The Town Hall Archives

hawkeye · Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2003 5:51 pm Post subject:

Gandalf: I was working on a reply to your message, but after seeing the Uday's soldier's treatment of US soldiers who had done nothing but defend themselves, do you still think we should just sit idly by and let Saddam do this to his own people? Remember, Saddam gassed the Kurds, Uday (Saddam's athletic son) tortures athletes who fail to win, and you think we have no justifiable reason to take Saddam out to free Iraqis?

Gandalf · Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2003 1:49 pm Post subject:

I just don't see how we have the Biblical right to be the "police of the world". Saddam is/was a danger to US, the United States, so we had a justifiable reason to get rid of him.

rosie · Inquisitive Member Joined: 07 Jan 2003 Posts: 1197

I sorta agree with you. It's weird that the US meddles in other countries, but I think it's OK and even good when the people want us to.

Amelia · Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2003 5:54 pm Post subject:

A justification for going to Iraq to free those people who are being tortured and killed by their leader is the Biblical principle of loving your neighbor as yourself. Yes, you can go through the Bible and try to systematically try to find laws that prove or disprove your point of view, but Christ summed up the entire Law and Prophets by two simple points: To love the Lord your God with all your heart soul and mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself.

To my mind, at least, leaving people to be hurt in that way is not loving your neighbor. You can know all the theology in the world and be able to argue any point thrown at you, but unless you are able to love God and love those around you, there really is no point in your knowledge.

pianokitty · Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2003 5:54 pm Post subject:

it's about time the senate passed it!!! Now, if we can get it to be not only a partial act, but a whole!

Gandalf · Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2003 6:38 pm Post subject:

The Bible sets out very concrete laws for governments. I don't think God meant that we should play the world police by meddling in the soverignty of other nations when He said to love our neighbors. Love sometimes includes respect for boundaries.

If the people of a country want our help, then yeah, it may be time for us to step in... and claim the people as our own. If we set Iraq up as a U.S. territory (which is what I think we should do) it could only help them and us. Instead, we play "house" with all of these governments and countries and tell them they need to be their own soverign nations but they had better play the way we think they should. Sounds like we're talking out of both sides of our mouths to me.

Okay, I'm ready for the firing squad now...

hawkeye · Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2003 8:14 am Post subject:

Good point Amelia!

Gandalf: So are you saying if you saw a bully beating up on a little kid, you would just walk on by???

Jared · Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:00 am Post subject:

Wow, the arguments are flying fast.

I think we need a ringside announcer or something!

(And of course, I'll be more than happy to assist.)

Announcer 1: "Well, Bill, in the right corner, we have Gandalf, a very, shall we say, energetic young man. A member of the paleocon team. He pulls no punches. Haha, get it, Bill?"

Announcer 2: "My name's not Bill."

Announcer 1: "Ha. Good one, John. Now, this Gandalf fellow has a lot of training, as I was about to say. In fact, our cameras caught him in the locker room last night poring over strategy from his playbook. You know, the good ol' Bob Novak one."

Announcer 2: "My name's not John, either."

Announcer 1: "You're funny, Jim. In the other right corner, we have Hawkeye of the neocon team. Now, this man is no stranger to a fight, either. Yesterday, I asked him who he considered his mentor in the field and he brought up the name Jonah Goldberg. Interesting, isn't it, Jim?"

Announcer 2: "My name is neither Bill nor John nor Jim."

Announcer 1: "Wow, you're making me laugh so hard, Sean. Wow, look at that! They're beating each other over the head with magazines! Let's take a closeup look and see if we can read those covers. No, pan it over a little farther right... farther right. Hey cameraman, you won't find him on the left, you know! Farther right. There, that's good. Oh, it looks like Gandalf is weilding a copy of The American Conservative! Okay, move to the other right now and let's find out what... there, that's it. The Weekly Standard is in Hawkeye's hands! We really have a fight on our hands, don't we, Sean?"

Announcer 2: "Uh, I hate to bring this up, but--"

Announcer 1: "--your name's not Sean."

Announcer 2: "Precisely."

Announcer 1: "Okay, Precisely. Why don't you tell me precisely what you think of this match thus far?"

Okay, anyway... interestind debate, you two! I'll join in again later.

And incidentally, I don't quite agree with either of you. I find myself nodding to Gandalf's assertion that we're not the world's police force, but I don't take it quite as far... We can't go to war to save everyone, obviously. It's not our job. But we do have allies that we need to protect. We do have friends in the world that we should stand up for. And sometimes, we do have to step in. Sometimes, even when we're not directly at risk, we need to protect those unable to protect themselves.

Do we belong in every conflict? No. But I think we limit ourselves by taking the paleoconservative position of only launching a war after we have been attacked.

I've seen neoconservatism described as an "all war, all the time" approach, but it's not. For one thing, many paleoconservatives seem so anti-war right now that they deny the threat. Gandalf, you're pro-war here, which makes me far more likely to find agreement with what you're saying. But so many famous paleos - Novak, Gottfried, Sobran, the dreaded Buchanan, etc. - have become as knee-jerk as the left on such matters. Disconserting.

War is necessary here. Neither of you deny that. We aren't going to war to save the Iraqi people. That's not our reason for going. It SHOULDN'T be in this case - nor in most cases. We're going to protect ourselves and our allies. But while we're there, we shouldn't eschew the "world's police force" image so much that we refuse to help the Iraqi people. On the contrary. I think the name of this op, Operation Iraqi Freedom, is a poor choice. That's not the goal of the conflict. (Of course, as one Marine said when asked what the USMC's goal was, "It's to beat the Army to Baghdad, sir!") The goal is protection for our own people. (Besides, what ever happened to wars with the word "war" in the name?) But while we're there, assisting the Iraqis should be a major part of our role. It's in their interest... and by the way, it's in ours, too.

rosie · Inquisitive Member Joined: 07 Jan 2003 Posts: 1197

I agree with you 100% Jared!!!

Gandalf · Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2003 10:48 pm Post subject:

Woah! I wasn't asserting that we shouldn't help the people or set up a new government. To be perfectly honest, it's in our best interest to set up a new government in Iraq, though I still think it would be best if Iraq became a US territory. I just don't think we have the right to "be the police of the world".