Can we please stop referring to the Secretary Rumsfeld as

[Tim]

Originally Posted by Parrot Head

I think that if you think about this one more you'll just edit it out. I know you're not a "turn a blind eye" kind of guy in situations of pain and suffering, are you?

This is ______'s issue.

Darfur, the Jews, Rwanda, Ethiopia, poor people....

Heavens no! I'm all for taking care of people/countries that have no ability to fight for themselves... and I'm deeply committed to programs that provide that kind of aid. However, Israel is not one of those countries. They can fight for themselves. If they need our help after they've exhausted their resources, then we should help them (since they're our ally). We shouldn't fight their fight until they're out of options, though.

Tim

[UtahDan]

I tried to keep it to just one bite of the burrito, but you aren't going to let me are you? Let me see if I can address your MANY ;-) points in context.

Originally Posted by Tim

I understand the situations you have listed... obviously we would all do whatever we could to protect our loved ones, although it could be debated whether adding a second gun to the equation would make the situation doubly dangerous and would end all chance of the situation calming down...

I hear what you are saying about the ultimate efficacy of escalation, though the thought process that escalcation only leads to more violence was minimally done grave damage by how the cold war ended. Anyway, I wish we lived in a world where violence and the implements of the same were not necessary but if you (1) believe in the reality of of evil and (2) think it should be resisted (this seems to be our fundamental disagreement) then you have to be ready succeed in the resistence. Police go around armed, and for the present I think as a nation we have to bring guns to gun fights.

Originally Posted by Tim

As far as preemptive attacks are concerned, who's to say that the "we're going to attack such-and-such country" are true plans and not just political rhetoric? Looking at the way the world works, it seems like there is more political rhetoric than actual battle plans. If we attack a country in the name of "protecting ourselves," and there really wasn't a plan to attack us, we've become the agressor. And that is what I have no tolerance for.

I guess this is where we part company. I think that where a country says it is going to do something violent it incurrs the risk that others wil take it seriously. In such a situation there are two risks: (1) that the threat will be carried out before it is prevented and (2) that the threat was not authentic and the pre-emption is unnecessary. I guess the question is, if someone is going to bear that risk, should it be the person (nation) who makes the threat or the recipient of the threat? While I would not want to find myself as a leader or a government in position 2, if I allow 1 to come to pass I have failed in my primary purpose. Given the choice between two evils, I err on the side of protecting me and mine. I am morally justified in doing so when a threat is made under the circumstances I have previously described.

Originally Posted by Tim

I would rather lose my life because of someone else's sin than to commit the sin myself. That may sound dramatic, but it's (and I hate to say this) the Christian way to be. I don't know how we can call ourselves Christians if we've become agressors? Shouldn't we let eternal justice be served by allowing the sin to be committed before we pass judgement and act? Again, I'd truly rather lose my life than to be an agressor. If we are attacked, then goodness yes, we can blow them to high hell in response. Because then, and ONLY then, would that be DEFENSE. Anything else would be starting a war.

In the first instance your preference to lose your life to a sinner rather than sin yourself (though I'm not sure I agree you would be sinning) is a perfectly legitimate position. It is a pacifist position and many feel as you do. Where I respectfully suggest that you err is in your assertion that it is the only christian position possible.

I think it is a common error, again respectfully and in my opinion only, that someone will take a tenet of the faith to its logical extreme without observing the corrolary principle that gives it balance. For example, Christ asked his disciples to give up there jobs and come follow him. He told the rich man that he should sell all of his possessions and give them to the poor. We are also instructed to give of our substance to the poor, sick, widows, etc. Does this mean that the only possible christian course is to give everything we have to others and that wealth is incompatible with righteousness? No, because we are also commanded to be industrious, to support our families and to work. These principles balance one another. To much of one and imbalance results.

We are told that we should not judge. We are also told to avoid the appearance of evil. This means neither that spend our time in sinful settings nor that we ought to close ourselves off from the world which is sinful in nature. Rather we apply both principles to find a middle path.

So to, Jesus turned the other cheek and allowed his own torture and crucifixtion and yet overthrew the tables of the money changers. He taught through word and deed that we should both turn the other cheek AND resist evil. Incompatible? I don't think so. I simply think it means there is a time for each. To the extent that one would feel it is NEVER appropriate to resist evil, I would assert that this is not really what Christ taught, understanding how incredibly presumptious it is for me characterize His teachings in this way.

Originally Posted by Tim

I guess my concerns with the Iran situation are these:

1) Iran is nothing but talk. They will not attack us. ESPECIALLY not with nuclear weapons. No one will attack us with nuclear weapons. I don't know why any one of us would think that another nation would be so stupid as to attack us and our 5,700+ active nuclear warheads. Think about it. They all know that we have them, and they know that we would use them back on them if they used one against us. No way would they use their weapons on us.

I agree with you that they would never send a warhead with a picture of the Iranian flag. What they might do is give it to someone who would smuggle it here allowing Iran maintain some sort of plausible deniability. There are of course people who would do this and only lack the means. Imagine that tommorow morning Iran announces that fissel material has been stolen from it and 3 weeks later a nuclear weapon detonates in New York City. Would we wipe Iran off the map at that point? Wouldn't many people say "what proof do we really have?"

Originally Posted by Tim

2) From several reports I've read, they are still 7-10 years out from having viable weapons.

The conventional wisdow not too long ago among every intelligence agency in the world was that there were, without a doubt, WMD in Iraq. Apparently everyone as wrong. All we know is that they are openly seeking it and have stated why they want it. The longer we wait the more likely they are to have it. Are you suggesting that the problem goes away over time if it is ignored?

Originally Posted by Tim

3) This is Israel's issue. If Iran wants to fight Israel, they can fight Israel. If Israel wants our help after Iran has attacked them, then we can help them. But we don't have room in our budget to do Israel's dirty work for them (meaning: doing their preemptive attacks for them).

For the reasons stated above, I think it is all of our issue. Keep in mind that militant Islam is a suicide cult. I think that we have to assume that the threat to us is real. Again, morally I do not think we are required to wrong our hands over whether they mean what they say. I believe we are entitled to believe it. Certainly they could never be heard to complain that they didn't really mean it can they?

Originally Posted by Tim

If Iran amassed troops on our border and then declared an intention to invade, or if they had planes in the air heading for our coasts, then yes, by all means we would be justified in fighting at once. But all we've seen from Iran is rhetoric. Why act on that
So I ask you this: would you rather be an agressor or lose your life because of someone else's agression? Which do you think fits better in the eternal scheme of things?

Tim

Lets be clear, I'm not arguing for a pre-emptive strike on Iran. What I am saying is that there is a moral framework that justifies it. That doesn't mean that it requires it. Maybe it will be required, I just don't know yet.

As for what scenario fits best with the gospel, for the reasons above I don't think there is a single answer. The problem I see with your argument is that you want to lay down not just your own life, but mine and my family's and our neighbors as well. When the crazy neighbor comes to the door waiving an axe and tells me he is going to kill me it is one thing for me to allow him to do so. It is something very different for him to tell me he is here to rape and murder my wife and for me to stand aside and allow it. I think that there are a great many scenarios where it would be sinful to fail to resist the evil acts of others, though I concede this must be balanced by the requirement to turn the other cheek at appropriate times.

Pacifism has on many occassions wrought incredible positive changes in the world. Sometimes so has war. I personally think that a belief that only one of those courses is compatible with Christianity results from only seeing part of the picture.

Just my humble thoughts. Thanks for te dialouge.

[Tim]

Wow. Excellent response. You are a much better writer than I. I wish I had the ability to communicate myself like you do. My strengths are found elsewhere, though.

I don't advocate a purely pacifistic nature. I do agree that there's a context involved. We have to protect ourselves and our loved ones when there is a true danger at hand... It's an entirely different story, though, to look at what we think could possibly be problems in the future and go after them now... That would be agression, not defense. I can't support it because it seems wrong and illogical to me.

Again, it's all about context, and I feel like our current foreign policy has misunderstood many of the contexts (Europe's refusal to participate in Iraq, Venezuela's neo-socialism) and seems to be more interested in flexing our muscles and throwing our weight around than in truly finding solutions to problems (some that we may in part be perpetuating). It is a tad idealistic, I know, but I believe that we would benefit from calming our foreign action down a tad and letting things simmer. It would do us good to show the citizens of the U.S., as well as the world (and I'm not just talking about our enemies -- I'm referring to our allies as well, who day-by-day are losing more and more faith in the United States that I love) that we really AREN'T interested in imperialism. That seems to be the root of the whole problem -- it's so easy to interpret the current administration's actions as unnecessary imperialism............ BAAAAAAAH I'm rambling. I need to go to bed.

We just need to take a step back and let things marinate for a little while. It'd clarify for us which problems are genuine and which ones are only being caused by our meddling, our intervention, our little fingers in every corner of the world.

Tim

[JohnnyLingo]

it's so easy to interpret the current administration's actions as unnecessary imperialism

To quote a famous man,

"The time is coming when you will have to choose between what is easy and what is right."

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

To quote a famous man,

"The time is coming when you will have to choose between what is easy and what is right."

Exactly! The easier solution is to address the issue with brute force and abject ignorance ... doing what is right requires patients, long suffering, a willingness to listen, not act hastily, bridling of pride, humbleness, meekness, a contrite spirit ... you know, all those attributes that are often mentioned in famous holy writ

[JohnnyLingo]

The easier solution is to address the issue with brute force and abject ignorance ... doing what is right requires patients, long suffering, a willingness to listen, not act hastily, bridling of pride, humbleness, meekness, a contrite spirit ... you know, all those attributes that are often mentioned in famous holy writ

I agree completely.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

I agree completely.

So we agree ... Aggression is not to be confused with defense and the US should pull out of Iraq and rely more heavily upon diplomacy in regards to the escalating danger in Iran! Military force would be reserved for immediate threats not as a preemptive measure!

[JohnnyLingo]

So we agree ... Aggression is not to be confused with defense and the US should pull out of Iraq and rely more heavily upon diplomacy in regards to the escalating danger in Iran! Military force would be reserved for immediate threats not as a preemptive measure!

I don't agree with that.

While I am against "brute force and abject ignorance" and in favor of "patients (sic), long suffering, a willingness to listen, not act hastily, bridling of pride, humbleness, meekness, a contrite spirit," I do not feel that preemption and these qualities are mutually exclusive.

[RockyBalboa]

Tim...you think Iran is nothing but talk eh?

So what would you think after they start producing Nuclear Missiles and terrorists I'm sure are already lining up in droves to make sure they get their hands on it.

To say pre-emption in every situation is unjustifiable is extraordinarily and shockingly naive.

[Tim]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Tim...you think Iran is nothing but talk eh?

So what would you think after they start producing Nuclear Missiles and terrorists I'm sure are already lining up in droves to make sure they get their hands on it.

To say pre-emption in every situation is unjustifiable is extraordinarily and shockingly naive.

I'll tell you what's "extraordinarily and shockingly naive:" Your reading skills. I never said that pre-emption in every situation is unjustifiable. I even flat out said that if they were massing troops on our border, or if their planes were in the air and heading for our coasts, we'd be more than justified. You need to read things completely before you make a judgement, friend.

Tim