***Rumsfield Stepping Down***

[JustinM]

The UN is the largest, most useless beurocracy the world has ever seen and for the life of me, I do not understand why people continue to rely on that useless organization. They do not protect the oppressed or persecuted. I thought they were the world police, but they're just the mob. Only passivists continue to support the UN. But, hey if spending billions of dollars a year on a do nothing organization is what floats your boat, then by all means go for it, but the rest of us will continue to fight the good fight so that do nothings, like yourself, can go about living in their delusional utopic world without being required to fight for it.

[JustinM]

Sheep can graze without worrying about wolves, because of the goats and dogs protecting them from the wolves.

I don't know how old you are, but you are naive and there are lots of wolves out there.

[JustinM]

When was the last time the UN enforced any of its sanctions? It's a do nothing organization. We've got Russia and China that have no respect for international law and exploit the UN for personal gain. If you think the UN is so great, why have they done nothing for Sudan? Of course, we better not "Go it alone," because the world doesn't want the lone ranger, it doesn't want a hero, it wants to live in a state of denial, there is evil out there, the bible even tells us, what the world refuses to learn. . . If you don't confront evil, it will only grow more powerful, and become ever more ruthless. God tells us to confront the evil in our lives by asking for forgiveness and through repentence. Stopping evil requires sacrifice, many people don't believe in sacrifice and are content with living in denial of how bad the world is out there.

[JustinM]

quote david: "We need to be humbled because we presume we can decide for ourselves how U.N. mandates will be enforced and because we start wars by giving untrue reasons or hugely exagerating the significance of any facts."

If anyone needs to be humbled it should be our allies for selling out. You don't honestly believe the propaganda you are saying do you? America took a stand, and the law was on our side. Saddam's surrender terms were the law and he violated every one of them as often as he could, because he knew he could get a way with it, because the UN, your buddies, were on Saddam's Payroll.

A corrupt, sell out should be the first to be humbled, not a boisterous cowboy, that has the strength and you know whats to confront the bad guys and kick their butts.

I forget though, the weak covet the strong, that's why they become lawyers and lawmakers, they try to level the playing field so everyone gets to "play."

Face it, the world hates us, not because we are "bullies" but because we are strong and just. They look at us and see how bad off they really are, so they become jealous of us. I mean, if I were a corrupt, wicked person, the last thing I'd want to see is a virtuous person standing next to me, doing everything right.

"America is a bully" is a very easy scapegoat for the world's problems. People like to convince themselves that the world is on the path to peace. That'd be funny if it wasn't so true. How has the world become more peaceful? The bad guys, (cold-blooded killers and tyrants) are trying to posess nuclear weapons, the most destructive force on the planet. If the world were truly headed for peace, no one would be seeking that power. In fact, weapons stockpiles would be steadily decreasing, but that's not what's happening, 2 more countries are about to posess nuclear weapons, Japan and South Korea will soon follow suit. Iran does not need to posess nuclear technology. It doesn't. It has one of the world's largest oil reserves, it could provide electrical power to it's country for hundreds of years, with just it's reserves alone. Anyone that says Iran needs nuclear technology is a fool. There's just one major problem with fools, they have an uncanny ability of getting other people killed because of their foolishness. Stop pretending the world is safe, stop pretending that Iran wants peace. Stop pretending that fanatical islamic fascism doesn't exist, because you people are going to get everyone else killed.

[JustinM]

I just wanted to be the one to make the 100th reply.

What does anyone know about Robert Gates?

[David H.]

The UN is the largest, most useless beurocracy the world has ever seen and for the life of me, I do not understand why people continue to rely on that useless organization. They do not protect the oppressed or persecuted. I thought they were the world police, but they're just the mob. Only passivists continue to support the UN. But, hey if spending billions of dollars a year on a do nothing organization is what floats your boat, then by all means go for it, but the rest of us will continue to fight the good fight so that do nothings, like yourself, can go about living in their delusional utopic world without being required to fight for it.

All of that may be true, except your last line, of course. It's not about whether or not the U.N. is effective. It's about law. The U.S. CHOSE to settle the Persian Gulf War through the U.N. because it was a war fought by essentially a U.N. coallition of several nations. It wasn't a NATO war, and it wasn't a U.S. war, though we played the principal role. It was not OUR war in the first place, but a war fought by many nations for the sake of Kuwait and to curb Saddam. SO, we drew up the terms of surrender for Saddam through the U.N. The sanctions placed on Saddam were all U.N. sanctions. That means, by law, it is the providence of the U.N. to decide how or whether it will enforce ITS OWN sanctions, not the U.S.

The U.N. was never created to be the world police. It was created to be an international diplomatic body through which nations would have a forum to communicate with each other and to resolve differences. It was never created to have its own military, though people who see it as being the world police have moved it in that direction. It is a place for international diplomacy that the U.S., U.K. and France created by broadening their own League of Nations. I suppose you are right that the nations of the world, which includes us, are collectively a mob.

So, the last war had nothing to do with whether the U.N. is effective. If the U.S. wanted to go to war against Saddam, it could not use U.N. the breakng of U.N. sanctions as its excuse because the U.S. is not the police force fo the U.N. The U.N. is a diplocmatic body of sovereign nations that must decide for themselves how they want to enforce their own sanctions. That means the U.S. needed its own independent reasons for going to war. So, George Bush thought he had them -- WMD and Al Qaeda. He was wrong because he was to quick to see what he wanted to see in the evidence presented to him. So, the U.S. had not independent reasons for launching a war of its own and no right to launch a war unilaterally on behalf of the U.N. The U.N. must vote for itself whether it wants to launch a war of nations against Saddam. And, if it doesn't, that's tough. It's THEIR sanctions because WE made it that way.

The naive person is the one who thinks we can call ourselves "a nation of law" and then act in lawless ways just because we want to. I have no problem with the U.S. staying out of U.N. affairs. In fact, that is exactly the point. It should have stayed out of this one. It could have told the U.N., if you don't do something about Saddam breaking your sanctions, we're going to quit policing them with fly-overs. Then, we'd have to do that, of course. But we cannot MAKE a league of sovereign nations do our bidding. That's called despotism. We're biggest, so the rest of you will DO AS WE SAY!

So, take the U.N. out of it, and you cannot fall back on U.N. sanctions as your justification for war. The U.N. is nothing to you, so what do you care if Saddam breaks their sanctions, and what business is it of ours to enforce THEIR sanctions when they dont' want us to. We always think WE are the cops of this world. Without the U.N.'s approval, George Bush had only WMD and Al Qaeda to fall back on as his reasons for a war he wanted to have anyway ... to clean up his father's own failed business.

Our allies didn't sell out. They never BOUGHT IN! The fact that they are allies does not mean they are obligated to support every notion that falls into the head of one of our presidents. It's not as if the U.S. was under attack by Saddam. It was not. Had we been under attack, our allies would have been there (see Afghanistan for details). But we weren't. They had no reason to buy in to our world-cop mentality.

America took a stand, and the law was on our side. Saddam's surrender terms were the law and he violated every one of them

It's really odd that you say, "We've got Russia and China that have no respect for international law and exploit the UN for personal gain." Then you suggest we do the same by ignoring international law ourselves and exploiting U.N. sanctions as an excuse to have the war with Saddam we want to have. They were U.N. sanctions. Law makes it the U.N.'s perogative to decide how they'll be enforced. The war in Iraq was not about Saddam lighting up our airplanes with radar. It was about creating a democratic foothold in the Middle East. It was about manipulating the formation of nations in the Middle East to create a balance of powers in that region that we think is more favorable to our interests. What we did was step outside of international law, and act on own. You cannot enforce internatinion law by operating outside of it.

Who is the naive one here?

Of course, we better not "Go it alone," because the world doesn't want the lone ranger, it doesn't want a hero.

That's right. It doesn't. Who appointed us sheriff of the world? If the world doesn't want us playing Lone Ranger, why don't we simply stop playing??? Then we could save those billions of dollars you're talking about. When did it become our nation's job to right all the wrongs of the world with military power? Did God command King Solomon to use his power to right the wrongs of Babylon. Solomon played his own game for the lands he wanted; but he didn't use his military to Go down to central Africa and try to right whatever tribal wars were happening there.

God tells us to confront the evil in our lives by asking for forgiveness and through repentence.

And he told us that the best way to confront evil in the world was with our great military? So, we're to be forgiving of our enemies, but go drop bombs on the heads of people who are someone else's enemies??? You are right that God told us to confront evil in ourselves. I don't recall him telling us to confront evil in other people. Did Jesus go beat up the demon possessed? So, why do we bring physical violence against nations that seem possessed by evil WHEN THOSE NATIONS ARE NOT BOTHERING US? Self-defense is one thing. Conquering of evil by beating it up wherever we find it only sows the sees of greater evil. I don't think Jesus told the United States to go fight wars on other people's behalf when the other people themselves do not even want our intervention. What arrogance!

And that's why we NEED to be humbled.

a boisterous cowboy, that has the strength and you know whats to confront the bad guys and kick their butts

That's what we are alright. That's what George Bush has turned us into, and that's why we NEED to be humbled. The world doesn't need to be run like the Wild, Wild West was run. There is a reason they called the "kick-butt" law of the Wild West "wild." It's untamed. It's unlaw. While the West was being wild, cities like Baltimore and Charlotte, N.C., were running as farily civilized places that operated under law and not on who was the biggest kick-butt in town. What George Bush has promoted is gun-slinger diplomacy. It operates outside of international law, except when it can use international law to its own advantage. It can do so because we're the biggest gun-slinger in town.

Face it, the world hates us, not because we are "bullies" but because we are strong and just.

It may hate us because we are strong. The world has plenty of reason to fear the strong, given its history where every strongman or strong nation eventually reaches for empire. I'm not saying we're quite that bad, but when we operate like George Bush we give the world plenty of reason to believe we are.

Is it really our God-appointed calling to be the world's biggest gun-slinger and ride the Wild West into submission? The real West was our. It was ours to ride into submission. But now we're riding in on the East, and it isn't ours in the first place. Maybe we should try Jesus Christ and missionary work as a way of bringing good into other nations, rather than military intervention where we don't belong and have not been invited.

How has the world become more peaceful?

It hasn't, and the U.S. has had a greater military involvement in the world in the last half of the last century than in any other time. Yet the world has less peace than ever before. The gospel of Christ brings peace and conquers evil. Focus your energies there and act in humility to all you face who are not of your faith (as I have no reason to doubt you do), and forget about the idea of the United States bringing peace to the world via it's military. That path will never bring peace.

Defending ourselves and our allies from direct attacks against Islamo-Fascism is one thing; defending people who do not even want us present because we know what is best is another.

And that's why we need to be humble.

--David

[JustinM]

If you have the strength to prevent the murder of an innocent person would you do it?

Well, the US uses it's strength to do that. The US has no interest in conquering territory or being imperialist. It wants everyone to have the same opportunities as Americans. Dictatorships do not want their people to have the freedoms we have, because they do not want to relenquish control over their population.

Don't you get it? Of course bad guys are gonna oppose us whenever they can. Do you really think Ahmedinijad cares about the Iranians, or that Saddam Hussein cared about the Iraqis? No, they didn't care about their people or their country. They were given great power and responsibility to rule their people and they used it and abused it. God has always used judgements on wicked kingdoms because of their evil ways.

---------David, do you care about anyone but yourself? Because there's millions of people suffering all over the world, why do you so strongly oppose our efforts to bring peace and justice to those poor people? So, I hope you are cozy here, knowing that millions of people are being starved, oppressed, killed, tortured and displaced. Enjoy your double latte and think about the people that have no water to drink.

We don't know when Christ is gonna return and bring worldwide peace and justice, so we need to be proactive and help as many people as we can. Christ healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, fed the hungry and raised the dead. The least we can do, as a Nation is topple cruel, evil wicked men and heal the sick, feed the hungry. God has blessed America with tremendous wealth and strength, we need to share that blessing with people who have nothing.

Evil, wicked people do not leave quietly. They fight for every second they can maintain control and power. It'd be great if we could just tell those men to let their people go and they do it. But, it doesn't work that way. Sometimes war is necessary and it is becoming moreso everyday because evil is being less and less restrained every day. America is a good country, doing good things for good people. Anyone that opposes that is not a good person.

[JustinM]

Christ will not return peacefully. His Word will be a mighty sword that destroys all the wicked. We need to be good stewards of Christ and bring Him to people that do not know Him.

There are things worth fighting for in life, peace, justice, and Christ, to name a few. We must do what we must.

But sit in your recliner watch American Idol and let the world spin out of control. Our brethren fought and died for this nation, they got a sense of freedom most people in the world can only dream of.

Many, many, many people need our help.

[David H.]

I don't recall anywhere that Jesus called us as individuals to go out and right the world's wrongs with an army. Nor do I believe we can right the world's wrongs that way. We create as much trouble as we bring good. There is a time an place. But, if I followed your logic, I would be endlessly sending the U.S. after one despot and then another. I don't recall where Jesus said, "Go, kill the evil ones wherever you can find them in the world. Eradicate evil by killing the evil people."

• When someone picks a fight with our nation, our president has an obligation to use the military to defend the people of this nation.
  
  
• When someone picks a fight with a good ally, our president has a bond with that nation from the past to fulfill in standing by them and offerring to join the battle if they want our help.
  
  
• When someone picks a fight with a nation that is not our ally and that nation comes to us for support, we have to WEIGH wether or not the bridge we build by giving our own blood and treasure will be worth the very real cost that it will bring to people in our country who lose those they love.
  

But IN THIS BATTLE, no one attacked us. No one attacked our enemy. And NO ONE asked us to enter the fray. We started the fray on false pretenses. We've overstepped all decency. But don't talk to me about selfishness. All three of the above apply and may be legitimate reasons for a president to call our troops to action. We, nevertheless, need to get over our Christ complex and stop thinking we have either the right or the ability to right all the world's wrongs with our military, especially when NO ONE has asked us into the fray and NO ONE has attacked us.

There are millions sufferring all over the world, and sometimes our battles are what created their suffering. So far, I don't see that sufferring is any less in Iraq now that we are there. We have only managed to bring some of the suffering home with us. Here in Hawaii, the news is what troops locally died that day. The troops that are over there are suffering. Their families are suffering, especially when they don't come back. The Iraqi people are suffering, especially when their family members die in the crossfire. Trust me, NO ONE has been relieved of suffering there. And, while you can say it is going to change for the better, we do not have any guarantees of our success. We may have created a situation that remains in civil war and turmoil for the next fifty years.

Christ will not return peacefully. His Word will be a mighty sword that destroys all the wicked. We need to be good stewards of Christ and bring Him to people that do not know Him.

There are things worth fighting for in life, peace, justice, and Christ, to name a few.

Hmm. Fight for Christ? So, we need to be good stewards of Christ and introduce people to Him with our army and airforce? Here's a bullet for Jesus. He loves you, man. And here's some Holy Spirit cannon fire. Fighting for Christ is what the Crusades were about. It's what people thought they were doing in Ireland.

Christ's sword that protrudes from his mouth is the sword of truth. His words the proceed from his mouth are a sword that will slay his enemies. So, while his enemies slaughter each other with blood their horses bridles, that is the path of Satan. Christ will come and his truth alone will lay end to his enemies.

Will it knock them all dead? The Bible doesn't say how his truth will end his enemies. It could even be love:

After the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was speaking about making friends with people in the south. One woman came up to him and said, "How can you say that after they have brought us so much death. We should put an end to our enemies."

"Madame," said Lincoln, "Do I not put an end to my enemy when I make him my friend?"

(paraphrased from memory)

Blessed are the peacemakers. There is a time for war and a time for peace, but not all times declared for war are the right times.

--David

Edited November 15, 2006 by David Haggith

[ted]

Interesting points from all sides.

I do have a question, though.

Had we not gone into Iraq some 3 1/2 years ago, would we be dealing with the same issues there as we are now dealing with in Iran today?

Iran's show of defiance against anything which could hamper their ability to develop nuclear weapons (no on really believes Iran is simply trying to make peaceful nuclear energy any more, do they?) is really only two years old. It's happened very quickly, in fact.

Could we be dealing with an arms race between Iraq and Iran today, similar to India vs Pakistan or US vs Russia, had we not gone in?

One of two scenarios is true, most likely: Either Saddam was toying with the UN Arms Inspectors while they were doing the business from '91-'02 for reasons unknown, or he was, indeed, pursuing some form of illegal weaponry. There were simply too many violations, stand-off's, deceptions, equipment movements, etc, for one to conclude that nothing was going on.

So, had we not went in to Iraq, how much further would they have advanced in nuclear weapons technology? Or, other forms of mass weaponry, for that matter.

Thus far, we have done nothing with Iran except to say that we don't like what they are doing. This, of course, pretty much get's laughed off by Iran, and they continue to do what they want.

Would Iraq be enjoying the same joke today?

Some say it was not in our interest to make war with Iraq, but think a little harder on just what threat they would pose today had things went on as normal over the past few years.

t.