What if the democrats were

[EBSSTF4]

War, health care and poverty are all important issues…but they are complicated issues with diverse opinions about how to tackle each one.

So important not a singe thing has been done to attempt to address them, exept more war.

 

[martino]

So important not a singe thing has been done to attempt to address them, exept more war.

Yes, its an unfortunate fact that sometimes war is the only way to stop the violence. It’s not easy and nobody likes it. As of yet, not a single alternative has been promoted. All we hear is that we shouldnt have gone to war but not one peep about what we should have done to combat Islamic terrorism.

I’d love to hear your suggestion as to what would have been a better way to go about it.

 

[EBSSTF4]

Yes, its an unfortunate fact that sometimes war is the only way to stop the violence. It’s not easy and nobody likes it. As of yet, not a single alternative has been promoted. All we hear is that we shouldnt have gone to war but not one peep about what we should have done to combat Islamic terrorism.

I’d love to hear your suggestion as to what would have been a better way to go about it.

CCC

2327 Because of the evils and injustices that all war brings with it, we must do everything reasonably possible to avoid it. The Church prays: “From famine, pestilence, and war, O Lord, deliver us.”

Was everything done to avoid war in Iraq? Where their Terrorists in Iraq before the war? Iraq was wraped up tight with full fly over rights. If we say somthing suspicious we could bomb it any time. We made it a haven for terrorists.

 

[martino]

Still no other ideas.

It’s my opinion that the war was justified. If someone was able to articulate an alternative I may end up changing my mind but I see no alternative and noone who is against the war has put one forward.

 

[Thal59]

Still no other ideas.

It’s my opinion that the war was justified. If someone was able to articulate an alternative I may end up changing my mind but I see no alternative and noone who is against the war has put one forward.

Correct. There are no alternatives with terrorists. They are suicidal mass-murdering religious fanatics. Their thesis of how to destroy America, Israel, and our allies leaves no room for diplomacy. We either continue to die at their hands, or we take them out first… end of story.

The problem with a “proactive” solution such as war in Iraq is that one never knows how bad things would have been if we did something less direct. But we have a precedent to look at: WWII.

In his book, “The Gathering Storm” Winston Churchill referred to WWII as the “unnecessary war.” He makes it clear how easy we could have defused the situation with Hitler if we were more resolute against him. Now imagine George Bush is president and not Roosevelt. Pres. Bush and Chruchill join together with France and stand against Hitler - unafraid to resort to military action if Hitler is not cooperative. Imagine Pres. Bush calling Germany and Japan an axis of evil. Now imagine the allies initiating WWII on “moral” grounds against evil empires.

Let’s say, using some estimates I have discovered over the years, that with the war directly concentrated on a Germany before it has won any major territorial campaigns, and the total death toll of axis and allied lives, including German civilians, came to about 1-2 million. Imagine the attacks Pres. Bush would be enduring from the liberal left for causing so much death and destruction in a foreign country just because of his religious fanatacism which was demonstrated in his referrence to Hitler and Hirohito as evil. You would probably imagine exactly the same attacks that Pres. Bush is getting from the left today for his policy in Iraq.

But we can see what appeasement and inactivity did in WWIII. The death toll was not 1-2 million, but almost 50 miilion. “Reactive” policy caused the enormous loss of lives, concentration camps, holocaust, Pearl harbor, Bataan death march, etc.

If you can imagine a democratic Iraq and Afghanistan, with possibly a democratic Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia - which have had rallies from their younger people for democracy because of what is happening in Iraq - you might be able to look back on the proactive policy that caused this spread of democracy as something definately worth the sacrifices today. Especially if the cooperation of these democratic nations lead to the dismantling and destruction of terrorist groups which now have a safe haven in these Islamic states.

You might even realize someday that Pres. Bush is one of America’s great presidents.

Thal59

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Correct. There are no alternatives with terrorists. They are suicidal mass-murdering religious fanatics. Their thesis of how to destroy America, Israel, and our allies leaves no room for diplomacy. We either continue to die at their hands, or we take them out first… end of story.

Where in the New Testament did you get that? Which of the Christian martyrs thought it was their duty to take out half a legion on the way out? Those were Christians who really were in danger of being killed off entirely as a people. Some of them had even been zealots in their former life. They espoused no such thing.

We need to ask ourselves if we are really living the faith as it was handed down to us. We have the means to fight back, yes. Maybe that is why it is more difficult for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Rich people can take care of themselves. The poor and the weak have to leave their defense to God. The rich who are under God’s care have to take great care to leave themselves there. That is not an easy road to travel.

I am not saying there is never reason for Christians to take up arms. I am saying that it is rarely, if ever, a simple 1,2,3 end-of-story matter.

 

[Thal59]

Where in the New Testament did you get that? Which of the Christian martyrs thought it was their duty to take out half a legion on the way out? Those were Christians who really were in danger of being killed off entirely as a people. Some of them had even been zealots in their former life. They espoused no such thing.

You are trying to compare apples to hand grenades. If people in the first century, mostly Romans, persecuted or killed Christians it usually was from a desire to suppress supposed insurrection within their empire. Christians and Jews, at various times, could live and let live with the Romans so long as they did not break Roman law.

But the terrorists we face today make the Romans look like Red-Cross volunteers. The terrorists will kill anyone they please for any reason that appeals to them. They have no sense of justice, mercy or respect for humanity. What would you do? Try to present them with a fine Christian example? That is a noble jesture, but also a stupid one as such displays of Christianity enrages them more. Remember that in Islam there are two kinds of people in the world; those who submit to Islam, and those who are at war with it.

Or do you believe we should have resorted to a non-violent method in dealing with the Nazis? Should we have tried to win them over with Christian patience, love and charity? Yet, I would gladly take a Roman or a Nazi over a modern terrorist.

Thal59

 

[BLB_Oregon]

You are trying to compare apples to hand grenades. If people in the first century, mostly Romans, persecuted or killed Christians it usually was from a desire to suppress supposed insurrection within their empire. Christians and Jews, at various times, could live and let live with the Romans so long as they did not break Roman law.

But the terrorists we face today make the Romans look like Red-Cross volunteers. The terrorists will kill anyone they please for any reason that appeals to them. They have no sense of justice, mercy or respect for humanity. What would you do? Try to present them with a fine Christian example? That is a noble jesture, but also a stupid one as such displays of Christianity enrages them more. Remember that in Islam there are two kinds of people in the world; those who submit to Islam, and those who are at war with it.

Or do you believe we should have resorted to a non-violent method in dealing with the Nazis? Should we have tried to win them over with Christian patience, love and charity? Yet, I would gladly take a Roman or a Nazi over a modern terrorist.

Thal59

I was also thinking along the lines of the martyrdom of St. Stephen, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. And sorry, but I think you do not give the Romans and the Nazis enough credit. The Romans crucified thousands of Jews in Palestine, not just the One and the two thieves, and they did that one at a time, not thousands in a day. Not that crucifixion was even the start of how the Caesars used the terror of their armies to control the peoples they conquered. Whole villages were wiped out in retribution, to make a point of a Caesar’s displeasure. The Romans even killed people for the entertainment value, for crying out loud! As for the Nazis, they killed half of the European Jews. I won’t argue that the terrorists don’t dream of being that successful, but they’re nowhere like there yet.

“The terrorists will kill anyone they please for any reason that appeals to them. They have no sense of justice, mercy or respect for humanity.” They are sociopaths, I won’t argue with that, but it simply is not true that even in their insane hatred that they target their victims with no discrimination whatsoever.

I think they are actually more enraged by displays of “Christianity” such as were engaged in at Abu Ghraib, if you don’t mind my saying so. Besides, it is Western culture, not Christian culture, that so enrages the religious fundamentalists. Hollywood is far more their perceived enemy than our churches are. It is not as if they don’t have a certain affection towards Jesus or the Virgin Mary.

Tell me what the statistical likelihood is that you will be assaulted or killed by an Islamic terrorist, rather than a garden-variety sociopath. That is why terrorism works. Ten or twenty sociopaths do one truly awful thing to 3,000 people, and they drive 300 million into fear in the process.

The number of Muslims who are mass-murdering fanatic is an extremely small fraction…although this last, rather indiscriminate “Crusade” to Iraq has not, according to intelligence sources, helped those numbers.

Most importantly, though, I don’t think I have much choice but to, as much as humanly possible, set a “fine Christian example.” That is my call, and I am called to follow it to the death, am I not? Sometimes force needs to be met by force in defense of the vulnerable, but it is to be met with the minimum force needed and with the minimum injury to innocent parties that is possible. I don’t feel as if that has been our guiding principle. It has been more like, “We have to protect ourselves first, and if anybody else is in the way, that is too bad for them.”

Not that this whoe discussion separates the Democrats and Republicans much. It is fine to argue now, but very few on either side spoke out against the war in Iraq when there was speaking out to do. Anyone who complains that the Republicans aren’t actively pro-life when it doesn’t suit their political future needs to keep that in mind.