|
Post by What Hat on Feb 13, 2015 11:28:56 GMT -5
The second world war was supposed to be the war to end all wars. That didn't happen. As long as people think war solves something we will have wars. And, we will have revenge wars. It only stops people for a short while. As we can see in the Middle East, they have long memories and each generation is taught to hate from the older generation. And on it goes. Do the Germans and Japanese hate us? Not that I've noticed. You've had me thinking with this comment. For example, my parents hated the Nazi's but did not hate the Germans. Certainly Dad worked with Germans at his place of work. It's an interesting question and I wish my parents were alive to answer it. A couple of other things come to mind. It's common knowledge that World War I sewed the seeds for World War II, because of how the Germans came out of World War I. So, I don't think that we can say that the Germans and Japanese are because we're inherently wonderful people. The post World War I experience proved otherwise. And certainly, Eisenhower and Churchill were very different leaders with different instincts and motivations than Bush and Rumsfeld. Compared to Germany, Japanese attitudes to the USA seem to be guarded. But in both Japan and Germany the primary post-war animus has been recovery from the self-wounding inflicted by military imperialism. That is, their main enemy, as Pogo used to say, has been "us". The USA finds itself more and more in that position.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 13, 2015 11:37:28 GMT -5
The choice before human beings, is not, as a rule, between good and evil but between two evils. You can let the Nazis rule the world: that is evil; or you can overthrow them by war, which is also evil. There is no other choice before you, and whichever you choose you will not come out with clean hands. George Orwell I attended a talk given by a local historian on transplanting the lessons learned in dealing with the Nazi's into other contexts. The thrust of his talk was all the post-WWII mistakes we've made, like the Falkland Islands, because no political leader wants to be seen as the next Neville Chamberlain. Obviously, Orwell's comments here represent good speech-ifying but very poor political science.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 13, 2015 11:40:45 GMT -5
You can lower the cost per person per year simply by putting more people into the facility. I have a feeling that the $2.8 million is a fully loaded cost. Yes, I suppose the cost will rise as the numbers drop. I'm asking the question: why would anyone spend $US2.8 million per person per year to incarcerate innocent people? Obama has said all along that he wants to close the place down, largely because of the PR damage, so anyone who thinks innocent prisoners are there should have a chat with Barack Hussein. He'll be only too pleased to have them released. One innocent prisoner seized, tortured and held for over 10 years is too many. However, we know there is more than one. Just how many is a guess, but it's now coming out that possibly most were innocent. www.cbc.ca/news/world/most-guantanamo-detainees-are-innocent-ex-bush-official-1.804550Who is Barack Hussein? Same first name as Obama.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 13, 2015 13:59:52 GMT -5
The American-led anti-ISIL coalition has more than 60 members. Have you noticed that the Foreign Minister of Iraq is visiting Australia and New Zealand this week requesting military assistance? It doesn't look like a country that hates us. Countries do not hate. There are a lot of people living in Iraq that regard americans with emotions really near to hate. Do you have data?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 13, 2015 14:39:33 GMT -5
Yes, I suppose the cost will rise as the numbers drop. I'm asking the question: why would anyone spend $US2.8 million per person per year to incarcerate innocent people? Obama has said all along that he wants to close the place down, largely because of the PR damage, so anyone who thinks innocent prisoners are there should have a chat with Barack Hussein. He'll be only too pleased to have them released. One innocent prisoner seized, tortured and held for over 10 years is too many. However, we know there is more than one. Just how many is a guess, but it's now coming out that possibly most were innocent. www.cbc.ca/news/world/most-guantanamo-detainees-are-innocent-ex-bush-official-1.804550Who is ? Same first name as Obama. Barack Hussein Obama - that's the one. He's real keen to close the place down. He'll try hard to get the job done before he leaves the presidency. Last December there were 142 still detained, with 73 of them cleared for release. I agree that innocent people shouldn't be incarcerated, in fact I think everyone agrees that innocent people shouldn't be incarcerated. But when extremely dangerous individuals are released due to a bad judgment call or a legal technicality or bungled evidence, many innocent people can be harmed. (Funny how Proboards replaced Barack Hussein with a question mark on this post)
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 13, 2015 14:53:17 GMT -5
The American-led anti-ISIL coalition has more than 60 members. Have you noticed that the Foreign Minister of Iraq is visiting Australia and New Zealand this week requesting military assistance? It doesn't look like a country that hates us. Countries do not hate. There are a lot of people living in Iraq that regard americans with emotions really near to hate. You've just done it again. Butted in on a conversation with a lame comment "countries don't hate". I was using Snow's language to respond to Snow's post. It's fine for you to chip in, but please read the post I am responding to before you post.If you have a problem with "countries don't hate" then address that in the post that first mentioned it, not in the post that responds to it. It's the post below you should have responded to - not my post - if you had a problem with "countries don't hate"... Do the Germans and Japanese hate us? Not that I've noticed. I'm not sure what your point is. Everyone was involved in WWII so the Germans would have a lot of countries to hate if that's what they wanted to do. Are you saying that countries that the west have been at war with shouldn't hate us? We didn't just damage their infrastructure we poisoned their land for generations to come by using weapons that should not have been used. The people of Iraq were already under a madman, they didn't deserve to be bombed with depleted uranium. www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/us-depleted-uranium-as-ma_b_3812888.html
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 13, 2015 15:22:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 13, 2015 16:11:45 GMT -5
I'm not sure what your point is. Everyone was involved in WWII so the Germans would have a lot of countries to hate if that's what they wanted to do. Are you saying that countries that the west have been at war with shouldn't hate us? We didn't just damage their infrastructure we poisoned their land for generations to come by using weapons that should not have been used. The people of Iraq were already under a madman, they didn't deserve to be bombed with depleted uranium. www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/us-depleted-uranium-as-ma_b_3812888.htmlThe American-led anti-ISIL coalition has more than 60 members. Have you noticed that the Foreign Minister of Iraq is visiting Australia and New Zealand this week requesting military assistance? It doesn't look like a country that hates us. My point was this. Do you feel that using depleted uranium weapons and poisoning their country would not lead to hatred and/or resentment? I am sure not all hate. But there are always going to be a radical group that do. We are certainly not without some responsibility for what was done. I don't condone what ISIS is doing but I also do not condone using depleted uranium in the weapons. Ultimately it's the people of Iraq that are now going to have to live with the consequences of that for generations.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 13, 2015 16:39:12 GMT -5
The American-led anti-ISIL coalition has more than 60 members. Have you noticed that the Foreign Minister of Iraq is visiting Australia and New Zealand this week requesting military assistance? It doesn't look like a country that hates us. My point was this. Do you feel that using depleted uranium weapons and poisoning their country would not lead to hatred and/or resentment? I am sure not all hate. But there are always going to be a radical group that do. We are certainly not without some responsibility for what was done. I don't condone what ISIS is doing but I also do not condone using depleted uranium in the weapons. Ultimately it's the people of Iraq that are now going to have to live with the consequences of that for generations. What is the bigger threat to life and liberty? 1. A tank full of ISIS Islamists 2. The depleted uranium shell that takes them out.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 13, 2015 16:43:10 GMT -5
. But when extremely dangerous individuals are released due to a bad judgment call or a legal technicality or bungled evidence, many innocent people can be harmed. That could have been solved by not torturing them to start with.
When I first heard the subject of whether torture or not to torture, I could hardly believe what I was hearing!
In a country that claims to be so morally superior to some others, it shouldn't have even be debated.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 13, 2015 16:50:28 GMT -5
My point was this. Do you feel that using depleted uranium weapons and poisoning their country would not lead to hatred and/or resentment? I am sure not all hate. But there are always going to be a radical group that do. We are certainly not without some responsibility for what was done. I don't condone what ISIS is doing but I also do not condone using depleted uranium in the weapons. Ultimately it's the people of Iraq that are now going to have to live with the consequences of that for generations. What is the bigger threat to life and liberty? 1. A tank full of ISIS Islamists 2. The depleted uranium shell that takes them out. Did you watch the documentary I posted fixit? It's a while back on this thread. Life and liberty for whom? The west? Or the hundreds of children that now have multiple types of cancer. DNA that has been changed. Mutations in the children being born in the area around the Kuwait invasion. This isn't just a one time thing either. It is going to be effecting generations of Iraq children. There were other weapons that would take out tanks. They didn't need to use an illegal weapon that will cause such suffering for the civilian population. Is it your stance that it's okay to do whatever it takes to make sure the west has life and liberty and no consideration should be given to the life of the Iraq civilians. That makes no sense to me. Are we that important that it doesn't matter what we do to them to ensure our freedom? Really? Why can't they use another means to take them out that is not going to be harmful to those who had no say in it? Here is a link to the film once again if you missed it the first time. If you lived in that area tell me how you would feel about it. topdocumentaryfilms.com/born-burnt-land/
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 13, 2015 17:01:59 GMT -5
Countries do not hate. There are a lot of people living in Iraq that regard americans with emotions really near to hate. You've just done it again.Butted in on a conversation with a lame comment "countries don't hate".I was using Snow's language to respond to Snow's post. It's fine for you to chip in, but please read the post I am responding to before you post.If you have a problem with "countries don't hate" then address that in the post that first mentioned it, not in the post that responds to it. It's the post below you should have responded to - not my post - if you had a problem with "countries don't hate"... I'm not sure what your point is. Everyone was involved in WWII so the Germans would have a lot of countries to hate if that's what they wanted to do. Are you saying that countries that the west have been at war with shouldn't hate us? We didn't just damage their infrastructure we poisoned their land for generations to come by using weapons that should not have been used. The people of Iraq were already under a madman, they didn't deserve to be bombed with depleted uranium. www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/us-depleted-uranium-as-ma_b_3812888.html fixit , here is your post:Post by fixit on 18 hours ago 18 hours ago snow said: "The second world war was supposed to be the war to end all wars. That didn't happen. As long as people think war solves something we will have wars. And, we will have revenge wars. It only stops people for a short while. As we can see in the Middle East, they have long memories and each generation is taught to hate from the older generation. And on it goes."Fixit, you said : "Do the Germans and Japanese hate us?
Not that I've noticed."
I wonder why you are getting so upset about rational or anyone else answering you?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 13, 2015 17:13:01 GMT -5
What is the bigger threat to life and liberty? 1. A tank full of ISIS Islamists 2. The depleted uranium shell that takes them out. Did you watch the documentary I posted fixit? It's a while back on this thread. Life and liberty for whom? The west? Or the hundreds of children that now have multiple types of cancer. DNA that has been changed. Mutations in the children being born in the area around the Kuwait invasion. This isn't just a one time thing either. It is going to be effecting generations of Iraq children. There were other weapons that would take out tanks. They didn't need to use an illegal weapon that will cause such suffering for the civilian population. Is it your stance that it's okay to do whatever it takes to make sure the west has life and liberty and no consideration should be given to the life of the Iraq civilians. That makes no sense to me. Are we that important that it doesn't matter what we do to them to ensure our freedom? Really? Why can't they use another means to take them out that is not going to be harmful to those who had no say in it? No, I didn't watch a documentary but I did have a look online for information on the issue and wasn't impressed by the quality of the information offered. There is so much nonsense online about Iraq and the Middle East that I'm sick of trying to sort out the truth from the outright ridiculous. I'd rather leave the DU debate to others thanks. What I've underlined is absolutely not the case, in fact your assumptions of my stance are wide of the mark. It would be wise for Westerners to keep in mind Abu Mosa's statement for America. As he fiddles with his weapon Mosa says: "I say to America, that the Islamic Caliphate has been established. And we will not stop. Don’t be cowards and attack us with drones. Instead, send your soldiers, the ones we humiliated in Iraq. We will humiliate them everywhere, God willing, and we will raise the flag of Allah in the White House."
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 13, 2015 17:16:23 GMT -5
You've just done it again.Butted in on a conversation with a lame comment "countries don't hate".I was using Snow's language to respond to Snow's post. It's fine for you to chip in, but please read the post I am responding to before you post.If you have a problem with "countries don't hate" then address that in the post that first mentioned it, not in the post that responds to it. It's the post below you should have responded to - not my post - if you had a problem with "countries don't hate"... fixit , here is your post:Post by fixit on 18 hours ago 18 hours ago snow said: "The second world war was supposed to be the war to end all wars. That didn't happen. As long as people think war solves something we will have wars. And, we will have revenge wars. It only stops people for a short while. As we can see in the Middle East, they have long memories and each generation is taught to hate from the older generation. And on it goes."Fixit, you said : "Do the Germans and Japanese hate us?
Not that I've noticed."
I wonder why you are getting so upset about rational or anyone else answering you?
You quoted only part of my post.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 13, 2015 17:18:15 GMT -5
Did you watch the documentary I posted fixit? It's a while back on this thread. Life and liberty for whom? The west? Or the hundreds of children that now have multiple types of cancer. DNA that has been changed. Mutations in the children being born in the area around the Kuwait invasion. This isn't just a one time thing either. It is going to be effecting generations of Iraq children. There were other weapons that would take out tanks. They didn't need to use an illegal weapon that will cause such suffering for the civilian population. Is it your stance that it's okay to do whatever it takes to make sure the west has life and liberty and no consideration should be given to the life of the Iraq civilians. That makes no sense to me. Are we that important that it doesn't matter what we do to them to ensure our freedom? Really? Why can't they use another means to take them out that is not going to be harmful to those who had no say in it? No, I didn't watch a documentary but I did have a look online for information on the issue and wasn't impressed by the quality of the information offered. There is so much nonsense online about Iraq and the Middle East that I'm sick of trying to sort out the truth from the outright ridiculous. I'd rather leave the DU debate to others thanks. That is a cop out!
If you don't want to "debate" it, why are you doing so right here now?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 13, 2015 17:22:27 GMT -5
No, I didn't watch a documentary but I did have a look online for information on the issue and wasn't impressed by the quality of the information offered. There is so much nonsense online about Iraq and the Middle East that I'm sick of trying to sort out the truth from the outright ridiculous. I'd rather leave the DU debate to others thanks. That is a cop out!
If you don't want to "debate" it, why are you doing so right here now?
That's a really good question!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 13, 2015 17:39:16 GMT -5
It's fine for you to chip in, but please read the post I am responding to before you post.I'll do my best!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 13, 2015 17:58:23 GMT -5
Did you watch the documentary I posted fixit? It's a while back on this thread. Life and liberty for whom? The west? Or the hundreds of children that now have multiple types of cancer. DNA that has been changed. Mutations in the children being born in the area around the Kuwait invasion. This isn't just a one time thing either. It is going to be effecting generations of Iraq children. There were other weapons that would take out tanks. They didn't need to use an illegal weapon that will cause such suffering for the civilian population. Is it your stance that it's okay to do whatever it takes to make sure the west has life and liberty and no consideration should be given to the life of the Iraq civilians. That makes no sense to me. Are we that important that it doesn't matter what we do to them to ensure our freedom? Really? Why can't they use another means to take them out that is not going to be harmful to those who had no say in it? No, I didn't watch a documentary but I did have a look online for information on the issue and wasn't impressed by the quality of the information offered. There is so much nonsense online about Iraq and the Middle East that I'm sick of trying to sort out the truth from the outright ridiculous. I'd rather leave the DU debate to others thanks. What I've underlined is absolutely not the case, in fact your assumptions of my stance are wide of the mark. It would be wise for Westerners to keep in mind Abu Mosa's statement for America. As he fiddles with his weapon Mosa says: "I say to America, that the Islamic Caliphate has been established. And we will not stop. Don’t be cowards and attack us with drones. Instead, send your soldiers, the ones we humiliated in Iraq. We will humiliate them everywhere, God willing, and we will raise the flag of Allah in the White House." I think you would find that this film is not outlandish, give it a go maybe? I guess the question I would ask those who think it's ok to use depleted uranium in their weapons (I'm not referring to you here fixit) is this: If you were defending yourself against ISIS on Australian, Canadian, British, or US soil, would you use those weapons, knowing full well the life span of uranium and the harm it would do to the land where 'you' live. Maybe the States would use them on their own soil. I don't know. They did send their soldiers over there and now they have problems too. They knew it wasn't a good thing to be working with or around because they warned the soldiers about the tanks that had been taken out with depleted uranium weapons. I am not against protecting ourselves and our way of life. I want to make that clear. I am against the mentality that we can abandon moral and ethical ways of doing that. I don't believe torturing people or using weapons with uranium in them is moral or ethical. I know we have to use force, but surely there is something we could use that is less devastating to the lives of civilians.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 13, 2015 18:13:14 GMT -5
fixit , here is your post:Post by fixit on 18 hours ago 18 hours ago snow said: "The second world war was supposed to be the war to end all wars. That didn't happen. As long as people think war solves something we will have wars. And, we will have revenge wars. It only stops people for a short while. As we can see in the Middle East, they have long memories and each generation is taught to hate from the older generation. And on it goes."Fixit, you said : "Do the Germans and Japanese hate us?
Not that I've noticed."
I wonder why you are getting so upset about rational or anyone else answering you?
You quoted only part of my post. No, I didn't quote only part of your post- I quoted the whole post.
Here is is again
19 hours ago fixit said:snow Avatar 19 hours ago snow said:"The second world war was supposed to be the war to end all wars. That didn't happen. As long as people think war solves something we will have wars. And, we will have revenge wars. It only stops people for a short while. As we can see in the Middle East, they have long memories and each generation is taught to hate from the older generation. And on it goes." "Do the Germans and Japanese hate us?" Not that I've noticed."
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 13, 2015 18:40:05 GMT -5
Barack Hussein Obama - that's the one. He's real keen to close the place down. He'll try hard to get the job done before he leaves the presidency. Last December there were 142 still detained, with 73 of them cleared for release. I agree that innocent people shouldn't be incarcerated, in fact I think everyone agrees that innocent people shouldn't be incarcerated. But when extremely dangerous individuals are released due to a bad judgment call or a legal technicality or bungled evidence, many innocent people can be harmed. (Funny how Proboards replaced Barack Hussein with a question mark on this post)Well, George W. Bush and Rumsfeld did not agree, and it took 20 posts before you agreed. In fact, Mohamoudi Slahi, who is innocent of any wrongdoing, continues to sit in Guantanamo, so clearly everyone does NOT agree.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 13, 2015 21:50:26 GMT -5
AND, kill each other - like in Sunni vs Shia. Back in the 1980's (before all this Iraq and Afghanistan business started, when America supported the Taliban to fight the occupation of their country) a friend and me sat down with a group of Arabs one day. I posed the question, "What would you do if you guys had an atomic bomb?"Their unanimous answer was, "Drop it on America."But... (lots of buts!) in the Cold War America had, what, 20,000 atomic weapons. "Could you imagine what America would do YOUR countries?""Doesn't matter" they all concurred. Here were Iraqis, Jordanians, Lebanese, Syrian, Iranian and many others. I turned to my friend and said, "Doesn't it make you afraid?"I reminded him of that old saying about Arabs, "today the Middle East has oil and religion. Tomorrow it's got religion (and the bomb.) In the 1980's?
That would be 45 years ago!
What an amazing memory you have!
I've been around for quite awhile, -must have missed something.
Never heard that "old saying about Arabs, "today the Middle East has oil and religion"
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 14, 2015 0:09:53 GMT -5
In fact, Mohamoudi Slahi, who is innocent of any wrongdoing, continues to sit in Guantanamo, so clearly everyone does NOT agree. You are entitled to your opinion that this guy is "innocent of any wrongdoing" but you don't have access to classified information about his case. Many don't agree with you. How can he be "innocent of any wrongdoing" yet at the same time one of the two most significant informants ever to be held at Guantanamo? He has requested sanctuary in the United States, with Canada as a second option. For someone desperately wanting to escape from his tormentors that seems a strange request. One impediment to his release is deciding how best to protect him from his old jihadi comrades who want him dead. Here's a little about the living conditions of Slahi and his friend Sawah who had wounds to his hands, back, thighs and buttocks when the Americans grabbed him from the battlefield in the mountains of Afghanistan....
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 14, 2015 0:50:13 GMT -5
In fact, Mohamoudi Slahi, who is innocent of any wrongdoing, continues to sit in Guantanamo, so clearly everyone does NOT agree. You are entitled to your opinion that this guy is "innocent of any wrongdoing" but you don't have access to classified information about his case. Many don't agree with you. How can he be "innocent of any wrongdoing" yet at the same time one of the two most significant informants ever to be held at Guantanamo? He has requested sanctuary in the United States, with Canada as a second option. For someone desperately wanting to escape from his tormentors that seems a strange request. One impediment to his release is deciding how best to protect him from his old jihadi comrades who want him dead. Here's a little about the living conditions of Slahi and his friend Sawah who had wounds to his hands, back, thighs and buttocks when the Americans grabbed him from the battlefield in the mountains of Afghanistan.... Classified information? Many would disagree? Come on, fixit, look at the facts here. A US judge has ruled that there is no evidence against him. The "classified information" is confessions under torture. His story in the diary is too consistent to be fabricated - it is chilling and damning. I'm extremely disappointed that this is coming from our side. The point is that none of this is necessary - it is just cruelty and that's the only explanation. Later - I read this entire 5 year old article and it substantially corroborates the book review of 'Guantanamo Diary'. If this man was one of their best two catches then what a wrong experience this has been. I also believe from your posts that you're not looking at any of the links I've put up on this, and that is fine, but then why comment? Clearly on this one you Google'd the name, cut and paste a little bit that seemed to fit your views, but it's unconvincing in terms of the facts. For example, that he had a little garden apparently makes up for extraordinary rendition and torture. I don't understand these mental trade-offs between their wrongs and our wrongs that so many people engage in. If they behead then we can torture. Children use this logic when they have lost their temper. "He hit me first". I'm not against defending one self when it is necessary, but the USA went well beyond defence in Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 14, 2015 2:41:13 GMT -5
The choice before human beings, is not, as a rule, between good and evil but between two evils. You can let the Nazis rule the world: that is evil; or you can overthrow them by war, which is also evil. There is no other choice before you, and whichever you choose you will not come out with clean hands. George Orwell I attended a talk given by a local historian on transplanting the lessons learned in dealing with the Nazi's into other contexts. The thrust of his talk was all the post-WWII mistakes we've made, like the Falkland Islands, because no political leader wants to be seen as the next Neville Chamberlain. Obviously, Orwell's comments here represent good speech-ifying but very poor political science. George Orwell said what he said because while his personality was formed in school around Jesus' words, he had to reconcile them to the heady and bloody, revolutions and wars during his lifetime. Last I checked, humanity is still mired in head games and war games.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 14, 2015 6:31:59 GMT -5
I attended a talk given by a local historian on transplanting the lessons learned in dealing with the Nazi's into other contexts. The thrust of his talk was all the post-WWII mistakes we've made, like the Falkland Islands, because no political leader wants to be seen as the next Neville Chamberlain. Obviously, Orwell's comments here represent good speech-ifying but very poor political science. George Orwell said what he said because while his personality was formed in school around Jesus' words, he had to reconcile them to the heady and bloody, revolutions and wars during his lifetime. Last I checked, humanity is still mired in head games and war games. Jesus had to reconcile them to the heady and bloody wars around him also. He went with those words all the way to the Cross remember. The friends position also is supposedly against war, refusing to kill, and yet in some cases, those principles can be set aside. I'm struggling with that inconsistency.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 14, 2015 14:39:43 GMT -5
George Orwell said what he said because while his personality was formed in school around Jesus' words, he had to reconcile them to the heady and bloody, revolutions and wars during his lifetime. Last I checked, humanity is still mired in head games and war games. Jesus had to reconcile them to the heady and bloody wars around him also. He went with those words all the way to the Cross remember. The friends position also is supposedly against war, refusing to kill, and yet in some cases, those principles can be set aside. I'm struggling with that inconsistency. Inconsistency is not necessarily a bad thing - it can indicate that some thought is going into the issue. Probably the biggest inconsistency to get one's head round with respected to warfare is the Bible itself...
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 14, 2015 16:15:28 GMT -5
Jesus had to reconcile them to the heady and bloody wars around him also. He went with those words all the way to the Cross remember. The friends position also is supposedly against war, refusing to kill, and yet in some cases, those principles can be set aside. I'm struggling with that inconsistency. Inconsistency is not necessarily a bad thing - it can indicate that some thought is going into the issue. Probably the biggest inconsistency to get one's head round with respected to warfare is the Bible itself... These verses only present a problem if you believe what Jesus taught. The idea of "dispensation" or "dispensationalism", that mankind progresses through history and God opens up new chapters of revelation accounts somewhat for the discrepancy. I admire Christians who advocate strongly for peace, as quite a number of Mennonites in our area do. mennoworld.org/2014/06/23/called-to-visit-prisoners-even-a-terrorist/mcc.org/learn/more/syria-iraq-crisis-response
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 14, 2015 18:09:43 GMT -5
Inconsistency is not necessarily a bad thing - it can indicate that some thought is going into the issue. Probably the biggest inconsistency to get one's head round with respected to warfare is the Bible itself... These verses only present a problem if you believe what Jesus taught. The idea of "dispensation" or "dispensationalism", that mankind progresses through history and God opens up new chapters of revelation accounts somewhat for the discrepancy. I admire Christians who advocate strongly for peace, as quite a number of Mennonites in our area do. mennoworld.org/2014/06/23/called-to-visit-prisoners-even-a-terrorist/mcc.org/learn/more/syria-iraq-crisis-responseI also advocate strongly for peace, as does Obama and the US government. The Good Samaritan parable is about a man who helped someone in need in a situation that others considered "not their problem". If you saw Boko Haram or ISIL going into a Memmonite village to murder the inhabitants, and you had the means to kill the attackers to save innocent Mennonite lives, would you do it? Nigeria has been asking for US combat soldiers and military advisors for a year now, to prevent further Boko Haram atrocities. Would you prefer US neutrality or US involvement in Boko Haram's war? www.wsj.com/articles/nigerian-president-wants-u-s-troops-to-fight-boko-haram-1423850893
|
|