Blogcritics Comments on Any questions?

Comment by mike on Any questions?

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:41:37 EDT

In addition, reading between the lines of stories hitting the Washington Post and other papers tonight, it appears that Paul Bremer has essentially quit (my interpretation, but it comes through pretty clearly in the Post article), and that the U.S. is now looking for a "James Baker" style figure to "assist" him.

Comment by mike on Any questions?

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:30:37 EDT

I think the issue here is that Iraq is a society the U.S. doesn't understand at all, and we don't often grasp how Iraqis will perceive actions, no matter how well-intentioned. According to the journalist Patrick Cockburn, who spent years in Iraq, wrote a book on Saddam and has been pretty even handed and objective in his reporting (he was an agnostic on the invasion), Iraq is one of the most dangerous and violent places on Earth, far different even than most other Arab societies. He says this is one of the reasons why Saddam came to power in the first place. There's also Anthony Cordesman, a hawkish heavyweight in DC, who wrote a memo for the GOP last year warning that the invasion would be easy but the aftermath catastrophic. You can google it; it's chilling.

Comment by Al Barger on Any questions?

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:01:11 EDT

So we're just like the Baath party because they showed dead bodies and we've shown dead bodies? That's so silly. Exactly WHO we've killed and displayed, and WHY makes a big difference.

Comment by Eric Olsen on Any questions?

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:39:38 EDT

Yes, and unfortunately due to the current culture we had to do the same thing to convince the populace of their demise. When in Rome...

Comment by mike on Any questions?

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 21:59:42 EDT

Fisk, in the Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/story.jsp?story=427600 "The Americans followed a grand Iraqi Baath party tradition by showing their dead enemies on television yesterday. Back in 1963, when Abdul Karim Qassem's corpse was shown on the screen, there was no colour television and the executed prime minister Baathists and army officers had jointly condemned him to death appeared in black and white, propped up in a chair but very, very dead."

Comment by Al Barger on Any questions?

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:23:22 EDT

You hear all this stuff about how wrong it is to feel joy over the deaths of such as the Hussein boys. That sounds right maybe, largely because we're raised in the culture to Christianity. I disagree, however. I think it is perfectly natural and healthy to feel joy at the death of your enemies. These guys were monsters, and I make no apologies for being happy that they are good and dead. The world is a little bit better place.

Comment by Natalie on Any questions?

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 16:40:17 EDT

No, this is certainly not the place for a deep theological debate. Especially when disagreeing with the majority nets one suggestions to "get therapy" or accusations of not being "logical." A couple of things, though: 1. I was raped many years ago. I have also been held up at gunpoint. No, I did not use violence. Better to pray for my attackers, which I do regularly to this day. 2. I disagree with the violent who are living up to their principles by engaging in violence, but I certainly respect them for living up to what they believe. It's a shame that doesn't happen in reverse. 3. Not participating in violence does not mean one is blind to it or hiding from it. Never have I said that doing nothing is a good thing -- in fact, doing nothing is the same as doing violence. What I recommend and do is the same thing Gandhi and King recommended and did -- standing up to the violent through civil disobedience and passive resisitance and speaking out against hate and violence in all its forms. As Albert Einstein said, it takes more courage to fight violence with nonviolence than it takes to join in and/or condone the violence. I definitely spend my life fighting -- my weapon of choice, however, is love. Peace in. I'm out.

Comment by Chris on Any questions?

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:48:22 EDT

Ok, I have no links for this only what I have learned. But the "turn the other cheek" comment may have become divorced from the cultural understanding of the time Christ lived and teached in. Short version, and there admittely conflicting interps of this, but turning the other cheek was considered a provactive act because you were essentially saying it didn't mean a thing to you that you had just been struck. Turning the other cheek is not a passive act but a defiant one. Also, Christ's anger in the Temple with the Money Changers is generally regarded as a "righteous anger" and therefore his acts were consistent with the Character of God. Ok, the comments section here are probably not a good place to get a good theological discussion going, but those are my two cents.

Comment by andy on Any questions?

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:37:22 EDT

Debbie, I'm not sure if Natalie's a believer or just someone who holds true to the peaceful teachings of Christ. hard to say from her posts, but if she is a believer, it appears that she's coming from a liberal anabaptist point of view(modern mennonite, COB, ect), where as I am coming from a full Reformed Calvanist point of view. But I do know some of what she's saying is like what the modern anabaptist "theologians" are preaching. To me, it's nothing but heracy, but I'm not gonna engage it further debate simply because I get too heated and nasty on the topic.

Comment by debbie on Any questions?

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:32:42 EDT

Natalie: "They died courageously living up to their principles. That strikes me as the only honorable way to live. As Dr. King said, a person not willing to die for what he/she believes is not fit to live." So do the Police officers, firemen and military soldiers...

Comment by debbie on Any questions?

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:29:10 EDT

"My understanding is that God moved away from being violent because it was wrong." Are you serious???? You really are "holier than thou" to think that God was wrong. "And Jesus used violence that I know of once, which I attribute to his human state. " Don't you understand that the whole concept of the christian religion is that Jesus is our savior. The only way that he could be our savior is if he is the "lamb", the unsullied, the totally blameless, the pure. A guilty person could not atone for our sins. Only a truly "innocent" with no sin on his head could pay for our sins...thus the only reason Christ came to earth to begin with.

Comment by Amber on Any questions?

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:10:30 EDT

Yikes, Natalie. I'm curious just as Debbie is.. You're against all forms of violence. You don't make exceptions for self defense cases.. How would you deal with an attacker? Someone breaking into your home, trying to ravage you and your loved ones? Just let them do as they will? All in the name of pacifism? Would you not have the self respect to fend off a rapist, even if you had to (god forbid) hurt him in the process? You're not making sense. You need to think with your brain, and feel with your heart. I don't see much of the logical side of things coming into your arguments.

Comment by andy on Any questions?

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:07:05 EDT

hey Jacob I brought the "More Soul Than The Pits of Hell" shirt for you hehe

Comment by The Theory on Any questions?

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:05:05 EDT

"And the glee I am seeing and hearing everywhere ... makes me physically ill." ditto. (The Theory's only comment here) peace.

Comment by andy on Any questions?

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:02:17 EDT

Ok, now I'm not sure if you're a Christian or not, but if you are, are you actually saying that Christ "sinned" or that God is even capable of doing wrong? What about the verse in the NT that states that God gives governments the right to rule by the sword?

Comment by Natalie on Any questions?

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:01:30 EDT

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Comment by mike on Any questions?

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:59:41 EDT

Well, I can't agree that pacifism is the answer either. The best way to think of war is as a vaccine; a very small amount is sometimes needed to ward off a malignant host; but even a little too much can make things catastrophically worse. That is why aggresive wars fought to "make the world safe for democracy" fail without exception. World War I produced Bolshevism and Nazism. World War II was necessary to ward off the malignant fascism bred by the first war. There were a handful of other defensible wars but they were few and far between.

Comment by Natalie on Any questions?

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:59:39 EDT

My understanding is that God moved away from being violent because it was wrong. And Jesus used violence that I know of once, which I attribute to his human state. His primary message is that of love and nonviolence, and it makes sense to me to go with his primary message rather than one horrid aberration. And you know what God knows now? Are you Betty Bowers? :)

Comment by debbie on Any questions?

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:58:09 EDT

Natalie: "Sweetheart" does that mean that if you are in the middle of being attacked by a mugger/rapist/murderer that you are not going to call for help????? You are not going to want someone to come to your rescue or do you just simply lay down and take it?? Do you want to have Police officers that take on bad guys or do you think that the meanest person should just rule with impunity because no-one should ever fight back?? Once again, I say, there is a price to pay for freedom..... just because you are not paying it does not make the price any cheaper. It's fine that you don't want to be a part of the "death machine" (really, maybe you could see a therapist..) but somebody has to be willing to step up to the plate and protect your hiney... Yes, I thank the good Lord for them every night. I am thankful that someone is trying to keep me and my family safe. Just because you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend that there aren't any evil people in the world, does not make it so. I truly wish that it was so, but that won't happen until after the second coming... so we have to make do with what we have in this lifetime. Just because I am not willing to become a victim as quietly as you are does not make me a hateful person. Just how do you work for peace thru non-violent means if the other side doesn't want to??? How do you work for peace or safety thru non-violent means with people like Saddam, Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, or even with the likes of Manson, Bundy, Dahmer or Gacy? How effective was negotiation with these people? I don't know how to tell you this, but there are some people that are just evil, and no amount of begging, negotiating, pleading, reasoning is going to deter them from thier sick pleasure of torturing and killing people. It isn't until they are faced with force that they can be put under control. How much good did it do to appease Hitler? Did he quit comitting the atrocities because Chamberlain said we'll let you keep this country but please don't attack any more???? Even a pacifist has to see the truth that evil people don't have the same concience, caring, and respect for other lives. To tell you the truth, I wish I could be more of a pacifist.. but after spending 10 years as a Deputy Sheriff I just can't forget that there are some truly evil people in the world. (I know I use the word evil quite a bit here, but there aren't very many adjectives that I feel comfortable printing here that would really describe the flat out, worthless pieces of manure that roam the streets and prey on decent people like yourself. But unless you've dealt with them it is hard to believe that people are that way.)

Comment by andy on Any questions?

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:53:31 EDT

but even Jesus resorted to violence, and God used violence COUNTLESS times in the OT. Now I know the arguements that that was the "old covenant", but while the covenant changed, God didn't, and if God knew that violence was a neccissary means for governments then, He knows it now too. The world is in a fallen state, and passivism only works in a perfect world.

Comment by Natalie on Any questions?

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:47:15 EDT

Jesus had an answer for that one: "Turn the other cheek." Worked for Gandhi and King. One could say in response, "Yeah, it worked really well -- they're dead." Yes, they are, and better off. They died courageously living up to their principles. That strikes me as the only honorable way to live. As Dr. King said, a person not willing to die for what he/she believes is not fit to live. Passive resistance and nonviolence are the only moral models for dealing with violence, IMO. And I don't make exceptions for self-defense.

Comment by Eric Olsen on Any questions?

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:28:20 EDT

Natalie, I admire the purity of passivism, but how do you deal with violent oppressors? I have never heard this explained by passivists, and once you start making self-defense exceptions, doesn't the whole thing kind of fall apart?

Comment by Natalie on Any questions?

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:17:19 EDT

Debbie, IMO, the only moral thing is to work for peace through nonviolent means. Grateful for the death brigade? I think not. And you can speak at whatever rate of speed you choose, sweetheart. I would recommend picking up the pace, in fact, as it might engage your heart.

Comment by Eric Olsen on Any questions?

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:15:13 EDT

So this is about finishing off "soft Marxism" forever? How foolish of me not to spot that.

Comment by mike on Any questions?

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:03:19 EDT

Allow the extraordinary Mr. Raimondo to set you prowars straight. http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html