Why Are American Christians So Bloodthirsty?

[Spongemom]

Why Are Some American Christians So Bloodthirsty?
Understanding Pro-war Christians' Indifference to Civilian Deaths
by Dr. Teresa Whitehurst

It's been going on for years now. Almost daily we read that another child, another parent, another sister or brother, another grandpa or aunt, is killed in Afghanistan or Iraq by U.S. weaponry in Mr. Bush's "war on terror." Sometimes it's a wedding party, or a bunch of kids, or a family of six. Sometimes it's a journalist, or a whole group of journalists, who may even be killed on camera in real time for all the world to see and hear.

But no matter how bad it gets, nothing seems to change Americans' support for war, which for some reason is stiffest among Christian supporters of the Bush administration. "Stuff happens in a war zone." "Don't worry because God is in control." With these and other slogans, I've been reassured by countless pro-war Christians that, as long as civilians aren't intentionally targeted, taking their lives is okay, maybe even predestined, God's will.

Recently a Christian from Australia wrote to ask, "Why are American Christians so bloodthirsty? Why do they support the war in Iraq, no matter how many innocent people are made to suffer? We just don't understand why they're willing to kill other people so that they can feel more safe – it's so selfish!"

She's right, and she's wrong. She's right about the fact that many Christians in America will blindly support whichever war their president promotes, with the assumption that his much-advertised praying guarantees us that God approves of all those bombs and missiles, and even the inevitable collateral damage.

This "don't worry, be happy" stance of pro-war Christians can make those of us who suffer at the news of civilian deaths almost green with envy: How do they go blithely to church, pray and give an offering, then go eat some nice mashed potatoes and gravy at Cracker Barrel with nary a worry about the families being bombed or shot or crushed by their own military at that very moment?

But she's wrong in her assumption that all Christians in the U.S. find civilian deaths an acceptable price to (let someone else) pay for Mr. Bush's ultimate goals. Many, including those in the evangelical community, were raised to obey Jesus' teachings above any other, and suffer mightily whenever they learn that more innocent people have lost their lives to this terrorizing "war on terror."

She's also wrong about the seemingly bloodthirsty attitude of pro-war Christians; most of them are nice people on a personal basis. They love their kids and their fellow Americans, and would never have supported the bombing of, say, Oklahoma City's malls and suburbs in an effort to target a Timothy McVeigh. And they certainly don't go around saying they hope a lot more civilians are killed by U.S. bombs and guns. They've been trained to deny it's happening or downplay its importance, thinking instead about Iraq's future democracy, the next life, or the "big picture."

Failure to Care: How it Happens

The reasons for blindness or indifference toward civilian casualties are several. Many if not most pro-war Christians, particularly those in the southern and midwestern states:

-rarely see news accounts of civilian casualties because our major TV news programs and newspapers either omit those stories altogether or mention them in passing (without photos, the crucial element in terms of public opinion) and, wanting to believe that Bush's war is working, do not seek out evidence of the maiming and killing of our troops or of Iraqi civilians,

-have been immunized against thinking for themselves or doubting the Bush administration with certain Bible verses (particularly those verses in Romans telling us to obey and submit to governmental authority figures) – a passive stance that's strikingly different from the questioning that Jesus both urged and modeled toward greedy, power-seeking, and hypocritical authority figures (e.g., "false prophets" and "wolves in sheep's clothing"),

-are told not to worry, when they do hear of civilian casualties, that life in the flesh is less important than life eternal (one European writer told me that a friend confided, "Yes it's sad, but if some Iraqi civilians are killed by U.S. bombs and it saves even one soul, it will have been worth it" – a sentiment that, sadly, is not unusual),

-feel they dare not oppose this or any war because talking about peace, objecting to war's human cost, or even referring to the United Nations has become associated in their minds with the Antichrist and eternal damnation, thanks to fictional works based on Thessalonians such as the Left Behind books and video (this video makes clear the fearful reasoning behind the knee-jerk reactions of many pro-war Christians against peace itself, peacemakers of any kind [poignant indeed in light of Jesus' teaching, "Blessed are the peacemakers"], the Middle East "road map," international dialogue and cooperation, and any form of human rights accountability), and

-have been convinced by right-wing preachers, authors and radio hosts (people like Rush Limbaugh are the most influential, because their voices are heard for hours daily rather than written in a book or heard once a week in church) to shift their allegiance away from Jesus' teachings about merciful behavior toward and compassion for family and stranger alike ("the least of these") to the more pro-violence, pro-war values espoused by various non-Gospel biblical writers.


Each of these is a powerful influence, but when combined, they dramatically alter Christian values in fundamental ways. Whereas evangelical churches used to teach compassion (in liberal doses, not conservative soundbites) and warn against responding to threats or attacks with violence, today's conservative churches urge parishioners to support capital punishment, zero-tolerance policies of all kinds, and corporal punishment to "shape the will" of babies, toddlers, and children. Someone raised in this kind of environment grows up to become an adult who's afraid to step out of line, and who naturally resents or even hates those who feel free to do so.

White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card summed it up best: President Bush sees Americans as so many children who need a father to guide and protect them. Indeed, conservative Christians are raised for a dictatorship where the "leaders" make the calls and are not to be questioned, rather than a democracy, where dissent is a cherished right. As linguistics professor George Lakoff has concluded from his study of the conservative-liberal divide that's polarizing American society, conservatives (the popular but by no means accurate label) are accustomed to, hence gravitate toward, a strict father – and nothing can be more strict than "our father" Bush demanding that we accept without question all the "stuff" that happens in his war.

Moral Relativism: In War, Anything Goes

But most importantly, conservative Christianity in the U.S. has succumbed to that which it has, in decades past, most rigorously warned against: moral relativism. By restricting any discussion of morality to sexual behavior, right-wing politicians have obliterated the once-central Christian teaching that the way we teach others is of paramount importance to God. Cleverly "working the room," pro-war politicians have infiltrated churches to such a degree that killings and torture are no longer within the province of morality. When morality is only about sex, no aspect of war – even the killing of entire families – can arouse criticism, much less condemnation.

In short, everything that happens in the execution of war, even that which is flagrantly in violation of the moral values that Jesus taught regarding violence and revenge, prayer for enemies and peacemaking, becomes acceptable when Jesus' teachings are compartmentalized as relevant only in our personal lives. When Jesus is sidelined, those parts of the Bible that support authority, no matter what it does to innocent people, will take precedence. This is what has happened (often with the prodding, political influence and financial support of right-wing political organizations) in many of our churches today. Unless Christians begin to speak up publicly for the teachings of Christ – the cornerstone of our faith – we will continue to slide into the kind of moral relativism that causes others to wonder why we are so bloodthirsty.

Comments on this please...

[East of Eden]

Darius, aggressors like Bin Laden always portray themselves as the victim, see Mein Kampf.

I didn't quote him so people could feel sorry for him. I thought his worldview was useful in explaining why so many others around the world have adopted it. Can't you see how his rhetoric -- the true, the exaggerated, and the false -- could appeal much more quickly to your average uneducated Muslim farmer in Iraq during the initial US invasion, or in Pakistan after another daily drone strike? US foreign policy is only making this country conform to Osama's propoganda, and it's the greatest recruiting tool al-Qaida has.

So what do you propose, we not fight back against the Islamfascists? For some, it is always America's fault.

It's clear that the blowback far outweighs the merits and that Iraq was a failure even by the standards of neocons and statists, as it was unsuccessful in propping up a stable, obedient government in Baghdad.

The number of American casualties during the war is closer to 4500. As far as anyone who is informed on this issue is concerned, that's 4500 too many.

Aside from the absurd analogy... having to go back in time to justify modern casualty counts... you are no more justified in claiming that their deaths were justified than saying that other peoples money was well spent. You didn't have to lose a son or father or brother. But again, it's so easy to be generous with other people's money and to be selfless with other people's lives; government does it all the time. The fact is, that life is too important to have it wasted needlessly. You're pro-life; why do I have to explain to you that those statistics are human beings? And that's not counting the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed. Was it worth it for them?

The neocon mindset would chuck 4000 more into the fray if it weren't for people like me who question wasting money and blood on pointless unending wars.

Future generations not only have to pay for the war, but also for the mistakes. All the United States is doing is making more terrorist and terrorist sympathizers and I fear the world will be far more dangerous for my kids thanks to warmongers like Bush and Obama and their faithful flocks.

Do you not see a benefit to removing Hussein, who even the NYT says killed up to a million of his own people? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_righ ... ein's_Iraq

[Darias]

So what do you propose, we not fight back against the Islamfascists? For some, it is always America's fault.

I would ask that you not become distracted away from my arguments by writing them off because of your wish to associate me with some sort of "blame America" crowd. I'm not going to single out one state and exaggerate the greatness of another. All I'm doing is trying to stress the point that the consequences of a foreign policy are the direct result of such a policy enacted.

US foreign policy hasn't been to combat Islamofascism. Otherwise you would expect to see some consistency in this approach. The kingdom of Saudi Arabia is propped up solely because of the United States; they're one of the most fundamentalist groups out there; most of the 9/11 hijackers were from there.

And as of late the US has taken advantage of the Arab Spring in certain places where it benefited them the most -- in Libya and maybe in Syria, but not in Bahrain or Yemen or Iraq or Afghanistan. What tends to result from these revolutions is that while dictatorial secular regimes (propped up by the US or otherwise) fall, fundamentalist religious governments take their place. This push to vote Islamic is based on the association of democracy and secularism with US imperialism and US backed dictatorships. Secular Muslims and Liberals tend to be drowned out by the tyranny of the religious majority, and now the new Egyptian leader is not subject to his own constitution; one pharaoh has replaced another.

But did the US change the Saudi Arabian regime? No, the US decided to overthrow a secular dictatorship instead (Iraq). As a result of the invasion, countless Islamic militants from around the world flocked to Iraq, capitalizing on the already fractured religious identities there. There wasn't a terrorist problem in Iraq before the war. The moment this government set foot in Iraq is the moment America fufiled the role of Crusader in the eyes of many Muslims around the world. Religious collectivism in part explains why we see terrorism today. The Boston bomber attacked because of the drone strikes in Pakistan that killed children. Every terrorist attack we see is justified in the eyes of the terrorist because of something the US did. Once the US stops leveling neighborhoods in Pakistan and once it withdraws from Afghanistan and stops supporting corrupt regimes with tax dollars -- the numbers of al-Qaida and lone wolf terrorists will diminish. Who will believe their message that the US is out to kill and steal from Muslims and destroy Islam if the US isn't around?

But when the United States kills hundreds of Pakistani children with indiscriminate signature drone strikes -- I mean what do you expect other than hundreds of more terrorists and terrorist sympathizers and at the very least hatred of the United States?

I mean, do you love the Muslim Brotherhood or Muslims for how they've treated the Coptic Christians? No, because you as a Christian identify with those Christians. The same collectivist mindset is at play for Muslims. The more the US does to invade and bomb and steal from Muslim people, the more believable it is for Muslims to associate it with Satan, and to think that maybe the US is really out to destroy Muslim people.

Of course the real motives for US foreign policy are not malevolent at all... they're strictly self-interested, despite the fact that US foreign policy causes more problems for the state than it solves. It's all about prolonging the life of the petrodollar, power projection, and the mercantilist endeavor of conquering new markets and new supplies for big oil corporations.

Do you not see a benefit to removing Hussein, who even the NYT says killed up to a million of his own people? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_righ ... ein's_Iraq

Under the watch of the United States and the government defended his actions by claiming Iran was just as bad. Our government funded his horrible regime with US tax dollars and weapons. The US government funded both sides of the Iran-Iraq war, much of which accounts for that estimate. The US did this to keep either country from gaining any hegemony or influence over the region. Now it appears Iran has come out on top. Iraq started that bloody war, and probably wouldn't have weren't for Uncle Sam backing them up and financing them.

All of this happened well over a decade before the US government wanted to invade. Saddam was a nuisance for invading Kuwait, but he became a liability when he decided to start trading oil with Euros instead of our worthless fiat currency. That's one of the biggest reasons for the invasion right there.

Claiming "we" went in to stop radical Islam when there wasn't any in existence in Iraq, and claiming "we" went there to bring democracy when the state our government installed arrests and puts political rivals to death and tries to subjugate the Kurdish North.... it's nonsense. The US government wanted a more pliable restrained regime with the illusion of a free state. But it didn't even get that; and now their Prime Minister is all buddy-buddy with Iran and Iraq is worse off than we found it.

Saying "but, he was a bad guy!" is nothing but a tu quoque fallacy, and it ignores who fathered and supported him. It also is used as a justification for a war and an occupation that had nothing to do with altruistic motives of wanting to spread freedom and love for everyone. These are the facts. Just because the facts make this country look bad doesn't mean the facts don't matter. Go where the facts lead you. Stop apologizing for big government.

[East of Eden]

So what do you propose, we not fight back against the Islamfascists? For some, it is always America's fault.

I would ask that you not become distracted away from my arguments by writing them off because of your wish to associate me with some sort of "blame America" crowd. I'm not going to single out one state and exaggerate the greatness of another. All I'm doing is trying to stress the point that the consequences of a foreign policy are the direct result of such a policy enacted.

US foreign policy hasn't been to combat Islamofascism. Otherwise you would expect to see some consistency in this approach. The kingdom of Saudi Arabia is propped up solely because of the United States; they're one of the most fundamentalist groups out there; most of the 9/11 hijackers were from there.

And as of late the US has taken advantage of the Arab Spring in certain places where it benefited them the most -- in Libya and maybe in Syria, but not in Bahrain or Yemen or Iraq or Afghanistan. What tends to result from these revolutions is that while dictatorial secular regimes (propped up by the US or otherwise) fall, fundamentalist religious governments take their place. This push to vote Islamic is based on the association of democracy and secularism with US imperialism and US backed dictatorships. Secular Muslims and Liberals tend to be drowned out by the tyranny of the religious majority, and now the new Egyptian leader is not subject to his own constitution; one pharaoh has replaced another.

But did the US change the Saudi Arabian regime? No, the US decided to overthrow a secular dictatorship instead (Iraq). As a result of the invasion, countless Islamic militants from around the world flocked to Iraq, capitalizing on the already fractured religious identities there. There wasn't a terrorist problem in Iraq before the war.

It is naive to say Saddam had no link to terror. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120631495290958169.html

The moment this government set foot in Iraq is the moment America fufiled the role of Crusader in the eyes of many Muslims around the world. Religious collectivism in part explains why we see terrorism today. The Boston bomber attacked because of the drone strikes in Pakistan that killed children. Every terrorist attack we see is justified in the eyes of the terrorist because of something the US did.

What was Bin Laden's excuse for 9/11? As I said before, aggressors always portray themselves as victim, such Islam agression has gone on since 611 AD.

Once the US stops leveling neighborhoods in Pakistan and once it withdraws from Afghanistan and stops supporting corrupt regimes with tax dollars -- the numbers of al-Qaida and lone wolf terrorists will diminish.

Pure speculation.

Who will believe their message that the US is out to kill and steal from Muslims and destroy Islam if the US isn't around?

The same crazies who don't believe who the real 9/11 killers were.

But when the United States kills hundreds of Pakistani children with indiscriminate signature drone strikes -- I mean what do you expect other than hundreds of more terrorists and terrorist sympathizers and at the very least hatred of the United States?

There are always innocent victims in war, especially when the enemy hides among civilians. Shouldn't they be upset at the terrorists who do that? We killed lots of innocent Japances at Hiroshima, they didn't declare a terror war against us for decades. What you miss is we are their enemy because we are 'infidels' who appreciate freedom.

I mean, do you love the Muslim Brotherhood or Muslims for how they've treated the Coptic Christians? No, because you as a Christian identify with those Christians. The same collectivist mindset is at play for Muslims. The more the US does to invade and bomb and steal from Muslim people, the more believable it is for Muslims to associate it with Satan, and to think that maybe the US is really out to destroy Muslim people.

It is ludicrous to compare our going after terrorist criminals with how Egyptian Christians are treated. And Muslims are the most common victims of the jihadists.

Of course the real motives for US foreign policy are not malevolent at all... they're strictly self-interested, despite the fact that US foreign policy causes more problems for the state than it solves. It's all about prolonging the life of the petrodollar, power projection, and the mercantilist endeavor of conquering new markets and new supplies for big oil corporations.

So Iraq was all about oil, huh? Wouldn't it have been closer to invade Venezuela?

Our government funded his horrible regime with US tax dollars and weapons.

And we once funded Stalin, so? Saddam had enough oil money to be a threat on his own.

The US government funded both sides of the Iran-Iraq war, much of which accounts for that estimate. The US did this to keep either country from gaining any hegemony or influence over the region. Now it appears Iran has come out on top. Iraq started that bloody war, and probably wouldn't have weren't for Uncle Sam backing them up and financing them.

All of this happened well over a decade before the US government wanted to invade. Saddam was a nuisance for invading Kuwait, but he became a liability when he decided to start trading oil with Euros instead of our worthless fiat currency. That's one of the biggest reasons for the invasion right there.

I actually do agree with that, we maybe postponed the day when the dollar ceases to be the world's reserve currency.

Claiming "we" went in to stop radical Islam when there wasn't any in existence in Iraq, and claiming "we" went there to bring democracy when the state our government installed arrests and puts political rivals to death and tries to subjugate the Kurdish North.... it's nonsense. The US government wanted a more pliable restrained regime with the illusion of a free state. But it didn't even get that; and now their Prime Minister is all buddy-buddy with Iran and Iraq is worse off than we found it.

Saying "but, he was a bad guy!" is nothing but a tu quoque fallacy, and it ignores who fathered and supported him. It also is used as a justification for a war and an occupation that had nothing to do with altruistic motives of wanting to spread freedom and love for everyone. These are the facts. Just because the facts make this country look bad doesn't mean the facts don't matter. Go where the facts lead you. Stop apologizing for big government.

I've already said it was a mistake, but find you hypocritical for saying I don't care about human life while refusing to celebrate the removal of a dictator who killed a million of his people. Mistake or not, THAT is reason to celebrate. I agree with a lot of what you say, even if one thinks such foreign wars are a good idea, we can't afford them.

[bluethread]

We can bring this home so it is not so abstract to those of us who have never served in the military. There are people who die in police firefights. It happens. Are we to permit killers to continue killing until they run out of ammunition or victims, or do we take strategic risks and take the perp out early?

[Darias]

It is naive to say Saddam had no link to terror. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120631495290958169.html

How about a more recent article demonstrating that al-Qaida and Saddam had no connections prior to the invasion, according to the CIA and official Pentagon reports. Remember this bogus claim that Saddam was somehow behind 9/11 was the first excuse before the Bush administration kept repeating "WMDs" to scare the public into supporting the war. I know that Bush was often labeled as stupid, but he was no fool.

What was Bin Laden's excuse for 9/11? As I said before, aggressors always portray themselves as victim, such Islam agression has gone on since 611 AD.

Terrorism is often equal parts political as it is religious. Whatever qualms I have with Islam or fundamentalist Islam really are separate from the issue of Islamic terrorism. You can read about Osama's motives from his own words in that link I gave. "We hate you because of your freedoms" was not #1 on the list. His problems were mainly with US actions in the Middle East, and that message now resonates louder than ever for those civilians who's homes and children are destroyed via blind signature strikes in Pakistan and Yemen.

Once the US stops leveling neighborhoods in Pakistan and once it withdraws from Afghanistan and stops supporting corrupt regimes with tax dollars -- the numbers of al-Qaida and lone wolf terrorists will diminish.

Pure speculation.

Who will believe their message that the US is out to kill and steal from Muslims and destroy Islam if the US isn't around?

The same crazies who don't believe who the real 9/11 killers were.

But when the United States kills hundreds of Pakistani children with indiscriminate signature drone strikes -- I mean what do you expect other than hundreds of more terrorists and terrorist sympathizers and at the very least hatred of the United States?

There are always innocent victims in war, especially when the enemy hides among civilians. Shouldn't they be upset at the terrorists who do that? We killed lots of innocent Japances at Hiroshima, they didn't declare a terror war against us for decades. What you miss is we are their enemy because we are 'infidels' who appreciate freedom.

I mean, do you love the Muslim Brotherhood or Muslims for how they've treated the Coptic Christians? No, because you as a Christian identify with those Christians. The same collectivist mindset is at play for Muslims. The more the US does to invade and bomb and steal from Muslim people, the more believable it is for Muslims to associate it with Satan, and to think that maybe the US is really out to destroy Muslim people.

It is ludicrous to compare our going after terrorist criminals with how Egyptian Christians are treated. And Muslims are the most common victims of the jihadists.

Of course the real motives for US foreign policy are not malevolent at all... they're strictly self-interested, despite the fact that US foreign policy causes more problems for the state than it solves. It's all about prolonging the life of the petrodollar, power projection, and the mercantilist endeavor of conquering new markets and new supplies for big oil corporations.

So Iraq was all about oil, huh? Wouldn't it have been closer to invade Venezuela?

Our government funded his horrible regime with US tax dollars and weapons.

And we once funded Stalin, so? Saddam had enough oil money to be a threat on his own.

The US government funded both sides of the Iran-Iraq war, much of which accounts for that estimate. The US did this to keep either country from gaining any hegemony or influence over the region. Now it appears Iran has come out on top. Iraq started that bloody war, and probably wouldn't have weren't for Uncle Sam backing them up and financing them.

All of this happened well over a decade before the US government wanted to invade. Saddam was a nuisance for invading Kuwait, but he became a liability when he decided to start trading oil with Euros instead of our worthless fiat currency. That's one of the biggest reasons for the invasion right there.

I actually do agree with that, we maybe postponed the day when the dollar ceases to be the world's reserve currency.

Claiming "we" went in to stop radical Islam when there wasn't any in existence in Iraq, and claiming "we" went there to bring democracy when the state our government installed arrests and puts political rivals to death and tries to subjugate the Kurdish North.... it's nonsense. The US government wanted a more pliable restrained regime with the illusion of a free state. But it didn't even get that; and now their Prime Minister is all buddy-buddy with Iran and Iraq is worse off than we found it.

Saying "but, he was a bad guy!" is nothing but a tu quoque fallacy, and it ignores who fathered and supported him. It also is used as a justification for a war and an occupation that had nothing to do with altruistic motives of wanting to spread freedom and love for everyone. These are the facts. Just because the facts make this country look bad doesn't mean the facts don't matter. Go where the facts lead you. Stop apologizing for big government.

I've already said it was a mistake, but find you hypocritical for saying I don't care about human life while refusing to celebrate the removal of a dictator who killed a million of his people. Mistake or not, THAT is reason to celebrate. I agree with a lot of what you say, even if one thinks such foreign wars are a good idea, we can't afford them.[/quote]

As I already explained, based on that wikipedia article you cited, the majority of the million killed under Saddam occurred during the war the US encouraged him to wage. That leaves a few hundred thousand killed because of the gassing of the Kurds. If you take the utilitarian approach that you have been using, the US killed more people than Saddam if you include the economic sanctions and the invasion and leave out the Iran-Iraq war entirely.

[mitty]

[Replying to post 33 by East of Eden] There seems to be a history of this Yankee arrogance towards the rest of the world. Who can forget the debacle of the Vietnam Civil War which was recognized as unwinnable and pointless by the mid 1960's and before the war crimes and crimes-against-humanity from indiscriminate bombing of Hanoi, the indiscriminate use of defoliant sprays and it's long-term genetic effects on future generations. Before the introduction of the Phoenix program of terrorizing and torturing and murdering civilians and the My-Lai massacre etc etc etc. There seems something very sick when a country spends such a high percent of it's GDP on defence, where a sacred 18th century writing means that fire-arms are given to children as Christmas and Christening presents (pink ones for girls and blue ones for boys), where public massacres with assault rifles seems a regular event.

[East of Eden]

[Replying to post 33 by East of Eden] There seems to be a history of this Yankee arrogance towards the rest of the world.

The rest of the world would be speaking German or Japanese if not for us.

Who can forget the debacle of the Vietnam Civil War which was recognized as unwinnable and pointless by the mid 1960's and before the war crimes and crimes-against-humanity from indiscriminate bombing of Hanoi, the indiscriminate use of defoliant sprays and it's long-term genetic effects on future generations. Before the introduction of the Phoenix program of terrorizing and torturing and murdering civilians and the My-Lai massacre etc etc etc. There seems something very sick when a country spends such a high percent of it's GDP on defence, where a sacred 18th century writing means that fire-arms are given to children as Christmas and Christening presents (pink ones for girls and blue ones for boys), where public massacres with assault rifles seems a regular event.

Does the debacle of Communist tyranny in SE Asia bother you, or 1 million dead in Cambodia? I agree we should have never gone in (thank JFK and Johnson for that), but it was won until the post-Watergate Democratic congress withdrew all aid to South Vietnam, including humanitarian aid.

[mitty]

[Replying to post 33 by East of Eden] There seems to be a history of this Yankee arrogance towards the rest of the world.

The rest of the world would be speaking German or Japanese if not for us.

Who can forget the debacle of the Vietnam Civil War which was recognized as unwinnable and pointless by the mid 1960's and before the war crimes and crimes-against-humanity from indiscriminate bombing of Hanoi, the indiscriminate use of defoliant sprays and it's long-term genetic effects on future generations. Before the introduction of the Phoenix program of terrorizing and torturing and murdering civilians and the My-Lai massacre etc etc etc. There seems something very sick when a country spends such a high percent of it's GDP on defence, where a sacred 18th century writing means that fire-arms are given to children as Christmas and Christening presents (pink ones for girls and blue ones for boys), where public massacres with assault rifles seems a regular event.

Does the debacle of Communist tyranny in SE Asia bother you, or 1 million dead in Cambodia? I agree we should have never gone in (thank JFK and Johnson for that), but it was won until the post-Watergate Democratic congress withdrew all aid to South Vietnam, including humanitarian aid.

What did Cambodia have to do with Vietnam and do you think things would be any better under the previous corrupt regimes? The Vietnam Civil War was lost before the mid-sixties in trying to prop up a corrupt regime and long before the tet-offensive and before the Phoenix program of American terrorism and torture of civilians. And the war was lost by the baddies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes

[WinePusher]

As you know, the United States has not declared war since WWII. No other war since has been declared by Congress, as the Constitution mandates. Is it really surprising to you that government tends not to abide by its own laws?

Who cares? This is the dumbest criticisms ever made by Ron Paul and his supporters. Declaring war is merely a formality. Just because Congress didn't officially declare war doesn't mean that Congress did not approve the war. Congress gave its consent to invade Iraq and held multiple sessions devoted to the question of whether or not to fund the war.

One of Osama bin Laden's biggest motives for attacking the US in the first place was precisely because he thought bringing down the US, in the same way he thought he brought down the Soviet Union, would ultimately destabilize the puppet governments in the Middle East that were beholden to it. This is why insurgents tend to ally themselves with civilians engaging in civil disobedience against their dictatorial governments -- like in Libya and Syria.

This is nonsense. What puppet governments are you referring to? You mean the governments in the Middle East that accept western values?

And the reason why Bin Laden and his radical followers committ terrorism against the west is ebcause of our way of life. It's because of our culture and society. Anybody who is not deluded by liberal propoganda understands this. If we were to completely exist the Middle East do you honestly think the problem of terrorism would disapper?
It is within American interests to ensure that Islamic fundamentalists do not acquire nuclear capability.

It is within American interests to promote democracy and freedom around the world, and one of the most unfree regions in the world is the Middle East.

No it's not; if it was, then the US government wouldn't have supported/be supporting: Saddam, Mubarak, Shah Pahlavi, King Abdullah, President Hadi, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, etc., etc. All of these leaders have engaged in human rights abuses and the states under their rule has been very much less than free.

The Middle East is one of the least free regions in the world as a consequence of US foreign policy, which more often than not subsidizes Islamic fundamentalists (in Saudi Arabia, etc.) and oppressive states like Yemen and Mubarak's Egypt.

You clearly don't understand the historical context behind these decisions. Like I said, the United States allied itself with Stalin during WWII because there was a greater evil that exist, Adolf Hitler. Similarly, the United States allied itself with Iraq because a greater evil existed at the time, Iran. The fact that America makes a strategic alliance with another nation doesn't mean that America condones or endorses the policies of that nation. And to say that the Middle East is unfree due to American foreign policy is outrageous. American foreign policy has been formulated as a reaction to the instability and tyranny in the Middle East, which is itself due to Islamic fundamentalism.

Actually, libertarianism is grounded on first principles, natural rights and the like. The Non-Agression Principle, one you should be familiar with if you do indeed claim to be libertarian, states that the initiation of force is immoral. This is why murder, rape, and theft are immoral, because they all involve a violation of consent via the initiation of violence or force. And this is the enemy of liberty and freedom.

In a war like the Iraq war, who is the United State government intiating aggression against? It's intiating agression against another state that oppressed and killed its own people. The Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein committed mass atrocities against it's people, thereby violating the non agression you claim to extol. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate for the United States to take action in order to prevent the Iraqi governmetn from violating the non agression principle to any further extent.

You've admitted that taxation is theft, but this is how you arrive to that conclusion. Taxation is theft because it involves coercion by the state; if you do not pay your taxes, you will ultimately be imprisoned; this means that taxes the way they are set up now are not voluntary.

And you haven't thought out this position clearly enough. Taxiation is theft, but it is necessary to have a government and fund it and the only way to do so is by taxiation. Therefore, some taxiation/theft is legitimate.

War violates the principles of freedom because war is monopolized by the state, is financed by thievery, and waged by those who may oppose it. There is nothing wrong with self-defense, but preemptive undeclared warfare and military interventionism that benefits the growth and power of the state is illegal by the state's own standards (the Constitution). The only legitimate type of war is a defensive one.

So WWII was illegitimate according to your standards. All those Jews being burned in the furnaces, well who cares. In Darias' world, we only go to war if and only if we have a direct stake in the outcome. The real question that we have to ask ourselves is will we stand by, as a nation, while mass atrocities are being committed and we have the means to stop it. I am not comfortable sitting around and doing nothing while my brothers and sisters in other parts of the world are being slaughtered and subjected to oppression.

And isolationism isn't libertarian, of course. Non-interventionism is, because that's precisely what the founders of the US wanted. They warned about entangling alliances and the legacy of the Roman Empire shows that no nation can survive the economic consequences of maintaining an empire. The United States is no exception.

Well, if everybody followed the principles of non intervention than America wouldn't exist. The only reason why we have America is because the French intervened and helped us during the revolution.

No one can be a serious libertarian and a hardcore neoconservative at the same time, not without a serious case of cognitive dissonance. I mean how does one complain about big government, spending, and debt, yet at the same time be an apologist for the Pentagon and support every wasteful program and every pointless war? How does one justify complaining about social spending, yet rejoice at a trillion dollars being wasted in the Middle East? How does one maintain the idea that policing the world and bombing people wins hearts and minds or does anything to slow the spread of terrorism when those very things metastasize it?

I think that being a social conservative and a libertarian is impossible. However, being a neoconservative and a libertarian isn't. There is nothing about neoconservatism that contradicts libertarianism. As a neocon myself, I am supporting the libertarian principle of freedom and liberty by promoting it abroard. You are the one being inconsistent because you seem to be perfectly fine with foreigners living under tyranny. And like I said, war and defense is a legitimate function of government. You may not agree with the wisdom of it, but please stop spreading the lie that war is somehow unconstitutional. And on a final note, your last point is brilliantly refuted by Christopher Hitchens who said, "It's absurd to think that the cause of terrorism is our opposition to it." Seriously, how can you believe such nonsense?

[East of Eden]

[Replying to post 33 by East of Eden] There seems to be a history of this Yankee arrogance towards the rest of the world.

The rest of the world would be speaking German or Japanese if not for us.

Who can forget the debacle of the Vietnam Civil War which was recognized as unwinnable and pointless by the mid 1960's and before the war crimes and crimes-against-humanity from indiscriminate bombing of Hanoi, the indiscriminate use of defoliant sprays and it's long-term genetic effects on future generations. Before the introduction of the Phoenix program of terrorizing and torturing and murdering civilians and the My-Lai massacre etc etc etc. There seems something very sick when a country spends such a high percent of it's GDP on defence, where a sacred 18th century writing means that fire-arms are given to children as Christmas and Christening presents (pink ones for girls and blue ones for boys), where public massacres with assault rifles seems a regular event.

Does the debacle of Communist tyranny in SE Asia bother you, or 1 million dead in Cambodia? I agree we should have never gone in (thank JFK and Johnson for that), but it was won until the post-Watergate Democratic congress withdrew all aid to South Vietnam, including humanitarian aid.

What did Cambodia have to do with Vietnam

It was a domino that fell after leftist traitors pulled the rug out from South Vietnam. As a result, a million died in Cambodia. You don't seem to care about that.

and do you think things would be any better under the previous corrupt regimes?

Absolutely. An authoritarian regime is preferable to a totalitarian one, and is more likely to evolve into freedom.

And the war was lost by the baddies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes

I get it, you hate America, and apparently facts.

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/vietnam/hochiminh.html

The author estimates that through 1967 the NVA had committed 100,000 acts of terror against South Vietnamese people. If there were any justice these vermin should have been prosecuted for war crimes.