If magic and Holy Spirit existed then yeah wars would be gone and we'd be happy. But, we don't live in that world. We have to make do with what we have. And god sure hasn't a d will not be solving wars for us. Come on.
Memorial Day.... still struggling with the idea of war and support
by Butterflyleia85 54 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
flipper
COFTY- Yes, indeed I understand what you are saying. And I agree, the oppressive Syrian government should NOT be allowed to massacre rebels and use chemical weapons against them. But as Designs so correctly points out unless there is a benefit for the allied powers , i.e. ( oil, $$$$, land ) or some other U.S.A. advantage to be gained from assisting the oppressed in Syria- I doubt U.S.A. will get involved. Assistance from our country usually comes with a price or there has to be something in it for us .
History proves this as well. Back in 1813 or thereabouts the Native American Tecumseh had gathered MANY Indian tribes to try to fight the newly formed American government in order to get the Indian's land back. The British government had promised Tecumseh that they would assist the Native Americans and tribes in battle with the U.S.A . in order to defeat the U.S. A. and get the indigenous lands back for the Shawnee and other Eastern United States tribes which had been stolen by the U.S. government and military. The battle was going well for Tecumseh against the U.S. but inexplicably the British general and British troops pulled out, retreated and stopped supporting the Indians and it ended up with Tecumseh being murdered , the Native Indians scattered , and left them fleeing back westward after the Americans were victorious .
Point I'm making is even IF the U.S.A. assists in Syria what's to say that if the going gets tough that they wwon't bail as well if they see there is NO benefit in it for the U.S. A. ? History has proven that the motives of these big suprpower governments are NOT pure in order just to assist those who are afflicted in these countries. There HAS to be something in it for the U.S. powers to benefit if they are going to assist a weaker people or outnumbered country. Now I'll dodge the bullets from everybody who is super patriotic and believes the military is so righteous in their motives.
If the U.S. military was THAT righteous- they wouldn't be hiding and burying sexual rape of many female military members themselves . There is a lot that goes on behind the scenes that mainstream America / England does NOT know about in mainstream Fox network news. It's not a pretty picture. Not a black and white solution . Lots of gray areas existing if you get my drift. But I agree something needs to be done to protect citizens in Syria - yes. Just a question of WHO is going to do it and what's in it for them. That's the real world unfortunately
-
ilikecheese
I'm not a JW and I've pretty much had someone in my family fight in every major war since the American Revolution, so I don't know if my opinion really matters. What I was wondering, though, is how someone could take pacifism away from the Bible when the OT is literally just war after war after war and God telling the Jews to fight. I'm not being judgmental at all. In fact, my grandmother's family was half filled with Quakers, and they've been pacifists for hundreds of years. I just want to know how people who say the Bible teaches pacifism explain the OT.
In general, non religious terms, though, there are certain times when it is downright immoral not to get involved. I don't see how anyone would be okay with the mass slaughter of Jews and other atrocities being performed by the Nazis and the Japanese in World War 2 and think they shouldn't do anything. I understand being against certain wars we've been involved in recently and that aren't really helping anyone. If someone is in dire need of help, though, there's no excuse for doing nothing.
-
sooner7nc
I do remember the Alamo. There have been some great movies about it. Unfortunately they all ignore the fact that the people defending the Alamo were foreign invaders. Texas was Mexican territory, Americans had no right to the place.
Actually many of the people defending the Alamo were people who had been liberally allowed to immigrate into Texas to help in settling the territory. They were given this right by the Mexican government that had only existed as a nation for 16 years itself having won it's independence in the Mexican Revolution. So, essentially the people had a complete right to be there.
Also, they kicked ass. Thusly you have Texas.
-
EmptyInside
One would think everyone would be for peace. But,just look at the crazy in North Korea as an example.
But,as far as my country,the United States,anymore,I hear many saying they just want the troops home,enough of the Middle East already. I doubt their issues will resolved any time soon. When will it stop,there is a breaking point. We have so many issues at home. Plus,I don't see them rushing to come to the aid of those in Darfur,because,guess what,no oil.
I realize sometimes,you have to stand up for what is right. World War II was a good example. Hitler needed to be stopped.
I would come to the aid of someone in need on the street. But,I'm just not the join the military type. I'm kind of too old now,and it's just not in me.
-
Justitia Themis
Point I'm making is even IF the U.S.A. assists in Syria what's to say that if the going gets tough that they wwon't bail as well if they see there is NO benefit in it for the U.S. A. ? History has proven that the motives of these big suprpower governments are NOT pure in order just to assist those who are afflicted in these countries
Hhmm...people are really going to doubt I'm a Democrat now, but...why should we unilaterally help without a corollary benefit?
If the world wants to act in unison and share the costs, that is one thing. And it appears that today the EU voted to allow arms to Syria, so perhaps that is happening. Nevertheless, just because we are a superpower doesn't mean we are the world's military welfare system.
-
JeffT
Justia makes a good point. Frankly, I would have thought people in some quarters would have learned something from Iraq. Yes, what is happening in Syria is terrible. What makes us think we can charge in their and make it better? Recent experience would indicate we have a better chance of making it worse than it already is.
-
heathen
If I saw a man and woman in a domestic fight of some kind , I feel only I'm supposed to call the police . No one knows who started it , women can be just as violent as men , some even trained in martial arts , go figure there . I've seen couples fight and still cohabitate . As far as giving texas back to mexico , I don't see that happening ,whether I'd support it or not has nothing to do with the topic of pacifism and morallity . Manefest destiny was about ethnic cleansing without question . No one can turn the clock back on that . The so called rebels in syria are believed to be the Al queida , kinda against the war on terror to support them . I really don't think there is a side worth the US time and effort.
-
LongHairGal
Butterflyleia85:
Sad to say, war is sometimes a necessity. This is something the Witness religion is in obstinate stupidity about. Where do these fools think their freedoms come from??
I like Thomas Jefferson's quote: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." So, even if some nation somewhere wanted to just "mind their own business", they still have to be vigilant and may need to go to war to defend themselves from those who would invade them for whatever reason.
-
OnTheWayOut
War HAS BEEN a necessary evil for mankind. Man could outgrow it, but probably won't anytime soon.
I try to understand differing viewpoints. While I now tend to understand how war is generally not productive and that huge countries like the United States could work toward defending themselves and never engaging the enemy, I also try to understand how others believe in the preemptive strike or "eye for an eye."
These are huge subjects of debate and it is impossible to find common ground and easy anwers.