And I must admit that he makes some valid points. I still don’t agree with his conclusions, but some of his points are good. I’m going to repost his entire comment here because he tried to post it as a comment reply to my post but couldn’t due to limitations of my comment system.
I haven’t decided yet whether to reply or not because this is taking up a lot of time and neither of us is going to convince the other. We independent thinkers are just stubborn that way. Whether I decide to respond or not, I’d like to thank Matt at New Liberty Creation for a civil, respectful and thought provoking discussion.
As blogspot apparently doesn’t like my bloviating comment length, I am force to respond to Sailorcurt here in this comment section. You can read his response here.
Now my response to his response:
If a 90 year old crippled guy in a wheelchair threatened to kill me for looking at him funny, I would probably not take him very seriously. If this occurred at a gun shop while said elderly gentleman was in the process of purchasing a .357 magnum and telling the gun shop owner and everyone else around that would listen that he was going to kill me…I’d be a little more prone to take heed.
But would you then have the right to attack him first? Would you be justified in breaking into his house, harming him or killing him, and confiscating his guns? Would that hold up in court?
but that’s makes hating them “understandable?”
Cause and effect. Is our hatred and animosity of Islamic terrorists “understandable”? I would say it is. Why don’t we allow that these emotions can be very real in other cultures as well?
That seems to me to be a particularly peculiar position for a self-proclaimed Christian to take.
Not really. Israel is just another corrupt government of man.
If the leader of Iran was a rational human being perhaps we could make some inroads into a diplomatic solution. He has demonstrated, by word and deed, that he is far from rational.
And the majority of the Iranian people KNOW it. He is very unpopular there and will most likely be voted out in the next election.
But if we attack or invade, we will just be proving his paranoid and ridiculous ramblings justified, and the Iranian people will be more likely to rally behind him.
If you want to weaken and undermine him, let the democratic process take it’s role, because he barely has any real power at the moment. I already posted the link about how competing satellite TV is already helping to facilitate this.
But attacking is probably the worst thing we could do.
Read this article here. It was very enlightening to me personally and helped me understand the Iran situation from a different perspective.
Also, please read this article that does a much better job of putting us in Iran’s shoes than my measly attempt did.
Also, this one about the supposed danger of Iran, when Israel is more likely disrupt peace.
One of the few actual Constitutional expenditures that our runaway government is involved in is national defense.
Yes. For the national defense. I guess how we define defense is different, and that’s where our disagreement lies.
It is the extra-constitutional (otherwise known as “Un-Constitutional”…otherwise known as “Illegal”) spending that is bankrupting us.
You mean extra-constitutional, congressional undeclared war that’s going on in Iraq?
Yes, we have too many unconstitutional programs domestically, but the biggest check by far is to fund our unconstitutional war(s).
What planet are you living on? These people are still pissed about things that happened in the 13th century for Allah’s sake
Not really. Only 3% of the Iranian population is what we would call “Arab”, and only a few of those hold any grudges. Most are Persian in ancestry and try to undermine the Islamic influences at every turn.
Maybe we should bomb Alabama because there is some radical minority there that still harbors grudges against the North from the Civil War?
The last time I checked, we haven’t added any new US territories since the late 19th century and actually granted independence to a US territory (the Philipinnes) in 1946.
Well the rhetoric has changed, and we aren’t as obvious about it. Now we call it “bringing democracy to other people”, but the actions are still eerily similar.
We have troops all over the world. We are continually trying to export our culture, our laws, our form of democracy, etc. We might not be as blatant, but we are very aggressive and imperialistic in promoting our ideals and interests, whether other people want them or not.
But with Iran, it is getting more blatant and the parallel is clearly there. Submit to our demands, or be steamrolled. It was the Roman way.
You make the mistake that pacifists make: you assume all violence is equivalent and immoral.
I make no such assumption. I just don’t think pre-emptive war and strikes falls under self defense, especially when the reasons for doing so are dubious and misleading, as the above articles help to highlight.
Jesus was not referring to defending oneself against criminal violence, he was referring to the promulgation of internecine feuds that were, and still seem to be, prevalent in the societies of that area. “Turn the other cheek” is not a reference to allowing yourself to be slaughtered. Slapping of a cheek is not a particularly violent act. It is an insult.
Yes, I’m well aware of that. I’m not advocating pure pacifism. But violence used to aggressively achieve an end, whether misguided or not, like the revolutionary Jews were practicing, was completely contrary to the original vocation of Israel, and contrary to how a Christian should be promoting the Kingdom today. But this is a different topic altogether.
Again, I’m not arguing against self defense.
Yes, that is obvious from the number of terrorist attacks successfully carried out on our soil since 9/11.
It was nearly ten years between the last successive foreign terrorist attacks on US soil.
As long as the official position of the Iranian government is to kill US citizens and push Israel into the sea, I cannot accept that as a viable starting point.
Then what is the viable starting point? When the world is already a perfect place of peace and harmony?
Similarly, when the official position of a person who is threatening my home is to steal my stuff, rape my wife and kill my family, I’m not inclined to begin negotiations from that starting point. I’m inclined to defend myself and my family
I freely recognize that right. I don’t recognize the right, however, of you going to their house, their property, their territory, and start breaking things, taking them out, and then maybe adopting their kids because you think the kids would be better off.
Governments are corrupt by nature. So we must ask what is the real reason, the actual selfish reasons why the war drums are now beating for Iran. Who will be the true beneficiary?
Think long and hard before trusting a politician, because he certainly doesn’t have your best interest, or your families, at heart.