-
Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report
May 17, 2013 | 117 comments
-
Transsexual Flights from Reality
May 3, 2013 | 91 comments
-
State Funerals and Christendom
April 23, 2013 | 12 comments
-
The Hero of Star Wars
April 19, 2013 | 45 comments
-
Margaret Thatcher the Methodist
April 9, 2013 | 38 comments
Special Report
Christian Ethics and the Iraq War
The religious liaison to the 2008 Obama campaign thinks the president was right to prefer nation-building at home.
Christian ethicist Shaun Casey, who served as a religious liaison in the 2008 Barack Obama campaign, recently reflected on the “legacy of the immoral misadventure in Iraq” for Christian Century magazine.
With help from famous pacifist theologian Stanley Hauerwas of Duke University, Casey helped organize 100 ethicists in 2002 to warn against any U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Citing more than 4,000 U.S. dead, over $1 trillion in cost, and many more Iraqi dead, Casey understandably now feels vindicated in his dire warnings.
“We ethicists couldn’t stop the war, but we did help jump-start a conversation,” concluded Casey, who teaches at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C. “President Bush had effectively intimidated most Democrats into silence by questioning their patriotism. But eventually the country came to see, as it did with Vietnam, that the moral folly of the whole exercise rendered it unjust.”
Unlike Hauerwas and others who joined him in 2002, Casey does not profess to be a pacifist but does advocate an arguably narrow view of Just War teaching. He credits Obama’s “early and principled stand against the Iraq War” for his election to the presidency. And he commends Obama for having kept his “major election promise to end this misbegotten war.” Casey describes Obama’s stance as motivating his own activism for Obama in 2008, when he saw firsthand how “hungry Americans were to bring this nightmare to an end.”
Casey’s glad the “country’s realization that it was a fiasco has tamed a fair amount of my cynicism about our politics.” Urging withdrawal from Afghanistan, he concludes it’s time to “focus on nation-building here at home.”
Whether the religious ethicists and others who opposed the Iraq war are truly vindicated is known completely only to God. History will eventually come to some settled temporal conclusion long after the current heated memories have faded. The generation who resisted the Vietnam War has ensured a consensus among cultural elites about the ostensible futility of that struggle. There America lost, with over 50,000 dead, more than 10 times its terrible losses in Iraq. And though Casey cites the belief by some that 1.4 million Iraqis died, almost certainly an inflated number, Vietnamese dead probably exceeded even that figure. And unlike Iraq, the Vietnam War concluded with an enemy victory over former American allies.
Ronald Reagan, during the 1980 presidential campaign, famously provoked cultural elites with his proclamation of Vietnam as a “noble cause.” The U.S. defeat there was followed by communist genocide, reeducation camps, decades of avoidable poverty, millions of refugees, most notably the boat people, and surging global adventurism by an emboldened Soviet Union, whose victims included Angolans, Nicaraguans and Afghans, among others. In his 1999 book, The Necessary War, Michael Lind defended the legacy of liberal anti-communism by asserting the Vietnam War was, at least for a time, strategically necessary in the Cold War even if not ultimately politically winnable.
Whether or not America was able or willing to win in Vietnam, our adversaries there were unsavory, and the consequences of our defeat and departure were hideous for the Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians. Even though defeated, America’s exertions there arguably bought time for other Asian nations to build eventual democracies and prosperous economies.
What would leaving Saddam Hussein in power have meant for America, the world, and Iraq? Religious and other critics of the Iraq War typically seem unconcerned with that question. Under one of the most murderous regimes of the late 20th century, possibly exceeded only by communist Cambodia, how many more Iraqis would Saddam have killed over the last eight years? Critics of U.S. policy often cited the pre-war U.S.-supported international sanctions against Iraq as ostensibly responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths from malnutrition or curable disease. How many more would have died absent removal of Saddam, who brutally manipulated those sanctions for his own enrichment and repression of his enemies?
And how would Saddam’s remaining in power have affected the U.S. war on terror, the stability of U.S. allies in the Middle East, the Arab-Israeli conflict, or America’s ongoing confrontation with Iran, particularly its nuclear program? Where would all of the jihadists who flocked to fight America in Iraq have instead gravitated? And as international sanctions against him collapsed, what ambitious weapons programs would Saddam have resurrected? As in Vietnam, America’s foes in Iraq were unsavory and murderous. Their defeat, or at least momentary suppression, would seem good news, however transitory.
Treating Iraq, or Vietnam, as a simple morality play of arrogant American imperial overreach is grossly simplistic and leaves too many questions unanswered. Christian ethicists, relying on a rich 2000-year tradition, are called to help unravel the moral complexities of a deeply fallen world where God’s redemptive love is still active.
During World War I, a bishop explained to a Methodist seminary in Chicago God’s purposes in permitting war to dethrone the German, Austrian, Ottoman, and Russian monarchies so as to spread democracy. Such hopes were soaringly optimistic obviously, though democracy of a sort did eventually reach most of these countries, if only after decades of further war and brutal tyranny.
At least the bishop, still suffused with the confident optimism of an earlier age, believed history moved in a providential direction. With more subtlety, he also discerned that redemption sometimes follows suffering, and that Heaven’s purposes transcend human intent.
Faith should indicate that Providence also has a plan for Iraq, and for Vietnam, in which miserable wars played some mysterious purpose. We can hope that all who paid a terrible price for a better day will, in God’s own time across history’s crooked course, merit thanks from future generations.
About the Author
Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (70) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Mark Tooley
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/06/christian-ethics-and-the-iraq
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
POST American| 1.6.12 @ 6:52AM
TOTAL ---and we mean TOTAL DEPRAVITY
is the essense of man in this universe.
Scripture, and history, REAL
history---- tells us so.
And so we MUST always beware this
dubious, self-appointed mission, esp.
by the Globalist EUGENICS and USURY capstone,
to ----'perfect' things.
ALSO, it'd be nice to hear some
NON 'eck-YOU--men--ick---all--ist'
Christian indignation in the face of
the murder of the American Constitution
and the Bill of Rights by the enactment
of NDAA 1031.
------OR the slow, but steady, well-funded,
endlessly promoted, creeping EUGENICS
of the 'a--bore---shun' lifestyle choices
--the kindly and X-speedient murder of
the old, the unfit, or the generally 'inconvenient'.
OH, and BTW ----DO keep tabs on your
estrogen levels.
Seems the capstone, aside from GMO
and weaponized water and injections,
has now been exposed saturating
the enviornment with Bisphenol A.
Seems the stuff is not only in cans, plastics,
bottles, beer, etc --but has been detected
in printer ink, paper, dyes ----AND, a
crafty new deployment ---TOILET PAPER!
Gets those sterilants and carcinogens
----right into your bloodstream via
the membrane. ---Yesssireee!
---------------------------------------REALLY. . .
Timothy L. Pennell| 1.6.12 @ 7:11AM
Wow. That was good.
The "Toilet Paper" thing, there at the end?
Maybe.
I have always been of the belief that we have to READ THE LABELS, before we buy our Food and Drink. With all of the Genetic Technology out there, what's preventing CHINA from altering the Molecular Structure of the Food they send over here? What's stopping them from Engineering these Molecular Blueprints, in to something that will kill our Blood lines, over a period of years, or a couple of Generations?
They won't even have to Fire a Shot.
If you read the Label, and it doesn't say WHERE it came from? If it only mentions who's Distributing it?
DON'T BUY IT!
I'm just saying.
Good Screed P.A.
Bill| 1.6.12 @ 12:21PM
So where's the pot and crystal meth coming from?
SeymourGlass| 1.6.12 @ 11:12AM
A foreign substance, entering the body without the consent of the individual?
Timothy L. Pennell| 1.6.12 @ 11:29AM
You might wanna get a hold of ALAN, on that one? I have a feeling that, late at night, when his favorite Bars have closed? He's had that happen, on more than one occasion.
L. Ross| 1.6.12 @ 11:52AM
Precious Bodily Fluids.
Cpm| 1.6.12 @ 2:37PM
In the Out door.
L. Ross| 1.6.12 @ 11:38AM
Ice cream, Mandrake? Children's ice cream!...You know when fluoridation began?...1946. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works. I first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love...Yes, a profound sense of fatigue, a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence. I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women...women sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Mandrake...but I do deny them my essence.
SeymourGlass| 1.6.12 @ 1:07PM
POE
Alan Brooks| 1.7.12 @ 5:53AM
"Ronald Reagan, during the 1980 presidential campaign, famously provoked cultural elites with his proclamation of Vietnam as a 'noble cause.' "
Then so was the Civil War.
God cast Dixie down to a SHAMEFUL defeat for her sins.
Alan Brooks| 1.7.12 @ 5:56AM
BTW:
all of you get down on your arthritic knees and thank the Swine God you worship that McCain was not elected president.
Timothy L. Pennell| 1.6.12 @ 6:59AM
"Citing 4,000 Dead". I'm so sick of hearing that Mantra. 4,000 Dead. In HOW many Years? 10?
We lost 6,000 on D-Day. 8,000 on Iwo Jima. Thousands more, on Guadalcanal, Okinawa, The Kasserine Pass. We lost more men on the Bataan Death March. So, let's cut the Bullsh*t.
The Military loses, on average, 3 People a DAY, just in Accidents. How many is that, over a 10 Year Span? The Left LOVES to play games, with the Numbers. Like Unemployment, and close Elections. They Rig the Game, to get the numbers they need.
I'm curious. When "Christian Ethicist" - Shaun Casey - got his Hundred fellow Lefty Priests together, were they all given Religious Ethicist Coats, like the "Doctors" who went to Obamas' Dog and Pony Show, on Health Care?
And, who died, and left him in charge of Christianity? Last I looked, The BIBLE was the Moral Guide on ETHICS, and everything else, for that matter. I don't need 'Shaun' to tell me what's right. Especially, from a Liberal Bastion, like DUKE.
Casey wasn't "Against the War" per se. Otherwise, he would have been in Iraq, with the other Democrats - McDermott and Obey - acting as Human Shields for America's Enemy, like they did, for the entire Cold War. No, no. He was against GEORGE BUSH' WAR.
"He credits Obamas' early and principled stand against the Iraq War". Did he speak out against Obamas' Troop Surge, in Afghanistan? Did he get the Band back together (100 Uber Liberal "Religious Ethicists) when His Messiah attacked LIBYA (cause he felt like it)?
Of course not.
One does not question CHRIST.
At least, not the New one.
And, as far as all of the 2nd Guessing, goes?
I thought that EVERYTHING was GOD'S PLAN?
And, not the New God of the LEFT. Not the Marxist/Muslim God.
The old one. The Father of JESUS.
Not, the New JESUS.
The old one.
If your Pastor is preaching The Gospel According to Marx? Or is ranting against Whites and Jews and is asking GOD (Not the new one. The old one) to DAMN AMERICA? It's time to find another Church.
Mike W| 1.6.12 @ 8:34AM
By your "logic" of downgrading the 5,000 American killed in Iraq as trivial, I suppose we could apply the same principal to 9/11. We lose 40,000 a year in car crashes. So what if we lost 2900 people on one day.
Our stupid little party in Iraq cost us those lives and trillions of my tax dollars on top of it. This tool of a blogger leaves out the total costs of that debacle.
Also, Iraq gave us a Democrat takeover of the government.
It was an unforgivably stupid mistake and the people that pushed the war can't be allowed in positions of power again.
Timothy L. Pennell| 1.6.12 @ 9:06AM
This is what I'm saying. If we had these same people, during World War 2, we never would have won. After Kasserine, we would have been out of that Theatre. And after the losses at the Philippines, we would have been out of there, too. Jackass. We lost a half a Million Men. We attacked Germany, even tough it didn't attack us on 12/7.
The arguments against us fighting the Nazis, would be the same as your asinine complaints.
"Why are we in Africa? Why are we in Italy? They didn't attack us!"
And, as far as "YOUR" Tax Dollars?
I'd rather spend 10 Times that much, killing these Godless Bastards, than to continue to p*ss it away on Social Programs that are designed to sap the people's will to work, their faith in GOD, their Self Reliance, and their belief in Personal Responsibility.
And, what do you care if the Democrats won in 2008? You're one of them.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.6.12 @ 9:32AM
Pennell,
A quick calculation leads me to believe that 10,950 service personel died in accidents during the ten years if your three a day is accurate.
It does put things in perspective doesn't it?
Mike W.
Sometimes you can be plain stupid. Saddam bragged for ten years after Desert Storm that he was gearing up his WMD capability. SIX allied intelligence services finally believed him.
Look, Mike, we just don' t have the tools here to fix stupid. Sorry.
Timothy L. Pennell| 1.6.12 @ 9:44AM
RUSSIA said he had WMD. And don't forget. We confiscated TONS of Uranium Yellow Cake. TONS.
Also, we had a Fox guarding the Hen House, in the Muslim - Elbaradei - running the whole UN Inspection deal. Look at the stories, back then, of the Satellite Images of the Iraqis, loading up the Trucks, and driving them away, just before the UN Inspectors showed up.
I wonder who was tipping them off?
They never mention that. It doesn't fit the Template.
3 a Day, because of accidents. I was there. That's the number. Look it up.
Anthony M| 1.6.12 @ 6:59PM
Obviously, no member of your family was numbered among the five thousand dead or among those dead in WW2. No American should die for another country's freedom, let them fight for themselves. And don't wag your finger at me. I served proudly in the US Army, as did my father, my uncles, my cousins and one of my grandfathers.
Timothy L. Pennell| 1.7.12 @ 8:14AM
Hey Assh*le. Don't lecture me, ya POS. My Father was a SEABEE in the Philippines, during WW2. I served in the United States Air Force, DURING the Cold War. I was stationed at a FIRST STRIKE Air Base.
Obviously, your Relatives are a lot smarter than you. If we went by Your Standards? Your "Fortress America"? We'd be all alone bye now. The Soviet Union would have Conquered the rest of the World, bye now. And, the only way we could Defend ourselves, then, would be with Nuclear Weapons, which would bring a Nuclear Response, which would KILL all of us.
Isn't that right, DUMB*SS?
Of course it is.
Anthony M| 1.7.12 @ 11:19AM
A centrally planned economic system cannot last. The Soviet Union would have imploded by itself no matter what we did. China was imploding until they loosened restrictions on their industry.
As far as your time in the Air Force, God bless you, but I remember you guys in your brick buildings with AC and heat, cable TV and rec centers, even had a few drinks with you guys, but come on, we used to call you guys "civillians" in uniform.
SeymourGlass| 1.7.12 @ 10:55PM
"A centrally planned economic system cannot last."
Neither can a runaway, speeding car continue forever; nor can a a rapid dog live forever. That doesn't mean we shouldn't intervene while they're causing harm.
Army, right? I thought so.
SeymourGlass| 1.7.12 @ 10:56PM
Rabid, not rapid.
Alan Brooks| 1.7.12 @ 6:18AM
"God cast Dixie down to a SHAMEFUL defeat for her sins."
Those of you who are secretly sorry the Confederacy lost are: SORE LOSERMANS.
Get used to it after 147 yrs.
SORE_
Alan Brooks| 1.7.12 @ 6:19AM
LOSERMANS!
Alan Brooks| 1.7.12 @ 10:28PM
Losermens might be the plural.
Now if you want to think the Vietnam War was noble, go ahead. So was the Bay of Pigs abortion, right? Carter's failed mission to free the hostages (ouch! was it painful, but no pain no gain, correct?)
all Lost Causes are "noble".
Darin| 1.6.12 @ 7:06AM
"Just war" theory has been argued for centuries, and it's not going to be resolved any time soon. With the possibility of an entire city being nuked or a chemical or biological agent being introduced in an entire region or state, the question gets much more murky. The same people who argue against preventative conflict are the ones who asked why the 9/11 attacks weren't prevented. You can't have it both ways.
Timothy L. Pennell| 1.6.12 @ 8:23AM
Indeed.
sirbourbon| 1.6.12 @ 12:44PM
The "Just war" principle has been resolved. The problem is that war mongers don't listen and find ways to con people into their schemes. In America we have a Constitution that the people could use to chain war lovers down from resorting to their favorite form of racism-/hatred - war. Only by a constant vigilance of the elected can we keep our freedom. War lovers use "patriotism" to catch the boobs to support their persoanl wars. The ministry of propaganda (Hannity,Rush, Levine,et al) get to work on stoking the fires of prejudice; creating monsters in the easy to manipulate minds of history deprived people. Soon they all paste yellow stickers on their SUV to keep away Dracula. I have nothing against SUV's only SOB's that trick the shallow patriots to unite behind another Unjust war.
The argument above by Darin essentially says that historians should revise the historical account that the Hitler-Stalin Pact was a preventative war pact. After the two democray promoters teamed up to make the world safe for democracy, their coordinated attack on Christain Poland should really be described as a safety check for Germans and Russians. Tasht or a life saving "preemptive strike?" But in the real world it was a brutal hate-filled murderous act by two very evil tyrants that suckered Germans and Russians to support their personal agenda.
The real patriots were the Poles that did their best to save their nation from tyranny. There side fought under the banner of "just war," since it was in defense of their country. They lost their just war waged to save their country from human monsters. To a large extent Russia and to a lesser extent Germany were both armed by American politicians via aid and trade deals. http://www.amazon.com/National.....836&sr=1-2
The USA no longer has control of its military since it loans out our military to UN agenda "deciders," to quote that stupid idiot "Dub-Yah."
Cpm| 1.6.12 @ 2:48PM
sir, lay off the bourbon.
RonRonDoRon| 1.8.12 @ 6:33PM
Sir Bourbon tells us that the just war question is settled, but doesn't tell us what the answer is (much less who settled the question and how).
Appleby| 1.6.12 @ 8:28AM
None of this can be understood by the people who couldn't find Iraq on a map, much less Vietnam, and who argue that less than perfection in 10 days or less is failure.
Nothing can be understood by people who have no historical background or context to compare and contrast what is happening around them -- but only the focus-group talking points their handlers reflexively chant and the pre-printed signs they are handed to wave for the cameras -- and a lifelong ambition to see themselves on TeeVee -- with which to work.
The most valuable resource we have in understanding and interpreting history is the man or woman who was there. Gather as much information from as many old soldiers as you can, while they are still with us, and from the current generation of soldiers who are among you, and read history and decide for yourself. Nothing we believe today about the Iraq war will prove to be the case 20 years from now. Assuming any of us are around to check by then.
Mike W| 1.6.12 @ 8:35AM
The Iraq war was a failure. 20 years to review will not change that verdict.
Darin| 1.6.12 @ 8:43AM
Why was it a failure? Please be specific. Soldiers (and civilians) die in war. How many US troops were killed at Omaha beach? How many German civilians died with Berlin was bombed? Does that mean WWII was a failure?
You're making a general statement with zero backing. It's irrelevant because it cannot be either supported or denied. It's pure opinion until and unless you provide justification.
Timothy L. Pennell| 1.6.12 @ 9:09AM
Don't waste your breath. Mike is probably just rolling over, off of his boyfriend, now.
He just THINKS that quoting Nancy Pelosi - "The War is a Failure" - makes him sound manly.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.6.12 @ 9:35AM
Timothy,
see my comments above.
canuckistani| 1.6.12 @ 10:04AM
It was an ill-advised expedition. The Whole endeavor stunk of hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle.
The bottom line is we are not safer with or without Saddam. He was never the strategic target, only the poster boy for Junior to be compelled to sign the order.
The flow of oil through the gulf should be the beginning and ending of our interests there. The Iraq misadventure drove pirces through the roof and they have stayed there with this unceasing instability and the destruction of monetary value in its wake making oil a monetized commodity.
The point of aggressive war is to seize some form of concession, land, bounty etc. We have garnered zero in its wake. Thus the war is a failure.
If people here cannot articulate the aims of the war and match them to their outcomes - with the least of any net benefit to the country that started it, then debate must end.
SeymourGlass| 1.6.12 @ 11:14AM
Damn - if you'd only have mentioned Halliburton I'd have had a bingo!
Timothy L. Pennell| 1.7.12 @ 8:17AM
Don't worry.
You'll get one next time.
Darin| 1.6.12 @ 12:23PM
While you're on a roll, please tell us all what you think should be done regarding Iran. Iran, which is getting close to having nuclear weapons. Iran, which hates America and Israel. Iran, which is a known sponsor of terrorists. Should we strike before the nukes go live or should we wait? Please go on the record as to your choice and why.
canuckistani| 1.6.12 @ 4:22PM
As for Iran?
Do nothing more than is already in place today. The US has to grow up and start measuring strategic goals with a colder purpose. Iraq was pure folly that all - yes all- of the naysayers inside the military that were catapulted ala a Stalin putsch predicted would happen.
We have no right to tell another people how to handle their affairs if they are not directly threatening us. It is this audacity and paternalistic attitude that gets us in over our heads every time. Bottom line: we suck at it.
As evidenced by Libya, europe does have the capacity, if prompted to do so, to step up and defend their interests. Same for the Persian Gulf countries - ya know, the theocracies that we have decided are friendly - for now.
I think you have misjudged the Iranian threat. RR gave away heavy weapons illegally to Khomeini - the man who took our people hostage for 444 days - and then lied about it. RR actively propped up Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. If RR truly is the deity you claim he is, then he demonstrated a nuanced strategy that kept American soldiers out of the blood feud. But from a local perspective -these two facts about RR only added to the duplicitous narrative of US foreign policy in the region. Iran has never attacked one of their neighbors aggressively. Pakistan - another muslim country - has nukes and has attacked a neighbor in the past and were the only country to formally recognize the Taliban regime. Pretty neat.
Bush 41 showed nuance by recognizing the blood feud was infinitely more dangerous after completing the mission to secure the oil supply in 91. Observers here call it softness and a failed strategy. I call it necessary and practical.
Iran has real beefs when it comes to US presence. They have real beefs with Saudi Arabia and have conjured a beef with Israel to exact a rallying point from proxy interests. Guess what? We do the very exact thing. But we do it with F15 sales versus car bombs and rocks.
I am not prepared to engage Iran based on faux evidence ala Iran. I am prepared for our allies to step up and place restrictions on Iran if they ever become aggressive to them. To date, it is all presumption.
nathan| 1.6.12 @ 10:07AM
Iraq was a failure. And it pains us all to admit it doesn't it? For the service men who died, their families, the ones who were wounded, to say they suffered for nothing, it's horrible to say this. But it must be said. For the following reasons:
1: Sorry no WMD's. Try as you like, they weren't there.
2. The Christian community, largely untouched by Saddam now in poverty stricken exile, a lot of them, in all places in Syria. Go figure.
3. A trillion dollars.
4. The million civilian dead may be inflated by not by much.
5. Democracy? Really? The president just issued an arrest warrant for his vice president. And besides, the Founders hated democracy. Madison called it what, the vilest form of government on the planet?
So what if Saddam was evil? Why was he OUR problem? As Jefferson said, when people are reduced to a state of despotism, THEY have a right and obligation to deal with the despot. Others do not an obligation to do it for them. It's up to them to pledge lives fortures sacred honor to win their freedom. If they aren't willing to do so, that's their problem. And it's interesting isn't it that when the Egyptians did exactly that, took to the streets to get rid of their Saddam, a keptomaniac human rights violator, all of you complained about them doing exactly what the Iraqis should have done. Sigh.
In any case, Iraq should be a lesson in minding our own business and not letting neocon war mongers drag us down the rabbit hole again. Like Iran. Again, three former heads of the mossad have stated there's nothing there. The inspectors don't say there are weaspons activity going on. Any attack would at most impact any weapons activity if there was any by at most a year. It would maybe devastate the world's economy ours included. Lot of civilian deaths spread all over Al Jareeza making us look ghastly.
Now all you neocon war mongers who want to see a stock market at maybe 6? Gas prices at maybe 7 dollars a gallon? Unemployment at maybe 30 percent? Riots in the streets here and in Europe? Raise your hands and keep singing "bomb bomb Iran" all you want. Not me.
We listened to the let's go to war and kill bad guy neocon lunatics before and lost in Iraq. Let's not make the same mistake again.
Darin| 1.6.12 @ 12:27PM
Regarding WMDs, they were in Iraq. I was there when we shipped out pallets of artillery shells with mustard gas. And how about the 500 tons of yellowcake uranium? These (and other) items got little mention in the press.
WMDs were found, but not in the quantities expected. My hunch is many were on the large convoys spotted via satellite going into Syria just before we attacked.
Finally, to debunk your "warmonger" rheteric, I insist you go on the record on what should be done regarding Iran as they get closer to developing nuclear weapons. Tell us for the record or kindly shut your yap when Iran nukes someone or provides nukes to terrorists.
Cpm| 1.6.12 @ 2:53PM
Gee, if you had said "neocon" just one more time I might have believed you. Sorry.
canuckistani| 1.6.12 @ 4:27PM
Nathan is right on target.
We suck at nation building, and we should have not gone at all or been out of there within minutes of Saddam being captured. They are a very old country and they will sort this out in their own way - just as we did, remember?
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.6.12 @ 12:44PM
Darin
I wanted to make sure you saw this:
http://www.americanthinker.com.....zuela.html
George S| 1.6.12 @ 12:50PM
Why is it when Obama spends a trillion dollars unseen it results in jobs created or saved? So I ask: that trillion we spent in Iraq -- how many American lives have been created or saved? Innocent lives, I might add, that would have been slaughtered in the name of a competing deity. Does that not hold any water in Christian ethics?
canuckistani| 1.6.12 @ 4:31PM
There was no genocide in Iraq. Get that through your thick skull. You were lied to, period. Chalabi and his toadies had their own agenda and managed to spirit their way into Cheney's office and then Junior's pea-sized brain.
Now Christians and Jews in Iraq are pretty much gone and we have ignited a deep deep blood feud.
Mission accomplished.
Christian ethics demands we not kill in the name of ambiguity.
fundamentalist| 1.6.12 @ 1:33PM
Saddam Hussein only murdered political opponents. Had we left him in power and removed sanctions, he would have murdered far fewer Iraqis than died in the decade of sanctions and the war. Plus 4,000 Americans would still be alive.
Also, Iraq would be a wall against Iranian expansion. The current Iraqi government is little more than a puppet of Iran. We got rid of Hussein and gave Iraq to Iran.
Our winning WWII gave Eastern Europe to the Soviets and China to the communists. Stalin and Mao made Hitler and Hirohito look like Sunday School teachers. If we had known those outcomes would we have entered WWII, especially since we defeated both the USSR and communist China through economic power instead of military might.
Vietnam did nothing but buy time. Were 50,000 American dead and trillions spent worth it?
George S| 1.6.12 @ 1:42PM
We entered the war after Pearl Harbor and then after Germany declared war on us. What the makeup of Europe might be was never a factor. (The only way to have avoided Eastern Europe was to have taken the advice of General Patton: take the war to the Russians.)
Now if you think about it, we were in Tunisia, Corsica, and Sardinia and many indigents were maimed or killed. What did they have to do with Pearl Harbor?
canuckistani| 1.6.12 @ 4:33PM
Why do we not recognize that WW2 made the US what it is?
The war ended the depression and decimated our natural economic competitors in Europe and Japan paving the way to Superpower status for the US that has never been relinquished. Ethics or a higher calling had zero to do with it - except when petitioning for war bonds.
fundamentalist| 1.6.12 @ 1:35PM
PS, Hussein protected the small Christian population in Iraq. Half half left because Muslims have murdered many of them. I don't think the Christian population would see the war as a success.
canuckistani| 1.6.12 @ 4:34PM
That is a pertinent argument especially for Third Templars on here that await the rapture.
cicero| 1.6.12 @ 1:42PM
It is hard to argue the value of a war while standing over a grave. Were the 59,000 deaths from 7 months' fighting in WWI worth it? They didn't prevent WWII, and the 450,000 deaths we incurred. What about Korea?.. The South Koreans would probably tell you they are gratefull we were there at that time. Viet Nam was a victory as far as a war was concerned, but a defeat from the standpoint of lasting results, since our Congress voted "present" when the South Viets asked for air cover and monetary aide ONLY when the North attacked in violation of the peace treaty.
There is no such thing as a "good" war. Wars kill people and break things. Wars are only necessary or unecessary. Relative to Iraq and Afghanistan, hisstory will have to answer that question. My problem with our war policy as it has been practiced since the end of WWII is that we don't wage war to win. You don't send soldiers into harm's was unless you are intending to inflict so much damage on the other guy that he won't even want to mess with you again. That requires a clear purpose and goal. That goal cannot be "to show the other fellow the error of his ways, build him up again, repair all the damage, and make sure he feels good about himself".
canuckistani| 1.6.12 @ 4:37PM
The only war that mattered was the one ending in the surrender of the Confederacy. The rest will have arguable relevance to US history.
POST American| 1.6.12 @ 8:49PM
---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------
You can almost hear the capstone creeps
at Monsanto and Proctor & Gamble:
"----Bisphenol A! ---in the toilet paper!
NO kidding!-------Jeeze! ---Brilliant!
The 'ITs' 'll be taken down in their most
private and mundane act of rectum worship!
---------------Hehhehehehehehe---------------
-------------------BRILLIANT!-----------------."
Too funny! ----and too TRUE!
SeymourGlass| 1.6.12 @ 9:47PM
And if that's not enough, Soylent Green is PEOPLE!!
Timothy L. Pennell| 1.7.12 @ 8:17AM
BINGO!
Dan Mathewson| 1.8.12 @ 5:45PM
One can tell when the moon is full.
LEE BILLECK| 1.6.12 @ 11:44PM
THIS IS THE MOST OUTRAGES CRAP I HAVE EVER READ,HOW DARE YOU CALL YOUR SELF A CHRISTIAN, AND PUBLISH THIS ANTI-GOD GARBAGE.////JESUS SPOKE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHEN HE SAID "BEGONE FROM ME FOR I NEVER KNEW YOU"
solili| 1.8.12 @ 10:41PM
Lee Billeck - finally a person commenting with some integrity and sense. Exactly what I was thinking about the author of this trash. If I believed in cloud gods, I'd believe that Tooley is going to have a tough time explaining himself to the Good Lord and might not like Hell so much. Evil.
Mark30339| 1.7.12 @ 9:00AM
I think there are profound questions over the merits of going to war in Iraq. Army War College Professor Codevilla writes [see http://claremont.org/publicati.....tail.asp]:
"During the decade that began on September 11, 2001, the U.S. government's combat operations have resulted in some 6,000 Americans killed and 30,000 crippled, caused hundreds of thousands of foreign casualties, and spent—depending on various estimates of direct and indirect costs—somewhere between 2 and 3 trillion dollars. But nothing our rulers did post-9/11 eliminated the threat from terrorists or made the world significantly less dangerous. Rather, ever-bigger government imposed unprecedented restrictions on the American people . . . ."
The professor fails to mention that our response to 3,000 dead on 9/11 led to at least 150,000 more deaths in Iraq. This 50 to 1 body bag multiplier is precisely what the Gospel tells us NOT to do. As a Christian who supported forceful regime change in Iraq, I am embarrassed and humbled by the results of what I advocated. In retrospect, the number one response to 9/11 should have been to convert Americans from oil to natural gas, and thereby cripple oil-funded terror. Believe it or not, your car can run reliably on US produced natural gas, and the switch requires no Americans to go to war.
rick| 1.7.12 @ 1:16PM
Dear Mr. Tooley, could you provide an example or two of when "Pres. Bush effectively intimidated democrats.....by questioning their patriotism?"
And then, could you explain, if THAT IS the case how t Sens Kerry, Durbin and Reed constantly back-stabbed the effort in Iraq. And how silent was Hilary Clinton when she made her famous "suspend credulity" remark to the commander on the ground during testimony to Congress. You're full of it Tooley. You're article is chock full of invalid assertions.
Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 1.7.12 @ 5:27PM
The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church have both condemned pre-emptive war. Iraq was an immoral war. The military action in Afghanistan began as just but why are we still there over a decade later? As soon as we drove the Taliban from Kabul we should have handed over power to local tribal leaders and left them to divide up the nation. That's what will eventually happen anyways after we are gone. Neo-conservative ideas on the use of military force is no different then Woodrow Wilson esque liberal interventionists. Actually they are one in the same. The neo-conservative war hawks and democracy worshippers are neither Christians nor conservatives. There is nothing conservative about war.
POST American| 1.8.12 @ 9:57PM
--------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------
----Biphenol A, an estrogen that has
the direct effect of sterilizing males and has been
definitively linked to cancer --esp. breast
and prostate cancer ---and is NOW saturating
our entire food chain and enviornment,
principally through processed foods,
---and PLASTICS.
AND ---there ARE sleeper Simian 40
viruses in the 50's---80's POLIO shots
from arch EUGENIST Dr. Jonas Salk.
There REALLY are. NOW--
--------------------DEAL WITH IT!---------------------
--------------------------FAST!----------------------------
With God all things r possible| 1.8.12 @ 10:38PM
Yawn....I wonder what's on the Home Shopping Network.
solili| 1.8.12 @ 10:35PM
Jesus Christ you people are stoopit. Especially that doofus Pennell guy. How embarrassing that humans like you exist in the U.S.
With God all things are possib| 1.8.12 @ 10:52PM
From The Gathering Storm, by W. Churchill:
"The Sermon on the Mount is the last word in Christian ethics. Everyone respects the Quakers. Still, it is not on those terms that [Government] Ministers assume their responsibilities of guiding states. Their duty is first so to deal with other nations as to avoid strife and was and to eschew aggression in all its forms, whether for nationalistic or ideological objects. But the safety of the State, the lives and freedom of their own fellow countrymen, to whom they owe their position, make it right and imperative in the last resort, or when a final and definite conviction has been reached, that the use of force should not be excluded. If the circumstances are such as to warrant it, force may be used, and if this be so, it should be used under the conditions which are most favourable. There is no merit in putting off a war for a year if, when it comes, it is a far worse war or one much harder to win. These are the tormenting dilemmas upon which mankind has throughout its history been so frequently impaled. Final judgment upon them can only be recorded by history in relation to the facts of the case as known to the parties at the time, and also as subsequently proved."
Thank God that Winston Churchill was Prime Minister of Great Britain in those dark days against the Nazis, and not the foolishly short-sighted Shaun Casey, who were a dime a dozen in the British cabinet in those days, and followed Chamberlain to the very edge of extinction of English democracy.
Far better to heed the words of the only British cabinet minister who resigned after Chamberlain returned with Hitler's signature over the bones of Czechoslovakia, spouting about "peace for our time." He was The First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Duff Cooper, who mobilized the fleet. He stated,
"I had suggested that [mobilizing the fleet] should accompany the mission [to Munich] of Sir Horace Wilson. I remember the Prime Minister stating it was the one thing that would ruin that mission, and I said it was the one thing that would lead it to success. That is the deep difference between the Prime Minister and myself throughout these days. The Prime Minister has believed in addressing Herr Hitler through the language of sweet reasonableness. I have believed that he was more open to the language of the mailed fist."
With God all things r possible| 1.8.12 @ 11:02PM
More from The Gathering Storm by Churchill:
"We have now also [German] Marshal Keitel's answer to the specific question put to him by the Czech representative at the Nuremberg Trials:
Colonel Eger, representing Czechoslovakia, asked Marshal Keitel [head of the German OKW, the high command of the Nazi armies]: "Would the Reich have attacked Czechoslovakia in 1938 if the Western Powers had stood by Prague?"
Marshal Keitel answered: "Certainly not. We were not strong enough militarily the Object of Munich (i.e., reaching an agreement at Munich) was to get Russia out of Europe, to gain time, and to complete the German armaments."
Misguided souls like Shawn Casey ALWAYS delay action until the cost of war is an order of magnitude higher than it would have been otherwise.
Besides, who knows what other wars have been deterred by President Bush defeating Iraq, which deliberately violated the 1991 Gulf War Cease Fire terms on countless occasions and thus fully and legally deserved a full attack? That we waited until 2003 only speaks to the patience and forbearance of the United States.
If we wait until Iran has a nuke, it will be a near exact replay of Hitler seizing Czechoslovakia and then attacking France. And we will have the foolish legion of Shaun Caseys to thank for thinking they have earned "peace for our time."
Michael| 1.9.12 @ 5:31AM
More handwringing, first from the neocons, now from the religiosos.
All war is "immoral". Some is necessary, but most is not. The Iraq War, which lasted a couple of weeks, and was a success --with few casualties and little cost; the Iraq Occupation, which lasted 9 years, was totally unnecessary, and was a failure with lots of casualties and a huge and unrecoverable cost--utter folly.
The Iraq War was a war of convenience. We didn't go to Iraq to depose Saddam. We didn't go to Iraq to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, or to "save" the "oppressed" Iraqi people, or "build a nation". These were "moral" pretexts for a war of convenience.
We went to Iraq because it was a convenient place to start kicking Arab tail after 9/11. Syria was too insignificant, Iran too tough, and Saudi Arabia to full of cronies of the Bush family to be consvenient target for American fury . So, Saddam--our erstwhile pal-- had to be the one to take pipe.
We have taught the Arabs a huge lesson, which they may have failed to entirely absorb. We will be going back, but next time it will be to finish the bigger job--the end of Islamic militarism.
POST American| 1.9.12 @ 11:48PM
----------------------FINAL WORD----------------------
"The Federal Reserve has pumped
so many BILLIONS into [--NAZI--]
Germany that they dare NOT
name the total."
-Rep. Charles McFadden
1935
---And remember kiddies, that was
in 1930's dollars, and during the height
of their 'Great Depression' ---and AFTER
the installation, and empowerment of
the awesomely genocidal Bolsheviks
in Russia, and before their just now
finishing off TREASON turn viz a viz
RED China.
The Law of Moses and Christ condemned
abomination of unaccountable, inter-national
USURY --and its absolutely KEY link to
the most horrifying, and recurring, programs
of capstone EUGENICS -----IS THE ISSUE
in America, and worldwide.
-----------MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT----------
sweeterjans| 5.29.12 @ 2:04AM
ALSO, it'd be nice to hear some http://www.vendreshox.com/nike-shox-r5-c-10.html
NON 'eck-YOU--men--ick---all--ist'
Christian indignation in the face of
the murder of the American Constitution
and the Bill of Rights by the enactmen