A mother asked a question of President Bush

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 24 2006, 02:41 AM) [snapback]276232[/snapback]</div>

I'm not a religious scholar but I know it says somewhere "No greater Love has man than to lay his life down for another" or something very close. Our soldiers do that every day. I think in that sense there is an equivelance.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(imntacrook @ Jun 25 2006, 08:52 AM) [snapback]276499[/snapback]</div>

I think this point is correct, even though I'm uncomfortable with the original quote.

I think what we've lost is the ability to make a moral distinction between an act done out of hate, and one done out of true concern. The act may be the same act, but the underlying reason for the act does matter, even if the result is the same.

We have no problem identifying certain things as morally distinct ... someone calling a black person the n-word as an insult is morally reprehensible, but a black comedian using the n-word to make a political comment, and thereby minimizing the word's impact, is acceptable. (Before people go off on this one, read the history of the song "Yankee Doodle" to see that this is a long held American tradition: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/apr19.html#yankee)

But many of us fail to see the moral distinction between genocide and the deaths of innocents during war (our current euphemism for them is "collateral damage", a horrible term that seems to equate humans with property). Bush is like Hitler, therefore, because both caused the deaths of innocents.

In the case of the soldier, the intent of his heart does indeed matter. Even soldiers in brutal, dictatorial regimes (for the religious among us, see Matthew 8:5ff) But no one is given a pass on doing evil because he thinks it right, and that's where the debate comes into play. Western culture has long held a "just war" standard, first formally formulated by St. Augustine just as Christianity was becoming the dominent political presence in the western world.

But where does the soldier stand in that argument? Is the German soldier of WWII as justified as the American, Canadian or British? Certainly the soldier who violates the standard against "crimes against humanity" has no standing to claim honor. But a soldier with the right intent of heart, like the soldiers who fought on the losing side in our own Civil War, or the regular German army soldier, barring crimes they commit, are to be honored.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 23 2006, 11:41 PM) [snapback]276232[/snapback]</div>

I"m not trying to belittle you.. just a difference in paradgm and viewpoint.....

Whether we fight in the flesh or in the spirit, all the same rules and principles still apply.

Often in order to save many, you must sacrifice yourself... its a law.... whether its to the death or not is not relevant... its just a law.

Its balance.... one lamb was allowed to die to take and absorb the sins for many others. But the lamb had to be innocent, or it was worthy of death too, so it wouldn't have counted.

Even so in war, life is given to win life.

If your afraid to give life for life, you will get death anyway without a reward.

Whether the cause for dying is just, the principle of dying for another is.

 

Today's (Sunday) Headline

"Iraqi troup withdrawl to begin in September"

Big suprise
Just before the election in November

Another example of morally bankrupt powerful men using our country's young service people as nothing more than pawns to enrich their personal fortunes, while shielding their own kids from going to war, then 'cutting and running' just in time to salvage their own elections. Yes, we mostly know this is nothing new, but I don't understand why half of the country plays along and defends this behavior. It's 'cutting and running' in July, but necessary for our national security in September, a mere 2 months later. WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO 'GETTING' OSAMA????

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jun 25 2006, 06:03 PM) [snapback]276699[/snapback]</div>

I'm surprised you object to it; these are the reductions that were planned for the beginning of this year or late last year. We are still at an elevated level, but the Iraqis have been a bit slower than we thought in picking up the pieces and forming their government. Reducing to 85,000 or 75,000 troops will not match the demand for all American troops to be out of the country by year end, or mid-2007.

While it could be politically motivated, disengaging America from Iraq is behind schedule. Things like this always take longer than you expect.

 

Its also clear that any move thats also in agreement with democratic wishes is just deemed as a manipulative political move because its an election year.

I'm sure there is some pressure by the party to commence certain promised agendas, even if in reality they don't get implimented too quickly because Iraq is slow.

We are growing a new nation.. like raising a new baby.. Spoonful and step at a time is how they grow, but many do not want to take the energy needed to raise a new baby and would rather abort them to free up thier resources and time for themselves.

But no matter what this administration does, they will be dogged by the democrats.
The democrates are in "desperate" need to find fault.

If we pull out as they request and the war effort isn't fruitful, it will surely be deemed a failed plan by Bush.

The Democrats "don't want" the effort to succeed.

It seems as far as the democrats are concerned, this whole effort is hopeless and that we should cut and run as this is the only solution?

But yet at the same time, I'm starting to hear many feel in light of our present commitment we should stay?

This is the confused rhetoric that irritates me coming from the democrats... they cannot make a decision and follow through!

I"m sorry to put it this way, but they want to solve everything and so solve nothing!

Like a man who with all good intentions tries to build a house, but then realized the cost is high and complications have arose, they abandon the effort and build a boat instead.

We need to apply whatever means needed to finish the job or agree the goal is unattainable...

I believe we can leave Iraq as its own independent country, but they are surrounded overwhelmingly by thier enemies and those who love the terroists way of life.

When we do leave, we will have to keep some type of presence there, or it will easily fall back into the ways of its surrounding countries. Even as we have had to nuture and stand beside Israel with a strong presence, it will be even harder with Iraq because of thier oil to protect them.

Without wholesale support from the world countries to solve this problem, the job is too big and too many resources are needed.

I also believe that we will finally get the support needed, but that it will be gathered from another source.

Probrably the head of the European Union will the catalyst that summons all the support.....

The problem with truely getting support from all the other nations is that.. the job is so big with an overwhelming support in that region for terror and that way of life that we will truly be on the road to Amegeddon.

I"m sorry to sound doom and gloom, but I see no other senario... its just a matter of time.

I know many will want to blame Bush for irritating the hornets nest, but someone had to or they would have taken over the world with ganster, mafia, terriost type behavior.

Look at Mexico.. who do you think is running that country?

This is what happens when morals and laws are not guarded and held precious.

This is what happens when we sherk in fear when the gangsters that outgun our police forces take over because we stuck our head in the sand so long that they gained power.

This is what happens when liberals let anything and everything happen because we don't want to fight and we all want to live in peace.

Sorry for the rant, but I'm tired of crybaby mentality that won't take responsibility for anything and don't have the guts to defend freedom.

We have gone long enough with the mentality that says to leave them alone as long as they leave us alone?

Fortunately the terrorist are stupid enough that they are affecting and stirring up the whole world to stand against them.

We started this war alone, but now many nations realize the danger of going to bed with them instead of fighting them.

In this selfish political war... the only thing most nations care about is thier own comfort, and riches and the hell with the evil thats taking over the world.... The evil that won't let thier children live in peace and prosperity...... so goes the liberal mentality.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jun 25 2006, 09:03 PM) [snapback]276699[/snapback]</div>

When the Iraqi's stand up , we'll stand down. That was the plan from the beginning. Neither John Kerry or Murtha have the information necessary to make a judgement. They are both stepping way over their bounds and harming our national security and risking soldiers lives for their own political gain. I don't recall either of them being voted in as Commander-in-Chief. I also get a kick out of people who scream for withdrawal and then call it political when conditions on the ground permit it. You'd think they'd be happy.

 

When people are disgruntled, they ignore and don't comment on or accept positives and only look for something to complain and be upset about or they are not happy. Literally "nothing" pleases them becuase they are unhappy inside so nothing on the outside works either.

Real ASSSSests tp the country!