there are eveil people. Hussein and his sons were evil. What they did to their Iraq and its people was cruel and evil. If the good is not to confront and battle evil than evil wins.
I think the world is a wonderful place, but we aren't working to screw it up, what we do is simply a work in progress and as we learn we do better.
Here's a whole list of gods of war and battle from cultures around the world and through history. http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_wargods.htm
Good topic.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
What an excellent portrayal of what war is really about. Think of what it takes to turn a young man or a young woman into an efficient killing machine which does not dare "think" about the collateral damage or "feel" beyond immediate survival and the whatever "good" they can find in the entire process -- or how they got there in the first place.
To the commenter who remarked on the little girl who said "thank you" you do understand that for every little girls who happens along to say 'thank you" there are thousands upon thousands who have been maimed, killed or are now orphans and homeless, because of the obscenity of sanctions in the first place, preemptive war not for democracy but for strategic position and resources, and now ongoing civil war and occupation. What simplistic, destructive pap.
Wayne and Michael M.
Unfortunately it is about politics, watch or read the speech's on the floor of the House and the Senate. It's also all about money. War is ultimately after all about control of "something," usually something that someone has that someone else wants. God and democracy are so easily invoked to justify taking it.
Thanks again for this article, Tyler. Not enough really thought provoking articles on gather.
We are an occuping army in a foreign culture in the middle of a civil war. We are there to impose a foreign political system and to exploit their only valuable resource.
Name one country that we have kept as part of the spoils of war in th last 100 years.
Yes you are right hind sight is 20/20. So far we can't see the future so we'll have to make the best guesses we can and hope for the best. You live and learn. Nobody is born with all the answers.
They are trained to follow lawful orders. No matter how the movies may portary soldiers, and how the media can only focus on the exceptions. These men and women would no more blindly follow an irresponsible order in a forgien land than they would here at home. I believe that there are untold situations where US men and women are placing them in grteater jeopardy to avoid or minimize the risk to non-combatant civilians.
I would like to know what you feel was so valuable about the system of government under Saddam and his sons that these people should not have the opportunity for freedom.
I believe there is a bias in the media, first to show and exploit the most sensational event and scenes, and second one that place them as the moral conscience of our nation (which they feel they best demonstrate by being anti President). In which case they will not hide any inappropriate actions that will refleect on the President. The news coverage I see is all about mideasterns inflicting cruel harm and destruction on the locals, so what are we evil are we imposing?
Saddam was without question a fiendish despot. He also happened to sit upon a lake of oil and had the temerity of nationalizing Iraq's oil. Iraqis in the industry counted the end of his days and eventual Western overthrow from that point. The argument his despotic and crimminal ways are justification alone that we invade and subject the Iraqis to 5 years of poverty and civil war is stupid. With that justification we should attack half the nations in Africa and tool up for conflict in a lot of Asia among other places.
Name one country in last 100 years we kept as a spoil of war? That is an irrelevent question. Until this present moronic administration our prefered "spoil" was promoting governments aligned with our economic/security interests regardless of the quality of life or choice of their peoples. Only now we suffer under the premise that we have some oppourtunity post cold war to reshape the world in our image, preferably by force.
America does not buy it anymore. Give your self a moral compass: Walk down to the nearest elementary school and look hard in the faces of the young innocents 7 to 10 years old. If George W Bush and his neo-con pals had their way some of those young ones would die in battle in the Middle East pursuing American hegemony. It's time to put this madness to an end.
Having been in the military, I guess I would pray for my family back home. I'm sure that's what a lot of them are doing over there.
When I was in the military I was trained to do my duty. Fortunately, there was no war going on when I was in, so I didn't have to face life or death decisions, even though I was trained to kill if necessary.
But if there is one thing I knew: I didn't take the subject of life and death lightly.
And I'm sure neither do the people over there in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Have you asked your friends in the military if they are doing the wanton killing of non-combatant civilians or if it truly is the terrorists that are detonating bombs in market areas, religious gathering, in local neigbhoods? Have you asked them who is doing the beheadings?
I must admit that if freedom were to take hold in Iraq that it would change the Middle East. And that change would actually lead to a real chance for stability and a move away from the culture of terror that now florishes there.
I am disappointed that the President and his staff have not met my expectations, they will be gone in less two years. However, if Iraq were to survive and have freedom it woouldn;t be the kids at the local elementary school, it would my grand kids, and those seven year olds in Iraq that are less likely to suffer and die in war or from an act of terrorism.
Are you simply down on the current President or do you feel the same way about the President that created the non-event in the Gulf of Tonkin that created the Vietnam war?
Thank you for making the point more clearly than I.
Charles,
I don't think there was anything in my comments that suggested that I think all individual soldiers are unthinking killing machines. To suggest that I belive that is like saying those who disagree with this war, or any war, are spitting on the soldiers. So simplistic and so tempting and so dishonest!
Our armed services are for the most part highly trained professionals. The process that turns them into a professional soldier has to be what it is -- because how else could an individual kill other human beings? There has to be a mind set that allows one to do that; i.e, I'm doing it for democracy, to save my nation, because "they" are bad -- or simply -- "I'm a trained professional -- this is what I chose and choose to do." Whatever the rationale is, the end result is that a human being is in control of and an extension of the weapons he or she uses; hence an efficient killing machine; someone who will not faint in the face of battle. Would that we had many more who faint at the "thought" of battle and what it means before going down that path. I believe the toll on our soldiers in being able to come to terms with some of these issues is enormous.
Surely, you don't deny this reality? And, just as surely, it should go without saying that when confronted with the "enemy" whose intent is to kill you, neither you nor your enemy is going to sit down and turn the other cheek -- though history is full of examples where that has happened.
The moral and sensible thing to do is to have those epiphanies BEFORE sabers start being rattled. As Wesley Clark, and many other professional military leaders say, "war should always be a last resort.
"Precision" killing is still killing and most of the time would not be necesssary if immoral "leaders" did not deliberately stir the pot. Don't know what your understanding of history is, but our track record is not very good in the latter regard.
I firmly lieve that many soldiers ask themselves "why?" But, they probably don't have the luxury of voicing those questions out loud -- for all kinds of reasons.
Freedom isn't free, so the nation had to form a army of professional soldiers. The catch to this is that to be a mamber of the armed forces you have to be willing to put service for your nation above yourself. Fortunately, many religious believers are willing to do so. They choose to do so for various reasons: to be able to protect the vaues and freedoms this nation was founded on, to protect their families, to take the fight to the enemy in other parts of the world so that their children might not see its effects at home.
certainly, as professional soldiers we pray for peace, but at the same time we prepare for war. There will always be evil somewhere in the world where the innocent are persecuted. it is the very nature of men to be evil. I cannot say that I know what every soldier prays, but I can tell you what I pray. I pray for safety not only for myself, but also for my family while I am gone. For strength, wisdom, courage and honor to serve my family and my country. And that if I am not to return, that my family would have the support they need to make it through that time. My life is in God's hands, and if it is my time to go then so be it. But as John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address:
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
To live up to this it means we as profeccional soldiers must be willing to lay down our lives for the preservation of the freedoms our nation was founded on.
I read some qupis above about precision killing still being killing. Death is a fact of life (no pun intended) especially in combat. However, precision strikes allow us to kill the enemy with minimum damage to the civilian population. Would nay-sayers rather we went back to the tactics of WWII? by all means we could fly in with 20 B-52s and carpet bomb cities with 2,000lb'ers.... no, precision strikes are highly effective and leave a very low casualty list. In addition, many attacks with precision weapons have been called off during this war have been called off because the damage to the local civilian population was deemed too high. The protection of innocent life has been a high priority in this war, which is why the civilian death toll has been so low. If you check the numbers, you will see that a very small percent of innocents killed are due to coalition forces. Most are due to suicide bombers or IED detonations by the terrorist factions.
One of my favorite verses that I carry into combat comes from Psalms 144:1-2 "
1 A psalm of David. Bless the LORD, who is my rock. He gives me strength for war and skill for battle.
2 He is my loving ally and my fortress, my tower of safety, my deliverer. He stands before me as a shield, and I take refuge in him. He subdues the nations* under me.1"
Supporting troops is using them justly and wisely. Non-support of troops is subjecting them to death and maim for political survival.
A soldier in war that prays for his side to prevail believes that his side is morally superior to the other and that God believes in his side of the fight. No soldier wants to kill people yet he wants the mission that involves killing people to prevail. The death of human beings by the means of war is what will simply happen and what will have to happen many times to promote a noble cause. God would want the least amount of deaths to gain moral ground on earth but that doesn't mean it isn't sometimes necessary. I can tell you that God doesn't appreciate the existence of vial human beings that blow up women and children in the name of Allah.
Because there are non-Christians on either side of a war doesn't mean the God wouldn't support a cause. Christians themselves are very capable of committing atrocities and being Christian will not make God automatically support your side. God will take the moral side of a war, not the religious side.
Some wars need to be fought and I think you would agree. The removal of the Hitler regime was not simple case of weeding out or population control. The removal of the Hitler regime required many deaths yet was morally the best thing to do. God would support a side such as this. Removing a mass-murderer is a very noble and beneficial mission that gives justification to war.
I strongly disagree with your last statement. I would not more depend on my gun in a situation of battle than my God. I will feel much more secure knowing of the presence of my God than the presence of any weapon. The state of mind and security God will give a soldier in a moment of danger is unmatched compared to a weapon. My God will protect me more than any given weapon.
You are a rare person, indeed! By far, in a battle with guns, most of us would not want to go in with only faith in God as our armament! But if you can live with that then you should have great trouble imagining how any war should be fought, as God can stop any of them cold if he can protect you without a weapon!
I have to admire your faith but would not want to live with your judgment! You make an excellent case for never going to war! Religion, with your quality of faith, will eliminate any need for war!
I can assure most that if we are ever in a moral war we will to a great extent go back to the techniques of WW II as we will be fighting for our lives and liberty as we were then. That was the last fully moral war this country has fought, the last declared war this country has fought. Other somewhat moral actions were taken to prevent the successful destruction of a sovereign country such as South Korea at the hands of another country and was limited to stopping the destruction and invasion, not to advance and invade on another country. We carpet bombed in WW II because we were at war with Japan, Germany, etc. The quicker we could bring the war to a conclusion the less casualties there would be on all sides.
My brother was in the Philippine Islands and scheduled to be in the Invasion of Japan. He always figured Truman saved his life and the lives of many Japanese by bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima and the civilians and children involved. It did bring the war to an abrupt halt! God does not get involved in wars. He just turns his head and cries!
Our all volunteer military has brought a whole new factor to war. I don't believe it is necessary for a soldier to believe that his country or his leader (president) is right or moral in a given action. If that is the case in fact, then one should judge the morality of the action and defect to Canada or desert to avoid immoral wars and I don't think that is right either. No, the soldier has to act in the assumption that there is a valid reason to be asked to do the job he is doing, not to just that decision. Which means he can and may be put in a position of prosecuting an immoral war! The soldier who does so deserves our support and respect both as a soldier and as a professional! What he or she prays for or to is none of anyone else's business!
At any rate, none of us should, in my opinion, be degrading or criticizing our soldiers as they don't have the option of picking their theaters in which to serve, but that does not denigrate our obligation to criticize the head and only elected soldier, the commander in chief, if he misuses the troops that have been entrusted to him!
I would like to point out that Kodi is proving the point of the article by the faith trumping the weapon. But if you forget what soldiers swear to (their weapon is an extension of themselves etc...) then they are going against that very idea in fighting for this country. Isn't fighting for a country, and not moral laws set down by God, chosing an Idol to worship? Dying for a country no matter what (which is what soldiers sign up for) is dying for something not God related, and Idol worship, correct me if I'm wrong, but think about it.
It's sad that people think all soldiers are "regular" people just trying to do some good. What about mass murderers, aren't they people too? Isn't it possible that people who like the idea of killing would sign up to do just that? So then, isn;t it possible that many of our "brave" are trying to kill, and like it? So why is it so hard to understand that some of our people are killing and maiming innocent people (or maybe they do because they are young and scared too). It's not an outlandish idea.
I respect soldiers because they are in the front lines, but the problem is what they are doing is for a nation (not God) and they expect (some of them) support of God for killing. It seems misguided to say the least.
And as far as the farmers that fought for our freedom, they were fighting for our freedom, its that simple. Iraq has done nothing against our freedom, that is a made up idea from the top that wanted war. War makes money for some people and its not all good people that run this country, get over the Leave it to Beaver era ideas. We were even killing soldiers in tests back then.
The job of warfare is infested with anti-christian ideals and practices, so I find it odd (at least) that they also pray for help in their endeavors.
It sounds like you believe that when someone is fighting for America they are fighting for our boundaries. Since America was established for freedom and liberty, America is more an ideal then boundaries. When men and women fight for America they are fighting for the ideal of liberty.
To say that Iraq has done nothing against America is to suggest that an assault on the freedom of people who live oursidde of these United States is not something were should be concerned about and should surely not go to war over.
Using that logic we should not have gone to war in 1918, 1942 (Europe), 1950, 1965, or any other combat outside of our borders.
If that is not the criteria. Then it would suggest that fighting for other people's freedom is only selective, and that since the currrent battle for liberty is in the Middle East that some how that is not as derserving of our sacrifice. If that is the case then there is at best a hint of bigotry if not a more sinsiter racial factor in the criteria for freedom and sacrifice.
American men and women have the luxury of having a comfortable life without serving in the military. And they only have to watch the evening news to know what they risk if they do join the military. I strongly believe that those men and women wiegh all of that and the questioning from family and friends before they join. If they still join they are doing it for an ideal which is no less then what those "farmers" fought for over 200 years ago. Americans have made their own descisions since America was formed and the Americans today are no less empowered. Just because you don't agree does not mean that they are wrong and you have the only truth. To me those that have looked into the eyes of the dying and have knowingly made the choice to risk that fate has found their truth.
I noticed seeming lack of concern about the people and their action that we are battling and yet all who do battle in war are the same. I surely hope that isn't the case.
Second, an ideal (that is not Christian) to die for is an idol above God. Am I wrong? I would die for freedom (when its really being threatened, like by our president), but then again, I'm not a Christian tied down to the religions teachings.
Third, there is no logical implications of past wars being faught under my statements. The point is that you CAN NOT generalize about 'soldiers' just because they are on YOUR side. I would have joined in WWII, does that mean I would fight in all wars? NO, that is false logic, that you are claiming.
This post is about the fallacy of praying to God for help in an anti-Christian business.
I would support the fight for freedom around the world, if only that is what we were doing, and if only we didn't select people based on their position to natural resources. Sudan, ring a bell? They even have oil, but no help fighting THAT regime of terror and genocide. It is just like when we missed the Rwanda genocide, arguing semantics as to what a genocide is, but we jump at the chance to fight Saddam, give me break. Besides, that is not how they sold this war to us anyway. That is a fall back excuse.
I am asking simple questions in the post, but I will change it slightly so you can get it. What CAN a soldier pray for that God might actually tend to?
Killing other people to save his/her life?
Winning, which includes the death of civilians (even when its an accident)?
etc....
I would point out that in 1918 an act of war had been committed against the United States. Whether the Germans were set up or innocent is at question but we ostensibly had an act of war to prosecute. Europe in 1942 was not a choice as the Japanese and the Germans were allies and to go to war with one was to go to war with both.
In 1950 we did not go to war! We committed troops and other support to the United Nations to take a police action in Korea. There was no intent to do anything but stop the north's takeover of the south. Many felt this action was wrong but that is of course, arguable. In 1965 whatever you call it, it was a mistake!
Yes, fighting for the freedom of others is selective any way you cut the cake! Always has been and always will be! And attempt to curtail opposite views by bringing in the old "race card" and accusing someone of racial bias is not worthy of your otherwise excellent comments! We don't fight for everyone's freedoms or we'd be in China as we speak and you know that is true! It comes down to a matter of expediency. Our government is to serve the United States citizens, not the citizens of China, Iraq or any other place. Are we bigoted against Chinese? Do you imply we've got every problem solved here at home and can now go round the world cleaning things up?
I, like you, doubt anyone is entering the service just so they can kill and maim people! I believe the military personnel want to protect their country and serve their fellow citizens for the most part. They are to be commended for their voluntary service to this nation, regardless of whether or not you approve of the mission the commander in chief sends them on! And whether they pray or not or what they might choose to pray for is their own business and no one else's! Like I said, in a war God turns his head and cries!
Appreciate your articulate comments!
Nail on he head! People stilll wish to justify war. Didn't Jesus accept his death in order to prove his faith?
I am not claiming that we shouldn't ever fight, but lets not drag God into it. That never turns out good. People, including soldiers of the great US of A, are human and not always good.
Tyler, I would have to agree totally with what James has said on the subject of soldiers joining. Sure, if anything it's possible that some soldiers may be joining the service simply to kill; but I really doubt it. I like James believe that soldiers will join the service to serve their country. Isolated cases of civilian torture and murder in war by our troops has nothing to do with mass murderers being in the service. It has to do with the stress and hardship involved with war. It eventually gets to their heads. By the way, I have not been in the military and am not very knowledgeable on the subject. So if anyone has special knowledge on the subject or knows someone or has been in the military, please correct me if I'm wrong. Not trying to masquerade as some military expert here.
I really don't understand how you get a comparison between idol worship above God and dying for your country. I would fight and die for my country but that in no way makes me putting my country above God. Being willing to die for your country is not idol worship and I don't understand where you get that.
"What CAN a soldier pray for that God might actually tend to?" I firmly believe that a soldier can pray for anything that God might actually tend to. But what I really think a soldier can pray for has to do with his own self in war. Ever hear the saying "There are no atheists in fox holes"? I believe a soldier can really pray for his life in a situation such as shelling or any dire situation, and I think God will tend to that in very many situations. I also believe a soldier can pray for wisdom for himself to make the right decisions and kick down the "right doors". I believe a God fearing or Christian soldier carries prayer and the knowing presence of God with him everywhere and gives any given soldier strength and wisdom.
The key word in there is "idea", like perhaps freedom, or America.
Did Jesus carry a gun? I don't remember that gospel.
My point, layed out and flayed out, is that 'Christian-Soldier' is an oxymoron, unless soldier is used in the figurative/spiritual sense.
With regard to the race issue, I hear so many that oppose the war in Iraq and clamour for war in the Sudan , hypocits or bigots. So when I talk about war I like to know what are the criteria people use for deciding when other people are put in harms way. I am glade that you believe it is right to fight for freedom in the Middle East, as well as in Africa, and Asia. I wish we could fight for freedom everywhere at once, but reality is we are limited and must prioritize. If the Middle East could find a local sample of freedom then it would spread and we could move on. Freedom in China is coming, economic success, breeds a demand for economic freedom, which leads to total freedom.
I do believe that the debt we owe to those who gave us freedom and is to be will to sacrifice for freedom for others.
I don't know what God does, but I do God turnin his head away. There are too many good people that sacrifice in a moment and our time for a true an loving God to turn away from them. Just as there are evens in every day life in which people survive for in explicable reasons so are there are in War and my belief it is is watching and intercedes.
As far as finding bad people in every setting that is proven, and that they are here in the USA is proven everyday in our evening newspapers and on TV. But considering the extremes of war and to find so relatively few tells so much about the vast majority of American soldiers. Contrast that with the those we are doing battle with, what sacrifices are they makiing for building and supporting people. Too many feel as the media portarys it, that going without sleep is equivalent as a beheading.
I don't comment them for their service. Paraphrasing a past President we can honor or consecrate the land they battle on because they have done it a level about any efforts we may offer.
With regard to justifying this war and the ratinale we enter into under. My support for the war was based on how I looked at the situation. Breifly, Saddam Hussien was a tryrant of the worst degree, he had proven that he had WMD and he would use it (he had), the reqion was willing to harbour and actively supported them, and if the people of Iraq could be moved to freedom they could be the seeds of change in that region of the world. I still believe that.
I don;t belieeve we will ever have solved the problems at home. We in the US believe in continous imporvement. If you could ask the people of 100 years ago and offer them about the 3 problems of their time and explain how we live today and ask if they think we have solved their problems, do the same of people 75, 50 years ago. Solution to problems don;t come in the hour of TV, if the change is truly perminent is has to become imbedded into the culture, and that neverf happens overnight. If your still not sure if we are addressing our problems at home, what do we complain about, is it the availbiiity of medical care, food, house (the three basic needs). There are 300,000,000 people in the US are any turned away at the emergencyroom, is obesity one of our biggest problems, how many are truly turned away from a dry warm place to sleep?
I don't see God being dragged any where. God is personal and those that go to war take with their beliefs with them (God is there before they get there).
The point is that "we" humans can't claim God is with "us". That is dragging God into your/my problems and claiming God supports them. We don't need to ask God for killing to ask God for killing. Asking God to protect us when we engage in a war is to say that we should be the ones killing not the opposing forces killing us.
It is logic, you can't ask for a house without getting a sink. "protecting" the soldier only works if the soldier stops entering situations where people will shot at him. That is dragging God into it. Its like someone saying they will pick up the check, then I order that really expensive bottle of wine and say another table is with us too. You understand?
I thought by saying that God was there before the soldier got there was at least inferring that God is everywhere.
It sounds like you feel the sole purpose of our soldiers in war is to kill, or even to kill before being kill. That reminds me of a line from the Patton movie where he says something like we have to kill that SOB before he kills us. I take exception to that, because if it were true why would we have such problems with detainees, why would we make such extrodiary efforts to safe the lives of those combants we have shot.
If in your analogy of "pick upo the check" you mean dying. Well, it is more like "pay now or pay later" because I assure you we all pay that check.
Let me go back to earlier remarks of your. I believe the God I place my faith in is loving and forgiving, but is also willing to inflick pain and suffering on those that are an affront to him (I believe in the Old and New Testaments). And as far as "Did Jesus carry a gun? I don't remember that gospel." I believe that God had demostrated his power before Christ and the Jesus had a different role to show us a new way, about not hating and openig God's love to all mankind. However, it seems that there was something about the money changers and driving them out.
Freedom isn't just an idea it is a reality, and part of that reality is for Christians and other religioins to practice their faith. Freedom does seem to be a rational part of my religion. I don't worship freedom but I surely use it to practice my religion. So I am resistant to considering the practice and support of freedom as a form of idolitry.
Money, which is what Jesus had a problem with in the temple, making money off religion. Many people (that claim to be Christians) make money on the business of war. They are not Christians. Jesus was overturning the "wrath of God" idea into his moral, peaceful way of dealing. Using the Old Testament is a fallacy of Christianisty, that was pre-Christ and now not relevant to our lives. What Duane calls the "different role" which is acceptance and love unconditionally. Where in there does warfare fit in? It doesn't, that is my major point.
Now you've done it! I had to go to the dictionary for tautology! I've always settled for redundancy! Like I've said before, some folks are just born stupid but I had to work at it!
Thanks!
I wish violence were not part of our world.
I believe that there is evil in this world and unless the good are willing to confront that evil that then the weak and good will be overwhlelmed if not destroyed.
I am grateful to those who are willing to make the sacrifice to make those confrontations.
Those that are killing the children and their families have demonstrated they don;t honor non violence. Without violence Hilter would not have been defeated, Stalin would have rule the world, Saddem Hussien would still be killing and destroying the people of his country if not the rest of the area (such as Kuwait).
Tyler,
I don;t feel it is my place to judge whether someone is or isn;t a Christian, that I leave to God.
I believe that Christ is the son of God, and I have no reason to think that God has changed, would change, or would have any reason to change.
I don;t believe the Old Testament is a fallacy, a simple example I believe that the 10 Commandments are still God's Law and as relavent today as when they we given to us.
I appreciate your patiences and the time you took to read and respond to my comments.
I wish I had examples non-violence having been effective in stopping violence in countries ruled by a tyrant such as Hussein, Stalin, Hitler.
Something that I am not able understand is why it seems that it is acceptable for the people fighting us to hate and want to kill us, and yet only Americans should be nonviolent.
I say this because everything you seem to abhor is only attributed to Americans and there is no acknowledge of the actions of non-Americans killing and beheading the "innocent civilians" in Iraq.
As for your interpretation of Paula and America being wrong, I get that a lot too. America is the country we live in and can change, so that is why I argue about America, and I'm guessing the same for Paula (though I could be wrong). I have no say in other countries, though when I claim philisophical things I would mean that to include all people.
I don't think Paula has "accepted" the violence of others, or condons it, hence the nonviolence talk. You do have to remember, however, that our army is the most heavily funded in the world, so it goes double for us because of our power to disrupt entire countries with our mistakes. I could list them, but I don't want to get a cramp in my hand.
With regard to the approach of challenging and pointing out the flaws of our country are being done by so many of the peoples artouund the world. Since they have yet to find anything right that we do why should I care what they say. However, to be honest I do read what they say to see if there is a kernal to learn from. As far as their comments on Iraq, there are no kernals. The French are just one example, Iran, Venezuala, Cuba, Russia are some of the others.
You want to give Paula credibility. I don;t presume or assume that she believes anything other than what she has said. And she has only said how Armeica is doing wrong.
If you don;t like America being the super power of the world, would rather it be RUssia or China with their history of social tolerance? If you don;t think there should be any superpowers who will stop the others. If we destryed all of our nuclear weapons and so did the rest of the Western world what place would that leave Iran in the next few years?
Being the strongest is only asking for a challenge, why don't we focus more (not exclusively) on our aide and carrots, rather than our army and sticks. We spend more than the rest of the world on our military and yet we can't control Iraq, you tell me what is the money for then? Secret assassinations and coups, etc...? Because we pay for that too. When you live in certain areas outside this country we sound a lot like what you would complain the Russians or Chinese might do.
The basis for a free democracy is debating the issues and having a free press to do it in. Anything (Patriot Act, deregulating the news) that interupts that is treason as far as I'm concerned.
Could it be that we are only fighting small scale wars because they believe that the consequnuce of a large scale war would be so devistating for them that are unwilling to do it. AS bad as small wars are, a largeg scale war would be even devestating.
I am not sold on the idea that all others would truly like to see us diarmed. Just as many would like to see police not to have to use force, espcetially deadly force, and yet they never seem to make a truly aggressive effort to disarm them. Simlarly I think many in the world defer their self defence to us and avoid the decisions for defence to us and sit in the cheap seats sending their verbal barbs.
Do really think that if North Korea were to demonstrate a rocket delivering a nuclear device would not develop their own if we said we would no longer use nuclear weapons in any situation?
The weak that know that they are safe from the strong are very willing to pump their egos by taunting them. Look at Venzuala, Cuba, France, Canada.
Them? How about us? Nukes go in two directions, look up the problem with the nukes we are using in Iraq and Afghanistan, yes we are. Depleted Uranium - google it. How can they make nukes if they have no support for trade? Economics can play a huge role in punishment for a "rogue" state, that is how Japan (no nukes - strong economy, remember) is dealing with N. Korea.
The weak that are not threatened by the strong don't flaunt. They dont need to.
Your ideas come from the fear that has been created by the government. Nuclear war, so we must have more nukes (and what happened, nothing). The Cold War was ended by economic problem with USSR. Their economy tanked because OUR allies stopped trading with them.
I think your type-A personality is the very problem at the top. I understand your stance but why do we have to be the most powerful to protect ourselves?
Why are wolves dangerous? Its not because they work alone and are more powerful than what they kill, its a team effort. We have lost allies, that is why we may have to get stronger, but if we worked together with other countries we can team up against rogue nations and stop them. We didn't win WWII alone, as much as people would like to think so.
I do believe that Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela are relatively weak and are not threaten and are yeeping asa loudy as they can. If we truly want to destroy them it would happen in a blink of an eye.
I agre that the economics of the Soviet Union was a major contributor to its demise. Howeever, I do believe that if the US hadn;t been so strong militarily and with a willingness to use it to preserve liberty (ours and others) that the time it took for the econmomics and social change succeed we it wouldn;t have happened and we would not be here talking about it. Stalin had demonstrate through the killing of millions of his citizens that he would do that to the rest of the world. And I honestly believe that without the US there was no one else to stand in his way.
So I believe in good and evil. If evil is not confronted it will destroy good. I bleieve that good has to be prepared to face evil with strength.
No the "raw meat", with our history we have the best record of not abusing our power relative to all other countries with signifcant power.
How do you figure we have the "best record", where did you get that information?
Look up the devestation of the Atomic Bombs we dropped on Japan, The depleted uranium we are dropping on Afghanistan (and the effects on our own troops), the MK Ultra tests, Philidelphia Project, the testing of nukes on our own troops, Haiti, Napalm in Vietnam, etc...
Most of the superpowers before us didn't have the technology to cause disease and distruction like us, when we "mess up" it is far worse than others. Just because we haven't actively Colonized doesn't mean we don't have our hands in many countries affairs. We aren't worse than Hitler or Mussolini, but we may just be worse than the English, when they were the superpower, or even China at their height because of our reach.
The most extreme example of our cultural restrained was in 1946. There waas only one nation that posessed nuclear weapons, at that point in time we couldhave ruled the world, and we didn;t. Who do yuo see with any pwoer, economic or militrary using aas much restrain. What country in the world is more genrous with helping others, and if you explude individual non-government giving you deny that we are a republic of the people. Do you hoinestly believe that that Europe (Germany and Italy in particular) and Japan would have recovered so quickly and so well if the US hadn;t been so willing to give of ourselves. If you are still in doubt tell which sinlge country has done more.
Have you considered looking at the atomic bombs drop in context of the time and place it was used. Did the President at the time have any reaason that the end of the war in the Pacific would not have t have the same conclusion as in Europe, an all out invasion of the comabtant coountry. With the experieince of destrcution that had occurred in both Japan and arouund the Pacific could only be expected to be significantly worse. As I understadn it the conventional bombing was far more devitstrating than that of the two nuclear bombs. By using the nuclear devices the loss of life on both sides was significantly reduced, the further destruction of the infastructure of Japan, necessary for its recovery, was prevented.
It wasn't part of the intended use, but I feel that by using those two devices we demostrated to the world the true potential devastation they could wreak. That was important because people have a tendency to rationalize away the worst and best of what they see let alone for something that is simply a theory. Without that early limited use, I do believe that as the weapons spread and became more sophisticated they would have been used by fools that would have rationalize they could survive the use.
The superpowers before used to the best of their ability the powers at their hand to domeinate and subjugate the world. Just becuase we have more powerful tools doesn;t mean we are the more abusive.
Why limit the comparison to superpowers, lets extend the idea of power to people that have the control of their nations and see how they have treated their own people.
I have to agree with you we are actively in so many other nations especially those that are poor. We are their with the PEace Corp, CARE, financial and food aid, meidcal aid.
I readily admit we have not been all that we could be, but you have yet to give me an example of a country that has done it better.
Time and place: We knew it was bad news, and we knew very little else. We knew we were making progress in a just cause against Japan, Germany had already surrendered. We didn't HAVE to use it.
And Suppressing doesn't look like it used to, don't forget.
Yes, our medical aide lets take a look. Africa had to sign an agreement to buy AIDS drugs from America companies in order to accept millions in AID, when the same drug from India would cost 7 times less money for them. That means the money we gave could have given 7 times the amount of people drugs if we allowed them to use it on cheap drugs instead of OUR drugs. Nice, give them money they HAVE to spend on our companies, is that aid, or a subversive tax break for the drug companies?
There is good going on too, of course, but its not as cut and dry as you seem to think.
If you don't trust the UN, then you really don't trust Bush. Who do you think is in charge in there? Bolton threatens pulling American money out of the UN if they do/don't do what we want. What you are witnessing is our undercutting the UN and then pointing at them and saying they aren't good enough. Its OUR fault they aren't goo denough. If we gave a damn, it would work.
Who do you think was asking for help in Rwanda? The UN, while people (America included) were figuring out what "genocide' was.
I do understand we are all human with all the flaws. I have yet to find anyhting that is black and white, I try to live in the grey. I look for the balance, and on those scales I have yet to have an example that weights the scales heavier for another country.
You may not think that the people that created the medicine should be fully compensate for their sacrifices and investments (and for all of those attempts that failed). Then let India donate the money. The rest of the world's is health care is subsidized by America, where the medicines are developed and we pay for that development. If it takes such support (haveing the AIDS medicines come from US manufacturers) to continue this pipeline of development then I am comfortable with that. You may feel that these rich companies shouldn't be paid for their investments and creativity, but I do.
You have to better explain to me how it is OUR fault that the UN troops are raping women in Africa, that the UN officials were sexually harassing women in Swirtzerland, that UN officals were taking bribes from Saddam Hussien.
I do trust President Bush and our government so much more then the UN officials.
With regard to Rwanda, are you saying that we should send miltary forces to stop the genocide there? If so, then our disagreement isn't over whether war is right or wrong, rather we are simply discussin where it should be used. I do feel that the only way to stop the genocide will take force, like it took to defeat Hitler's genocide.
If you trust Bush, then you trust the UN, they are forcing the UN to work with us. Look up what John Bolton has done in there. Seriously, you should. They want him out because he threatens to pull our money if they don't do what we want, so, if you don't trust them then you don't trust Bush because they do whatever he wants, pretty much. They did have a problem with Iraq, however, and look how that turned out.
I have yet to say that war is NEVER to be used, but to use it when there is no threat and no reliable information is wrong. Genocide needs to be stopped, but we are in Iraq and not Darfur, right? We should be in Sudan, not Iraq. That is a problem. We should have been in Rwanda and maybe not Eastern Europe.
Before 1945, Einstein was already preaching to not use the bomb (he was the inventor of the math that got us there after all, what does he know, right?)