I had a friend ask me the other day if I believed Iraq was a necessary war, knowing what we know now. I fumbled around with about 5 different answers to try and look smart... I finally had to get to the point where I had to say... "I just don't have a freakin' clue."
Now that I have thought about it for a while, I would like to pose a different question that should get us to the point where we can truly understand Iraq in the proper context. Who is our enemy? No one in the mass media or political arena is answering that question. Is it Iraq? No. Is it Afghanistan? No. Iran? Syria? Saudi Arabia? None of these countries are our enemy. Our government has decided to call our enemy "Terror." That is gay. Every time I hear the "War on Terror" I cringe. We aren't fighting terror people.. you can't fight a VERB. We are fighting real people, with a real agenda and a real belief system. Who is our enemy? Radical Islam.
The comparisons many have made to the Nazis and to the Communists is valid. These organizations were also champions of a belief system. The only difference was that they were successful in taking over a country, and in the case of the Soviet Union, several countries. Now, if we were able to go back in time and stop these yahoos from taking over these countries.. would we? I hope that question is rhetorical. That is exactly what we are up against. Radical Islam has the same agenda that the Communists and the Nazis had... world domination. Everyone should bow down to their belief system. If they do not, they are killed. Period. Anyone who is not them, must die.
So, what are we doing in the Middle East? I believe we are stopping the spread of Radical Islam. The point is to stop them before they take over more countries. Saddam Hussein was a tool for the radical Islamic movement. He used his dictorial power to fight the common enemy of the western world. He was a threat to the spreading of Radical Islam.. our ENEMY. Now to answer my friend. Was the war necessary knowing what we know now? Yes. We must destroy the spread of radical Islam, and the rule of Saddam Hussein was a defining blow to their stranglehold on that region.
I can only pray that some of those who have a media and political voice will stand up and demand that our government declares war on our enemy. In the 1930's they would have declared war on the Nazis, not Germany. In the 1950's they would have declared war on the Communists, not Korea or North Vietnam. In the dawning of the new millennium we will declare war on Radical Islam, before they have more countries to defend.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Declaration of War...
Posted by CitizenSaint at 5:32 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Saddam Hussein was a secularist dictator who was apathetic to the radical Islam agenda. He had a disdain for Usama bin Laden and those that followed him. Saddam hated the Saudis and Iranians and found that their relious zeal weak.
However, I don't believe Saddam was nieve. He used the radical agenda to his advantage and used their zeal whenever it proved profitable to him.
I do believe our role is to stop the spread of institutionalized radicalism. In this case it is radical Islam but, the choice of Iraq has proven to be a misguided venture.
Afghanistan proved to be a justified war with their results and justifications quantifiable. In the war against Radical Islam Afghanistan was a clear choice, as would be Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria. Knowing what we know now, Iraq seems to have been an immoral war without clear provocation detrimental to our soverignty or way of life.
Now that we are in Iraq and have unseated a dictator who had plagued tha area for decades we have a job to do. It is now our moral obligation to restore order and promote freedom. We owe it to the region and the people there.
If the arguement is that we need to destroy radical Islam I can buy that. The justification to declare war on Iran has been there for years and has been heightened recently with the news from Aberidi(sp?) and the atomic agency. Iran cannot be allowed to posess an atomic weapon and I believe the United States must act now.
In my mind we can justify the rebuilding of Iraq because it was us in fact that threw it down. That doesn't mean that the moral justifications to go there in the first place are any less apparent or real. I don't believe the Iraq war was necessary. It is now necessary in order to maintain order and a stabilizing force to the region which I believe we destroyed. We must win this war.
Regardless of his religous zeal for their cause, Hussein was a tool in their hands. Islam is the very foundation for all middle eastern countries and their radical ideals are the basis for hate and discontent for the western world. Just like Communism and the Nazis before them, they infect a whole region with the poison of hatred for free nations.
Iraq was not misguided. It was a first step. Iraq was the only country in that region we had valid reasons to overthrow. Even one tyranical country in that region would be a cancer for the rest. They all must be changed.. every one. What valid reason would we have to go after Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia? We have none. We have to build up Iraq and Afghanistan and let their example take down the rest of them. They will become allies against our enemies, and maybe.. just maybe, they will overthrown without the military of the United States firing a shot.
We used 9/11 and Saddam's contempt for the peace treaty of the first gulf war to gain a foot hold on the region. It was an excuse to strike at the heart of Radical Islam with the strongest weapon we have.. Liberty.
Hussein is a nut. I think he really is mental. I was reading a story in the Times the other day about his long, rambling diatribes in court, and his request for a new suit; he had been wearing the same one for three days. When the judge told him no, he threw a fit. I don't know how we alone can stop the spread of this radical islam. We can't expect our current military to go from country to country fighting, can we? Can we trust the rest of Islam to bring down radical islam? You have all of these moderate islamic leaders condeming the bombings and such, yet they continue, undaunted. I don't know, I don't think any of us know the full story, because we have to rely on the lazy, biased media for our information. Lucky for us, in this information age we have a lot of alternatives to obtain information, but even so, do we really have a grasp on the situation? Another point; we have already spent billions of borrowed money in Iraq, and we will spend billions more. How many more billions of dollars can we borrow to fight the so called "war on terror"? There are so many questions, and in my opinion, not enough answers.
Under the current reports that we have regarding the "reasoning" for going to war, the majority have seem to have been proved false. The exception I would include would be Saddams defiance of the U.N. restrictions.
I am not one to believe that George Bush lied. I do believe someone relayed to him falsehoods.
Had I know that Saddam did not have WMD and that Iraq itself was not a "haven" for terrorists, I would have voted against war. The idea of "just war" according to St. Augustine is "provocation". We (U.S.) chose not to displace Saddam after the first Gulf War. His periodic shooting at our planes in the no fly zone seem to have been little provocation, only nuissances. Is Saddam H. a bad person, yes. Does he deserve to die, yes. If you say that Iraq was not misguided, it was a first step. I say it was a misguided 1st step. History has now proven that Iraq was not the real threat of the region. The Saudi's and Iran have proven to be the real culprits of the region. They are the ones who fund and feed the radicals. All the reasons to have gone into Iraq, minus shooting the pea shooters at our planes, apply now to Iran. Saudi Arabia funds the terrorist and indeed funds the radical ideology of the Islamists.
The point is now we are in Iraq and must prevail. We must also prevail in Afghanistan. We must also now provide valuable resources in destroying Irans nuclear capabilities. davieboy is correct, how much more money can we afford to throw at this endevour of nation building? When will it stop? Where will the money come from? Looking back, I am upset that my valuable tax dollars went to overthrow a useless despot, and now, for maybe generations to come the rebuilding of the country. All the while more dangerous people and countries are out there preparing weapons that could bring death to hundreds of thousands.
Libety is only as good as the people who uphold it.
I can definitely accept the premise that there may have been another way. But, just like I said in the beginning.. that is something we don't know for sure right now. History will tell.
Here is the problem with feeling upset about the tax dollars. This is the ONLY thing I believe our tax dollars should go to! We waste tax dollars on everything else EXCEPT for our defense. If there was no Social Security and Medicaire, and if we would get rid of every government agency except for the department of State and the department of Defense, we wouldn't even have this conversation about deficit spending.
I look at Iraq as the front against the war against radical Islam. We couldn't have justified a hit on Iran "Head Master". Saddam's breaking of the peace agreement justified us taking him out. Look at Iraq as the beach at Normandy in World War II. It was the first front in the final offensive to win World War II.
To answer "davieboys" question, no I do not believe we can defeat radical Islam with our military. What will defeat them are liberated Arab states. Liberty will change the culture of fear that facism creates. Truly free and capitalist states will defeat everything that radical Islam preys on. That is the beauty of freedom and capitalism. Throughout our history the United States has been an inspiration to the entire world to overthrow their fascist regimes and become a representative republic. Why shouldn't we assume it will work for these people as well? Are we that pessimistic? Are we that low on faith? Have we forgotten that freedom is one of the greatest eternal virtues? Have we forgotten that God still has his hand guiding this nation? Or has he left us completely to ourselves?
I don't believe He has, and I know our cause is just...inspired even. May God give us the patience to conquer this evil. I truly hope He will.
I think this is a really great, thought provoking post, CitizenSaint. I dont have time now to really delve into my own personal diatribe, but I look forward to doing so in the near future. Stay tuned..
Here is the thing, I agree that our tax dollars should be spent on our defense. The libertarian in me believes this with my whole soul. However, you must first convince me that the invasion of Iraq, knowing what we know now, was for our defense. With the current information that we have, I am unconvinced we were in danger from Iraq. We digress, the whole tax dollar, deficit spending is beyond the scope of this thread.
CitizenSaint stated, "I look at Iraq as the front against the war against radical Islam. We couldn't have justified a hit on Iran "Head Master"." This comment scares me a bit. Why does the United States have to "go after" anybody? We shouldn't be looking to go after someone just because we don't believe what they do or because they speak viles against us and demean us.
This is my point; Iraq, in light of what we know now, posed no threat to the United States. I believe that the Iraq war was unjust. Despite my strong feelings against Saddam, I am unconvinced that he couldn't have been contained. Now, In order to right the wrong, we owe it to the people of Iraq and the region to add stability. I have faith that this was in the great plan of the Creator however, justice will need be met. I was and still am a proponent of the war in Afghanistan. I would be a proponent of a war with Iran. I would be a proponent of war the Saudi's who seem to be the great instigator of the deadly Wahabism. I feel regret now that we are deadlocked in a clean-up mission of an unjust war and that the greatest threats to our security seem to be pushed aside. I have great faith in our military people to do their duty and promote the ideals and liberties that God has endowed us with. Whatever was the reasons to go to war, our mission is now clear. Defeat the Gaddiaton Robbers, terrorists and nationalist who have flocked there and build a democratic Iraq.
President Hinckley said this in the 2001 G.C., "We are people of peace. We are followers of the Christ who was and is the Prince of Peace. But there are times when we must stand up for right and decency, for freedom and civilization, just as Moroni rallied his people in his day to the defense of their wives, their children, and the cause of liberty (see Alma 48:10)."
Sorry one more small thought just to antagonzie CitizenSaint. You said, "Truly free and capitalist states will defeat everything that radical Islam preys on. That is the beauty of freedom and capitalism."
I think the moment you equate freedom and/or liberty, with capitalism, you lose much of your "moral" argument. That is what much of the Islamic world hates about us.
Oh great Head Master, capitalism is not "equated" with liberty. Capitalism is simply an economic system that can only live in a free society. It allows for economies to thrive with the ingenuity and hard work of ANYONE in that economy. It is an outgrowth of freedom of choice and is the only system that will save the world from poverty. So many people are running around crying foul because the United States has so much and gives so little. That is a crock. They are just jealous and prideful. The reason they live in poverty is because they haven't adopted our capitalist system! They have limited the liberty of their people! If they would adopt our system, they wouldn't live in poverty like they do.
To your other point Head Master. You have missed one of my main arguments. You are suggesting that we are only justified in war when we are defending a direct threat against the lives of our citizens and military. What I am saying is that is a flawed argument. If that is the case, you are saying that you would have rather fought every war in the 20th century instead of stopping the psychos who started them BEFORE they were able to attack anyone. We were too blind to see the threat before it was pointing a gun in our face. We have learned from our mistakes, and Islam will be knocked down before they are able to point another gun in our face.
Iraq was a strategic move in fighting this enemy. If it was the wrong move.. so be it. But it really doesn't matter. This is World War III, and we must fight Islam. Even if they weren't there when we went there, they are there now aren't they? How convenient? Do you not see God's hand in this Head Master?
We are a peaceful people. But guess what. Peace comes from victory and winning war, not from sitting on our butt and "hoping" that next gun won't be pointed in our face.
In response
Citizen Arg.#1 - You are suggesting that we are only justified in war when we are defending a direct threat against the lives of our citizens and military. What I am saying is that is a flawed argument.
Response #1 - I believe in "Just War" as proposed by St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas and others.
http://www.monksofadoration.org/justwar.html
I am not nieve that the theory is not perfect. I do concede that there may be a clause of preemptive action that is not fully developed in Augustines theory. I do however believe that extreme caution in preemptive action is our "moral" obligation. I do not believe that was met in our war against Iraq. As I see it, this indeed was a preemptive war since no justification have so far presented itself that would be in accordance with just war. A war with Iran, even against Afghanistan, had the Taliban and Al Queda not attacked first, would merit preemptive actions. Iran presents a clear and present danger to our way of life and to that of the holy land.
I would argue that the U.S. is following almost all conditions for just war except for its premise.
Citizen Arg #1a - If that is the case, you are saying that you would have rather fought every war in the 20th century instead of stopping the psychos who started them BEFORE they were able to attack anyone.
Response #1a - I can't include all the wars of the 20th century in this argument. WW1 & WWII were both instigated by powers that had the capabilities of destroying all the nations of the world. Indeed, they provoked the wars by their actions. I don't believe that military build up is necessarily a threat, if it were than all the nations of the world could preempt the U.S. I think it is presumptious to believe that we can presume intents, understand emotions, calculate risks or stop every psycho in the world. I believe it also presumptious to think that we can stop them all, or even have to. As the great Ronaldus Maximus proved, isolation and containment can beat your enemies without tossing a thermo-nuclear warhead. Should we have entered WWII earlier? Probablly. Would we have been justified preemptively attacking the axix in WWI & WWII? Maybe. That's not the point. When action was required, when we felt adequately threatened and understood the intentions the most, we fought and won. Remember when Alma and Amulek were tied up watching the believers being sent to the fire? Almulek said, "How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the apower• of God which is in us, and save them from the flames?"
Alma responded, "But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in aglory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments• which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent• shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day." Alma 14:11-12
Citizen Arg #1b - We were too blind to see the threat before it was pointing a gun in our face. We have learned from our mistakes, and Islam will be knocked down before they are able to point another gun in our face
Response #1b - I think we calculated the threat. Maybe were were too lenient, but I don't think blind. "Islam will be knocked down..." Is this a fight against religion or an extreme postion on a religous faith?
Citizen Arg #2 - Iraq was a strategic move in fighting this enemy. If it was the wrong move.. so be it.
Response #2 - This seems to be a bit revisionist. If this was the administrations intent all along, then they lied at best. If it is common theory now, then so be it.
Arg #2a - But it really doesn't matter. This is World War III, and we must fight Islam. Even if they weren't there when we went there, they are there now aren't they? How convenient? Do you not see God's hand in this Head Master?
Response #2a - It matters to the folks that are dying for what they believed was national matter. You are right though, it is now. "We must fight Islam..." Again, is this a crusade?
Yes, they are there now. My position remains consistent. We are there, they are there. We must destroy them and restore peace, and newly establish freedom. "Do you not see God's hand in this..."? I see God's hand in everything, however my argument remains consistent with Alma's.
Arg #3 - We are a peaceful people. But guess what. Peace comes from victory and winning war, not from sitting on our butt and "hoping" that next gun won't be pointed in our face.
Response #3 - I believe in this entirely. That is why I believe that we made a mistake in attacking Iraq. There are other nations, bigger threats, that we cannot contend with by being in the blistering sands fighting an unnecessary war. The gun is already pointed in our faces. May we be strong enough confront it.
Wow, this is very interesting, and I must say I feel like I have learned some new insights that I had not heard before. If I could just add a few of my thoughts; about invading Saudi Arabia; I was a little baffled when after 9-11 we invaded Iraq, because of the fact that 19 out of twenty-something terroists were saudis. I think part of the reason we are not invading, or really not doing much about them is at least two-fold. One, we all know the relationship President Bush has with "Bandar Bush", these guys are tight, with ties that reach back to the seventies when Bandar and his family were investing in all of W's early buisness ventures, including his oil drilling company, "Arbusto." Second, I have heard that the Saudis have trillions of dollars invested in our economy, so if we invade them, and they pull their money out, our economy goes into a tailspin. I don't know how true that is, but it is what I have heard.
To the point made about all of the insurgents being in Iraq now, whereas they werent before. The reason they are there now is because we didn't have enough troops to seal the borders once we took control of Iraq. It was mass chaos, we saw what happend to thier museums, all of those priceless historic pieces, that belonged to the people of Iraq, gone missing and destroyed-that was one of the saddest things to happen in my opinion. I wasn't in the itelligence breifings, so I dont know everything about Saddam, but from what I saw and heard from the media, this guy really was looney. I think he was and is all bark and no bite, all talk, no action, with exception, of course, of the use of mustard gas back in the 80's. No quesion, he was an evil dictator, but I am not convinced, based on what the media showed me, and what the administration showed me for that matter, that Saddam was an imminent threat. At least we could have delayed invasion for a while to armor our damn humvees; isn't that resonable?
Another question, regarding fighting. Where do we draw the line between, as Christ said, and this is paraphrased, "turn your cheak to let him slap the other side also," and "love your enemys, and pray for them." Where do we say, "I will only let you slap the one side, and then no more slapping." I realize we probably can't and shouldn't just bury all of our weapons of war like the book of mormon folks did once. I think Joseph Smith said that anyone who wasn't willing to fight for his family is a coward; so where and when do we decide to fight, and when to lay down our weapons? In the book of mormon they did both, and the righteous that fought won, and the righteous that layed down weapons didn't die; correct me if I am wrong about that. So is the point that we just be righteous? Notice the word righteous, the first half of the word is right, the righteous are right; are we right, or, were we right in invading Iraq so quickly, and with no connection with 9-11? I guess we will find out.
It is really easy for us to talk about using force, because we don't have to go do it. Most of us probably don't have any family or friends there. My brother-in-law just got back from a year-long tour of duty, and will have to go back in another year for another year-long tour. I haven't got to talk to him much about it, he lives in Texas, but what I have heard is just awful, as I am sure we would all conclude. How could we be anything but awful. He said there is death everyday, and that a lot of the Iraqis who signed up for the police just clock in, then go back home, only to show up at quiting time to clock out. It was really frustrating for the guys there who were trying to train them. I think the Iraqis need to step it up a little, we can't help them unless they really want to pitch in. I am sure a great majority of the Iraqis are thrilled that we are there, but it seems like they want us to do all the dirty work, that is my perception, maybe it is wrong.
Anyway, I am enjoying these posts, Godspeed.
It looks to me like we will have to agree to disagree. Ultimately the justification for taking out Saddam was that he broke the agreement from out FIRST war with him. Therefore, we take up the fight again. This was not a NEW war. It was a continuance from Desert Storm. Clinton just didn't have the balls to enforce it. I think they should have just called it Desert Storm part II instead of Iraqi Freedom.
I think Davieboy is right. It is easy for us to sit in our homes and debate about force when we don't have to fight it. Thinking about it that way makes me feel small.
However, I think the larger issue of WAR is now our main discussion isn't it? When is it truly justified? Can pre-emption ever be allowed? The United States is the weirdest country in the history of the world. We attack a country.. not to own it, or to run it, or to colonize it.. not to increase our own power and wealth. We do it with the intention of GIVING. We want to give others what we have.. liberty.
The Iraqi people were hungry for liberty. We saw that when a group of them attempted to rise up against Saddam and were killed after the first Gulf War. We abandoned them, Liberty lost. That is the lesson we have learned. Only the United States can spread this gift. Only the United States can give men, women and children what God has in store for them. They can be free to worship and ultimately find The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and choose to find their true calling and go back to the Father.
Only one thing stands in their way. Tyranny. Personally Head Master, I think St Augustine is full of it. To make a people free is the greatest justification that can and will every exist. If people want it, we are obligated to give it to them.
I do believe there is a selfish interest for the US though. Free nations have a greater chance of becoming our allies. So be it.. the gift we give is far greater than the gain.
One more thing... I have to answer head masters question: "Is this a crusade?".
Yes it is. In a private conversation, Penguin had made a great observation.. where is the outcry from the leaders of "peaceful" Islam? Why aren't they out in front of this decrying these zealouts every single day? They don't because I believe deep down they believe that some of their actions are justified. So, doesn't that slap the entire religion in the face? If you aren't against them, you are for them. They are giving them more power by not speaking out and showing that they are indeed peaceful.
That is why maybe we should just call this the war on Islam? If they won't join the fight to defeat those that kill in their name... what does that say about them?
Oh.. by the way, this blog rules.
People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don't believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them.
- George Bernard Shaw
Capitalism indeed makes this possible.
This is one of those issues that, as CitizenSaint alluded to in his original post, are tough ones to tackle. I have gone back and forth since the day of invasion about justifications, moral obligations, and our role as a free nation and as Latter-Day Saints in the last days. I would like to tackle this issue on the basis of what we know, to date, in contrast of what we knew at the time of invasion; and how each of these issues played a role, and continues to do so, in U.S. foreign policy. For these are the issues, as I read the comment battle, that I feel were over looked.
The original question: was Iraq a necessary war, knowing what we know now? How about, was Iraq a necessary war? Period. Did we need to go into Iraq when we did or ever, for that matter? What did we know then? Saddam was a bad guy, which has already been determined. He defied UN resolutions, so legally we had every “right,” as an international community, to go in and get him. Not to mention his human rights violations, where was Amnesty International on that one by the way? The phrase that was thrown around in the media at the time prior to invasion was “eminent threat.” This is a more important question to address. Was Iraq an eminent threat to our sovereignty? And if so, does was an invasion justified? Here’s the backdrop, we’d been attacked, we had information that was credible at the time that Saddam was in the process of making WMD’s, and he didn’t really think to highly of the U.S. But he was not “pointing a gun in our face.” It was therefore an “optional” invasion in this respect. CitizenSaint makes a good point in that we must look at the necessity of war in the context of whom we are fighting. Who is the bad guy in this whole thing, and is it a guy at all? Maybe, like it has been discussed previously, it is an ideology.
Afganistan was a war to take out the Taliban, which was a war, essentially, against an ideology. Like Head Master said, so too would Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. I will however take issue with Head Master in his thought that Iraq was immoral. What makes it an immoral move? The fact that there was no eminent threat? This is a debatable point the basis of which is purely subjective. Doesn’t a legal basis mean anything in the quest for moral correctness? We were justified in taking Saddam out of power, solely on a legal basis. Granted we chose to go into Iraq with a legal basis to do so because it was a, shall I say, “less problematic” way to get into the region in an overall battle against an ideology. The result is what we have now, to which I agree we have a moral obligation to fix. We didn’t at the time, nor do we now, have a justification, according to the justification through provocation ideal, to go into other aforementioned ideologically driven nations of the region. But we may in the near future…
Here’s the upshot: Saddam had to be removed and we were justified, LEGALLY, in doing so. Who are we fighting? On a theoretically level, we are fighting the same enemy that has been fought throughout eternity, in each era that enemy takes on a different faces and ideologies. The common denominator, death to whomever will not follow and partake. In our day this evil has been manifest in radical Islam. I struggle to push it onto the Islam as a whole due to the fact that there are many peaceful followers of Islam across the globe. Although, like CitizenSaint stated, per our conversation, it is strange that there is not outrage on behalf of these peaceful Muslims to separate themselves from those who have hijacked their faith for the purpose of forwarding an agenda. What happens when a crazy fundamentalist in Utah, who has 15 wives and is stockpiling weapons claims to be a member of the Church. The Church PR is all over it doing anything it can to separate itself from such factions. Other churches and organizations do the same thing, they do not want to be associated with radical factions or fundamentalists. Why hasn’t Islam done the same??
If we are fighting radical Islam, how is it defeated?? Freedom. Free elections, Free markets, Free people, these are the goal of humanity. It is only through freedom and liberty that these Middle Eastern countries can truly flourish. Iraq still has a chance to be free. It is a mess now, and we have an obligation to help, but once it is truly free there is no telling what is possible.
Bravo Penguin..
Personally, I think this will continue to be an issue until the end of the world. I believe that the wars will never end, the stage has been set and like Penguin has said, the enemy is the same. Call them the great secret combination if you will. They will continue to fight the cause of freedom and feed on their own pride and ambition through force. We can spread Liberty to the world, and it will only happen by force. The United States must stand with those that will fight.
President Bush made a great commentin a speech today. "Iran doesn't want democracy in Iraq to succeed because a free Iraq threatens the legitimacy of Iran's oppressive theocracy. Iraq's neighbor to the west, Syria, is permitting terrorists to use that territory to cross into Iraq. The vast majority of Iraqis do not want to live under an Iranian-style theocracy, and they don't want Syria to allow the transit of bombers and killers into Iraq -- and the United States of America will stand with the Iraqi people against the threats from these neighbors."
The stage is set. As they fight Iraq, we fight them. The strategy seems brilliant in its simplicity.
I think it is awfully strange that an Iraqi nation so envious and wanting of a free country have been so unwilling to fight for it. I think it a travesty that our fighting men and women are giving all, even unto death, for a counrty so unwilling to fight for themselves.
I agree with 'the Head' that there seems to be a disconnect between our fighting troops and the lack of 'fight' in the Iraqi's. In order for democracy and security to truly function the weight must be shifted to the Iraqi miltary. Whereas now it is an 80/20 on our shoulders. I pray that this transition happens for their security and prosperity and for our own. There were some poll numbers released yesterday that show optimism in this transition process. Take it for what its worth...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4521064.stm
Here is some more chatter about Iraq. Peggy Noonan, who writes for the journal lays out a very poignant view of our current situation in Iraq.
Thoughts....
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110007679
There is a documentary of sorts on NBC on sunday night. It is called "To War and Back, with Tom Brokaw." I think it will be very interesting, and we will get to hear first-hand accounts, real stories from guys who were there. I have seen a few documentaries about our guys over there, one in particular is called "Gunner Palace." It is real, gritty, and mostly non-partisan. I cant imagine what it must be like fighting in a war, so I am thankful we have all of these documentaries, so while we all argue about over here, we get to actually see what is happening and hear the stories from the guys who are doing it, and doing it in pretty good spirits. They are mostly not bitter, and very brave. God bless them.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10402820/
This war may be God's Plan.
My uncle's job is such, that he places refugees from Iraq into homes, jobs, school, etc.. and so he intimately knows these people and what we are dealing with in Iraq.
I asked him one day what his view point is on this war and whether or not we should truly be involved in this country. And this is his answer:
At this time, Iraq and the other Middle Eastern countries are not allowed Christianity. There are very severe penalties for anyone even reading material about Christ. This lack of freedom creates a situation where the people are entirely indoctrinated in the leader's chosen beliefs through all facets of their lives.
How could the Lord fulfill his promise to these people? The ONLY way for Him to do this, is for these countries to have religious freedom. How will this happen? War is the only way. A war that will enable the citizens to have religious freedom. This was the reason OUR country was founded! We wanted religious freedom, and were able to with our own efforts and the help of other countries, because we were across the ocean and not under the dictatorship of a tyrant. Do we not now have an obligation to use our strengths and talents to benefit others in coming unto Christ?
Not all people know about this but, before declaring war, President Bush called a meeting in Washington D.C. with several religious leaders around the country. This included President Gordon B. Hinckley, Billy Graham, Max Lucado and many other representatives for different religions. And they went! The purpose was to pray with him. Pres. Bush wanted them all to kneel together and pray for answers on what his next moves should be as the leader of our country.
President Bush may not have realized Heavenly Father's motives, but whatever he believed the reasons were, they were obtained through fervent and mighty prayer and I believe he was obeying the Spirit and the answers he received in prayer.
So the bottom line (and whether or not you believe all that I've said) it is undeniable, that as a result of this war the gospel will spread through this country and this fulfills the will and promise of our Father in Heaven. It won't stop here either. The gospel has to spread to ALL the world. There will be much more war.
So, whatever you think about Pres. Bush's reasons for war (he couldn't really tell our country that God told him to do it, now could he?), whatever you think about our taxes, preparation or military tactics, they don't really matter in the grand scheme of things, what the specifics are.
The prophecies of the second coming are rolling forth and our God will fulfill all His promises to us. AND, whatever our worries are about taxes, deficits, terrorists, party lines or policies, our Heavenly Father is in control and His purposes will not be frustrated.
It's all quite exciting.
Post a Comment