Pro-War Essay Fails In So Many Ways
An essay circulated into my inbox last week that made the case for our involvement in the war in Iraq. It is not a new essay. Researching around, I found it was written in July 2006. But despite the age of this essay, there are some who believe that the arguments presented are still valid, even if some may hold some reservation on the details.
Despite the length, I have written a response to most of the points of the essay. I believe that when put under scrutiny, this essay fails miserably to justify our involvement in the Middle East.
I invite comments, both pro and con.
At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war
The American people may have been isolationist and pacifist, but not true of the government, at least in Asia. The U.S. put sanctions against Japan for their invasion of China. This is not an “isolationist, pacifist” action. It is basically an attack on Japan’s economy. Implied elsewhere in this essay, such an attack on the economy would justifiably be an act of war. Furthermore, proof has already come out that our government knew before December 7 that an attack on Pearl Harbor was imminent and could have been easily defended against.
But why allow such a tragedy? Because it makes it easier for the government to spew its pro-war propaganda and convince a people who don’t want to go to war.
Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico , as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe
I don’t doubt that they such long-range plans, but such plans are hardly viable considering the logistics and size of their military. One only needs to look at us and our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan to show how an endeavor to conquer the U.S. would have been futile. The greatest military power in the world, yet these third world countries have caused us nothing but trouble.
How much more for Germany and Japan had they actually implemented invading America? Considering that Americans at that time loved their 2nd amendment, Japan and Germany would have suffered great losses, therefore weaken their grip on their empires.
Consider this. Germany would have conquered the tiny country of Switzerland, but would have suffered tremendously at the hands of the Swiss because of their well-armed citizenry. How much more would have Germany suffered against America had they actually tried to invade it?
The US was certainly not prepared for war.
Yet, would the Axis have been victorious in conquering a well-armed U.S. citizenry? The author wants us to believe that without a well-armed military, the U.S. would have crumbled. This is nothing more than state worship.
Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire war effort against the Brits, then America . If that had happened, the Nazis could possibly have won the war.
See above. And to add to that, even if Russia had surrendered, the German army suffered tremendous loss and would not have had the man-power to even think of invading America. The author’s argument is simplistic and his conclusions derived without consideration of other factors (e.g. armed citizenry, feasibility of overseas invasion).
There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants, and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world.
And yet here we have Pakistan who already has nuclear weapons and we send them billions of dollars. Ironic! What is to say that this country would remain “friends” with the U.S.? There is enough turmoil in Pakistan from its people to turn that country against us. It is a Muslim country ruled by a U.S. puppet dictator. And we’re worried about Iraq? We’re worried about Iran, who’s nuclear capabilities are still years away?
If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US , European, and Asian economies.
The U.S. economy is going to collapse on its own, whether or not the Wahhabis are in control. The U.S. dollar index has dropped so significantly, the only thing the Federal Reserve can do is to either raise the interest rates, like Paul Volcker in the early 80s, causing a severe recession, or inflate the currency, therefore destroying the dollar with massive hyperinflation. To use this argument as a crutch to justify intervening in the Middle East is pointless.
Furthermore, our continued intervention and empire building in the Middle East is adding to the problems of our economy due to deficit spending.
(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades Saddam is a terrorist! Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, responsible for the deaths of probably more than a 1,000,000 Iraqis and 2,000,000 Iranians.
Regime change does not justify our intervention in that country. As brutal as Saddam was, his removal only set the stage for the chaos that is going on in that country. His regime was secular and kept all Muslim sects in check.
And since death tolls are being thrown around, how many Iraqis have been killed because of this war? Due to collateral damage on our part and the violent civil war resulting of our intervention, it is estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis have died. Let’s not forget that our intervention in that area under Clinton. When questioned if the death of 500,000 children was worth it, Albright didn’t even bat an eyelash when she said yes. What happened to the Just War theory where we are not supposed to kill the innocent?
And to throw the Iranian deaths in the mix? Our government was the one who funded Saddam in the Iraq-Iran war and we supplied him with the weapons. And now we condemn him for those deaths? Our government is just as guilty of this crime.
One has to wonder, also, how many Assyrian Christians have been completely displaced because of this war. Even God would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah had there been 10 righteous living in the cities. Yet here we sit in judgement of Iraq and the 800,000 Assyrian Christians suffer for our intervention.
We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq . We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq , which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.
How convenient that the death of Iraqi civilians isn’t even mentioned. And what of the “democratic change” in Iraq? Without a change of heart, democracy is pointless. What if the Wahhabis “win” and actually want a democratic society? Do we deny them that because we don’t agree with their ideology. Sorry, but democracy in that area would not change things. It is a false positive that things will be OK should a democracy be stable in that region.
And this idea of “the ones we get there we won’t have to get here” is foolishness. Our occupation has become a rally point for more Muslims to offer themselves up for sacrifice. We’re lopping off the heads of the hydra, but only creating more heads.
WW II, the war with the Japanese and German Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor . It began with the Japanese invasion of China . It was a war for fourteen years before the US joined it. It officially ended in 1945 -- a 17 year war -- and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own a gain . . a 27 year war.
As I mentioned before, the U.S. laid sanctions against Japan prior to Pearl Harbor. We were intervening before we were intervening.
WW II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP -- adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars. WW II cost America more than 400,000 soldiers killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.
The Iraq war has, so far, cost the United States about $160,000,000,000, which is roughly what the 9/11 terrorist attack cost New York. It has also cost about 3,000 American lives, which is roughly equivilant to lives that the Jihad killed (within the United States ) in the 9/11 terrorist attack .
This essay is from mid-2006. This war has gone beyond $160 billion (some estimate over a trillion dollars) and we’ve already had more than 4000 American lives lost.
Still, despite the “low cost” of this war, it still goes against a couple of tenets of the Christian Just War theory.
1. We do not have the means to win this war. We either borrow the money from China or just have the money printed to finance this war. Furthermore, you don't win against an idea (terrorism) by putting a bullet into a religious people. Our own Christian history shows that!
2. Non-combatants are dying. It is estimated the 600,000 Iraqi civilians have died because of the results of our intervention, whether it is directly from our own artillery or sectarian violence.
The cost of not fighting and winning WW II would have been unimaginably greater -- a world dominated by Japanese Imperialism and German Nazism.
A world dominated by two relatively small countries? They may have dominated their respective areas, but the world? This is a dubious assumption, highly speculative.
If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq , then we have an ally, like England , in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East . The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates to conquer the world.
This is another highly speculative assumption that democracy would change the hearts of the people. This should be abhorrent to the Christian since it replaces Christ as the changer of hearts.
We have four options:
1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.
And yet, no one knows what victory actually looks like? We actually had a victory over the Taliban in Afghanistan, yet, now, they are in power again. No pro-war hawk has a clue as to what it would take to be victorious in this war and to maintain that as the status quo.
2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran 's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).
“As early as next year” would actually refer to this year, yet Iran still doesn’t even have nuclear power! And at best, the technology to create a nuclear weapon is still 5 to 10 years from now. Why does it seem that preventative, pre-emptive war is the only option here? This is nothing more than fear-mongering.
3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East now; in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.
OR
4. We can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and possibly most of the rest of Europe . It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.
These last two points are so far-fetched that they’re laughable. What Navy do they even have to mount any kind of offensive? What invasion force do they have? Iraq is landlocked and Iran has only one coastline to build a Navy.
France and Germany could be dominated by Jihadist, but not by military means. They'll be dominated because of their own laziness to stifle Muslim revolts in their country, let alone their own laziness to promote the Christian faith.
If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.
Again, this is nothing more than fear-mongering.
The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
The implication here is to be the most determined and ruthless in order to win. The author, whether intentional or not, has just advocated the murder of innocents. It's Sherman's March to the Sea!
But this also implies the advocacy of torture, which no Christian should ever condone. There is no justification for it Biblically.
Furthermore, by advocating murder and torture, we redefine the moral high ground. The Golden Rule has no principle in war. Instead, we adopt evolution's "survival of the fittest" without exception.
Remember, perspective is every thing, and America 's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.
I actually agree with this. It teaches so little history that Americans grow up with no defense against revised and/or edited history and propaganda. Americans have been so dumbed-down by the socialist school system that they lack any kind of real critical thinking to see through this author’s propaganda.
The stakes are at least as high. A world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).
Or a world dominated by a tyrannical one-world Marxist ideology that imposes egalitarianism at all levels at the barrel of a gun. That is what our government has become, with the Democrats on the Left and the neoconservatives on the Left. The continuance of this war only serves their purposes, not any kind of Christian worldview. It's just one tyranny trying to conquer another tyranny.
It's difficult to understand why the average American does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis.
They favor these for the Iraqis, just not the means why which this comes about. It’s a false dilemma.
Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran , Syria , Iraq , Sudan , North Korea , in the places that really need peace activism the most? I'll tell you why! They would be killed!
Or maybe it is because their governments don’t want outsiders coming into their country. We certainly aren’t open for foreigners coming into our country and calling upon our government to change their policies (though with the lack of defense at our borders, we've allowed illegal immigrants to spout treasonous diatribes against our nation), so why the double standard here? I’ll tell you why! Because their argument false flat on its face!
Also, who is to say that there aren’t peace activist in those “places that really need peace activism the most”? Just because you don’t hear about them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Maybe the author has never heard of Christian missionaries? Blessed are the peacemakers, those awesome Christians of conviction, who stand up against the tyranny of those foreign governments. And yes, they do get killed.
The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. But if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc.
Again, a far-fetch highly speculative notion that America could be conquered in such a way.
Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy!
You cannot liberate the people of Iraq if they oppose our occupation and the havoc that it has wrought in the land. Anyone who really wishes for the liberation of Iraq would allow the Iraqi people to sink or swim without our interference. By staying, we’ve only traded one dictator for another “Decider”.
Final Thoughts
There are many pro-war supporters who are realizing that, despite how much they want for us to stay in Iraq and go into Iran, our country cannot do it without destroying our country from within.
Money is the blood of war, plain and simple. By borrowing so much from China and Japan ($2 to $3 billion a day), our country has become debt slaves to them. Our country is also a debt slave to the private investors of the Federal Reserve Bank, who continuously print money out of thin air, therefore devaluing our currency. It is not a matter of if our currency is going to collapse. It is a matter of when. Our extravagent domestic and foreign spending, especially our war expenditures, only hastens the inevitable. Thus is the way of the empire.
So, for those who believe in the fear-mongering that we'll be conquered by Muslim extremist, which provides a strong defense against the Jihadist: A strong or weak economy?
Despite the length, I have written a response to most of the points of the essay. I believe that when put under scrutiny, this essay fails miserably to justify our involvement in the Middle East.
I invite comments, both pro and con.
At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war
The American people may have been isolationist and pacifist, but not true of the government, at least in Asia. The U.S. put sanctions against Japan for their invasion of China. This is not an “isolationist, pacifist” action. It is basically an attack on Japan’s economy. Implied elsewhere in this essay, such an attack on the economy would justifiably be an act of war. Furthermore, proof has already come out that our government knew before December 7 that an attack on Pearl Harbor was imminent and could have been easily defended against.
But why allow such a tragedy? Because it makes it easier for the government to spew its pro-war propaganda and convince a people who don’t want to go to war.
Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico , as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe
I don’t doubt that they such long-range plans, but such plans are hardly viable considering the logistics and size of their military. One only needs to look at us and our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan to show how an endeavor to conquer the U.S. would have been futile. The greatest military power in the world, yet these third world countries have caused us nothing but trouble.
How much more for Germany and Japan had they actually implemented invading America? Considering that Americans at that time loved their 2nd amendment, Japan and Germany would have suffered great losses, therefore weaken their grip on their empires.
Consider this. Germany would have conquered the tiny country of Switzerland, but would have suffered tremendously at the hands of the Swiss because of their well-armed citizenry. How much more would have Germany suffered against America had they actually tried to invade it?
The US was certainly not prepared for war.
Yet, would the Axis have been victorious in conquering a well-armed U.S. citizenry? The author wants us to believe that without a well-armed military, the U.S. would have crumbled. This is nothing more than state worship.
Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire war effort against the Brits, then America . If that had happened, the Nazis could possibly have won the war.
See above. And to add to that, even if Russia had surrendered, the German army suffered tremendous loss and would not have had the man-power to even think of invading America. The author’s argument is simplistic and his conclusions derived without consideration of other factors (e.g. armed citizenry, feasibility of overseas invasion).
There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants, and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world.
And yet here we have Pakistan who already has nuclear weapons and we send them billions of dollars. Ironic! What is to say that this country would remain “friends” with the U.S.? There is enough turmoil in Pakistan from its people to turn that country against us. It is a Muslim country ruled by a U.S. puppet dictator. And we’re worried about Iraq? We’re worried about Iran, who’s nuclear capabilities are still years away?
If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US , European, and Asian economies.
The U.S. economy is going to collapse on its own, whether or not the Wahhabis are in control. The U.S. dollar index has dropped so significantly, the only thing the Federal Reserve can do is to either raise the interest rates, like Paul Volcker in the early 80s, causing a severe recession, or inflate the currency, therefore destroying the dollar with massive hyperinflation. To use this argument as a crutch to justify intervening in the Middle East is pointless.
Furthermore, our continued intervention and empire building in the Middle East is adding to the problems of our economy due to deficit spending.
(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades Saddam is a terrorist! Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, responsible for the deaths of probably more than a 1,000,000 Iraqis and 2,000,000 Iranians.
Regime change does not justify our intervention in that country. As brutal as Saddam was, his removal only set the stage for the chaos that is going on in that country. His regime was secular and kept all Muslim sects in check.
And since death tolls are being thrown around, how many Iraqis have been killed because of this war? Due to collateral damage on our part and the violent civil war resulting of our intervention, it is estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis have died. Let’s not forget that our intervention in that area under Clinton. When questioned if the death of 500,000 children was worth it, Albright didn’t even bat an eyelash when she said yes. What happened to the Just War theory where we are not supposed to kill the innocent?
And to throw the Iranian deaths in the mix? Our government was the one who funded Saddam in the Iraq-Iran war and we supplied him with the weapons. And now we condemn him for those deaths? Our government is just as guilty of this crime.
One has to wonder, also, how many Assyrian Christians have been completely displaced because of this war. Even God would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah had there been 10 righteous living in the cities. Yet here we sit in judgement of Iraq and the 800,000 Assyrian Christians suffer for our intervention.
We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq . We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq , which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.
How convenient that the death of Iraqi civilians isn’t even mentioned. And what of the “democratic change” in Iraq? Without a change of heart, democracy is pointless. What if the Wahhabis “win” and actually want a democratic society? Do we deny them that because we don’t agree with their ideology. Sorry, but democracy in that area would not change things. It is a false positive that things will be OK should a democracy be stable in that region.
And this idea of “the ones we get there we won’t have to get here” is foolishness. Our occupation has become a rally point for more Muslims to offer themselves up for sacrifice. We’re lopping off the heads of the hydra, but only creating more heads.
WW II, the war with the Japanese and German Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor . It began with the Japanese invasion of China . It was a war for fourteen years before the US joined it. It officially ended in 1945 -- a 17 year war -- and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own a gain . . a 27 year war.
As I mentioned before, the U.S. laid sanctions against Japan prior to Pearl Harbor. We were intervening before we were intervening.
WW II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP -- adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars. WW II cost America more than 400,000 soldiers killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.
The Iraq war has, so far, cost the United States about $160,000,000,000, which is roughly what the 9/11 terrorist attack cost New York. It has also cost about 3,000 American lives, which is roughly equivilant to lives that the Jihad killed (within the United States ) in the 9/11 terrorist attack .
This essay is from mid-2006. This war has gone beyond $160 billion (some estimate over a trillion dollars) and we’ve already had more than 4000 American lives lost.
Still, despite the “low cost” of this war, it still goes against a couple of tenets of the Christian Just War theory.
1. We do not have the means to win this war. We either borrow the money from China or just have the money printed to finance this war. Furthermore, you don't win against an idea (terrorism) by putting a bullet into a religious people. Our own Christian history shows that!
2. Non-combatants are dying. It is estimated the 600,000 Iraqi civilians have died because of the results of our intervention, whether it is directly from our own artillery or sectarian violence.
The cost of not fighting and winning WW II would have been unimaginably greater -- a world dominated by Japanese Imperialism and German Nazism.
A world dominated by two relatively small countries? They may have dominated their respective areas, but the world? This is a dubious assumption, highly speculative.
If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq , then we have an ally, like England , in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East . The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates to conquer the world.
This is another highly speculative assumption that democracy would change the hearts of the people. This should be abhorrent to the Christian since it replaces Christ as the changer of hearts.
We have four options:
1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.
And yet, no one knows what victory actually looks like? We actually had a victory over the Taliban in Afghanistan, yet, now, they are in power again. No pro-war hawk has a clue as to what it would take to be victorious in this war and to maintain that as the status quo.
2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran 's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).
“As early as next year” would actually refer to this year, yet Iran still doesn’t even have nuclear power! And at best, the technology to create a nuclear weapon is still 5 to 10 years from now. Why does it seem that preventative, pre-emptive war is the only option here? This is nothing more than fear-mongering.
3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East now; in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.
OR
4. We can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and possibly most of the rest of Europe . It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.
These last two points are so far-fetched that they’re laughable. What Navy do they even have to mount any kind of offensive? What invasion force do they have? Iraq is landlocked and Iran has only one coastline to build a Navy.
France and Germany could be dominated by Jihadist, but not by military means. They'll be dominated because of their own laziness to stifle Muslim revolts in their country, let alone their own laziness to promote the Christian faith.
If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.
Again, this is nothing more than fear-mongering.
The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
The implication here is to be the most determined and ruthless in order to win. The author, whether intentional or not, has just advocated the murder of innocents. It's Sherman's March to the Sea!
But this also implies the advocacy of torture, which no Christian should ever condone. There is no justification for it Biblically.
Furthermore, by advocating murder and torture, we redefine the moral high ground. The Golden Rule has no principle in war. Instead, we adopt evolution's "survival of the fittest" without exception.
Remember, perspective is every thing, and America 's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.
I actually agree with this. It teaches so little history that Americans grow up with no defense against revised and/or edited history and propaganda. Americans have been so dumbed-down by the socialist school system that they lack any kind of real critical thinking to see through this author’s propaganda.
The stakes are at least as high. A world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).
Or a world dominated by a tyrannical one-world Marxist ideology that imposes egalitarianism at all levels at the barrel of a gun. That is what our government has become, with the Democrats on the Left and the neoconservatives on the Left. The continuance of this war only serves their purposes, not any kind of Christian worldview. It's just one tyranny trying to conquer another tyranny.
It's difficult to understand why the average American does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis.
They favor these for the Iraqis, just not the means why which this comes about. It’s a false dilemma.
Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran , Syria , Iraq , Sudan , North Korea , in the places that really need peace activism the most? I'll tell you why! They would be killed!
Or maybe it is because their governments don’t want outsiders coming into their country. We certainly aren’t open for foreigners coming into our country and calling upon our government to change their policies (though with the lack of defense at our borders, we've allowed illegal immigrants to spout treasonous diatribes against our nation), so why the double standard here? I’ll tell you why! Because their argument false flat on its face!
Also, who is to say that there aren’t peace activist in those “places that really need peace activism the most”? Just because you don’t hear about them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Maybe the author has never heard of Christian missionaries? Blessed are the peacemakers, those awesome Christians of conviction, who stand up against the tyranny of those foreign governments. And yes, they do get killed.
The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. But if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc.
Again, a far-fetch highly speculative notion that America could be conquered in such a way.
Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy!
You cannot liberate the people of Iraq if they oppose our occupation and the havoc that it has wrought in the land. Anyone who really wishes for the liberation of Iraq would allow the Iraqi people to sink or swim without our interference. By staying, we’ve only traded one dictator for another “Decider”.
Final Thoughts
There are many pro-war supporters who are realizing that, despite how much they want for us to stay in Iraq and go into Iran, our country cannot do it without destroying our country from within.
Money is the blood of war, plain and simple. By borrowing so much from China and Japan ($2 to $3 billion a day), our country has become debt slaves to them. Our country is also a debt slave to the private investors of the Federal Reserve Bank, who continuously print money out of thin air, therefore devaluing our currency. It is not a matter of if our currency is going to collapse. It is a matter of when. Our extravagent domestic and foreign spending, especially our war expenditures, only hastens the inevitable. Thus is the way of the empire.
So, for those who believe in the fear-mongering that we'll be conquered by Muslim extremist, which provides a strong defense against the Jihadist: A strong or weak economy?
posted by Soli Deo Gloria | 11/21/2007 03:07:00 AM
|
6
comments
