This is another rare political post from me, but I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to speak out about something.
While I think the Iraqi war was mishandled in many ways, and the post-war plan was ineffective, I agree with the decision to invade Iraq. It wasn’t about one president’s desire to complete what his father started. It wasn’t about making some excuse to invade Iraq. It was dealing with the facts at hand: Iraq acted like it had weapons of mass destruction, and they sure seemed like they would use them, and had even pledged to aid terrorists who would.
Of all the leftist insinuations as to the secret motive behind America’s (I mean Bush’s) actions, perhaps the lowest was the claim that we invaded Iraq to get a share in its oil. I never bought that for a minute, but it sure sounds bad. It makes us look bad. But the argument is false. How many billions have we spent on the war and the restoration of the country?
Anyway, here is some fresh proof to counteract that charge.
The soaring price of oil will leave the Iraqi government with a cumulative budget surplus of as much as $79 billion by year’s end, according to an analysis by the U.S. Government Accountability Office released Thursday. The unspent windfall… appears likely to put an uncomfortable new focus on the approximately $48 billion in U.S. taxpayer money devoted to rebuilding Iraq since the American-led invasion. (source — Minneapolis Star Tribune 8/6/08, “Iraq amasses billions in oil profits while U.S. pays for rebuilding” by James Glanz of the New York Times)
Yep, that’s Iraqi money, not US money. And yep, we are forking out the money to help the citizens of Iraq. It’s not easy, but its right. We have to finish the job.
But do we have to finish the job at our expense, especially when they have all that loose change lying around? I will be angry if — no, when — Iraq is not required to pay.
Dave,
You’re right. They should contribute. I’m just pointing out how inconsistent the extreme left is.
What, I missed the point? Yes, I did.
no problem… But while we’re on the topic….
It’s possible that the rhetoric of the left has boxed our President into a corner. Asking Iraq to pay for it, could be misconstrued as taking advantage of Iraq and its money. I hope I’m wrong on that. But we do aim on setting up an independent Iraq, and we can only hope they’ll do the right thing.
Yes, I hope so; but what are the chances?
Back to the topic of finishing what we started, my fear — and conviction — is that we are trying to export democracy to a people who are utterly unsuited for it. Democracy and Islam are oil and water. They will not mix, and so the whole effort is doomed to fail.
You may be right, David. And democracy is not a God-ordained must for all peoples, either. A modified democracy or a benevolent oligarchy could be good.
Well this discussion of mine should prove why political posts are rare for me. I don’t have all the answers, and I can’t do much about it anyway!
The commandment against stealing applies to taking things that belong to others even if we don’t think they should have them. It is not okay for me to take my gun, break into my neighbor’s house, hold him at gun point, and search for and seize his gun just because I think it isn’t right for him to have a gun. I can’t hit him back first.
Since we have an estimated 10,000 nukes, would it be okay for the Canadians to invade us? We alone have a history of using them.
North Korea has nuclear weapons and is developing long range delivery systems. When do we invade? We would win, but the cost in lives would be horrendous. The hypocrisy is apodictic.
We are also violating the commandment against killing. The bulk of the deaths in Iraq are civilian. When we bomb a house to get a bad guy, we may get him, but who else do we get?
Please show me where the Old or New Testaments decree the establishment to democratic governments. What right do we have to tell other countries how to live? What makes democracy so special that it takes on a messianic character? Some of the greatest scoundrels were voted into office.
Who has commissioned America the democracy missionary? How do you install democracy at gun point? If we are so concerned about democracy, why has this country supported every thug ruling a country as long as he said he was fighting communism? Why has this country effected the overthrow of legitimately elected governments?
We would not tolerate the imposition on us of a new form of government by a foreign country, but it is okay for us to do this to other countries?
The choice is not between democracy and tyranny. Freedom can exist in other forms of government besides democracy. The democracy in this country has lead to the Patriot Act, illegal spying, torture, violation of our constitution, slavery (it is called the draft), theft by ruinous taxation, and kidnapping (the government schools). Please, may I have another? Sure, how about abortion?
Democracy is essentially mob rule. Given the way we are headed, it looks like the Mob does rule.
But it will be worse in Iraq. The geniuses that planned this debacle overlooked the fact of the 1000 year hatred between the majority (in Islam) Sunnis and the minority Shiites. In Iraq the Shiites are a majority. They have been waiting for revenge since the the fall of the Ottoman Empire when British setup the Sunnis to rule in Iraq. (Thank you, Winston.) I wonder what kind of laws this democracy will enact regarding the detested minority Sunnis? The laws will be in keeping with the tradition of blood revenge.
The government of Iran is a democracy. Oh boy! Let’s install such a blessing in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
The point here is that we tend to think what we have is perfect, and the rest of the world would be better off if they were just like us. Hubris is the word. It has no place in Christianity.
Hey Randy,
You make some good and valid points. I disagree that war is not an option ever. The Bible condones warring as an act of nations. God had Israel make war on other nations in certain circumstances.
You would not have invaded Iraq. But you mustn’t forget the thousands of innocent civilians Saddam’s regime murdered. Yes, Iraq was a sovereign nation, but that is still wrong. Sadam did invade Kuwait. He fired on Israel. That was what he was about.
Again, I’m not really going to argue with you here. Such choices are certainly not simple. And to Christianize this, as in all Christians must support the Iraq war is wrong. See my recent post on America being just a pagan nation. Hence her policies and actions do not represent Christianity, nor must they be endorsed by the Church.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
God bless,
Bob Hayton
and the Iraqi’s ought to fork over some of their surplus dough to pay us back!
Interesting post & comments (esp. heyrandy).
My own less-than-two-cents.
Ten worthless and rambling thoughts:
1) I think I agree that invading Iraq wasn’t about the oil. Why did we do it? Simply, America was trigger-happy after 9/11, and we jumped at the first serious threat leveled at us. Yes, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela weren’t best friends either–but neither had they fought with us before and proved their willingness to fire away. Utter proof of WMD’s didn’t matter to most, I presume. Just the potential, combined with Saddam’s ongoing rehtortic and interference of UN inspectors, etc. That was enough to motivate America to oust him once & for all.
2) Having said this, however, what about Saudi Arabia?! If our relationship with them isn’t about oil, then what pray-tell is it?! I mean, commentators and analysts from the far right to the far left all seem to agree on this one point–Saudi Arabia actively supports Islamic terrorism. Whether some say it’s mostly indirect or mostly direct (but subtle), and while most say both, it remains an established fact that, to this day, no other nation in world history has contributed so heavily to the global spread of militant Wahabbi ideology. So should I be so sure about Iraq?
3) Speaking of Sunni Saudi Arabia, I did want to disagree with one thing you stated, heyrandy. Namely, the nature of the Sunni-Shia conflict. I would heartily commend to you Vali Nasr’s book “The Shia Revival–How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape the Future” (Norton, 2007). I think a compelling case can be made that Sunni extremism is the single greatest threat to Western (and world?) civil stability at the moment. Historically, Shiites are far less prone to violent aggression. A close study reveals how Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Iran’s Republican Guard, and al-Sadr’s (Iraq) Mahdi Army are exceptions and not the norm, and that even they, at root level, are far more reactionary and reluctant in warfare than their out-numbered, worldwide, ever multiplying Sunni counterparts.
4) From the CIA’s embarrassingly destructive coup-escapades across Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East in the 50’s and 60’s, to more recent episodes in post-Soviet Afghanistan and now Iraq, hopefully we’re beginning to learn the lesson of sowing/reaping. If we take it upon ourselves to displace a sitting government in order to rid ourselves of something that displeases us–taking no thought or care as to the wellbeing and future survival of these newly ‘liberated’ societies–apart from being morally reprehensible, we are also the ones who usually end up feeling the sting another 10-30 years out…a sting often far worse than the one we first set out to remove.
5) Without wrongly blackballing all things America (which would be foolish, near-sighted, and overly-pessimistic, in my opinion), we do need to be concerned about this issue of hypocrisy. If the global advance of democracy was a valid and primary motivating factor in our invading Iraq, what about other countries? Apparently, we don’t care about bringing democracy to Saudi Arabia, even though we’ll fight a war in Iraq and hold Pakistan’s feet to the fire 24/7 for not being democratic enough. In 2003 (and at present) were not the humanitarian and civil crises in places like Sudan, Sri Lanka, North Korea, Cambodia, Columbia, Somalia, Zimbabwe, etc. far more pressing than Iraq? Some of these governments use very Saddam-like rhetoric against our nation, and have track records of human rights violations that match or even surpass Iraq’s. What must these isolated, insignificant, oil-deprived populations do before the U.S. will magically muster feelings of moral duty to liberate them from their oppressive regimes? Helping police the world isn’t a bad thing for us to do. But if we’re going to do it, what are our true motives and agendas?
6) I John 5:19
7) Matthew 22:39
8). Matthew 5:44
9) Romans 13:1
10) September 08 issue of Tabletalk, about Religion & Politics
To Host and Guests,
Thanks for the replies to my comments. I always appreciate it when people take me seriously enough to spend the time to reply.
I too will not argue this any further. I am not sure this is an issue that should be allowed to divide us.
Iraq did attack Kuwait and Israel. That is a problem for those nations to deal with. Israel attacked Lebanon. Israel started the six day war in 1967. Should we have attacked Israel. (Sorry, dispensationalists, I don’t think that Israel is the fulfillment of prophecy. Perhaps the host of this site would care to opine on the matter in a future post.) Iraq also attacked Iran. We were at odds with Iran because they overthrew our pet thug the Shah we had installed after we overthrew the elected government. So when Iraq attacked, we swung over to the Iraqi side. Saddam became our thug. Yes, Saddam was a brutal killer. He met a just end at the hands of many who should have joined him. The world is full of brutal killers. It has always been and will always be. We are frequently on their side. We opposed Hitler (elected to office) but allied ourselves with Stalin. Stalin is estimated to have killed ten times more people than Hitler.
Dave H, thanks for the tip on the book. I will try to find a copy in the library. (We here at HeyRandy are quite parsimonious.)
Blessing to all,
Randy
Randy,
In case you haven’t seen them, check out my recent conclusion to a series of posts on the land promise to Israel, and also my recent post entitled America — A Pagan Nation?. These will show you where I stand on dispensationalism and the intersection of politics and Christianity.
I think America has stood for good ideals, but sometimes utilizes a Jesuit idea of how the ends justifies the means — especially when the general American people aren’t aware of the horrific details of those means. Ultimately the world needs Christ and the gospel. But of course America or any other nation should not advance the cause of the gospel by the might of the sword.
Thanks for the discussion,
God bless,
Bob
“The choice is not between democracy and tyranny. Freedom can exist in other forms of government besides democracy.”
Although that statement holds true generally speaking, it did not hold true in the specific case of Iraq. Those people enjoyed almost no freedom at all.