Voters for Peace

[KenH]

A new group trying to influence this year's elections.

www.votersforpeace.us/index2.jsp

 

[Brother James]

I hope they have some success but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Martin]

"The goal of Voters for Peace is to educate and organize voters so candidates need to support both ending the occupation of Iraq and preventing future wars of aggression."

==In this reply I am going to stay clear of the normal silly political back and forth over the war. However I want to make clear how utterly silly the above statement is. I don't say it is silly in order to insult the person(s) who wrote that or the persons who believe that. I do, however, say it is silly because of the nature of the statement. The nature of the statement is unrealistic and all Christians should see that. The fact is that there will always be "wars and rumors of wars" (Matt 24:6) until Jesus returns and sets up His Kingdom (Is 2:4). Until that great event occurs there will be war(s). As long as sinful people control the worlds governments there will be war(s).

Now to the statement...

"ending the occupation of Iraq"

This is a nice neat little slogan that has no moral or realistic foundation. Regardless of one's position on the war it should be clear that no "cut and run" plan should be seriously considered. We cannot, as a moral rule, just up and leave. It would be nice if we could but that is just simply not realistic. If we did the country would sink into the pits of hell (further than it currently is) and would be used by various terrorists groups to hit us and other countries in the area. That can't be allowed. There is also the Iraqi population to consider. If we "up and run" we will be handing them over to awful slavery and bloodshed (worse than it is now). No, we cannot up and leave. We broke it, we bought it. And now it is our MORAL duty to finish the job.

I am sure that does not tickle ears. I am sure many, even professing Christians, want to take the easy way out. However the easy way out is not always the right, or moral, way out. Regardless of what one thinks of the war (it's justification, or lack there of...) one should at least have the moral courage to realize that a cut and run plan is, at best, immoral.

"preventing future wars of aggression"

Nice statement but not a realistic position. As long as sinners are kings, queens, presidents, and prime ministers there will be war. That is a fact of life that all adults should understand. This is mainly true for adults who are Christian (see above).

Also "wars of aggression" are sometimes a necessary evil. That is a fact of life when one lives in a fallen, sinful world.

It would be nice if we could live in a world without war, but we don't. And until Jesus's Kingdom comes we will not. While I admire the good intentions of these "peace" groups I cannot support their positions. They don't take reality into consideration and they don't give enough weight to the difficulty of the issues at hand (of course one can say the exact same thing about the strongly pro-war folks).

In Christ,
Martin.

 

[KenH]

Jesus' kingdom already exists. It's called the church.

The U.S. has no business starting a war of aggression. Our military should only be used in self-defense of our nation.

 

[Martin]

KenH:

Jesus' kingdom already exists. It's called the church.

==I have to assume that you understand that there will be a literal future Kingdom on earth (Thy Kingdom Come). We certainly do not live in a time when "they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they learn war" (Is 2:4). No, we certainly don't live in that time. Want proof? Turn on the news. We live in "difficult times" (2Tim 3:1-5). In fact we live in a day full of "wars and rumors of wars" (Matt 24:6).

The U.S. has no business starting a war of aggression. Our military should only be used in self-defense of our nation.

==Really not sure how one can have a war without "aggression". Seems to me that saying "the U.S. has no business starting a war of aggression" is more of a political position than a realistic one. More importantly nothing you said in your reply even starts to deal with the complex issues I am raising. It is typical among those who are heavily involved in the game of politics to avoid the difficult questions/issues that their positions create. This issue is no exception. You should strive to divorce all politics (etc) from your position and base your position on truth. I would also hope that you would take the time to consider what I said in my reply.

In Christ,
Martin.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Martin:
1) I have to assume that you understand that there will be a literal future Kingdom on earth

2) You should strive to divorce all politics (etc) from your position and base your position on truth.

1) No, I reject that false interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

2) I do. I read journals and books on public policy issues that are not based on party politics or conservative/liberal argumentation.

Just because you post something, Martin, doesn't make it the truth.

[ March 19, 2006, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: KenH ]

 

[Martin]

KenH:

1) No, I reject that false interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

==False "interpretation"? Do you honestly mean to tell me that you believe we are in the Kingdom now? What about the promises of peace, etc? I think the position I am presenting is closest to the Biblical position here. Sorry.

______________________________________

2) I do. I read journals and books on public policy issues that are not based on party politics or conservative/liberal argumentation.

==No, that is not true. All, and let me repeat that "ALL", sources have one bias or another. If you don't see that then you are being dragged along by people who pretend to be unbiased. When I say you must divorce politics from your position I am talking about political activism (of all sorts), I am talking about making unrealistic claims about the war (or any war or issue), and I am talking about promoting political organizations.

________________________________

Just because you post something, Martin, doesn't make it the truth.

==And visa versa.

Btw, you still have not responded to the things I said in my original reply. The truth here is simple...any premature "cut and run" policy leaves thousands, if not millions, of people in slavery to terrorists. That is truth, not opinion. Anyone who doubts the reality of that statement is either not facing reality or has a highly unrealistic view of the world.

I do not support the war in Iraq but I understand that once a operation like that is started it must be finished.

Martin.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Martin:
1) Do you honestly mean to tell me that you believe we are in the Kingdom now?

2) If you don't see that then you are being dragged along by people who pretend to be unbiased.

3) The truth here is simple...any premature "cut and run" policy

1) Yes, I do. There is peace between Christians and God and there always will be. The promises are about peace with God, not peace between sinful human beings on this earth. We will not settle this argument in this politics forum nor this side of Heaven. You stated your position and then I stated mine.

2) Actually, there are folks who try to look at issues in an unbiased way.

3) I also do not support a "cut and run" policy. We also can't stay in Iraq forever.

 

[KenH]

**DOUBLE DOUBLE POST POST**

 

[Martin]

KenH:

Yes, I do. There is peace between Christians and God and there always will be. The promises are about peace with God, not peace between sinful human beings on this earth. We will not settle this argument in this politics forum nor this side of Heaven. You stated your position and then I stated mine.

==Well I am not sure how that agrees with the Scriptures that state that "nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they learn war" (Is 2:4, etc). I don't see how your position can be supported with Scripture or (least of which) the present reality.

____________________________

2) Actually, there are folks who try to look at issues in an unbiased way.

==We can try but our views will always, and I mean always, cause us to view an issue from one side or the other. Experience, worldviews, and other such things will always color our study and reporting. There is no such thing as an unbiased scholar, reporter, teacher, or anything else. That is not really a bad thing (we should have a worldview, etc). However if a person does not realize this fact they can be lead astray by smooth talking leaders/reports who pretend to be unbiased.

______________________________

3) I also do not support a "cut and run" policy. We also can't stay in Iraq forever.

==The website you linked to clearly states as one of its goals, "support both ending the occupation of Iraq". That is promoting a cut and run policy. They want the so-called "occupation" to end. They also talk about ending the "occupation of Afghanistan" and are critical of democrats who have voted to support the troops. They even down play the horrible results of their immoral policies by quoting a magazine that agrees with them...

"We will not support any candidate for national office who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq a major issue of his or her campaign. We urge all voters to join us in adopting this position. Many worry that the aftermath of withdrawal will be ugly, but we can now see that the consequences of staying will be uglier still."

Of course they have to IGNORE the thousands, or maybe millions, who would be ensalved to the terrorists. They have to ignore the Taliban type reign of terror that would fall on those innocent people in that country. They have to IGNORE the fact that we broke it and thus bought it. We are now responsible to finish the job. Certainly a cut and run policy would be easy for us (in the short term). However we must seriously consider the impact of such a move (which the website you linked to does not do). I assumed you linked to them because you agreed with them.

Martin.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Martin:
1) I don't see how your position can be supported with Scripture

2) However if a person does not realize this fact they can be lead astray by smooth talking leaders/reports who pretend to be unbiased.

3)The website you linked to clearly states as one of its goals

1) Nor I yours.

2) I agree.

3) I linked it because it is a group trying to influence this year's elections. I don't support the group as I think it goes too far.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Martin:
They have to ignore the Taliban type reign of terror that would fall on those innocent people in that country.

You mean like the assistance that removing the Taliban has been to the lives of Christians in Afghanistan:

www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/1/4813.html

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by Martin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"The goal of Voters for Peace is to educate and organize voters so candidates need to support both ending the occupation of Iraq and preventing future wars of aggression."

==In this reply I am going to stay clear of the normal silly political back and forth over the war. However I want to make clear how utterly silly the above statement is. I don't say it is silly in order to insult the person(s) who wrote that or the persons who believe that. I do, however, say it is silly because of the nature of the statement. The nature of the statement is unrealistic and all Christians should see that. The fact is that there will always be "wars and rumors of wars" (Matt 24:6) until Jesus returns and sets up His Kingdom (Is 2:4). Until that great event occurs there will be war(s). As long as sinful people control the worlds governments there will be war(s).

Now to the statement...

"ending the occupation of Iraq"

This is a nice neat little slogan that has no moral or realistic foundation. Regardless of one's position on the war it should be clear that no "cut and run" plan should be seriously considered. We cannot, as a moral rule, just up and leave. It would be nice if we could but that is just simply not realistic. If we did the country would sink into the pits of hell (further than it currently is) and would be used by various terrorists groups to hit us and other countries in the area. That can't be allowed. There is also the Iraqi population to consider. If we "up and run" we will be handing them over to awful slavery and bloodshed (worse than it is now). No, we cannot up and leave. We broke it, we bought it. And now it is our MORAL duty to finish the job.

I am sure that does not tickle ears. I am sure many, even professing Christians, want to take the easy way out. However the easy way out is not always the right, or moral, way out. Regardless of what one thinks of the war (it's justification, or lack there of...) one should at least have the moral courage to realize that a cut and run plan is, at best, immoral.

"preventing future wars of aggression"

Nice statement but not a realistic position. As long as sinners are kings, queens, presidents, and prime ministers there will be war. That is a fact of life that all adults should understand. This is mainly true for adults who are Christian (see above).

Also "wars of aggression" are sometimes a necessary evil. That is a fact of life when one lives in a fallen, sinful world.

It would be nice if we could live in a world without war, but we don't. And until Jesus's Kingdom comes we will not. While I admire the good intentions of these "peace" groups I cannot support their positions. They don't take reality into consideration and they don't give enough weight to the difficulty of the issues at hand (of course one can say the exact same thing about the strongly pro-war folks).

In Christ,
Martin. </font>[/QUOTE]Excellent thoughts and very well expressed Martin! I don't agree with every detail you presented but I agree with the overall message. But, beyond that, I just like the way you present your case.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by KenH:
The U.S. has no business starting a war of aggression. Our military should only be used in self-defense of our nation.

So if your next door neighbor is beating his kid to death in the front yard and you're in possession of a shotgun, do you just sit inside thinking, "Hey, at least it's his kid that's getting killed, not mine"?

What about if you're walking down the street and see a man trying to drag a screaming woman into a van. "Sure glad that's not me!"?

If self-defense is acceptable, defense of others is even more obligatory. This may not always take the form of war but at times it must.

 

[KenH]

Your cases do not give you the right to put other people at risk.

To use your example, then it should have been George W. Bush himself who went to Baghdad to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

 

[Enoch]

Saw this on some t-shirts.

Except for Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism
War has Never Solved Anything.

Communism has only killed 100 Million People
let’s give it another chance.

Saddam Only Kills His Own People
It’s None of Our Business!

 

[Petrel]

Yep, that's Protest Warrior.

KenH, you seem to be forgetting the fact that the United States is a nation (with a volunteer military, I'll add) and that Iraq is a nation. Unfortunately nations usually don't settle conflicts by single combat between the leaders, although that probably would be a really good way of doing it.

If only it would work!

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by KenH:
Your cases do not give you the right to put other people at risk.

To use your example, then it should have been George W. Bush himself who went to Baghdad to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

The nation - through it's elected representatives and excecutive leaders - has every right to demand its fellow citizens to defend it against all enemies by service to the nation. We, as individual citizens, are obligated to performing that service if so called to do it. In any conflict, some have to lead and some have to follow and all have to perform the specific roles assigned to them.

[ March 23, 2006, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Dragoon68 ]

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by Enoch:
Saw this on some t-shirts.

Except for Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism
War has Never Solved Anything.

Communism has only killed 100 Million People
let’s give it another chance.

Saddam Only Kills His Own People
It’s None of Our Business!

Excellent!

 

[Dragoon68]

Our Congress - that's the folks we freely elect to represent us - decided the following in 2002 and wrote it down to make it real clear what would be done and why it would be done:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations' (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material an unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the Wap Xnwers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

This is exactly what our military has been busy doing for us.