Who are these foreign policy experts? Did not know there were so many experts that have dealt with use of Sarin gas usage!!!!Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma
|
|
Who are these foreign policy experts? Did not know there were so many experts that have dealt with use of Sarin gas usage!!!!
Sorry I just said pro life folks are typically the pro bomb people folks ...you know just adding fuel to the fire
One does not have to have experience with Sarin gas to read history from World War 1 or look at images from Kurdistan.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: "We have made our views very clear: This is a red line for the United States. I'm not going to telegraph in any specifics what we would do in the event of credible evidence that the ****ad regime has resorted to using chemical weapons against their own people. But suffice it to say, we are certainly planning to take action if that eventuality were to occur."
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
So then where's the outrage and the line in the sand when regimes like North Korea and China kill, starve, and toss away who knows, maybe hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives? Is killing not so bad because of the manner that it's carried out? I really don't see the difference. You sure don't see anyone huffing and puffing at their door.
The following users like this post: Aurora
You are going to have to be more specific. I do not recall a recent incident of China killing 30,000 rebel citizens in an uprising nor do I recall them threatening the use of banned weapons.
North Korea is in the same boat as china except more of a humanitarian disaster due to their status as a rogue state (similar to Iran). And the 38th parallel disagrees with your statement about nobody being at their door.
You are creating a false equivalence in your comparison. The States you mentioned are apples to Syria's orange.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Once again. Why is one kind of killing is worse than the other? We don't know everything that goes on in those countries. Where do you stand on the prison camps in NK where people are born in them to die in them? Is depriving and starving your people not as bad as gassing them? Personally i'd rather get gassed and get it over with as opposed to a slow death. The 38th Parallel? What does that have to do with it? We don't do anything to those countries because we can't push them around and they could care less what we want. If China/NK were gassing their people - if we'd even know about it - do you think we'd be threatening them? Killing is killing.
Look, you can try and draw comparisons all day. All I can do is sit here and say that yes, countries should not kill their own citizens. And when that news comes out there is typically international condemnation of the oppressor.
But unless China and North Korea are in an open state of civil war, there is simply no comparison. So please try to stay on topic.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
You want to stop the dictator. You are unwilling to put your own life at risk to do so, but want others to do it instead. Do I have that right?
2 users like Stinger_1066's post: Aurora, Fahooglegods
Sure. If my signing up is a requirement to stop a dictator, I will do so. Fortunately for me we have a volunteer army and not a force based on conscription.
My lack of willingness to tote a gun around and kill brown people is not relevant to my support of preventing a dictator from gassing his people and his removal from power. This isn't Heinlein's world where there are two classes of people.
Hitler was using chemical weapons to kill his own people for about a decade before we entered the war. And for about 5 years before he invaded Poland. Mao and Stalin were killing their own people for practically half a century each and we never gave a damn. As far as I can tell from everything I've looked up Asaad has only used the threat of chemical weapons. This guy is a minor leagues compared to others we've ignored FOR DECADES and will probably never even use the stuff before he is overthrown.
The following users like this post: Aurora
I agree that ****ad will not do it, he is a cowardly Optometrist. I am simply stating that I would support intervention should he use chemical weapons.
Not sure what Hitler has to do with anything, Nick. Isn't there a law that you lose the argument the moment you bring Hitler up on the internet?
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
I could go with Sadaam who killed his own people for about 20 years and we didn't care till he invaded Kuwait every once in a while. I could give other examples than those if you want. I was just saying we have a long history of not caring about how other countries threat their own people.
Thats one if you call her an expert!!!One does not have to have experience with Sarin gas to read history from World War 1 or look at images from Kurdistan.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: "We have made our views very clear: This is a red line for the United States. I'm not going to telegraph in any specifics what we would do in the event of credible evidence that the ****ad regime has resorted to using chemical weapons against their own people. But suffice it to say, we are certainly planning to take action if that eventuality were to occur."
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Honestly, this is the problem we've had with our foreign policy since the mid 60s. We don't consistently stand for anything. ****ad has gone so much further than Q did in Libya, yet we've stood idly by. Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Obama--all of them have been inconsistent. If we're going to be involved in Syria, we should have been involved a year ago. The WWII thing doesn't hold water here--the US was extremely isolationist at that point. It is a bit curious though that a policy of isolationism that preceded WWII is advocated here--and history shows us it did nothing to keep us out of the conflict. There's a decent chance WWII doesn't go as badly globally as it did had we been more involved globally, but that's a guessing game and cannot be confirmed.
We either shouldn't have been in Afghanistan at all--or we should have stayed once we broke the USSR and helped rebuild the country. We shouldn't have been in Somalia at all--or we shouldn't have left after the Black Hawk Down incident. Iraq part 2 is probably the closest we've come to doing it right--and we dallied around for quite some time before we had the stomach to do it right. If we shouldn't have been in Afghanistan in the 80s, then we shouldn't have been in Kuwait in the 90s. Additionally, continuing that line, we shouldn't have been in Somalia, Iraq or Libya. We aren't consistent--and it breeds global uncertainty. If we were right in Libya and w/our outside support in Egypt, we should have been involved in some way with Iran.
N Korea is a different animal--if we start poking around there we ignite a conflict with China. The Middle Eastern hells are different than that. All I'd like to see is consistency in regards to the Mid East--either we're for freedom and against genocide, or we aren't.
The following users like this post: Sancho
What does an eye exam have to do w/anything?
And honestly, we should have probably stopped him from bombing his own people awhile ago. The deal with Syria is the same deal as it was w/Iran--we really didn't have anything to lose (same w/Libya for that matter, though to a smaller degree.) These countries are already run by people that see themselves at war w/the West, that fund and encourage terrorism and at the very least use proxies against the US and US interests. There isn't a government that can take over that's worse than that.
I'm not arguing from a point of history. I am arguing from now we should not allow the ****ad regime to use chemical weapons.
IDGAF about Saddam 25 years ago and how we did nothing until Kuwait was invaded. Kurdistan was a disaster and we should have intervened then. Ultimately Saddam got what was coming, as will ****ad.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
so did sooners suck you into his cult.....or was he your sock account?
I don't have a problem with what you are saying, are we in some form of agreement here?What does an eye exam have to do w/anything?
And honestly, we should have probably stopped him from bombing his own people awhile ago. The deal with Syria is the same deal as it was w/Iran--we really didn't have anything to lose (same w/Libya for that matter, though to a smaller degree.) These countries are already run by people that see themselves at war w/the West, that fund and encourage terrorism and at the very least use proxies against the US and US interests. There isn't a government that can take over that's worse than that.
Also, my mistake, ****ad is an opthamologist.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
The following users like this post: oucub23
Ya, though I'm saying the line of chemical weapons is dumb. If we're going to get involved, let's do it. Otherwise, chemical weapons shouldn't make a difference. He's guilty of murdering his own people in large numbers already--we have enough reason now. If we don't, we never will.
Fair enough. And that makes perfect sense. Though a civil war is bound to be messy so I think that there has to be a line somewhere and since we didn't set one early in the conflict, chemical weapons is a logical place to start (if we don't intervene right away)
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
The following users like this post: oucub23
Nope. The Disciples of Christ denomination has a long and recognized history of conscientious objection to war.
I think Jehovah's witnesses are dumb as ****.
i was a doc at one time.....not once did i hear anything about being conscientious objectors....
never new any that spewed anti-christian crap like you either...
if they told us what happened...it would expose the trail to syria....
Well, the DOC is an open and affirming denomination...is that anti Christian?
you should start a new thread and ask...
but i do know ooo is lying (or misinformed) when he says..."I am a member of a denomination that typically applies for conscientious objector status."
Patently false. DOC as a whole supports conscientious objections to forced military service and war in general.
Sorry you don't know much about the denomination.
yes....they do "support" co's....but they do not encourage it or recommend it....so no....it is far from "typical"...
they would support you just the same if you volunteered to go fight in syria....
so the question is....are you misinformed....or a chicken****?
southern baptist policy is the same....
and i was a doc for about 7 years
What is new? He still hasnt acknowledged whether he claimed we went into Iraq and Afghanistan unilaterally out of utter ignorance or out of sheer dishonesty.
Well, they drafted this in 1983:
Here's an excerpt from an official letter to the denomination from the Pastoral president in 2008:Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Resolution Concerning Peace-time Draft Registration and Conscientious Objectors
Whereas, Many young men of the United States and its territories, some in response to religious convictions, have chosen not to register for the draft as required by federal law; and
Whereas, There is inadequate provision for declaring one's conscientious objection to military service under the present provisions and administration of the Military Selective Service Act, because:
—it does not provide opportunity, as did previous registration, to declare one's status as a conscientious objector as an integral part of the registration process; and
—it provides only fifteen days from the mailing of a draft induction notice for establishing a sufficient case for conscientious objector status, a clearly inadequate time based on the experiences of conscientious objectors in the past; and
Whereas, The present administration of the Act is aimed at selective and discriminatory punitive action against young men who choose not to register;
—by selectively prosecuting those who have been most outspoken about their opposition to the draft and about their reasons of conscience for non-registration (Note: one federal judge threw out a conviction on the basis that such selective prosecution violated constitutionally protected rights, and other cases are being appealed on the same grounds);
—by requiring compliance with the registration act in order to be eligible for federal financial aid, a practice which discriminates against
low income male students; and
Whereas, The need for a peace-time draft registration has not been demonstrated; and
Whereas, A peace-time draft registration directs our focus and expenditures toward war when they need to be on peace;
Therefore, Be it Resolved, That the General ****embly of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) meeting in San Antonio, Texas, September 23-28, 1983, direct the General Minister and President of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) to convey this resolution to the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense and the relevant committees of
Congress with the following recommendations:
1. that the Executive and Legislative branches take all steps within its power to end peace-time draft registration, and;
2. that the following steps be taken immediately, pending the termination of the peace-time registration
—to make provision for registration as a conscientious objector and for adequate time to certify this position prior to induction notice;
—to rescind the Solomon amendment which denies federal educational aid to young men who have not complied with the registration law;
—to cease the selective prosecution of non-registrants. (Adopted by the General ****embly, 1983)
For further information, contact: Homeland Ministries, Center for Education and Mission, PO Box 1986, Indianapolis, IN 46206; www.disciples.org
She is referencing this:There is the pain of those among us who view peace not only as a point on a distant horizon, but who insist that non-violent interaction is a way of life to be lived right now. Who believe that the Kingdom of God is among us. Who take seriously Jesus’ admonitions against violence and call us to live already as though God’s commandments to love our enemy actually apply in our own time. Their pain is multiplied as their faithful insistence on waging peace causes their love of country and patriotism to be questioned.
There is the pain, as well, of those who absolutely believe it was and is right to have entered Iraq – that the cost is an acceptable cost – though difficult in human terms. There is pain for those who have served in conflict and watched a fellow soldier die or to live in fear of the unknown while hidden in a fox hole reciting the Lord’s Prayer or the 23rd Psalm. For those who believe at the core of their faith that we must defend liberty and justice in all places and times, there is the pain of being labeled warmongers or lovers of hatred.
There is the painful ambiguity in which we all live right now. While a majority of Disciples attending General ****embly voted their conscientious objection to the war, we’re there now, and in spite of the good that many of our compatriots have tried to do, the place is a mess. Do we leave it that way? A Christian has to grapple with the ambiguity of what we do from here. As citizens we need to engage the political process, participate in the conversation about how to reconstruct the nation, about how to promote reconciliation, how to care for our returning soldiers with their enormous medical and physical and spiritual challenges, how to care for their families. As Christians we need to advocate for peace and justice from all across the political and theological spectrum – to address the immediate humanitarian concerns of Iraqis – to hold our own government accountable to established rules of international conduct in times of war. These are American values, but more importantly they are Christian values.
Is that enough, or shall I keep going?WHEREAS, Jesus declared peacemakers “blessed” (Matthew 5:9) and scripture reminds us that Jesus lived nonviolently even while suffering, leaving us an example that we should follow in his steps (1 Peter 2: 20-23) and, further, that scripture calls us to “live peaceably with all” (Romans 12:18); and
WHEREAS, many of the earliest and most influential leaders of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) taught war to be utterly at odds with Christian practice, among them Alexander Campbell, who taught, “War is not now, nor was it ever, a process of justice,” and Barton Stone, who declared, “Nothing appears so repugnant to the kingdom of heaven as war;” and
WHEREAS, the war in Iraq is not only contrary to the views of Christian pacifism but also is at odds with the traditional standards of just war1 at several points:
(1) A preventative war is not a just cause, regardless of whether there were weapons of m**** destruction in the arsenal of pre-war Iraq.
(2) The war was not a last resort. Since the war was not a defensive war calling for immediate violent response, nonviolent efforts of resolution were still possible, and
WHEREAS, on the advice of the President of the United States of America, Congress authorized an attack on Iraq if certain conditions were not met, when the rightful authority charged to examine the veracity of accumulation of weapons of m**** destruction is the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a body of the United Nations, and
WHEREAS, leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches, the Episcopal Church, and mainline Protestant churches in the United States have expressed opposition to the Iraq War and our global church and ecumenical partners have issued statements on the war declaring it to be immoral and contrary to the principles of “Just War;” and
WHEREAS, leaders of the church – for example, Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams – have expressed regret for not doing more to oppose the war in Iraq; and
WHEREAS, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) witnesses to our inclusiveness by encouraging the
lively and meaningful discussion of this, and all divisive issues, at every level of our denomination
through honest dialogue in which a respect for the faithful viewpoints of others is expected as a matter of
both conviction and conscience;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the General ****embly of the Christian Church (Disciples of
Christ) gathered in Ft. Worth, Texas on July 21 – 25, 2007, after due reflection and a respectful
discussion, go on record as conscientiously opposing the war in Iraq as an action inconsistent with the
teachings and example of Jesus Christ, and a violation of the traditional standards of just war, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this General ****embly reaffirm the following statement (included in the letter of February 18, 2006, from the U.S. Conference of the World Council of Churches addressed to the delegates at the WCC ****embly in Porto Alegre, Brazil) that “we lament with special anguish the war in Iraq, launched in deception and violating global norms of justice and human rights” ; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that although the General ****embly disagrees with the war in Iraq, we lift up the men and women of the armed forces who are stationed there for their courage and sacrifice and hold them and their families in our prayers; andBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Minister and President inform Disciple chaplains within the armed services about the action taken by this General ****embly regarding the war so that they may prepare to provide this information to service members who seek to know the position of their church; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Minister and President be encouraged to write a pastoral letter to all congregations acknowledging the deep pain this war has caused our country and our church and promoting the ongoing discussion of this war from a theological viewpoint; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that regions of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) be encouraged to institute for ministers with standing and students seeking ordination, education and training in the Christian tradition of “Just War” standards and pacifist perspectives; and
FINALLY, BE IT RESOLVED that the General Minister and President make the President and the Congress of the United States and the Prime Minister and Parliament of Canada aware of these actions to be taken by the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), regardless of the decisions the US government chooses to make in relation to the war in Iraq.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) affirms the God-given
right of conscience and offers moral support to men and women who volunteered for military service but
who, on the grounds of Christian conviction, refuse deployment to Iraq, realizing that this action may
subject them to military discipline.
keep going if you want..
but you will find NOTHING that says the doc encourages....recommends....or requires members to claim co status.....
Nope, rather like OOO stated, his denomination has a history of conscientious objection to war.
nice try....
but here is what he stated...
"I am a member of a denomination that typically applies for conscientious objector status."
big difference...
most denominations object to war...i can't think of any that don't
but only a few that "typically apply for co status"....like jw's
edit.....actually...jw's flat out refuse to be in the military............
I can speak from my experience with the DOC in growing up and will state that I was encouraged to conscientiously object, by church leadership. All this based upon my experience.
This was not just my home church either, I went on an "International Affairs" trip for high school kids that brought together DOC kids in Oklahoma and Texas and the leaders of the trip and ministers of churches we visited in NYC and DC as well as a DOC chaplain at the UN all had the same schpeel. Probably helped out by the war of terror we were waging in Iraq in spring 2005.
And as Spanky pointed out, there are plenty of documents out there showing a large support for conscientious objection within the denomination.
Edit:
If you think DOC is a conservative denomination you are kidding yourself.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
you're a chicken****....
we should stay out of syria.....it doesn't matter which side wins.....they both are our enemies...
if ****ad uses chem weapons....let the muslim countries deal with him....
The following users like this post: Stinger_1066
But are they Christian? It would not seem that you are.
security council? pfft
Russia and/or China will threaten to veto/veto anything the other 3 members will bring up in relation to Syri****
Well, Russia has to know that the ****ad regime is going down. Anything they do going forward has to be in the interest of maintaining a good relationship with Syria and the rest of the council for that matter.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
