Who thinks Killing or Dying for your country is a good Idea?

by new boy 79 Replies latest jw friends

  • lovelylil
    lovelylil

    Frankly, I am getting tired of people thinking you are not a christian just because you are not picketing against wars. I have no part in them nor ever will because I am only for one kingdom - Christ's kingdom. This is my personal belief. I think maybe some are misunderstanding what I was saying. I am not FOR war. I am AGAINST it. But we live in an imperfect world ruled by humans who are only concerned with their own power and glory and that is the main problem. Like the bible says "man has dominated man". And they will continue to do so. While it is noble for some of us to hope to change things to the contrary, I do not believe man himself will be able to accomplish true peace. That is all I was saying. Until then, you need an army for protection. It is a fact of the current life.

    Do I support war - NO

    Do I think the U.S. should be peaceful with all men, being an example for others - Sure

    Do I think the U.S. will ever do it - NO, the U.S. goverment is concerned with its own glory and power just like all the other nations

    Do I think man will ever bring true peace upon the earth? NO

    In order to do this the hearts of everyone needs to be changed into more peaceful ones. And I believe only divine intervention can do this. (my opinion)

    Do I believe that while we live in the present world, that God would be against a Christian defending himself IF someone else was the aggressor? NO

    Tetra - like I said, keep being you. We need more like you to set an example. Peace, Lilly

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    Neccesary and good idea are two different things.

    The question reminds me of the Bill Hicks routine about whether gay's should be in the millitary. According to him anyone stupid enough to be in the millitary should be in the millitary, gay or otherwise.

  • tetrapod.sapien
    tetrapod.sapien

    lol, ya, hicks says it the way it is...

    According to him anyone stupid enough to be in the millitary should be in the millitary, gay or otherwise.

    been reflecting on this a little since yesterday, myself. even if a dumb and violent person were equal parts nature and nurture, there would still be a smaller chance of passing genes, or violent memes onto children, if say an iraqi decided to "defend his family" from the invading forces americans like to call heros of liberty and freedom.


    Sometimes war comes to you.

    i'm sure the iraqis and the afghanis would be the first to tell you this.


    Do I believe that while we live in the present world, that God would be against a Christian defending himself IF someone else was the aggressor? NO

    and i guess allah has no problem with a moslem defending himself IF someone else was the aggressor. ah, yes, and the wheels of cyclical dysfunction continue spinning around while the religious people all have "God on their side".

    Frankly, I am getting tired of people thinking you are not a christian just because you are not picketing against wars

    no. no, i never said you were not a christian.

    but just for the record, you do understand where i am coming from, right? like, i have no god, so i want to make the world better now instead of in the future. you get where i am coming from, right? do you understand my frustration with religious people in this context lilly? in this whole conversation, have you put yourself in my shoes even once? and if you have, have you taken the time to turn around and just simply look at what you are saying to me about jesus making it all better, just for the saked of understanding where i am coming from? have you done this? because i know where you are coming from. i used to be a christian, and i used to believe the same things you do.

    regards,

    tetra

  • lovelylil
    lovelylil

    Tetra,

    I can understand where you are coming from. It seems we both want the same thing but believe it will come about in different ways that is all. And the world's religions have done more to hurt peaceful relations then they have to help it. I think about this every day, why can't they focus on what they all have in common rather than their differences? Really all of mankind wants to live a peaceful life and raise their children without harm coming to them. I'm sure you will agree with me on that one? And I do believe each one of us personally has the obligation to promote peace with others, no matter what their religious background, or non-religious background is. We truly need more people like YOU, that is for sure. Lilly

  • riverofdeceit
    riverofdeceit

    Until we live in a eutopia, there will be aggressors, and there will be the weak. There will be those seeking power/control, motivated by greed, sometimes just motivated by survival instincts. All men are NOT created equal. There will always be those who are motivated to improve their life, some by any means necessary. Those who do not have will want, and some will try to get what they want- by ANY MEANS NECESSARY! Those who have, will try to keep. They will try to keep by whatever means are necessary. Is dying for your country (read home, if you will) a good idea? No, of course not. Is protecting your way of life a good idea? Yes. I don't want to be forced to bow to any gods (political, national, religious, ideological, etc.)and I will fight those who will try to force me, even if I have to fight my own country (read: Nation). The issue is not black and white by any means. I will protect my home, hopefully not having to die while trying to do so and at the same time hoping that I'll have the stones to sacrifice my life if it means that I will be prolonging the life of those I love, and those who are incapable of doing so on their own. Would I kill someone (if possible) trying to just steal my car? No. Would I kill someone trying to steal my car while my child was still in it? Yes. Would I kill someone who was threatening my own life? Yes, if possible. If I had the time to convince them not to kill me without me killing them would I take that route? If it was feasible.

    While I am sure that there are indeed some true pacifists in the world, I don't tend to believe that most who claim to be pacifist are really so. Many people claiming to be pacifist are pacifist at the expense of others and I am as disgusted with them as I am the "warriors". The question in the subject line is a bullshit question. The question is loaded. Many animals travel in packs. Most of these animals have a hierarchy. They are equivalent to human tribes. They all have there own jobs. The weak are eventually weeded out. They either learn to survive, or they are abandoned by the herd, eventually.

    Edited to add- I am also an atheist.

  • OUTLAW
    OUTLAW

    Where did newboy go ?...OUTLAW

  • Mystla
    Mystla

    Maybe this thread was too violent?

  • OUTLAW
    OUTLAW

    Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!..Now thats funny!!...OUTLAW

  • Forscher
    Forscher

    To expand on my thought a little.

    I think my quotation of Sun Tsu should make clear that my answer to the question is no, killing or dying for any country is not a good idea. And I agree with the ancient master of War that the job of our leaders is to make sure that our enemies are so aware that attacking us will lead to their own demise that they do not take the step of attacking us in the first place. To have to go to war is usually a failure on the part of a country's leaders of some sort or another.

    That being said, I also realise that there are folks out there who can't be dissuaded from attacking others by any means short of assasination. The Quakers learned that the hard way dueing the French and Indian war of the 18th century. The result is that Quakers, who are committed pacifists for religious reasons, are now permitted and do take up arms to defend our country under certain circumstances. Richard Nixon, a Quaker, was an officer during the second world war. We learned the same lesson on Dec. 7, 1941. The pacifist factions were so powerful that they kept us out of the war, thinking that if we stayed out of Europe's business we would never have to fight. However, staying out of the fight didn't work and we were dragged into it by the Japanese anyway.

    The problem we have now is that those who want to blame the US for all the world's problems refuse to wake up and smell how rotten the roses really are, period. They stay in denial, despite the fact of 3,000 dead here in the US and others dead in Brittain, Spain, Indonesia, and Israel should be more than enough evidence that we are now in the midst of another war with folks who resent the fact that they couldn't conquer Europe when they tried both before and after the crusades. Those humiliating defeats have festered, added to by the prosperity of our culture in contrast with the poverty of their own. Instead of fixing what is wrong with their economies, they want to blame us for all of their troubles and that resentment is now boiling over. They long for the days when the world trembled at the sound of the boots of the Moorish and Ottoman armies!

    Some four administrations failed us before Bush Jr. even took office. Carter failed to deal effectively with the Ayatollah and sat by while he put together a network of terror which was a clear danger. Reagan, was so focussed on ending the cold war with the Soviets that he sat back while the Iranians further built that network thoughout the middle east and didn't bother to take action against them when they attacked and killed our own troops in Lebanon and elsewhere. Those two can almost be forgiven their lapse because the cold war with the Communists was the big issue of the day and it had the highest priority in the public eye. Note, I said thay could almost be forgiven. If they had nipped that one in the bud when it was still in the womb, so to speak, Iran wouldn't be the danger it is now. That is one case where even the fundies would've agreed with a form of abortion!

    There is no excuse for Bush Sr. and Clinton. The danger was there, plain for any to see who just looked. But these leaders from both ends of the political spectrum ignored the threat and hoped that if we didn't bother the Jihadists they would just go away. Talk about wishful thinking! Rather than deal with the growing threat from both Wahabists and Shia, Bush Sr. chose to start reducing our military strength at a time when we could ill afford it. Clinton carried on that policy with a vengance to the point that when he left office our military was at only half the strength it had when he took office with more reductions mandated by law. He also shit-canned vital weapons programs (reduced the order for F-21s by around two-thirds and delayed the production and deployment of those few left in the order for one such example) and wasted a whole lot of advanced weaponry in Bosnia without bothering to replace it. And all of this with one attack on the World Trade Center, attacks on several American embassies, and the attacks on our troops in Saudi Arabia, among other things which should've made it plain to a blind man that making our military weaker was the wrong thing to do.

    Since military strength is such a vital component to deterence, as Sun Tsu observed some 2,500 years ago, is it any wonder that what Bush II inherited from Clinton both in terms of military strength as well as effective intelligence capacity was so weak that it had ceased to deter our enemies and we were gifted with 9/11? Our military and intelligence complex was so gutted that even if Bush had tried to start fixing it the day he took office 9/11 still would've happened.

    The sober truth is that by Sun Tsu's definition every president since Gerald Ford has been an abject and utter failure, and that includes Reagan even though he did his best to build, rather than reduce the deterent effect of our military, something all the others did the exact opposite of. The lessons which should've been learned by being caught with our pants down around our ankles by WWI and WWII, weren't.

    What has to be done is to build our military to a strength which will make anyboy else think three or four times before tempting fate by messing around with us. We also need to build an effective intelligence community, which Sun Tzu observed in the last chapter of his book, The Art of War, is so cost effective and vital to our security that only an idiot would short it. Then we need to have the will to use that intelligence appratus to uncover threats to our security and deal with them long before it becomes necessary to do the bad thing and send our troops out to kill and die.

    Unfortunately, the crowd which is in denial and wants to blame America for all the world's ills refuses to face those facts of life, and they own the media and educational system and use them to form public opinion along their own line of thinking (with the exception of Radio and part of the net of course). The last few years have proven that it is going to take alot more than the bones of the 3,000 dead which have already littered the streets of New York City to wake those people up to reality.

    Its a little late now to debate the merit of killing or dying for our country. And the real irony is that all of this could've been avoided long before those towers fell.

    Forscher

  • avidbiblereader
    avidbiblereader

    Would not die for country and don't think it is a good idea, to me I believe the Bible and to die for Christ is a different story but not for the ruler of this world.

    abr

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit