Understanding Pro-war Christians' Indifference to Civilian Deaths

Philosoft said:

That's fine, but if we're going to take on the role of world anti-bad-dictator and democracy police, we need to be honest and forthright with not only the world, but also ourselves.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if you realize this, but we have been doing this long before President Bush took office... What do you call World War II when we went and fought the Germans?

I don't wanna hear how the end justifies the means anymore unless we intend to start employing that means-end philosophy across the board. Not just poor, uneducated states that we think probably won't put up much of a fight, and whose overthrow has strategic, economic advantages.

Click to expand...

As for a poor.. uneducated state not putting up a fight.. we thought Saddam's Army would put up a bigger fight.. but they didn't. The man used Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction on his own people... who is to say that he wouldn't have done it again.. only this time.. say he did it to Iran...or Israel...

Doctrine1st said:

Not really a war history buff, but it may be really kind of tough to compare the Iraq war with defending one's self for independence, and in his allience with Japan in our defense to Pearl Harbor, Hitler declaring war on us.

Bless you as well.

Click to expand...

Yeah.. I remember them darn German Planes hitting Pearl Harbor...

Word of Peace said:

Why Are Some American Christians So Bloodthirsty?

I think this article gives an excellent synopsis of why some American Christians support a pro-war stance despite its cost in innocent lives. The sidelining of Jesus' teachings - or disregard of them altogether - in their lives causes them to embrace moral relativism, and therefore, they do not object to the harm done to others if it does not negatively affect them. This is the essence of selfishness.

Note that I do not agree with the author's views on spanking (which she mentions briefly in the article), but that is a topic for another thread.

Click to expand...

When I see people getting their heads sawn off with a knife while still alive and conscience, and when I hear religeous chants and praises to God while they're sawing off the heads, I wonder why there's not 100-times the number of stories about Muslims. I guess it's more PC to bash Christianity as a whole, while at the same time, exonerate and coddle all Muslims.

Whyzdom said:

Yeah.. I remember them darn German Planes hitting Pearl Harbor...

Click to expand...

Once again, despite your nonsensical comment, Hitler declared war on the U.S. in his alligence and support with Japan.

When I see people getting their heads sawn off with a knife while still alive and conscience, and when I hear religeous chants and praises to God while they're sawing off the heads, I wonder why there's not 100-times the number of stories about Muslims. I guess it's more PC to bash Christianity as a whole, while at the same time, exonerate and coddle all Muslims.

Click to expand...

Excellent point there. I find Islam to be much less tolerant then Christianity on the whole, but I find Christianity to be muc more invasive. Crusdades, missionaries, and evangalists are the classical images of christians. They are content with just having their congregation they want to grow, and in an agressive way. Christians may have eliminated the slaughters of the past, but this may only be because of the size of their religion, and they still keep the pressure on. Screaming at people, telling them they are going to hell and should repent, shunning loved ones who have different beliefs, and simple door to door evangalism are the features of modern christianity that we deal with in our modern life.

Muslisms may despise us (obviously not all but it is in their doctrine), but they tend to keep more reserved about it, so long as you stay out of their land. They are more then willing to teach about their religion if asked, but do not take the same pushy attitude that many of us are accustomed to when dealing with Christians. Because the more fanatical and less tolerant Muslims live across the world and have little intent on moving into our town, county, state, or even country we tend to be more forgiving of them. Because Christians surround us and tend to try to push their beliefs aggressively, we often push back at them.

ChrisB803 said:

I just have one comment for those who feel the war in Iraq is an unjust one, or that Christians are "blood thirsty" because they support that war: Was the American war for independance from the British an unjust war? How about our war to stop the murderous rampage of a madman named Adolf Hitler? Should we give America back to Britain and say we're sorry? Should we insist that France now be considered part of Germany and apologize to the remaining Nazis in the world?
For those of you who see war as unjust, please feel free to leave your property to your local Indian neighbor, because Lord knows if anyone had their land stolen it was them.

Click to expand...

The American War of Independence wasn't engineered by another country; the French didn't say "oh, those poor Americans suffering under the tyrant King George must be liberated!" WE decided we wanted to rule ourselves, WE organized to fight the British, WE declared our independence; it wasn't decided for us by someone else. (However, if it weren't for French economic and military aid we might not have been victorious...)
The United States was still in isolationist mode when Hitler had already invaded Western Europe (France had already fallen, IIRC); it wasn't until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and the Axis powers declared war on the US that we actually went to war.
Sure, Saddam was a bad guy, the Iraqi people hated him and are better off without him. (I can't say I agree with the method, but what's done is done.) However, the more we compare mini-villains like Saddam to a true monster like Hitler, the more diluted the real evil Hitler represented becomes.
I agree that to some extent, all wars are unjust. Civilians die, crops and homes are destroyed, people are displaced, etc. There are times though when war can certainly seem justifiable. Fighting against the spread of seemingly unstoppable Nazi legions across the face of Europe (and the evil of the Holocaust) can be justified. Rising up as united colonies against England to claim our own independence could be justified. Playing regime change in an already-volatile region against a petty dictator with a decimated military force-- well...

myutmost4him said:

Ah... once again the old "all or nothing" argument.

Click to expand...

Well... isn't it? Do we just get to arbitrarily decide which peoples are oppressed enough to warrant invasion?

Haven't seen ya for a while, how you been?

Click to expand...

Physically broken and jobless until just recently. But things are looking up, as they always manage to do.

You know I think this philosophy is soft,

We can't feed all the starving people in the world so we should feed any

Click to expand...

Doesn't usually require overthrowing governments.

We can't adopt all orphans so we shouldn't adopt any

Click to expand...

See above.

If we can't cure all disease then we shouldn't try to cure any

Click to expand...

See above.

We can't stop all the terrorists coming into our countries so we shouldn't try to stop any

Click to expand...

See above.

The question is never if you can do everything, it's just about doing something and doing what you can. As Christians we know that we can't reach everybody, but we try to reach some or even one.

Click to expand...

Well, I have to be skeptical of your insinuation that Bush is doing this out of some sense of Christian duty. The man is a politician, first and foremost. Oppressed peoples weren't even worthy of public comment from the administration until our search for WMDs turned up empty.

In regards to policing the world, each situation needs to be evaluated seperately. Different strategies are needed for dealing with different situations. You can't (or shouldn't) just use simple blanket policies for every situation. I'm sorry, but the argument that because the US went into Iraq to depose Saddam now means they have to do it everywhere is quite simplistic and quite ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but the underlying philosophy doesn't change. Currently, we're allegedly trying to negotiate with North Korea, not because North Koreans are economically and politically oppressed - and they are - but because Jong Il has nukes.

What is too bad is the fact that the job has fallen to the US instead of the UN. Anti-Bush people always talk about oil and economic reasons for going into Iraq even though unsubstantiated, but never talk about the members of the UN who opposed the US taking action on Iraq in favour of the status quo which would allow them to continue making billions of dollars through trade and the oil for food policy, which is substantiated.

Click to expand...

I'm a little slow on the uptake here... what's this argument? That our invasion was justified because we didn't agree with the UN's program?

Whyzdom said:

I am not sure if you realize this, but we have been doing this long before President Bush took office... What do you call World War II when we went and fought the Germans?

Click to expand...

I call that, at best, two examples in 60 years. Vietnam, perhaps, but our motives were hardly sparkling in that case - 'Communists are bad atheists! Attack!'

As for a poor.. uneducated state not putting up a fight.. we thought Saddam's Army would put up a bigger fight.. but they didn't.

Click to expand...

Was this before or after Bush declared victory aboard a carrier?

The man used Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction on his own people... who is to say that he wouldn't have done it again.. only this time.. say he did it to Iran...or Israel...

Click to expand...

And these chemical weapons would come from where?

Philosoft said:

I call that, at best, two examples in 60 years. Vietnam, perhaps, but our motives were hardly sparkling in that case - 'Communists are bad atheists! Attack!'

Click to expand...

Somalia, Grenada, and various other little conflicts.. lest we forget those huh.

Was this before or after Bush declared victory aboard a carrier?

Click to expand...

Does it matter?

And these chemical weapons would come from where?

Click to expand...

Probably his chemical labs.. ya think? Who is to say he wasn't going to make more? We also gave Israel nuclear weapons... have they used them? You can't blame the U.S. because Saddam used Chemical weapons on his own people... that is like blaming gun manufacturers because some idiot stole a gun and killed someone.

Whyzdom said:

Somalia, Grenada, and various other little conflicts.. lest we forget those huh.

Click to expand...

Somalia didn't have much of a government at the time, so it's not like we were overthrowing or deposing. Grenada was yet again about Communism.

You can try, but I just don't think you'll be able to show that altruism is often a core motivation for US invasions.

Does it matter?

Click to expand...

Well, you say the administration expected heavier resistance at the outset, Bush gives the "major operations are over" carrier speech, then "insurgents" show up and it gets really ugly.

I guess I'd just like a little consistency.

Probably his chemical labs.. ya think?

Click to expand...

The ones located... where?

Who is to say he wasn't going to make more? We also gave Israel nuclear weapons... have they used them? You can't blame the U.S. because Saddam used Chemical weapons on his own people... that is like blaming gun manufacturers because some idiot stole a gun and killed someone.

Click to expand...

I don't see the point blaming anyone. I'm just saying, Saddam was obviously ruthless and somewhat megalomaniacal, but he gave no indication he was insane enough to use WMDs against the invading force. The US has used WMDs when sufficiently provoked, and I figure Hussein knew that.

Philosoft said:

Somalia didn't have much of a government at the time, so it's not like we were overthrowing or deposing. Grenada was yet again about Communism.

You can try, but I just don't think you'll be able to show that altruism is often a core motivation for US invasions.

Click to expand...

So you didn't disprove me... ok.

Well, you say the administration expected heavier resistance at the outset, Bush gives the "major operations are over" carrier speech, then "insurgents" show up and it gets really ugly.
I guess I'd just like a little consistency.

Click to expand...

Considering the insurgents came from different countries mostly, and Bush made that statement when we had defeated the major divisions of Saddam's Army. How is that hard to understand?

The ones located... where?

Click to expand...

It took us going in to find out there weren't any.. didn't it.

I don't see the point blaming anyone. I'm just saying, Saddam was obviously ruthless and somewhat megalomaniacal, but he gave no indication he was insane enough to use WMDs against the invading force. The US has used WMDs when sufficiently provoked, and I figure Hussein knew that.

Click to expand...

A man that used Chemical Weapons on his own people... he killed thousands upon thousands without Chemical Weapons.. as shown by the multitude of Mass Graves. What about the mass grave that was all women and children.. which included even pregnant women? If he would have had a Chemical/Biological Weapon.. which even his Generals thought they still had, he would have used it on our troops. To think otherwise is being naive and foolish.

Whyzdom said:

So you didn't disprove me... ok.

Click to expand...

Pardon? I think I've addressed every example you mentioned. I hope you're not talking about the "various other little conflicts" part.

Considering the insurgents came from different countries mostly, and Bush made that statement when we had defeated the major divisions of Saddam's Army. How is that hard to understand?

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware the insurgents "came from different countries mostly." Source?

It took us going in to find out there weren't any.. didn't it.

Click to expand...

I dunno, did it? Did our intelligence suggest he had active chemical weapons plants?

A man that used Chemical Weapons on his own people... he killed thousands upon thousands without Chemical Weapons.. as shown by the multitude of Mass Graves. What about the mass grave that was all women and children.. which included even pregnant women? If he would have had a Chemical/Biological Weapon.. which even his Generals thought they still had, he would have used it on our troops. To think otherwise is being naive and foolish.

Click to expand...

Really, now. I hardly think Saddam was terribly afraid of a massive military backlash from the Kurds. Think about the groups you're comparing first before you go throwing around pejoratives.

It took us going in to find out there weren't any.. didn't it.

Click to expand...

No it didn't. Many already knew.

A man that used Chemical Weapons on his own people... he killed thousands upon thousands without Chemical Weapons.. as shown by the multitude of Mass Graves. What about the mass grave that was all women and children.. which included even pregnant women? If he would have had a Chemical/Biological Weapon.. which even his Generals thought they still had, he would have used it on our troops. To think otherwise is being naive and foolish.

Click to expand...

Hard for him to use something he doesn't have.

Philosoft said:

Pardon? I think I've addressed every example you mentioned. I hope you're not talking about the "various other little conflicts" part.

Click to expand...

You didn't refute them.. You opinionated about them, but you never refuted them.

I wasn't aware the insurgents "came from different countries mostly." Source?

Click to expand...

Do your own research. It might clear things up a bit for ya.

I dunno, did it? Did our intelligence suggest he had active chemical weapons plants?

Really, now. I hardly think Saddam was terribly afraid of a massive military backlash from the Kurds. Think about the groups you're comparing first before you go throwing around pejoratives.

Click to expand...

So now you can read Saddam's mind? Think logically for a few seconds, he used them once.. which removed all doubts of his inability to use them again. Tough concept I know, but a very honest one.

The simple minded and the uninformed
Can be easily led astray
And those that cannot connect the dots
Hey look the other way

People believe what they want to believe
When it makes no sense at all
So be careful of those who kill in Jesus’s name
He don’t believe in killing at all

Click to expand...

John Mellencamp, "Walk Tall"

Understanding Pro-war Christians' Indifference to Civilian Deaths


Why Are Some American Christians So Bloodthirsty?

Click to expand...

First, I don't care for the insinuation being made in the title.

I support war in Iraq.

If I was "indifferent " to the death of 2 million people that have died as a result of Saddam's wars of greed and the mass-murder of his own population, including acts of geneocide against the Kurds, then I'd be against the war.

Having said that, I don't believe people opposed to the war are necessarily indifferent; some believe there's just absolutely no justification for war. I respect that.... unlike some who suggest that people such as I are bloodthirsty warmongers. They should try to think more "liberally" about other viewpoints instead of being so closed-minded and.... full of angry words and sarcasm. I always found such venom particularly ironic coming from "peace-lovers."

Alrighty. How does one value life?

Say if someone is in danger of being killed by their own government and you have the ability and power to protect that life, would you not do so? Than someone might say, "Even if that means killing other innocents, I think not!" but than someone might say, "How many more have to die before one takes action to protect that life?" and than one might say,"You let that one die so the others may live," than one might say, "So that person lives, yet 200 more take that persons place?" and one might say,"Being in a situation in which taking a life to protect life, stinks. No matter what is done someone is going to die. But if you do what you can, and do whatever you can to avoid taking the innocent lives, in the end more lives shall not perish because of this," and one might say,"So the ends justify the means?! Killing life to protect life?! That's absurd." During all this endless debating and the arguments, that person dies as well as hundreds of more.

Saddam had killed many before the war in Iraq started, and if left in power would have continued to kill more Iraqis. Getting the idea that, it's okay to condemn Bush for taking action and taking out Saddam, but it was okay for Saddam to kill Iraqis?

One thing it comes down too is...How many people are you willing to let die, when you have the power and ability to put an end to that killing?

Vylo said:

[/size][/font]


Muslisms may despise us (obviously not all but it is in their doctrine), but they tend to keep more reserved about it, so long as you stay out of their land. They are more then willing to teach about their religion if asked, but do not take the same pushy attitude that many of us are accustomed to when dealing with Christians. Because the more fanatical and less tolerant Muslims live across the world and have little intent on moving into our town, county, state, or even country we tend to be more forgiving of them. Because Christians surround us and tend to try to push their beliefs aggressively, we often push back at them.

Click to expand...

There are some moderate followers of Islam, but to the radical followers they are also considered infidels. There may be some pushy Christians, but I haven't heard of many that are out to convert people by force.

Omar Ahmad,
Co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
President & CEO of Silicon Expert Technologies, he is a Palestinian who grew up in a refugee camp in Jordan.

" Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant...
The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in
America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth," -Omar Ahmad

LOUIS FARRAKHAN (of the Nation of Islam) CONDEMNS AMERICA AND THE
JEWS
http://www.adl.org/presrele/NatIsl_81/2686_81.asp

Word of Peace said:

Why Are Some American Christians So Bloodthirsty?

I think this article gives an excellent synopsis of why some American Christians support a pro-war stance despite its cost in innocent lives. The sidelining of Jesus' teachings - or disregard of them altogether - in their lives causes them to embrace moral relativism, and therefore, they do not object to the harm done to others if it does not negatively affect them. This is the essence of selfishness.

Note that I do not agree with the author's views on spanking (which she mentions briefly in the article), but that is a topic for another thread.

Click to expand...

That antiwar.com site is run by paleoconservative fruitcakes. Here's another example of what that site puts out:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=3479

(excerpt:
Let the neocons scream "McCarthyism!" all they want. Because McCarthy was right – and so are those of us who have been pointing to Israeli subversion of U.S. national security since November of 2001. AIPAC must come clean, or be disbanded.