1

Merry Christmas Joe.

I read Eliot's poem the other day and thought I might quote it in a post. I love the lines she has quoted here.

Not sure Herod killed millions - from wghat I've read based on scholars studies the area didn't have that many people even with the census. But a lot of people died from his tyranny.

Saw inteviews with some Iraqi Christians on a BBC World report a couple of days ago. Quite a few have moved to Kurdistan.

2

Good article. The christians that are suffering in Iraq don't get much attention in the news coverage.

The fragile peace between the country’s Christians and Muslims certainly has been shattered. However, It's not really surprising this happened since America is percieved to be a christian nation and we invaded and occupied Iraq. And many see our actions as modern day christian crusade.

3

The irony of that last paragraph's strained comparison between Saddam and Herod is that the Christians were much safer than Saddam, which is why our invasion was a lesson in the law of unintended consequences.

4

Merry Christmas. Wise men do remember Him. Jesus is the reason for the season.

5

And a good morning to all the America haters out there. Always gotta try and find a way to blame America (or America Jr., Israel) for all the worlds problems. Good on ya.

Just as an aside I don't think it is given that Christians, or Muslims for that matter were safer under Saddam. However, one thing all Iraqis have now, that they didn't have under Saddam and his evil brood, is hope.

6

ucfengr, sorry the facts interfere with your ideology. People who love their country speak out when things are wrong and their leaders are going down the wrong path.

Dissent is patriotic.

7

Merry Christmas, Joe. Thanks for keeping up this site.

John W: "Dissent is patriotic."

I patriotically dissent from that assinine statement. A statement I could agree with would be: SOME dissent is patriotic. Some dissent is unpatriotic. Some dissent is downright idiotic.

8

I suppose you are right, some dissent is idiotic. All true patriots believe in the right to dissent though and that includes the right to say things others view as idiotic. My dissent is not idiotic, so what you say doesn't apply to me anyways....nah nah nah.....

Do you think it's unpatriotic to question our president because we are at war?

9

Do you think it's unpatriotic to question our president because we are at war?

While we are at war, yes I do think it is unpatriotic, especially when your dissent gives comfort to our enemies. If you don't think it does, you are wrong. Also, you weren't questioning the president because we were at war, you were blaming America for the strife between Christians and Muslims in Iraq. The strife between Christians and Muslims long preceeds the birth of the USA. You may as well blame Israeli presence on the Golan Heights. And yes, I think blaming the US for Christian/Muslim strife is unpartriotic too. Seriously, are there any problems in the world you don't blame on the USA? If there are, I imagine the list is pretty short.

10

Theodore Roosevelt wrote the following during World War I in an editorial in the "Kansas City Star."

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

May 7, 1918

11

Also, you weren't questioning the president because we were at war, you were blaming America for the strife between Christians and Muslims in Iraq. The strife between Christians and Muslims long preceeds the birth of the USA.

JohnW and other posters weren't blaming strife between Christians and Muslims in general on the U.S. They were claiming that the current attacks on Christians in Iraq in particular can be traced to the U.S. invasion. To say that the Iraqi Christians are being scapegoated for the U.S. invasion (which many muslim radicals perceive as a Christian crusade) hardly seems radical, particularly since the churches in question have a very long history in the region. On the other hand, to deny that our invasion could have unintended consequences seems the worst sort of jingoism. If the destruction of the church in Iraq is a consequence of our invasion, then that is a cause for mourning, since the body of Christ should have more claim to our allegiance than our government

You may as well blame Israeli presence on the Golan Heights.

Really? The Israelis have occupied the Golan Heights for almost 40 years, but the attacks on Iraqi churches occurred after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. I know that correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, but come on.

12

ucfengr,

You sure do like to make a lot of assumptions about what I think and who I blame for problems. Suggestion-why don't you focus on responding to what a person actually says rather than making all kinds of assumptions about what a person thinks.

Ex-preacher, the quote from Teddy Roosevelt is very patriotic: we love our country and therefore must speak out. Also, it's president George W. Bush, not King George II!

13

I understand why JohnW, ex-preacher, etc. want to deny that they are giving hope and comfort to the enemy by portraying an image of the US as weak, divided, and ready to surrender, but that doesn't alter the reality that they are. More US soldiers will die because you encourage in the enemy the belief that they can win and God Forbid we do surrender, because then we won't be worrying about an Islamic insurgency in Baghdad, we will be worrying about one Washington D.C.

14

Hello everybody.

Is dissent ever unpatriotic?

As Teddy Roosevelt points out in Ex-preacher's quote, dissent is not only something to be tolerated, but something to be encouraged. It's a duty, not a privilege.

So how could dissent ever be unpatriotic?

Well, obviously intent has a lot to do with it. If someone is engaging in constructive criticism, that is good. If someone is trying to help America lose, then that is bad.

But can even constructive criticism ever be unpatriotic?

I don't think so. But I do think there is another potential problem with constructive criticism.

If someone is stuck perpetually in constructive criticism mode to the point of never acknowledging the positive and the good, then I believe that is an abdication of responsibility.

We do not have a duty to reflexively criticize everything our side is doing. We have a duty to step back and analyze both the good and the bad. Focusing solely on the negative is a disservice both to the truth and to the country.

Knee-jerk criticism is not un-patriotic. But it can, and often does have the effect of undermining our will and emboldening the will of our enemies. And that can be very bad indeed.

15

At this point in the game the score is Matthew 25,312; John W. -0-.

Matthew and ucfenger eloquently said pretty much what I wanted to say, but I'll give my snarky, Readers' Digest Condensed Version anyway.

John, the differences between your dissent and partriotic dissent are at least two-fold:

1) Patriotic dissent does not give aid and comfort to the enemy; and

2) It actually has some substance to it. On the rare occassions you try to wade into the pool of facts instead of gargling with invective you usually manage to come out with facts that just aren't so.

Off to tend to my non-cyber life now, so Merry Christmas to all.

16

Matt--I largely agree with your observations. One thing I would ask though, is how much of the criticism of the war has been constructive? I think some of it has been (I've been critical myself), but most of it seems to revolve around the "Bush is an idiot" or "no blood for oil" type of criticism, which is neither helpful or constructive.

17

Ucfengr,

... how much of the criticism of the war has been constructive?

Not enough. Not nearly enough.

I'm not talking about the debates here on the E.O., however. I'm talking about the Associated Press, the New York Times, CNN, etc. etc. etc. Not to mention reptiles like John Murtha and John Kerry.

The debates here at the E.O. have been almost exclusively constructive criticism.

There is only one regular poster in the comment threads of the E.O. whom I believe to be possibly a purely knee-jerk critic of the war and President Bush. I'm not going to say whom I'm talking about, so don't ask. You could probably figure it out without too much difficulty (I will give a hint, though: it is most certainly not JohnW or LudVanB).

However, I'd like to point out something important. What would be constructive criticism coming from JohnW would not be constructive criticism coming from your keyboard/mouth or mine.

JohnW says things that he believes but which we do not believe. If we were to say critical things which we do not believe, that would be most un-constructive, even unpatriotic.

This also works in the other direction. If JohnW were to say something in support of the war that he doesn't believe, that would be bad too. Blind support of the war could be just as problematic or dangerous as knee-jerk criticism.

That is why I am grateful to JohnW and LudVanB and everyone else who comes here and vents about Iraq and the War on Terror. They have a very different perspective from mine, but that doesn't mean I think they are wrong about everything, or even most things. It means that they believe or even know things that might be useful for my understanding of the war.

Everyone has their own personal handle on the truth. The whole truth is often inaccessible to us, and the best we can hope for sometimes is a mosaic of truth patched together from everybody's own personal experiences.

Cheesehead,

Thanks very much for the cheerleading.

I'd like to dissent from your Readers' Digest summary, though:

Patriotic dissent does not give aid and comfort to the enemy.

Patriotic dissent is not intended to give aid and comfort to the enemy. But any kind of dissent, even the patriotic kind, is liable to give aid and comfort to the enemy.

That's why it is double-plus important to be responsible in our criticism and reasonable enough to weigh the positive with the negative.

But aid and comfort to the enemy is a price we will always have to pay for our dissent. We have to make sure it is worth the price.

18

Not to mention reptiles like John Murtha and John Kerry.

(I will give a hint, though: it is most certainly not JohnW or LudVanB).

I am not sure I see a big difference between the criticism of JohnK, JohnM, and JohnW or LudB, with respect to the war or the President. I don't think that saying Bush is not a Christian (JohnW) or that War in Iraq is a plot by the neo-cons (AKA the Jews) to control the Middle East is all that constructive or even grounded in reality.

If JohnW were to say something in support of the war that he doesn't believe, that would be bad too.

I disagree here too. If a byproduct of your criticism is to give hope to the enemy, then it is best that you say nothing or even lie. In war everything, even the truth must be subordinate to winning. If your criticism is designed to help us win the war, then by all means, criticize, if not, shut up.

19

I hear a lot of comments about how the kind of things I say are giving comfort to "the enemy" and even implying I don't want America to win.
Could you maybe define your terms for me? In the Iraq war and the so-called "war on terror", who is "the enemy" and what does "winning" or "victory" mean?

FYI, I want America to be safe too. What do you think I am? Some kind of nut?

Also, I think it's good uncenfger is expressing his views-it may cause some people to examine their own ideas about various issues.

John

20

Ucfengr,

I don't think that saying Bush is not a Christian (JohnW) or that War in Iraq is a plot by the neo-cons (AKA the Jews) to control the Middle East is all that constructive or even grounded in reality.

Those two criticisms are not grounded in reality in the sense that they are false. But they are grounded in reality in the sense that if someone really believes it, he must have some reason, even a totally bogus reason, for believing it.

You or I or someone else can challenge this kind of false criticism by applying an appropriate dosage of the truth.

If, despite our best efforts, the delusional criticisms hold a grip on the mind of the critic, then at least the issue has been aired and a more reasonable observer can make up his mind based on the facts. Either that, or maybe the criticisms are not as delusional as we would like to believe.

If a byproduct of your criticism is to give hope to the enemy, then it is best that you say nothing or even lie. In war everything, even the truth must be subordinate to winning. If your criticism is designed to help us win the war, then by all means, criticize, if not, shut up.

This is often true on the battlefield. You make up your mind to fight, and you put the analysis on hold while you do your job.

But the managers of the war need to keep close tabs on what is going on, and on whether or not we should be fighting in the first place. In a democracy, we are all, each one of us, part of the management team. So if we got doubts, we need to air them and discuss them and settle them. Shut up is not an option, at least not a very good option.

In war everything, even the truth must be subordinate to winning.

Like I said, that is true (sometimes) on the battlefield. But it is never true at Headquarters, and it is usually not true back home either (which happens to be the ultimate headquarters in a democracy).

JohnW,

Just in case I haven't been clear, let me repeat that I do not believe that you are being the tiniest bit unpatriotic.

Sometimes honest discussion of the war gives aid and comfort to the enemy, but most of the time it does not. Even when discussion does give aid and comfort to the enemy, the only times such aid and comfort would outweigh the benefits of open discussion would be when sensitive information of a strictly military or security nature is disseminated.

Also, I think it's good uncenfger is expressing his views-it may cause some people to examine their own ideas about various issues.

That is exactly the point I've been trying to make.

Different beliefs are either complementary or rivals. When they are rivals, they need to be aired and examined so that the best beliefs can rise to the top.

21

Could you maybe define your terms for me? In the Iraq war and the so-called "war on terror", who is "the enemy" and what does "winning" or "victory" mean?

I think it is fairly clear who I think the enemy is, it would probably be more useful to find out who you think the enemy is. From your comments one could easily come to the conclusion that you think it is George Bush. As to victory, kill the enemy until the realize the futility of fighting us. I am reminded of Bull Halsey's exhortation, "Kill Japs, kill Japs, kill more Japs." Substitute our enemy for "Japs" and you probably have a good idea of my concept for victory.

22

Like I said, that is true (sometimes) on the battlefield. But it is never true at Headquarters, and it is usually not true back home either (which happens to be the ultimate headquarters in a democracy).

Okay, was the military right to censor the information coming out of Tarawa and Iwo Jima during WW2, knowing the negative impact it would have at the "ultimate headquaters" and our willingness to fight to final victory?

23

Ucfengr,

Okay, was the military right to censor the information coming out of Tarawa and Iwo Jima during WW2, knowing the negative impact it would have at the "ultimate headquarters" and our willingness to fight to final victory?

Maybe, I don't know.

From my perspective, there's a presumption here that the more we knew, the better it would be.

There is a countervailing presumption that if the military authorities judged Tarawa and Iwo Jima to be too dispiriting to publicize, then they have a certain level of competency to decide that and to withhold the information without being second-guessed and overruled.

Either choice has a price, there are some very deep trade-offs involved. I could easily ask you, "Do you think victory would have been endangered without censorship? Do you think we would have sustained more casualties without censorship?"

Not knowing much about it, I would, as a a default response, defer to the judgement of the censors.

As usual, you raise a very good point, sir.

24

Ucfengr,

Let me ask you a question and I think I know what you think, given your last few comments,but I want to hear it from you.

Are you saying that to achieve victory in Iraq, the best thing we could do is maybe just go in there and carpet bomb or otherwise just level the whole country? This is what will bring about freedom/democracy in the middle east and security for our nation? Is this what you are saying?

25

A poll taken last week found that 70% of Americans do not support Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. 28% do support his handling of the war. These figures must give joy to our enemies. In your world, ucfengr, are all of these 70% unpatriotic.

Patriotism is loyalty to one's country and its principles, not loyalty to its leader, unless you live in North Korea, Cuba, or Nazi Germany.

I distinctly remember that many Republicans were not especially supportive of Clinton and Carter during times of national war and/or crisis. And I remember how happy the Iranians were when Reagan was elected.

Is it really a wise policy to figure out what our enemies want and then do the exact opposite? How about trying to figure out the right thing to do? By right, I mean, both morally right and best in terms of our own long-term future (I'm naive enough to think that those two things actually coincide).

The mess in Iraq cannot be directly compared to World War II. Two completely different situations. A better analogy is with Vietnam. There we managed to kill at least 2 million Vietnamese with "only" 58,000 American deaths.

26

Are you saying that to achieve victory in Iraq, the best thing we could do is maybe just go in there and carpet bomb or otherwise just level the whole country? This is what will bring about freedom/democracy in the middle east and security for our nation? Is this what you are saying?

Germany and Japan are free and democratic and that's just what we did to them. That said, I don't think it is necessary in Iraq specifically and at this point it would probably be counterproductive, though some bombing of some specific targets in Iran might be useful. BTW--You never answered my question; who do you think the real enemy is?

A poll taken last week found that 70% of Americans do not support Bush's handling of the war in Iraq.

ex, this kind of poll is pretty useless in this instance because it really doesn't talk about why they oppose Bush's handling of the war. For example, I don't think Bush has handled the war very well, but I don't oppose the war in general.

27

The same poll asked, "Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?"

31% said they favored the war, 67% said they opposed it, and 2% were undecided. Would you regard the 67% who oppose the war as unpatriotic?

28

Ex, again I question the validity of this poll and/or what it you say claims. I mean, we just had an election and anti-war candidates didn't get 70% of the vote; and not everybody who voted Democratic favored an immediate pull out of forces in Iraq. Heck, anti-war candidate Ned Lamont couldn't beat pro-war candidate Leiberman in one of the most liberal states in the nation. So what does this poll mean? It's pretty clear that 70% of the people don't favor a pull out in Iraq. That said, if 70% of the people agreed with Cindy Sheehan, then yes I would have to accept that 70% of the country is unpatriotic, but I think that is far from the case.

29

ucfengr,

The following is a definition of our government's enemies in the Iraq war:
"The Enemy" was initially Saddam and his military, however now that Saddam and his military has been defeated, the people of Iraq are now our enemies. They do not want us there and our government did not make adequate plans for what was supposed to happen after the war (for example, reconstruction, civil order, security, and so forth). We are not doing any good there, the Iraqis don't want us there, American soldiers are being killed and injured, we are creating more enemies. There doesn't seem to be much point in us being there. Personally, I have no hatred of the Iraqi people and I object to my government killing these people in my name. Oh, and yes, I know the killing will not stop just because we leave, but why should our soldiers keep dying over there when we have no plans or capability of correcting things there?

Ultimately though, the real enemy is SIN manifested in pride, arrogance, lust for power, dishonesty, and manipulating people with fear and hatred. The sin is being manifested in the Middle East and in our country as well.

30

SHUT UP! GOSH... Get back to the real meaning behind Christmas...and what a very true statement it is... "WISE MEN STILL SEEK HIM"....WISE MEN. You're like two kids crying over a lollypop.

31

the people of Iraq are now our enemies. They do not want us there

No, the enemy is an insurgency that is made up largely of foreigners (non-Iraqis) and equipped and trained by Iran, Syria, and probably elements in Saudi Arabia.

32

I don't know your source(s) of information, uncfengr, but you are repeating the Bush line from a year ago that even Bush has given up. Have you read the Iraq Study Group report?

Here's an excerpt that directly contradicts what you just said:

"Most attacks on Americans still come from the Sunni Arab insurgency ... It has significant support within the Sunni Arab community ... The insurgency has no single leadership but is a network of networks ... arms and financing are supplied primarily from within Iraq."

Furthermore, the report states repeatedly and in no uncertain terms that the primary threat to stability in Iraq is sectarian violence, not the anti-American insurgency.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't accept your definition of patriotism. I believe that true patriotism is loyalty to the country, the Constitution and the ideals upon which our democracy is founded, not mindless support for our political leadership.

33

ucfengr,

You have point. I sometimes get drawn into the blogosphere food fight, but I don't respect myself in the morning.

Most of the time, when I tweak the nose of the Right, I try to make sure there is some subtantive, non-ad hominem point to what I am saying.

Such as, over on my blog, in response to Bono ironically being named a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire, I am reporting that President Bush has awarded Gitmo defense lawyer Charles Swift the Presidential Medal of Executive Tyranny.

34

Since it's Christmas and Jesus is the reason for the season, why don't we talk about him in relation to current events in the Middle East?

Jesus is called the prince of peace and said "love your enemies". What did he mean by that? Are we to take this seriously or does this not really apply to us now. And please, don't quote the book of Romans and go off on a discussion about how the state is instituted to punish the evildoers or how there will never be true peace until after the rapture, tribulation and the millenial reign begins. I'm not talking about that...what does love your enemy mean on a personal level-today? And who is our "neighbor"?

Being that it is Christmas time and our christian president seems to be wanting to send a surge of troops to the middle east, it seems to be an appropriate topic for discussion on an evangelical blog.

35

loving your enemy means doing everything you can to help him right up until the time he tries to remove your head from your shoulders. Then it's best to kill him--with love.

The problem with you, johnw, is that you seem to think that a man can't love his enemy and kill him at the same time. I know that's a bumper sticker of the moonbat left: "When Jesus said, 'Love your enemies', I think he meant, don't kill them." It's oh so condescending, and presupposes that Christians who have killed in war have never thought such brilliant thoughts.

If I put the golden rule in this discussion, I would put it something like this. If I intended to kill someone with malice aforethought, I would expect that someone to try to stop me with all lethal force. I would expect him to do the right thing, and with Christian love prevent me from doing something evil.

Incidentally, I have serious doubts about whether you actually ever supported Bush. You have said you did (or that you at least had voted for him) but it's hard to believe that anyone with such hard feelings toward him was not already predisposed against him. No Clinton loyalists ever turned against him with the kind of vitriol you have against Bush.

36

Jd,

Thanks for sharing you thoughts on the teachings of Christ this christmas season.

Yes, you are right I totally disagree with the idea that I can love my enemy while I am killing him. That statement is absurd and does not need any rebutting.

I was predisposed to like Bush, but I had to change my mind on the basis of what he is doing. Perhaps, I should tone down my rhetoric to better get my point across, but as a christian, I get kind of upset with the death, destruction, and chaos, being created on my behalf by a born-again christian.

37

Sorry. You are wrong jw. It's obvious to me that you have never thought very seriously about loving your enemy when he seeks to harm you. I guess that means that you would not protect yourself? Or if you're married, would you protect your family?

Sorry, too, that you seem to be shocked by death, destruction and chaos. I think that you are very selective in your outrage over the death, destruction and chaos in the world. And would you not be quite so outraged if this death, destruction and chaos was created by someone who was not a born-again Christian? Is your anger at someone who claims to be a Christian and then behaves in a way that you think is un-christian?

38

JD,
Let me try to answer you questions clearly and concisely:
1. I do not like needless death, destruction, and chaos-whether the person causing it is a christian or not.
2. When the person claiming to be a born-again christian is responsible for the needless death, destruction, and chaos, it is especially obnoxious and offensive.

JD, Christ's teaching about loving your enemy goes against human nature. Naturally, if you are being attacked, it's normal to want to protect yourself-I would definitely protect my wife.
Nevertheless, the idea that while you are killing someone, you are actually loving him does not make sense to me. Killing someone (or going to war)should always be a last resort. If you are trying to protect your family, try to do so without doing undue harm to the attacker. If you are a president, try to exhaust all available avenues before going to war (and causing needless death, destruction, and chaos).

Also, with regards to being predisposed to liking Bush-it was because of what he said in one of his debates about wanting to be a "uniter, not a divider" and he didn't want to be "nation builder". Also, I didn't think he would be having any sex scandals in the whitehouse.

39

JohnW, D

Did God love Jesus? Why, then, did he send him to die?

Did God love Israel? Why did he cause millions of them to be killed and the rest taken into exile?

Does God love those who practice injustice and mock him even to their deathbed? Why then does he then cast them into outer darkness?

Methinks your thinking on this needs to be a little more nuanced. Have you ever read C. S. Lewis' chapter on forgiveness from Mere Christianity?

I am open to being convinced that our efforts in Iraq are flawed, imprudent, unjust, and ill-advised. I know that I am unqualified to make the decisions our leaders are making, and pray God gives them wisdom and discernment. I've heard good arguments on both sides, and I do not have the clarity both you and ucfengr seem to have.

But for goodness sake, one thing is certainly getting tiring - the framing of this discussion along the lines of "Christianity teaches pacifism, therefore Christians should be against the war in Iraq." I completely disagree with the idea that Christianity teaches pacifism, and regret that having to argue alongside the war hawks on principle may cloud me judgment. Just because I believe war can be just need not imply that this one is.

40

"But for goodness sake, one thing is certainly getting tiring - the framing of this discussion along the lines of "Christianity teaches pacifism, therefore Christians should be against the war in Iraq." I completely disagree with the idea that Christianity teaches pacifism, and regret that having to argue alongside the war hawks on principle may cloud me judgment."

you re right...christianity does not teach pacifism. The whole of christianity is predicated on the need to have something to fight. Without its leader's ability to find boogey men du jour to knock down over the ages,the christian cult would have crumbled to dust long ago. Its not always a bad thing mind you...when christians are enjoined by their divine spokesmen to "fight" poverty,disease,injustice,ect,they can be pretty usefull...unfortunatrly,more often then not they've gone after EASIER targets...gays,athiests,pagans,other religions,women who think for themselves,folks who's skintone isent of the popular tint...for the most part individual christians dont even know why they do what they do...they've just been trained to do what they are told and thats what they do because they're sort of like herd animals and going along with the herd is jut easier. So i guess the trick is to keep the herd pointed in the right direction and away from you. On that cheerfull note,merry christmas to all.

41

LudVanB,

Your rich and subtle understanding of the nuances of Christianity throughout history should be the envy of us all.

42

Have you read the Iraq Study Group report?

Ex, I am sure there are a lot of things in the ISG report that I disagree with. The first thing that jumps to mind is the attempt to connect Shia and Sunnis in Iraq killing each with the Israeli ownership of the Golan Heights.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't accept your definition of patriotism.

I am not surprised. My definition of patriotism is decidedly old fashioned. I'm one of those old school types who thinks that when your country is in a war, you root for your side to win, whoever the president happens to be. Apparently the new definition of patriotism allows you the freedom to pull for the other side to win.

43

"I am not surprised. My definition of patriotism is decidedly old fashioned. I'm one of those old school types who thinks that when your country is in a war, you root for your side to win, whoever the president happens to be. Apparently the new definition of patriotism allows you the freedom to pull for the other side to win."

A war? what war? we re not in any war we re over in Iraq dropping bombs and shooting on folks who just dont want to get it through their heads that they dont have a say over the fate of THEIR country anymore....a war....gimme a break...lol...the stuff you crazies come up with...

44

we re over in Iraq dropping bombs and shooting on folks who just dont want to get it through their heads that they dont have a say over the fate of THEIR country anymore

Yeah, I know, evil America running around blowing up schools and baby milk factories, throwing up babies and catching them on their bayonets, and forcing Iraqi women to work in brothels servicing our depraved soldiers. But setting all that aside, you seem to be under the impression that the Iraqis had a say over the fate of their country under Saddam and his brood. I'm sure you can't be under that impression.

45

"Yeah, I know, evil America running around..."

First off,dweeb,its not evil AMERICA...its an evil NEO CON ELITE CADRE of a few dozen people at most who convinced a larger minority of people in America that Iraq was a threat to anyone and he rest,the ACTUAL majority was simply ignored.

"blowing up schools and baby milk factories, throwing up babies and catching them on their bayonets, and forcing Iraqi women to work in brothels servicing our depraved soldiers."

Although i dont have enough information to go into specific accusations, after everything i ve seen and heard,i m not inclined to rule anything out just yet.

"But setting all that aside, you seem to be under the impression that the Iraqis had a say over the fate of their country under Saddam and his brood. I'm sure you can't be under that impression."

Of course they did...Saddam's click was a few thousands at most...the Iraqi population is 24 millions...you do the math. But its quite probable that they knew that Saddam,for all his faults,kept the country from breaking apart into several armed camps fighting it out in the streets like whats happening right now and so decided to keep the devil they knew.

46

Wonders For Oyarsa,

I am not a pacifist. War is sometimes neccessary-unfortunately.

Also, with all due respect, I think you need a less nuanced view of the Iraq war and the war on terror. When the lives of hundreds of thousands or people are involved, along with the ability of Christians to spread the gospel, I think it's reasonable to look into the facts and decided for yourself if our country is pursueing the right course of action instead of just delegating the responsibility to our leaders and trusting that they are doing the right thing (without really knowing). I believe God would want us to be responsible, well informed citizens, when the lives of so many people are at stake.

47

Lud, I am beginning to get the impression that you and reality aren't all that well acquainted. Anyway, Merry Christmas to you and yours and to everyone else here at EO. God Bless.

48

JohnW, I'm glad to hear you are not a pacifist. And I appreciate your zeal toward what you most certainly see as the right path to follow. Of course, Ucfengr has the same zeal in promoting the path he sees as right. Both of you see yourselves as following Christ to the best of your knowledge. And both of you have some good arguments (and some less good).

So, let me see if I can defend my use of what I hope is humility, and what you see as bad citizenship. For I do certainly agree with you that God wants us to be responsible well informed citizens.

On the one hand, I can see the war in Iraq as a very good cause. There was a tyrannical dictator who we shamefully stopped short of toppling in a previous war, slaughtering the rebels who rose up assured of our backing. There is a militant Islamic movement in the middle east bent on the destruction of our civilization and our faith, who has attacked us at 9/11 and is gaining momentum. Europe is on the road to being overrun, by its no-children and massive immigration policy. African Christians are being slaughtered in Sudan, and violent Islamic movements are gaining ground rapidly. Saddam seemed to be on his way to producing weapons that, in the hands of terrorists would make 9/11 look like a cakewalk.

By invading Iraq, we took out a dictator and forced groups like Al Qaeda to attack our soldiers rather than our civilians. We give the people of one major Middle Eastern countries a taste of freedom and democracy, putting our best young men and women in the service there to help rebuild their country. Everyone I've met in the military are top-notch folk who are professional and care about what they are doing. They are people with real vision.

On the other hand, we may be playing right into the radical Islamists hands. They need a cause to rally behind, particularly in Iran. Our firm hand can silence more moderate voices that might otherwise gain ground by the radicals using the USA as a foil. This does ineed seem to be the case in Iran. Ancient Christian communities find themselves in constant suspicion, and targeted for violence. This breaks my heart to think of. Saddaam was harsh, but he also kept some level of stability, and its easy to overlook the danger of anarchy or take for granted the value of having someone to negotiate with.

I also can't in good conscience support much of what goes under the name of freedom and democracy. Pornography and loose sexuality is horribly offensive to Muslims, and rightly so. Indeed, between radical secularists and radical Islamists, its hard to know who to root for sometimes. And insofar as our actions embody secular values rather than Christian, I need to step back. What are we ultimately striving for in Iraq (and Afghanistan)? Will we tolerate a country where Christian converts are executed? If not, how on Earth do we expect to fight this when the opinion of the Muslim people at large support such executions? Isn't that democracy?

As Christians, we need to recognize the wounded history we have with Muslims. We have some things not to be proud of. And yet we also cannot forget that, since its beginning, millitant Muslims have been attacking western civilization. Constantinople is Istanbul, and it is indeed other people's business besides the Turks (the Armenians for instance). How do we love and forgive Muslims, and yet defend and do justice to our brothers being slaughtered by their hands even now in Sudan and Somalia, in Lebennon and Indonesia?

And think of this - all that I know on these issues comes largely from the Media. I've never talked to an Iraqi. I do know an Iranian Christian. I have very little real knowledge of what the various Islamic factions are motivated by. Heck, to my own shame, I didn't know whether AlQaeda was Sunni or Shiite until there was a big stink about that Senator a week or two ago. I've never read the Koran all the way through. And you want me to scream at our leaders, who have advisers fluent in Arabic, to change their public policy on Iraq?

And yet there are issues where I will scream. The Genocide in Darfur must be stopped. That merits force. Yes, there are nuances and complications, I'm sure, but it would take a lot of new information to change my mind on that. Also, we need to stop Aborting millions of babies here every year. Again, there our nuances I'm sure, but even if we don't completely outlaw Abortion we can do better than we are.

But the notion of having the same amount of moral clarity in Iraq? Well, I just don't see it. War is a horrible thing, but so is acquiescing to tyrants. I have nothing but respect for everyone in the military I've met, and do have faith based on every sample point I've seen that our men are trained to spare the civilian population as much harm as they reasonably can. And yet was Iraq the best place to attack? How much of it is related to Bush's own frustration at his father not finishing the job back in 1992? Then again, if the job should have been finished, why not go ahead and finish it?

In the absence of moral clarity on Iraq, I'm really really glad we elect better informed leaders to make these decisions.

49

I just wanted to comment that the results of the US invasion have not been all bad for the spread of the gospel in Iraq. Case in point, the following article from a 2004 issue of Alliance Life magazine: Light In Baghdad.