Christianity and the "Bush Doctrine"
I really don't know how to entitle this one. I'll agree with the author of the article below on one point, and only one... the Lord Jesus Christ would have all of us "Love one another". If we could get the world to do that, we'd be just fine.
But other than that point, this guy is totally NUTS.
A few excerpts...
However, I will say that the images that he includes in his article (and the captions) take the cake. Go take a peek for yourself... (blogger photo upload not working right now, will post them later)
UPDATE: Was taking a look at some of the other articles posted there... the fact that they often refer to Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a "psudo-Christian who uses his faith as a euphamism for his capitalistic, pro-Corporate Globalization agenda" and as the "leader of the neo-conservative 'Republican Party of the North'" kinda sums things up...
But other than that point, this guy is totally NUTS.
A few excerpts...
The ignoring of Global Warming by professed devout Christians in the Stephen Harper minority government, is not only an apparent breach in Biblical Covenant, but it also constitutes a looming unparallel 'Crime Against Humanity', in international law. The Bush Doctrine that manifests a context for perpetual war, for sought perpetuated commercial profit in a military-industrial-political complex, is a recipe for the pursuit of a holocaust on a catastrophic planetary scale.
Members of a group who exalt the Bible, as self-professed "Christians" while executing pre-emptive war that destroys innocent lives, and that defiles the environment; followed by a military occupation that inflicts oppression against a sovereign people who are all "children of G-d", is furthermore a great mischief against apparent Biblical Covenant.Amm, I guess he things Sadaam and the Taliban were just all warm and fuzzy, teddy-bear kinda leaders...
Mr. Harper's Party is an apparent branch plant of the American neo-conservative movement founded by Leo Strauss, who himself had been inspired by Nazism, and also by a book by Frederich Nietzche entitled The Anti-Christ.Wow, he blew the cover off of our secret agenda... I'll have to alert my local commander that the gig is up...
The rottening of Iraq and Afghanistan into a worsening culture of violence, retribution, and sadism, came from the correspondingly rotten base that pursued war instead of peace, of the sort that is advocated in Biblical wisdom and in the scriptures of other religions. 'Evil' outcomes emanate from similarly-minded instigators, as peaceful outcomes come from the minds of those who seek peace.A democraticly elected (by the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq) government is "rottening"?
However, I will say that the images that he includes in his article (and the captions) take the cake. Go take a peek for yourself... (blogger photo upload not working right now, will post them later)
UPDATE: Was taking a look at some of the other articles posted there... the fact that they often refer to Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a "psudo-Christian who uses his faith as a euphamism for his capitalistic, pro-Corporate Globalization agenda" and as the "leader of the neo-conservative 'Republican Party of the North'" kinda sums things up...
posted by Christian Conservative @ 10:32 a.m.
14 Comments:
At Thu Jun 08, 10:34:00 p.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
"Amm, I guess he things Sadaam and the Taliban were just all warm and fuzzy, teddy-bear kinda leaders..."
Ammmm, in the case of Saddam I might point out that pre-emptive war was probably not the best idea, or at least, one of the most poorly executed ideas of all time. And I do still have New Coke in mind when I say that. The issue isn't whether Saddam was a teddy bear or not - nobody is saying that he is, teddy bear manufactureres being the loudest on that issue - so much as it is, what was the correct path to deal with him.
"A democraticly elected (by the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq) government is "rottening"?"
No, but a war-torn country with thousands of dead bodies and devestated infrastructure is.
Frankly, Andrew, I am pro-Iraqi campaign. But to not honestly deal with the devestation and turmoil that it's caused is not a major boost ye olde tyme credibilitie departmente.
At Thu Jun 08, 11:22:00 p.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
SDA has a graphic based on unknowable projections based on unsubstantiated rumours. And, last I looked, the ends do not justify the means. The suggestion that Saddam may have killed some Iraqis does not give justification to the coalition military killing them themselves. "Well, no big loss, Saddam would probably have tortured that family to death himself, anyway"?
At Fri Jun 09, 09:37:00 a.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
You're right Blake, a full examination should be done... but I only had time to post a couple of one-liners in reponse to that nut. ;-)
No, but a war-torn country with thousands of dead bodies and devestated infrastructure is.
For sure... but I don't think you can apply that quote to both nations.
Afghanistan, for example, according to most reports, is starting to blossom. (in areas that are secure) I remember listening to an hour long documentary on the CBC about how life has already improved significantly for thousands of Afghans. The story was about a new main highway that has been completed. People can now traverse a distance in 45 minutes that used to take SIX HOURS, and it was taking your life into your own hands to travel it before. About the only negative thing in the story was about one man who was about to lose his tire repair business... because no one was getting flat tires in potholes anymore. ;-) Farmers were thrilled because instead of tiny stalls near home, they could transport their goods to the larger markets, even beyond the Afghanistan borders. A genuine spirit of hope is growing within that nation.
Then there is Iraq. The problem is, it's near impossible to get a balanced persepctive, so it's hard to comment. The anti-war left says 200,000+ Iraqi's have been killed by soldiers, but I find that hard to believe. (based on the fact that they'll say almost anything these days to stop the war... they've killed any credibility they may have once had with me) Sadaam's one plus was that he had been able to keep the sectarian violence to a minimum... mostly with fear and repression, but that's another story.
As for "thousands of dead bodies in the street", I agree with vicki, most of them are due to Islamic radicals trying to wrest control away from the people. With al-Zarkowi's offing, that may subside somewhat. (let's hope) But as for the statement "the coalition military killing them themselves", I hope you're not referring to the recent allegation of the Marine's killing 24 civilians, because I'm pretty sure that that's going to turn out to be a one off problem.
At Fri Jun 09, 12:08:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
Hey, wasn't at all my intent to "dismiss" the Haditha incident... it's really sad that it occured, but I was referring to it as an example of one incident where the anti-war lobby will try to use it to say "all US soldiers are guilty of killing civilians" (if taken to the extreme)
I in no way meant to belittle the death of these civilians. I haven't followed what's been revealed so far, but from what I last heard, we still don't know for sure what really happened.
Were there other militants that these civilians were sheilding? Was it a retaliatory execution? If the latter, then no doubt, they should "reassigned" to Leavenworth.
At Fri Jun 09, 12:08:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
Now, it appears that the US Military has come up with a solution: remove the Geneva Conventions regarding torture from the military training handbooks.
Where did you hear this? If so, that's not cool by me.
At Fri Jun 09, 12:36:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
For those who don't know...
Fort Leavenworth
At Fri Jun 09, 12:54:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
I missed those news reports. Will look for them.
And I've heard some refer to the soldiers as "baby killers"... but true, those nutbars are few and far between.
I support the Iraq war, but you do have some vaild points. I think their premise for going in was flawed, but blame the data. (actually, wasn't the bulk of the intel from the Brits?) I think regime change was a good enough reason. They did have inital goals laid out... topple Sadaam, hand things over to a new democratic government, and pull out.
I think this insergency has really caught them off guard, and now they don't have a clue what to do about it but to "stay the course".
As for proper equipment, again, they had what they needed for the initial phase, but how do you defend against an ever evolving enemy/tactics?
I think the "illegal war" mantra I keep hearing is a misnomer too... again, based on the intel (which, yes, turned out to be flawed in the end) it was a continuation of the original UN mandate of 1991.
At Fri Jun 09, 12:56:00 p.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
"Any reason in particular? i'm always curious....."
I should say I was more in favour of the idea of invading Iraq than its actual execution. I believe Saddam Hussein was a threat to the region, and his violations on the civil rights of the citizens of his own nation, as well as Kuwait and Iran, made him one of the worst and cruellest dictators on the face of God's green earth. Therefore, I believe he had to be forcibly removed from power. That was not going to happen from a rebellion from inside the country, as far as I know, so that leaves the only real option as military involvement. Now, doing so without the support of the UN was not the best plan. But that's typical American diplomacy at work, and unsurprisingly they failed to anticipate the needs and desires and reactions of other nations.
So it wasn't so much that I was all, "yeah, let's go invade Iraq," it's more that I saw that something needed to be done and this was the best of a short list of solutions.
I don't so much mind that there wasn't a specific exit strategy (establishment of new, democratic government and stability in the region is specific enough), but I agree on your points of insufficient troop numbers and equipment. But more, I disagree with the political micromanagement of the military from Washington, and Mr. Rumsfeld needs to be held accountable for that. He's turned this into Vietnam part II (or, perhaps more accurately, Soviet Afghanistan: The Sequel), where the military needs political clearance for operations, etc.
So basically I supported the invasion from the beginning because something needed to be done about Hussein and this seemed (and frankly still seems) the best way to deal with him. I stand by my convictions on the matter, even though the operation has been bungled.
At Fri Jun 09, 01:04:00 p.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
Clarification: I supported the idea of the invasion from the beginning, and I really wasn't so bothered by UNSECO's lack of green light. It's obvious butchering by politicians does not lead me to support that campaign as executed, for reasons discussed above.
"I think this insergency has really caught them off guard, and now they don't have a clue what to do about it but to "stay the course".
And see, if you're planning a war, you kind of have to assume that the locals are going to be kinda peeved off to be plunged into a war when they weren't involved in one originally and a bunch of foreign soldiers just blew their neighbours, friends, and family who happened to serve in the Iraqi army into a thousand pieces.
At Fri Jun 09, 01:33:00 p.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
"But shouldn't that be for the Iraqis to decide?"
We both know they were powerless to decide.
"What's the standard? All evil dictators? The ones who don't help the US?"
Don't care whether they help the US or not, but I would say that the worst ones should be deposed, where circumstances allow and other alternatives are not presented. The problem is, on this issue, the alternatives have never been fleshed out and debated fully. It comes down to, "the war was wrong", and doing the proverbial ostrich when it comes down to what was happening in Iraq. Not necessarily on your part, but that's how this debate usually goes.
"And was it worth it to plunge the country into chaos and open the doors for terrorists?"
Not apparently. And that's the big weak link in my argument, and I recognize that.
"What's your choice?"
Well, you may roll your eyes at this and do a John McEnroe and say, "You CANNOT be serious", but if I thought by my suffering today - greivous though it might be - my family two generations from now might have a quality of life I never anticipated, I might be inclined to suffer through the pain. Only time (and not just two years) can tell what the teleology of this is going to be. Maybe in 2050 Iraq will a flourishing, prosperous, progressive, Western-style democracy where civil rights are respected, universities are packed and churning out intelligent and open-minded graduates, the economy is growing, and political rights are available for all. Who knows? While I chafe at the ridiculous "Saddam-would-have-killed-x-amount-of-people-apart-from-the-invasion" rhetoric of such even-handed thinkers as Small Dead Animals, it probably goes without saying that the scenario I present above would not have occurred under Mr. Hussein.
At Fri Jun 09, 02:18:00 p.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
"I don't necessarily subscribe to the whole powerlessness theory."
Well demonstrated, and I will therefore stipulate that Saddam's reign was internally challengeable. "When" and "by whom" is still up for questioning, I suppose, due to the Iraqi people's extremely limited exposure to democratic thought, either inside the country or from its immediate neighbours.
"And I didn't roll my eyes at your choice at all. perfectly valid and I agree with your reasoning. It's just not the choice I'd make."
Fair enough.
At Fri Jun 09, 02:52:00 p.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
I never disputed that. I will say that the desire may or may not be immoral, but that there was a desire there is beyond dispute. Even if it Saddam were, 10 years from now, to be toppled by a popular uprising, there is no guarantee of what that uprising would result in. Perhaps Iran II? And nobody wants that. Possibly something more like Turkey? Who knows? But the US didn't want to wait around for it to happen (if it were to happen at all) and then roll the dice as to whether what was there post-Saddam might actually be preferable to Saddam himself.
Frankly, after 9/11 the USA just should have dropped a smaller nuclear bomb somewhere in a desolate part of the Arab world and said, "Look, this time maybe 100 people died and an uninhabitable desert is now slightly less habitable. Next time, it's on a major city. Don't mess with us, we're crazy and don't like being the targets of terrorist acts. We're funny that way, so watch your behaviour."
At Fri Jun 09, 03:08:00 p.m. EDT,
Canadian Abroad said…
Desire for oil that is. I don't think the US really gives a whooey about democracy in a far away land which they would not be able to point out on a map.
At Fri Jun 09, 08:59:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
Something interesting that I came across today...
A visit to Haditha
Post a Comment
<< Home