"In Vietnam, our soldiers came back and they were reviled as baby killers, in shame and humiliation. It isn’t happening now, but I will tell you – there has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq."
--Seymour Hersh
It's not just Kerry. It's what most Liberals AND Democrats really think about our military.
26 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I've seen the pictures of the victims from Fallujah where the US used planes to drop white phosphorous on insurgents and civilians alike. I've seen the videos on youtube and ebaumsworld where 20 years old soldiers take potshots at Iraqi's. I've seen the video of the beheading of Nicholas Berg. I've seen the pictures Lyndie Ingram and here cohorts took at Abu graib.
If Vietnam, Korea, and The Bay of Pigs were as violent as Iraq. Then something is dreadfully wrong with America. It damages us as a country and a culture when we ask our youngest to go and commit such violence every two decades.
One of my core beliefs is the idea that violence is not necessary for humans to live in a mixed society. I question whether the security such violence brings is worth the cost, but even then I don't blame the soldiers.
But if force must be used then it should be complete. And it must have defined, accomplish able goals, supporting objectives that strengthen our country. I would ask no soldier to spend her life foolishly or needlessly.
George Bush has said that Iraq will be a military problem beyond 2008. Staying the course with him will mean losing at least another 2,000 soldiers.
No. Not necessary, but certainly a fact of life.
As to your claim of "state-sanctioned murder" perhaps you're unaware of the hebraic context of "thou shalt not kill". Strictly speaking, it means 'thou shalt not murder'... which, I shouldn't have to point out, is different from killing.
http://www.christiancentury.org/
article.lasso?id=2407
The author makes the argument that thou shalt not kill means just what is says, not thou shalt not muder. The reviewer points out that even the author points up the ambiguity attached to the Hebrew words used.
My point is this: Think about it. What if? What if thou shalt not kill means thou shalt not kill?
I've never understood how one can be so all-fired againat abortion, yet be so all-fired for capital punishment, or war.
Either all life is sacred or not. But that is a dichotomy that the usually dichotomous conservatives eschew.
Why? I argue that it's because they do just what they accuse those of us on the liberal side of things of doing:
Pick and choose -- verses, emphases, interpretations -- based on their preferred outcomes, not based on what the Scripture says or does not say.
Sorry. Not buying it. More liberal Christianity trying to change God's Word.
Your sense of history, morality and decency are indeed, WARPED!
Sounds a lot like "Pick and choose -- verses, emphases, interpretations -- based on [one's] preferred outcome, not based on what the Scripture say or do not say."
How many more meetings of The Jesus Seminar will it require to take all the red words out of Jesus' mouth with little footnotes that say something like, 'Bible Scholars now believe that Jesus most likely never spoke these words'...?
Consider this:
From Robert W. Funk, Architect and Founder of the Jesus Seminar, in a Keynote Address to the Jesus Seminar Fellows in the spring of 1994...
1. "Jesus did not ask us to believe that his death was a blood sacrifice, that he was going to die for our sins."
2. "Jesus did not ask us to believe that he was the messiah. He certainly never suggested that he was the second person of the trinity. In fact, he rarely referred to himself at all."
3. "Jesus did not call upon people to repent, or fast, or observe the sabbath. He did not threaten with hell or promise heaven."
4. "Jesus did not ask us to believe that he would be raised from the dead."
5. "Jesus did not ask us to believe that he was born of a virgin."
6. "Jesus did not regard scripture as infallible or even inspired."
And when it came to voting among the many scholars? They use a system of colored beads which represent....
Red: Jesus undoubtedly said this or something very like it.
Pink: Jesus probably or might have said something like this.
Gray: Jesus did not say this, but the ideas are close to His own.
Black: Jesus did not say this; it represents a later tradition.
Talk about arrogance! Two millenia after the fact to tell the people of 1st Century Christendom what Christ did or did not say? And your attitude on this issue is no different.
Why should I believe a so called scholar when the word of God tells me to believe not every spirit? That wolves in sheeps clothing will enter the church spreading damnable heresy?
Are you absolutely sure you're following Jesus? Seriously... without an ounce of contempt on my part. Seriously. Are you sure you're not believing your pastor and his teachings simply because his message appeals to your intellect? An intellect I honestly respect, despite my genuine concern for your eternal well-being. I know I can be quite sarcastic. Please overlook that and examine the faith you have accepted.
I did see the word arrogance toward the end. Here's arrogance: Thinking that you have all the answers and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
Oh, oh, here's another thing: Mixing up faith in God with a superstition that says the KJV (or *any* other translation) is "the Word of God" when it's Jesus who is the Logos, i.e., "the Word of God."
The Christian Century is a great answer to nonthinking fundamentalism, Ms. Green.
ER, I consider the "nonthinking fundamentalism" remark to be a personal rather than theological attack. Read Romans 1:22.
What, do you think that war is fun? No, it's hell, but sometimes necessary. God ordered the military destruction of atrociously behaved non-believers in the Bible. Jericho comes immediately to mind. That involved killing.
Just for fun: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooWm10OyTNc
But, what you (liberals in general) describe: Taking pot-shots at civilians, calling our men butchers for doing the job they volunteered to do.... It's no wonder they come back as changed people. They did the grueling, unpleasant work our country asked and then they have liberals spitting on them daily. That would probably give me a sour disposition as well.
Oh yeah... Good stuff! Makes me wanna shout halleluia!
Okey dokey. I won't.
Here's a personal attack for you...
ER, I suggest that you should probably read the whole first chapter of Romans, as I believe it was written directly to members of your Church, and to you in particular.
I say this only out of concern for your mortal Soul, and concern for God's Church, and the damage that the Ideology you cling to does to the real message of Jesus, and His Church.
So here it is.
A personal attack, not in My words, but from the Bible, inspired by God Almighty, penned by the Apostle Paul, copied and pasted by me, Tugboatcapn.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
God's Word says what it says, and I can read.
You are not wrong because you disagree with ME, you are wrong because you are struggling against the Word of God.
And remember that the Apostle Paul himself thought that he was serving God BEFORE he had his "Damascus Road" Experience.
Go back up there and actually READ it, and pray about it before you respond to me.
I prayed about it before I posted it.
One point, in case this is what prompted your personal sermon to me: It really doesn't matter whether you get used to the idea of gay Christians in this life; you will have an eternity of fellowship to do so in the next one.
I forgot that you don't read the sections of the Bible that might point out YOUR Sin...
Don't read it then. you know it already, and have chosen to ignore it.
I don't have all the answers, ER. Never said I did.
But I know where to find them.
The only reason that I Preach to you is because I live too far away to address the entire congregation at your Indoctrination Center.
And as to the idea of an eternity of Fellowship to get used to the Idea of Gay Christians...
One of us is going to be VERY surprized someday...
And, I'd say we're both going to be surprised, Tug. Because neither of us is close to 100 percent right about anything.
But, where does Jesus have anything to say about those 66 pieces of writing that we call the Bible?
ER's quite right, you know. Your God and King never - NEVER - said "the collection of books we call the Bible is the word of God..."
It didn't happen. Not within those scriptures.
Which is not to say that I diss the Bible at all. I love the Bible, it is God's word for me. I'm just pointing out that nowhere does the Bible say that "The Bible" Genesis to Revelation is the whole of God's revelation to humanity.
Ultimately, Jesus is The Word. The Word that we must heed.
As to the new testament, God has promised to preserve His word. The Holy Spirit likewise is come to guide us into ALL truth. If we who are saved, and sealed unto the day of redemption, were clinging to a new testament that was not of God, the Holy Spirit would have convicted man long, long ago, and it would not be part of today's Canon. I firmly believe this. The Holy Spirit works through the Church even today.
It also stands to reason that if God wrote the OT; through the artifice of human hands and vocabulary, the history of his plan to save mankind of his sin, that He would also record the means of His salvation, namely Jesus; his birth in fulfillment of prophesy (as if to say, "See? What did I tell you I would do?!"), His ministry, atoning death, and resurrection. It further stands to reason that God, who uttered the very first prophesy in Genesis 3:15, and the first promise of redemption, that God would also utter the Last word of Prophesy in the Book of Revelation.
Furthermore, in regard to the NT, I'd say the proof is in the pudding. The NT has the power to covict men of their evil deeds, and draw men to the saving power of the blood of Jesus. And just as portions of the OT were a roadmap for living righteously-- under the dispensation of Law --so too the NT provides a roadmap for living righteously under the dispensation of Grace.
If you are saved, you are righteous. Not because of anything you have done, but because of what Christ has done. When God looks at the redeemed He doesn't see sin, He see's the righteous blood of jesus, whose righteousness has been imputed to us. That is not braggadocio on my part, but merely a statement of fact.
That, of course, in no way implies we cannot now sin. Quite the contrary in fact. The only difference between the saved and the unsaved is our sin is under the blood, the sins of the unsaved are not. It's as simple as that.