WHY do you oppose the war in Iraq?

DanteRisen said:

If this were even remotely true, the gas prices would have gone down a buck and half rather than up. If we were there for the oil we would already have it.

Click to expand...

Yeah only if the war was a success! Just because its architects are totally inept does not disprove their intentions.

I'm a pacifist, and others have already spoken my reasons for being so far better than I could.

An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind. ~Gandhi

Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary. ~Gandhi

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction.... The chain reaction of evil -- hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation. ~Martin Luther King Jr.

Violence and war can never resolve the problems of men. ~Pope John Paul II

War should belong to the tragic past, to history: it should find no place on humanity's agenda for the future. ~Pope John Paul II

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. ~General Dwight D. Eisenhower

I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me is more revolting. I have long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a method of settling international disputes. ~General Douglas McArthur

War is the greatest plague that can affect humanity; it destroys religion, it destroys states, it destroys families. Any scourge is preferable to it. ~Martin Luther

Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime. ~Ernest Hemingway


I will never support the institution of war, it is the greatest evil this world has known, I will not contribute to it's well being as it destroys the lives of hundreds of thousands. It is war that deserves to die, and I will do anything in my power to kill it.

I am not a pacifist, but I believe we did not have sufficient cause to justify starting a war with Iraq. So I voted that "Iraq is not a threat to the US", meaning that they were not a threat to the US before the war.

I picked other, because many of the reasons overlap. Being a former member of the US military, fighting in Afghanistan, I understand now the reasons for war. THe reasons behind this war were indeed false. The government claimed to have evidence of weapons of mass destruction. When they could not prove it, they went in anyway. Understand this, if they went on pure speculation in every investigation saying that they have evidence but never proving their evidence, they could come into your very home and arrest you. Simply put, comon household cleaners can be turned into a destructive weapon given the proper knowledge.

In Afghanistan we were looking for the criminals that attacked us. We had evidence and proof that their government knew where they wereand were affiliated with them. In Iraq we had no proof of anything and no real evidence. We went on the speculations of a small man in a big chair.

When it comes down to it this war was approved by the people who had nothing to risk and everything to gain. We proved ourselves wrong with the investigations, and now young men and women are paying for that mistake with their lives. People I used to work and play along side with are dying before they reach the age of 21.

I don't disapprove of war, but I do disapprove of this war. And in years to come this willbe a black eye on the reputation of our country and the Christian faith. Because this war was lead by a man that claims to be a Christian, yet orders people to their deaths for his personal gain and the gain of his other wealthy friends.

ScottishJohn said:

Its going to end up under Shariah Law. Not a great improvement - in fact a step backwards for women.

Click to expand...

How is it a step backwards for women? They can walk the streets without being picked up and raped repeatedly over several months?

rosenherman said:

How is it a step backwards for women? They can walk the streets without being picked up and raped repeatedly over several months?

Click to expand...

No actually they can't. They will have to be accompanied by a male relative otherwise anyone can pretty much do as they please to them, and it counts as their fault. Go read up on it!

rosenherman said:

How is it a step backwards for women? They can walk the streets without being picked up and raped repeatedly over several months?

Click to expand...

Yeah take a spin around the block in iraq without a beekeeper suit and a male relative and see what happens to you.

Ozymandius said:

Yeah take a spin around the block in iraq without a beekeeper suit and a male relative and see what happens to you.

Click to expand...

By beekeeper suit, I'm guessing you mean an afghan burqa. The Burqa is a cultural form of dress specific to central asia. Middle Easterns do not (that I have ever seen) wear afghan burqas. Iraqi women generally wear simple headscarves, or if they are shia, perhaps a long chador. With a large porition of the population being shia, I do not see any trend towards women covering their faces anytime in the future. Covering one's face is not required or recommended under the majority shia interpretation of sharia.

The Kurds are generally shafi, and generally do not believe covering one's face is required. The Iraqi arabs are a mix of shafi and hanafi, and generally also do not cover their faces.

Why do I oppose the war in Iraq? Because I have never seen any compelling evidence to show that a war to take out Sadaam would benefit the great War on Terror (or Struggle against Extremism, or whatever it is called today). All I can see is it making the current situation worse.

Ozymandius said:

Yeah take a spin around the block in iraq without a beekeeper suit and a male relative and see what happens to you.

Click to expand...

Doesn't sound quite right. As a matter of fact, you're wrong.

I voted for "because Iraq is not a threat to the US."

I am not a pacifist. What I believe is a very stringent interpretation of just war theory, and Iraq simply did not represent a dire threat, and indeed was taking no agressive action toward other nations. Violence is only acceptable in defence, and even then, it should be brought to the very minimum possible level.

DanteRisen said:

If this were even remotely true, the gas prices would have gone down a buck and half rather than up. If we were there for the oil we would already have it.

Click to expand...

Why would you expect the gas price to you to go down? Do you really think the Iraq invasion was fought for YOUR benefit and that of the majority of the US public?

seebs said:

It had everything to do with whether or not you should defend yourself.

Let's hear that passage, again:

Matthew 5:38-3938 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Okay, what is self-defense? Self-defense is when someone hits you and you make them stop. Sometimes, you might go further and hit them to make them stop.

Jesus condemns even the most clear-cut case. There isn't even any point in pretending that this could be turned into support for preemptive strikes. In fact, Jesus does, in fact, directly discuss the question of what to do when someone attacks you: Not fight back.

Click to expand...

Nope, that's so out of the context of the passage and bible. It's incredible how people blow this out of context to make it fit their anti-war beliefs.

There is a big difference in the act of attacking someone and "insulting" someone as this passage teaches. To strike someone on the cheek in Jewish custom is a terrible insult, always has and still is. Jesus just said don't insult them back. In fact it's not that he turns the other cheek to offer target for more abuse but he says turn the other cheek so that it will be difficult for them to insult you again. If the person uses their right hand (back) to slap your right cheek and you turn your other cheek they would need to change their position to strike the insult again.

Not a hard concept to understand. I think many have a problem understanding it because they want to spiritualize something that is plainly literal, in this case.
[sign]but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek[/sign]

Faith_Warrior said:

Nope, that's so out of the context of the passage and bible. It's incredible how people blow this out of context to make it fit their anti-war beliefs.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you could communicate to us what the context you think this is in was.

Helpfully, Jesus gave us the context, with "you have heard it said that".

[bible]Matthew 5:38-39[/bible]

The context here is retaliation for violence.

There is a big difference in the act of attacking someone and "insulting" someone as this passage teaches. To strike someone on the cheek in Jewish custom is a terrible insult, always has and still is.

Click to expand...

Beautiful dodge! The American judge gives it a 7.9, the Italian judge gives it an 8.3. The Russian judge is asleep.

Read the context. "An eye for an eye". That is not an insult. That is violence. Does Jesus say "resist not mild insult" or "resist not evil"?

Jesus just said don't insult them back. In fact it's not that he turns the other cheek to offer target for more abuse but he says turn the other cheek so that it will be difficult for them to insult you again.

Click to expand...

This is the second-worst interpretation of this passage I have ever seen; it is only beaten out by Gary North's surrealist attempts to turn it into a command to lie.

Not a hard concept to understand. I think many have a problem understanding it because they want to spiritualize something that is plainly literal, in this case.

Click to expand...

If you think the Sermon on the Mount is "plainly literal", I think it is you having the problem.

The Bible, it turns out, is generally seen as a spiritual document. Jesus was a spiritual leader:

[bible]John 18:35-37[/bible]

Jesus was a spiritual leader. If you do not wish to spiritualize his central teachings, I am afraid I cannot help you.

But let us see what else Jesus said that might bear on this.

[bible]Luke 6:30-38[/bible]

Hmm. Seems he says to love your enemies. Do you think killing people is a good way to express your love? Here is what Paul wrote about it:

[bible]Romans 12:17-21[/bible]

What are we fighting against, as Christians?

[bible]Ephesians 6:12[/bible]

We do not fight flesh and blood.

Your advocation of violence against the victims of those I truly oppose makes no sense to me. I am called, as a Christian, to oppose cruelty and violence. I am to oppose them by eschewing them and teaching people that there are alternatives.

The people who are not yet freed of these things are not the cause of evil, they are its victims. Rather than working to save them, as I am called, you argue that I should surrender to that which has victimized them and join in the endless ballet of destruction which has been the hallmark of violence and retaliation since before we had written language.

No.

I will not turn my back on the Savior who found me a way out of that mess. I will love all men, as commanded, and I will not fight them or kill them.

Let me tell you a story. It's about a very good person. This guy, his son was travelling in another land. And in this other land, his son was a bit of a troublemaker sometimes. He did no harm to anyone, but he stirred things up, and the local governments came to see him as a threat. They arrested him on trumped-up charges, and declared that he was to be publically put to death as a spectacle.

Now, this man whose son was to be put to death, he was powerful. He could have sent armies against these people, or killed them silently in the night. They had no defenses, really. He could have done anything. He could have rescued his son.

He didn't.

When you understand why I tell this story, you will understand why I believe that the clear intent of Jesus was to command us to not even engage in self-defense.

seebs said:

Perhaps you could communicate to us what the context you think this is in was.

Click to expand...

When I say spiritualize I'm referring to those that take something from the bible and read in their own doctrine of its meaning apart from its literal meaning presented. The Jews had this problem in that day (as some still do) as well as some in the Church do today.

Nope, this does not have the same meaning as an eye for an eye in its extreme meaning as was given to it by the Jews and adopted by the Church. Jesus is simply saying here not to return the insult in the same manner. Striking someone on the cheek is a VERY common insult of the day as it still is in Israel today. Wittingly we are not to return the insult as in context of an eye for an eye in the same manner but to make it difficult for them to do it a second time. You can "spiritualize" it all you want but that is what it plainly says. This passage is about "insulting" people. We are not in Iraq because of insults but from actions and to defend ourselves and others. Some wars have started from insults but not in this case.

I chose "other."

It's not so much the war itself I oppose, but the false pretenses surrounding it.

This war was about diverting America's attention away from Dubya's letting Osama Bin Laden (remember him? Bush doesn't) slip away -- partially because OBL is far more useful to the Bush admin. at large than in custody. Tyranny can only survive by pointing to bigger, badder tyrants as a threat. Where would Big Brother be without Emmanuel Goldstein?

This war is about US involvement in the Middle East. Israel is an ally in a precarious situation, and we certainly cannot abandon them. We now have a permanent military presence in the middle of this strategically important region.

This war is also being fought in the single most oil-rich region on the planet. War for Profit is as old as politics itself.

This war is also about consolidating domestic power here at home. Who would dare openly criticize a wartime president? To be anti-Bush is to be anti-America! (A strategy which worked fine in the beginning, but is now starting to show signs of wear)

Lastly, this war is about several minor issues, including family vendeattas and good old-fashioned Imperialism.

None of these things are objectionable to me; I've come to expect no less from our government. But at least be honest about it! It's an insult to our intelligence to parade this off as, first and foremost, some sort of crusade for Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

-- perhaps not so insulting, considering how many people have fallen for the story.

Faith_Warrior said:

When I say spiritualize I'm referring to those that take something from the bible and read in their own doctrine of its meaning apart from its literal meaning presented. The Jews had this problem in that day (as some still do) as well as some in the Church do today.

Nope, this does not have the same meaning as an eye for an eye in its extreme meaning as was given to it by the Jews and adopted by the Church. Jesus is simply saying here not to return the insult in the same manner. Striking someone on the cheek is a VERY common insult of the day as it still is in Israel today. Wittingly we are not to return the insult as in context of an eye for an eye in the same manner but to make it difficult for them to do it a second time. You can "spiritualize" it all you want but that is what it plainly says. This passage is about "insulting" people. We are not in Iraq because of insults but from actions and to defend ourselves and others. Some wars have started from insults but not in this case.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree with your factual premise that the American invasion of Iraq was not a response to "insult". Once the WMD issue was shown to be a fraud, once the Iraqi support for terrorism was shown to be a fraud, once the threat of the Iraqi government to the rest of the world was seen to be a fraud, the government of the United States was left with only the justification that the Iraqi government had flouted the terms of the armistace and was making a mockery of the United States.

This sounds like petty insults to me.

And the Christian response to insults, even under your eisegesis, is . . . ?

Why do I oppose the war in Iraq?

Because it was an offensive (not defensive) invasion and overthrowing of a Sovereign Nation.

Because it is an illegal war.

Because there was no real reason for it.

Because the reasons given for the war were lies.

Because it sets a dangerous precedent for future conflicts.

Because the war has destroyed a country unnecesarily.

Because the USA threw it's weight around like a 6 year old with a tantrum.

Because the war has destabalized the region more than it already was.

Because it has become a self-fulfiling prophesy.

Because it has caused a larger rift between the USA and the rest of the world.

Because the real focus of the war is control over the oil wells.

Because Bush's bank account is full thanks to (ironically) oil.

Because for the rest of the decade, half of the news stories will be about Iraq.

Faith_Warrior said:

When I say spiritualize I'm referring to those that take something from the bible and read in their own doctrine of its meaning apart from its literal meaning presented. The Jews had this problem in that day (as some still do) as well as some in the Church do today.

Nope, this does not have the same meaning as an eye for an eye in its extreme meaning as was given to it by the Jews and adopted by the Church. Jesus is simply saying here not to return the insult in the same manner. Striking someone on the cheek is a VERY common insult of the day as it still is in Israel today. Wittingly we are not to return the insult as in context of an eye for an eye in the same manner but to make it difficult for them to do it a second time. You can "spiritualize" it all you want but that is what it plainly says. This passage is about "insulting" people. We are not in Iraq because of insults but from actions and to defend ourselves and others. Some wars have started from insults but not in this case.

Click to expand...

Can't believe you have the gumption to reply to post which so clearly rebuked your error with this nonsense. Lame. You are the one trying to add a meaning to this passage which is not there.

Faith_Warrior said:

When I say spiritualize I'm referring to those that take something from the bible and read in their own doctrine of its meaning apart from its literal meaning presented. The Jews had this problem in that day (as some still do) as well as some in the Church do today.

Click to expand...

You mean, what Jesus did, as opposed to the dogmatic literalism of the Pharisees? You betcha.

The Pharisees were very very good at following the literal meaning of everything. No work on the Sabbath means no work. No healing, no gathering food even if you're hungry, no work at all.

The spiritual meaning, not the literal one, is the basis of the Christian faith.

Nope, this does not have the same meaning as an eye for an eye in its extreme meaning as was given to it by the Jews and adopted by the Church. Jesus is simply saying here not to return the insult in the same manner.

Click to expand...

This is simply untrue. If it were true, Jesus would have fought rather than dying.

Striking someone on the cheek is a VERY common insult of the day as it still is in Israel today. Wittingly we are not to return the insult as in context of an eye for an eye in the same manner but to make it difficult for them to do it a second time.

Click to expand...

And this is not true either.

You can "spiritualize" it all you want but that is what it plainly says. This passage is about "insulting" people. We are not in Iraq because of insults but from actions and to defend ourselves and others. Some wars have started from insults but not in this case.

Click to expand...

We are not defending ourselves; there was never any plan to attack us. We are in Iraq because Bush Jr. perceived an insult.

But nonetheless, what you call "spiritualizing", well... Yes. We are to walk in the spirit, not in the flesh. Your interpretation of this passage is a glorious indulgence of the flesh, allowing us to indulge our desire to feel strong and manly, to kill, to fight, to do everything and everything but love our fellow man as we were commanded.

I notice that you completely failed to respond to the example I gave about the father letting people kill his son. Why did you ignore that? Do you not agree that he was right to do so?