Understanding Pro-war Christians' Indifference to Civilian Deaths

[Zoot]

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.

Acts of genocide perpetrated with the help of the US government, perpetrated by a dictator placed in power by the US government.

A few questions.

1. Where do you get the 2 million figure from?
2. Why does one war that kills innocents justify another war that kills innocents?
3. Wasn't the reason for invading to disarm Iraq of WMD no one thought it had?

 

[Ceris]

Acts of genocide perpetrated with the help of the US government, perpetrated by a dictator placed in power by the US government.

Even more justification for removing Saddam.

 

[Sycophant]

Even more justification for removing Saddam.

In the 'we made him, we can break him' school of thought?

The point of Zoot's post, I think, was that these acts which we now claim to be righting were conducted with the USA's knowledge and support. You can't take an act that the US condoned when it was occuring 20-odd years ago, and make it a justification for war now.

 

[Ceris]

In the 'we made him, we can break him' school of thought?

Not really. See below for explanation.

The point of Zoot's post, I think, was that these acts which we now claim to be righting were conducted with the USA's knowledge and support. You can't take an act that the US condoned when it was occuring 20-odd years ago, and make it a justification for war now.

Yes, previous US administrations made mistakes with how they handled Sadaam (even if the government doesn't want to admit it). And yes, many of those actions were wrong. However, that really doesn't have any real significance to the fact that it is good that Sadaam is out of power.

Hypothetical Example: Say Government Organization 1, for whatever reason, decides to help Power Hungry Man become the ruler of the (fictitional) country Brikslaviastan though means of a coup. Power Hungry Man becomes Evil Genocidial Dictator, slaughtering hundreads of thousand of his own people. Then later on, the Goverment of Government Organization 1 invades upon the grounds of humanitarian reasons and removes Evil Genocidial Dictator.

Just because Government Organization 1 had done wrong by putting Power Hungy Man in power by wrongful means, doesn't mean that it was wrong for Goverment of Goverment Organization 1 to remove Evil Dictator from power.

Hope what I'm trying to get at comes across, because it's really late.

Night.

 

[Zoot]

I'm not sure that I'd agree with "we killed innocent people by putting him there, so we're justified in killing innocent people by taking him out." The point of my post, really, is that it should be obvious to everyone that the US government does not have people's interests at heart. It's not the good guys. It's actions are evaluated in terms of benefits for US foreign investment, and the actions of the elected represented are evaluated in terms of securable votes. In order to secure votes, they don't have to be the good guys, they just have to convince their constituents that they're the good guys. And when they have such massive influence on the information fed to the constituents, they have that more or less in the bag.

Saddam was put in power because Saddam was favourable to US financial interests. Saddam stopped being favourable to US financial interests when he nudged a little too close to Saudi Arabia. Saddam has now been removed because it's favourable to US financial interests. That's how it works. There's no humanitarian ideals going on here. There's US financial interests, and a US populace who requires the illusion of humanitarian ideals in order to go along with its government's actions.

That's my point. Exactly how many times will this happen before the US citizens say, "Wait a minute! If terrorism is bad, why are we so often behind it? Isn't it also bad when WE do it (Nicaragua, etc.)? Why did we breach international law to invade Iraq to disarm it of WMD that the countries sitting right next to it weren't afraid of and the UN Security Council weren't convinced existed? Etc."

US foreign policy is friend only to US financial interests. It's not the goodie. It's not the policeman. It's not even the well-meaning vigillante. It's the rich crime boss.

 

[Ceris]

There's US financial interests, and a US populace who requires the illusion of humanitarian ideals in order to go along with its government's actions.

Not to single you out or anything, but I'm tired enough that this is the only point that comes to mind that I can refute semi-awake.

Just to point out: If the US populace requires the illusion of humanitarian ideals in order to go along with its government's actions, then why did the Bush administration focus upon WMD's (which was something that at best was unproven) as the primary justification for going to war rather humanitarian reasons (no one can argue w/the mass graves we already knew about)?

And with that, I'm going to bed.

 

[Zoot]

Not to single you out or anything, but I'm tired enough that this is the only point that comes to mind that I can refute semi-awake.

Just to point out: If the US populace requires the illusion of humanitarian ideals in order to go along with its government's actions, then why did the Bush administration focus upon WMD's (which was something that at best was unproven) as the primary justification for going to war rather humanitarian reasons (no one can argue w/the mass graves we already knew about)?

And with that, I'm going to bed.

Because the only thing more obedient than righteous Westerners is frightened Westerners.

Also because the Bush administration had to at least seem like they had exhausted the avenue of due process with the world community in the form of the UN Security Council to pass the action off as humanitarian. Instead of simply rolling on in to Iraq, they put up a show of trying to get a resolution, and thus painted the UN Security Council as failing by not putting through a disarmament-by-force resolution. Bush comes off seeming like the reluctant world policeman/hero. Then, once the invasion began, the emphasis was immediately placed on how evil Saddam was, so that when no WMD were found (as expected), the operation could still be passed off as a success, because the US citizens had been motivated to think that removing Saddam was the point all along.

The convincing of the American people that US foreign policy is humanitarian is just one of a number of means to an end - the compliance of US citizens, and their votes. Scaring them with tales of WMD is another way. Both combined is even better.


Sweet dreams, Ceris. If you're interested in what I'm saying here, check out "Hegemony or Survival" by Noam Chomsky. He compares the actions (with references) against the words of the US government when it comes to foreign policy (all US government, not just Republican or just Democrat).

 

[jameseb]

Acts of genocide perpetrated with the help of the US government, perpetrated by a dictator placed in power by the US government.

This statement couldn't me more inaccurate if it tried.... we didn't put Saddam in office.... and we certainly didn't support Saddam's bloodthirsty campaign against his own people.

I'll assume that there can be no serious discussion with comments such as those... and while some of you just LOVE to argue endlessly about Iraq, this wasn't the OP and it certainly wasn't what I was addressing so how about staying on topic?

A few questions.

1. Where do you get the 2 million figure from?

Now this is on-topic with my post.

1.5 million killed during the Iran-Iraq War.
300,000+ Iraqi citizens killed by Saddam's henchmen
Tens of thousands more killed in Kuwait and in Iraq during the first Gulf War, etc., etc.

2. Why does one war that kills innocents justify another war that kills innocents?

Another good question on-topic with my post, even if I already answered it.

Let's see.... 2 million dead under Saddam versus 10,000 (assuming that number is even accurate) that have died during the liberation of Iraq.

To recap: 2,000,000 vs. 10,000. If I need to make that any plainer, please, let me know.

3. Wasn't the reason for invading to disarm Iraq of WMD no one thought it had?

And this has what to do with my post?

Regardless, you set yourself up with that question. No, it was one of the reasons listed for invading Iraq and certainly the most hyped reason. However, Saddam's genocide against his own people was one of the reasons also listed to support action against Iraq. Sure, WMD's was the number one reason heralded by the administration, but, IMO, it was the worst reason to lead the charge with. All the same, the genocide in Iraq was also listed as a reason for invading Iraq.

Now I know some people just like drone on and on and on about the war in Iraq... but I was specifically answering the charge (please refer to OP again) as to why I, as a Christian, would support war in Iraq. If you want to honestly discuss my reply to the OP then fine.. that's great. But if you want to engage in off-topic and inane debate over issues that have been argued ad nausem here for months then don't expect a reply from me. Thanks.

 

[Zoot]

This statement couldn't me more inaccurate if it tried.... we didn't put Saddam in office.... and we certainly didn't support Saddam's bloodthirsty campaign against his own people.

Uh, yes, you did. With weapons sales and aid money.


I'll assume that there can be no serious discussion with comments such as those... and while some of you just LOVE to argue endlessly about Iraq, this wasn't the OP and it certainly wasn't what I was addressing so how about staying on topic?

It was in response to your post. If your post wasn't on topic, then my response to it won't be.


Now this is on-topic with my post.

1.5 million killed during the Iran-Iraq War.
300,000+ Iraqi citizens killed by Saddam's henchmen
Tens of thousands more killed in Kuwait and in Iraq during the first Gulf War, etc., etc.

Still wondering where you get the figures from. Not necessarily disagreeing with them. Also, the US was selling arms to both Iran and Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.


Let's see.... 2 million dead under Saddam versus 10,000 (assuming that number is even accurate) that have died during the liberation of Iraq.

To recap: 2,000,000 vs. 10,000. If I need to make that any plainer, please, let me know.

It's not 2,000,000 vs. 10,000. It's 2,000,000 + 10,000. Are you suggesting that Saddam was going to start another war with his neighbours?



And this has what to do with my post?

You were justifying the invasion in terms of deaths caused by Saddam, when that wasn't the justification given by your own government.


Regardless, you set your own self up with that one! No, it was one of the reasons listed for invading Iraq and certainly the most hyped reason. However, Saddam's genocide against his own people was one of the reasons also listed to support action against Iraq.

I was watching pretty closely. I don't remember this. Could you find me a link? Perhaps a news article from the time? Or a speech from the time from the White House website?


Sure, WMD's was the number one reason heralded by the administration, but, IMO, it was the worst reason to lead the charge with. All the same, the genocide in Iraq was also listed as a reason for invading Iraq.

Again, I was watching closely, and I don't remember this. I remember a lot of American people getting the idea, apparently through some kind of osmosis, but I don't remember the US administration saying it. A reference would be handy.


Now I know some people just like drone on and on and on about the war in Iraq... but I was specifically answering the charge (please refer to OP again) as to why I, as a Christian, would support war in Iraq. If you want to honestly discuss my reply to the OP then fine.. that's great. But if you want to engage in off-topic and inane debate over issues that have been argued ad nausem here for months then don't expect a reply from me. Thanks.

I was simply addressing your post, which was about your support for the war in Iraq and your reasons for it. I have satisfactorily addressed them, so you can not respond to this post if you like. Or if you would like to respond to it, feel free to start a new thread.


Why do American Christians support the war in Iraq? They think they're the good guys. Case in point, Jamesb's justification in terms of kill scores.

 

[Western Deity]

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm#Iran-Iraq

^ Just for you Zoot .

 

[jameseb]

Uh, yes, you did. With weapons sales and aid money.

Uh, you mean the Chinese-made AK-47's? You mean the Russian made T-72 tanks? You mean the MIG-27's and 29's? Uh, sorry... those aren't American made. Case closed... and as I said, it has nothing to do with my post... so spare me the sidetrack.

It was in response to your post. If your post wasn't on topic, then my response to it won't be.

But my post was on topic. Me discussing my justification for war, based on being a Chrisitian, has zilch to do with the absurd statement that the United States put Saddam in power however.

Still wondering where you get the figures from. Not necessarily disagreeing with them.

Well, its not that hard to find........ http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EPF/is_15_103/ai_112354644

"In July 1998, Iran accepted a United Nations-mandated ceasefire. By the end of the war, an estimated 1.5 million people were dead and another 1.7 million people had been wounded."

Also, the US was selling arms to both Iran and Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.

Like I said, we don't make MIG's and AK-47's, but as I also stated.. I'm really not interested in delving further off topic.

It's not 2,000,000 vs. 10,000. It's 2,000,000 + 10,000. Are you suggesting that Saddam was going to start another war with his neighbours?

And are you suggesting he would suddenly turn peacenik and sing kumbaya with his neighbors? Saddam is responsible for the death of nearly 2,000,000 people. That's justification enough for me to go to war.

Question ~ what number dead would you attribute to a justifialbe reason for war? And please, I'm not interested in America this, or America that.... I'm asking you point-blank... how many people killed by country X would it take before you thought war to put an end to it was justified by your own moral conviction?

You were justifying the invasion in terms of deaths caused by Saddam, when that wasn't the justification given by your own government.

Like I said, which you apparently are ignoring, it was one of the reasons given for action against Saddam. Regardless, MY justifications for war have nothing to do with that of my government. Again, I was addressing the OP's question about my view of it based on being a Christian.

I was watching pretty closely. I don't remember this. Could you find me a link? Perhaps a news article from the time? Or a speech from the time from the White House website?

You apparently were able to type this message. You apparently are quite capable of diverting from my original post, so surely you can find it yourself.

Again, I was watching closely, and I don't remember this. I remember a lot of American people getting the idea, apparently through some kind of osmosis, but I don't remember the US administration saying it. A reference would be handy.

You want to go off-topic, mate, you look it up. Enjoy.

I was simply addressing your post, which was about your support for the war in Iraq and your reasons for it. I have satisfactorily addressed them, so you can not respond to this post if you like. Or if you would like to respond to it, feel free to start a new thread.

Since you apparently like drilling Americans and blaming them for Saddam, perhaps you should start a thread yourself. I'm just dandy with the OP as it is. It was you, after all, that decided to quote my post and journey down the rabbit trails...

Why do American Christians support the war in Iraq? They think they're the good guys. Case in point, Jamesb's justification in terms of kill scores.

Oh, I didn't realize that New Zealanders spoke for us Christian Americans. Thanks, but lets try to be a little more "liberal" and let them speak for themselves, m'kay?

 

[praying]

Christians certainly are not in any rush to seek destruction of life, but we understand the value more than most of freedom. No other group of people has suffered more throughout history because of the way they believe, save for the Jews. No other group of people understands more than Christians that the greatest right humanity has is that of being free.

As an African American I can truly say I 100% disagree with the above, except the reference to the Jews. I bet it is safe to say that you have never ever felt persecuted or deprived of any freedoms ever.

You can cry about civilian losses during war all you want, but it isn't the men with the United States flag on their shoulders that hide behind women and children, that blow up bombs in the middle of children receiving handouts of candy, that ambush people simply trying to make a better life for themselves. It isn't our soldiers who TARGET civilians. We spend billions and billions of dollars on new technologies that allow us to strike accurately in order to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible, rather than simply strapping bombs onto our chests and running into the middle of a crowded cafe somewhere.

I agree that we do not target civilians but I think the point the article was trying to make was how easy some of us forgo what Jesus taught to support political policy. We cannot say because we don't do X that what does happen at our hands is somehow okay or should be overlooked because of the greater good. Jesus clearly was and would be a pacifist and often times, most times in fact that is the much harder road to travel, to turn the other cheek.

Please, people, just try and look a little father down the road for once, and realize that there is more at stake here than Iraq, more than Afghanastan... This is a bid for freedom for a whole society that has lived countless years under the iron fist of tyranny and terror.

The only problem I have with this argument is, yes the standard "liberal" stance but a fact that cannot and should not be ignored, this is not why we went to war in Iraq or Afghanistan; (I supported the Afghanistan war, perhaps not all of the methods, i.e. cluster bombs and mines but that is another thread) to free the masses from [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and instill democracy. I find it disingenuous to use this as a "smooth over" for the death and destruction that has occurred in Iraq by the coalition of the willing (*cough* United States and to a lesser degree Britain). It is also an extremely naive belief to think that the US has or is a benevolent power willing to sacrfice its' soldiers, money and many other factors for the greater good of the world if it is not somehow politcally and or economically expedient to do so.

For those who have sacraficed their lives in the pursuit of this "bloodthirsty" pursuit, GOD BLESS YOU!!

to those who have paid the ultimate price in this conflict on both sides.


As for the article I think the author makes an awful lot of sweeping generalizations which is a big part of the polarization problem that exists here in America today.

 

[praying]

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.

Ahh I beg to differ, yes we most certainly can. Saddam is the same today, as he was yesterday, as he was when we gave him the weapons, as he was when he first took over Iraq; ruthless and brutal and the US knew it.

 

[Whyzdom]

Ahh I beg to differ, yes we most certainly can. Saddam is the same today, as he was yesterday, as he was when we gave him the weapons, as he was when he first took over Iraq; ruthless and brutal and the US knew it.

I guess we will have to agree, to disagree on this issue. If you borrow a friends gun under the premise of using it for target shooting, then go out and commit murder, your friend isn't guilty is he?

 

[drboyd]

"Target shooting?" With chemical weapons?

Eh?

I guess we will have to agree, to disagree on this issue. If you borrow a friends gun under the premise of using it for target shooting, then go out and commit murder, your friend isn't guilty is he?

 

[drboyd]

Well, yeah. I guess so. More details on the U.S. support for Saddam are available at http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/03/sp_world_battle022703.htm

A video of the above meeting is available at http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/shakinghands_high.wmv

<snip>
Yes, previous US administrations made mistakes with how they handled Sadaam (even if the government doesn't want to admit it). And yes, many of those actions were wrong. <snip>

 

[Zoot]

Like I said, which you apparently are ignoring, it was one of the reasons given for action against Saddam. Regardless, MY justifications for war have nothing to do with that of my government. Again, I was addressing the OP's question about my view of it based on being a Christian.

James,

Your justifications have nothing to do with the justifications of your government.

That clarifies things.

 

[Ceris]

Yes, previous US administrations made mistakes with how they handled Sadaam (even if the government doesn't want to admit it). And yes, many of those actions were wrong.

That has no bearing upon the question of whether or not it was justified to go to war with Iraq.

But enough off topic posting.

 

[Zoot]

Yes, previous US administrations made mistakes with how they handled Sadaam (even if the government doesn't want to admit it). And yes, many of those actions were wrong.

That has no bearing upon the question of whether or not it was justified to go to war with Iraq.

It does when the real reasons behind the invasion of Iraq are the same reasons behind what are now called "mistakes in handling Saddam" - US financial interests.


But enough off topic posting.

It would seem less people were trying to get the last word if they said this without their off-topic contribution preceding it.


I think it's actually on topic, though. Christians have morals. Not only do they justify supporting wars, they must justify it, even if that justification is essentially rationalising support for their government that is not explicitly religious (the support, not the government).

Now, I don't particularly agree with the OP article either. I don't think American Christians are bloodthirsty. If they were, they wouldn't feel compelled to justify these things. And they obviously feel strongly compelled to justify. I think that American Christians' notions of right and wrong have such an influence over them that it makes them easily led to support an action if they are convinced that the action is "right" and the victims are "bad". I think that the US government has succeeded admirably in demonising first Communists, then drug producers, now Arabs/Muslims to the point where they are perceived as faceless, irrationally evil/hateful/anti-American robots with whom it is difficult to empathise.

Once the government's action is identified in the American Christian's mind with "what is right", all of the considerable conviction with which the American Christian follows his morality gets subverted into convicted support for the government.

In a sense, I suppose I think that American Christians are victims of the same machine that demonises the Muslims. Of course, the American Christians aren't getting killed, just getting duped, so they get a better deal.

 

[praying]

I guess we will have to agree, to disagree on this issue. If you borrow a friends gun under the premise of using it for target shooting, then go out and commit murder, your friend isn't guilty is he?

Why do you choose to not find the US culpable on some level even though we knew what he was like when we gave him weapons?


You make the comparison of giving a friend a gun; a better comparison would be giving a deranged friend a gun and then yes, yes you do share some burden of the guilt when that friend uses the gun to kill someone. It is no different then being held accountable when you have a party and allow a guest to drink themself until they are drunk then let them drive home and on the way they kill someone.