I came across a circumstance today where someone distributed fliers for an upcoming politically-related event. As I understand it, the distribution of these fliers was not sanctioned or authorized by church leadership.
Regardless of whether church leaders were knowledgeable or not, I personally think church is not the place to promote or endorse political activities, regardless of party affiliation, platform or agenda - not any Sunday, but especially not Easter Sunday.
Anyone agree, disagree or otherwise have a thought?
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Real problem or teapot tempest?
This story greeted me this New Year's Day morning and I just have to ask for opinions on this, regardless of perspective.
Let me put a framework on this first.
If we'd asked the late George Carlin to offer the invocation, it would have probably been bleeped often and sounded like an atheist's plea for the Christians to shut their pieholes, but it would have been inclusive of those who do not share the Christian faith and no one would not have asked him to sway from his bent. Or if they had, he wouldn't have listened.
Yet, there is an expectation - in some circles - for Rick Warren to "tone down" his expression of his faith by not naming the name of the One in whom he professes to have faith and whom he encourages others to call upon when he delivers the Inaugural invocation 19 days from now.
Sure, I think having Warren present is an attempt on President-elect Barack Obama's part to do what he said he would do election night - and that's try to be the president of those who did not vote for him. Millions of evangelicals did not vote for Obama, for a myriad of reasons. He should be given credit for acknowledging them. It sure beats the alternative - ignoring the millions who voted red instead of blue.
So all this said, is it fair for those who are not fond of Warren's expected presence on the dais on Jan. 20 to expect him to exclude Jesus Christ from his prayer? Should he be mindful of the fact that not everyone in this nation professes faith in Christ and offer some form of generic, all-inclusive prayer? Or, should he stay true to his faith and not waver one iota? Please opine!
Let me put a framework on this first.
If we'd asked the late George Carlin to offer the invocation, it would have probably been bleeped often and sounded like an atheist's plea for the Christians to shut their pieholes, but it would have been inclusive of those who do not share the Christian faith and no one would not have asked him to sway from his bent. Or if they had, he wouldn't have listened.
Yet, there is an expectation - in some circles - for Rick Warren to "tone down" his expression of his faith by not naming the name of the One in whom he professes to have faith and whom he encourages others to call upon when he delivers the Inaugural invocation 19 days from now.
Sure, I think having Warren present is an attempt on President-elect Barack Obama's part to do what he said he would do election night - and that's try to be the president of those who did not vote for him. Millions of evangelicals did not vote for Obama, for a myriad of reasons. He should be given credit for acknowledging them. It sure beats the alternative - ignoring the millions who voted red instead of blue.
So all this said, is it fair for those who are not fond of Warren's expected presence on the dais on Jan. 20 to expect him to exclude Jesus Christ from his prayer? Should he be mindful of the fact that not everyone in this nation professes faith in Christ and offer some form of generic, all-inclusive prayer? Or, should he stay true to his faith and not waver one iota? Please opine!
Friday, August 29, 2008
NOW we have a title fight!
I've been an amateur political observer for much of my life - probably since about 1976, the first time I can remember hearing the name of a national candidate (Bob Dole's) on the radio. I was about 8 or 9.
Watching politics is one of my favorite pastimes.
I cannot recall in any time since I've studied politics where we've had a presidential match-up like the one we have now in circumstances like these.
The late Tim Russert pointed out before his untimely passing that this election is the first in many decades which didn't feature a sitting president or vice president on either major party ticket.
That, in and of itself, is historic.
But wait, there's more.
The run-up to the Democratic Party nomination featured a bare-knuckled contest between a woman - New York Sen. Hillary Clinton - and the nation's first strong black candidate - Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. This was the first battle of its kind for a major party nomination in terms of gender and race both playing major roles.
For weeks, Obama and Clinton fought for every vote and every delegate until Clinton eventually conceded. This week, she formally backed Obama for the party's nod. Thursday night, Barack Obama, 47, accepted that nomination on the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech. Several days earlier, he'd announced Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, 65, would be his vice presidential nominee.
Less than 24 hours later, a history-making event happened again.
Republican nominee-in-waiting, Arizona Sen. John McCain, who turned 72 today, introduced Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin - at 44, she is 28 years McCain's junior - as his running mate. She's the first woman to run on the GOP presidential ticket and only the second woman in history to run for vice president (Geraldine Ferraro holds that distinction).
Here is our fight card for the presidency in 2008:
In this corner, we have a stylish idealist - whose desire to see change was likely forged as he helped those in need - but who doesn't have a lot of political experience, especially in the arena of foreign policy. Enter his running mate, a seasoned senator with a wealth of political know-how in all the right areas and whose roots in scrappy Scranton, Pa. and personal losses helped shape him into a strong leader.
In the opposite corner, we have one of the nation's enduring war heroes who, by reputation, has attempted to reform Washington from the inside and whose foreign policy experience includes a stay in the Hanoi Hilton. Today, he introduced us to a woman - who from first impressions - sounds like the second coming of Teddy Roosevelt in terms of toughness and competitiveness - this time in high heels and sometimes hiking boots and running shoes - with the compassion of Mother Teresa.
This is going to be one interesting, fascinating election. We've probably not seen one like it in most of our lifetimes and I'm sorry Russert and late political observer Tony Snow aren't here to enjoy it with us.
As the voting public, let's break the turnout at the polls.
I assume, unfortunately, that the tactics will get dirty. Name-calling, race-baiting and gender-baiting may be all part of the discourse over the next 67 days.
But, other than that, let's hope they play this fairly.
This fight card is interesting enough - let's keep the cigarettes, cash and booze at home and let voters be motivated on their own to cast their ballots.
Besides the contenders themselves, I don't know what else besides an ailing economy, a need for a clear direction for our fight against terrorism and a national desire to see a break from the dependence on oil could draw out at least 75 percent of our nation's registered voters.
Maybe they can add some midgets or have a debate or two at Wing Night down at the local watering hole.
Watching politics is one of my favorite pastimes.
I cannot recall in any time since I've studied politics where we've had a presidential match-up like the one we have now in circumstances like these.
The late Tim Russert pointed out before his untimely passing that this election is the first in many decades which didn't feature a sitting president or vice president on either major party ticket.
That, in and of itself, is historic.
But wait, there's more.
The run-up to the Democratic Party nomination featured a bare-knuckled contest between a woman - New York Sen. Hillary Clinton - and the nation's first strong black candidate - Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. This was the first battle of its kind for a major party nomination in terms of gender and race both playing major roles.
For weeks, Obama and Clinton fought for every vote and every delegate until Clinton eventually conceded. This week, she formally backed Obama for the party's nod. Thursday night, Barack Obama, 47, accepted that nomination on the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech. Several days earlier, he'd announced Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, 65, would be his vice presidential nominee.
Less than 24 hours later, a history-making event happened again.
Republican nominee-in-waiting, Arizona Sen. John McCain, who turned 72 today, introduced Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin - at 44, she is 28 years McCain's junior - as his running mate. She's the first woman to run on the GOP presidential ticket and only the second woman in history to run for vice president (Geraldine Ferraro holds that distinction).
Here is our fight card for the presidency in 2008:
In this corner, we have a stylish idealist - whose desire to see change was likely forged as he helped those in need - but who doesn't have a lot of political experience, especially in the arena of foreign policy. Enter his running mate, a seasoned senator with a wealth of political know-how in all the right areas and whose roots in scrappy Scranton, Pa. and personal losses helped shape him into a strong leader.
In the opposite corner, we have one of the nation's enduring war heroes who, by reputation, has attempted to reform Washington from the inside and whose foreign policy experience includes a stay in the Hanoi Hilton. Today, he introduced us to a woman - who from first impressions - sounds like the second coming of Teddy Roosevelt in terms of toughness and competitiveness - this time in high heels and sometimes hiking boots and running shoes - with the compassion of Mother Teresa.
This is going to be one interesting, fascinating election. We've probably not seen one like it in most of our lifetimes and I'm sorry Russert and late political observer Tony Snow aren't here to enjoy it with us.
As the voting public, let's break the turnout at the polls.
I assume, unfortunately, that the tactics will get dirty. Name-calling, race-baiting and gender-baiting may be all part of the discourse over the next 67 days.
But, other than that, let's hope they play this fairly.
This fight card is interesting enough - let's keep the cigarettes, cash and booze at home and let voters be motivated on their own to cast their ballots.
Besides the contenders themselves, I don't know what else besides an ailing economy, a need for a clear direction for our fight against terrorism and a national desire to see a break from the dependence on oil could draw out at least 75 percent of our nation's registered voters.
Maybe they can add some midgets or have a debate or two at Wing Night down at the local watering hole.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Let truth be our guide
Depending on who you believe, Barack Obama is either the best thing to happen to American politics since John F. Kennedy, an alleged racist, Muslim sympathizer, an attention-hungry candidate who doesn't give a rip about our troops and - at the broadest extreme - the Antichrist.
Somewhere between these extremes presented to us about Obama lies the truth.
I hope in a few days to begin my own comparisons of factual information about the major presidential candidates - Obama and Republican John McCain. Therefore, I am not advocating or lobbying for either candidate.
What I do advocate is that our voting public make wise, informed decisions at the polls, not selections based strictly on fear and gross misinformation or outright falsehood.
I've taken a few minutes to look up a few Web sites which address all these assumptions about Obama.
The first is this answer about him being the next JFK. Doesn't sound exactly like our 35th president, does he?
The second is about an e-mail I received at home about Obama being an alleged black racist whose true allegiances lie with Muslims. The statements this e-mail is based upon are - at minimum - taken wildly out of context. Here is an analysis from snopes.com. Please take the time to read through it.
The next one is about an e-mail I got at work purportedly from a captain in Afghanistan who says Obama blew off troops lined up to meet him to get to a photo-op. Snopes.com has detailed information - even photos - to show the contrary and says that the original sender has asked people to delete his original e-mail because it contained what he now knows to be false information.
Now, for the last one - another snopes.com post about Obama and whether he could be the Antichrist. There is no information available to suggest this is even remotely true.
When we go to the polls in November, let's let truth and (as much as possible) geninue conviction guide us - not fear. And let's all check to make sure e-mails we forward to people are - as much as possible - truthful and accurate.
Somewhere between these extremes presented to us about Obama lies the truth.
I hope in a few days to begin my own comparisons of factual information about the major presidential candidates - Obama and Republican John McCain. Therefore, I am not advocating or lobbying for either candidate.
What I do advocate is that our voting public make wise, informed decisions at the polls, not selections based strictly on fear and gross misinformation or outright falsehood.
I've taken a few minutes to look up a few Web sites which address all these assumptions about Obama.
The first is this answer about him being the next JFK. Doesn't sound exactly like our 35th president, does he?
The second is about an e-mail I received at home about Obama being an alleged black racist whose true allegiances lie with Muslims. The statements this e-mail is based upon are - at minimum - taken wildly out of context. Here is an analysis from snopes.com. Please take the time to read through it.
The next one is about an e-mail I got at work purportedly from a captain in Afghanistan who says Obama blew off troops lined up to meet him to get to a photo-op. Snopes.com has detailed information - even photos - to show the contrary and says that the original sender has asked people to delete his original e-mail because it contained what he now knows to be false information.
Now, for the last one - another snopes.com post about Obama and whether he could be the Antichrist. There is no information available to suggest this is even remotely true.
When we go to the polls in November, let's let truth and (as much as possible) geninue conviction guide us - not fear. And let's all check to make sure e-mails we forward to people are - as much as possible - truthful and accurate.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
9-11 plus six
Today, I looked again at some video and thought about this day six years ago.
The memories and emotions came roaring back.
Some of the things I've come across either by viewing them in some form or thinking about them in my mind are:
The images of family and friends standing quietly behind Gov. George Pataki with fliers bearing their pictures and contact information.
The men and women who decided that jumping was better than burning alive.
The heroes and heroines who fought back on Flight 93 and somehow prevented what was sure to be more death and destruction.
The photo of a taxicab with a hole in its windshield from a light pole the aircraft flying in to the Pentagon knocked down.
I'm still left with the impression that acts like those we experienced on Sept. 11, 2001 can only be met with the sword.
I wish the Iraqi situation was a lot more clear and that an "exit strategy" was easy to achieve. I think we should redefine our goals in Iraq and begin a reasonable draw-down of forces, but in such a way as to not leave the impression that we consider the situation "lost."
Retreat from this fight should never be a motivation for reduction of forces - only that we've achieved a reasonable sense that we've done all we can to leave Iraq better off than we found it and our enemies in disarray and defeat.
We cannot back down from this fight. They've proven what they'll do when they see a moment of weakness.
We must remember this day for the rest of our lives and let it guide our nation's future actions as it relates to protecting its principles and most importantly, its people.
The memories and emotions came roaring back.
Some of the things I've come across either by viewing them in some form or thinking about them in my mind are:
The images of family and friends standing quietly behind Gov. George Pataki with fliers bearing their pictures and contact information.
The men and women who decided that jumping was better than burning alive.
The heroes and heroines who fought back on Flight 93 and somehow prevented what was sure to be more death and destruction.
The photo of a taxicab with a hole in its windshield from a light pole the aircraft flying in to the Pentagon knocked down.
I'm still left with the impression that acts like those we experienced on Sept. 11, 2001 can only be met with the sword.
I wish the Iraqi situation was a lot more clear and that an "exit strategy" was easy to achieve. I think we should redefine our goals in Iraq and begin a reasonable draw-down of forces, but in such a way as to not leave the impression that we consider the situation "lost."
Retreat from this fight should never be a motivation for reduction of forces - only that we've achieved a reasonable sense that we've done all we can to leave Iraq better off than we found it and our enemies in disarray and defeat.
We cannot back down from this fight. They've proven what they'll do when they see a moment of weakness.
We must remember this day for the rest of our lives and let it guide our nation's future actions as it relates to protecting its principles and most importantly, its people.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Way to make me proud, boys!
As a native of Alabama's capital, I'm defensive of my home turf and its people, and to some degree, the state in which I now reside - Mississippi.
Both states have long been maligned as filled with backward, ignorant, callous and racially insensitive people. Sometimes, these stereotypes are based at least in part on truth, though much of it is outdated. Thankfully both states have made tremendous, genuine strides in moving in reality beyond these perceptions.
Mississippians even developed their own campaign to ward off these opinions - Mississippi Believe It! And both states are experiencing major economic development in such sectors as the automotive and steel industries.
But our good friends in the Alabama legislature added to their great list of dubious accomplishments Thursday and put another stain on the state's reputation. Hopefully they can act like adults and straighten this mess out. But from the people who unplugged clocks to finish budget votes, fell asleep in front of people with cameras and - in one really proud moment, created a situation in which the presiding officer of one of the chambers urinated in a jug to avoid leaving and getting outvoted, I present this:
And here's the Montgomery Advertiser story.
Senate ends with a bang
Wow.
All I've got to say is: Gentlemen, for the sake of the rest of us, grow up, get your stuff together, act like the people you are supposed to be - leaders - and move this state and region forward. If you can't do it, then maybe the good people of Alabama will stop electing the same old people like yourselves and put fresh faces and minds in there who will.
Both states have long been maligned as filled with backward, ignorant, callous and racially insensitive people. Sometimes, these stereotypes are based at least in part on truth, though much of it is outdated. Thankfully both states have made tremendous, genuine strides in moving in reality beyond these perceptions.
Mississippians even developed their own campaign to ward off these opinions - Mississippi Believe It! And both states are experiencing major economic development in such sectors as the automotive and steel industries.
But our good friends in the Alabama legislature added to their great list of dubious accomplishments Thursday and put another stain on the state's reputation. Hopefully they can act like adults and straighten this mess out. But from the people who unplugged clocks to finish budget votes, fell asleep in front of people with cameras and - in one really proud moment, created a situation in which the presiding officer of one of the chambers urinated in a jug to avoid leaving and getting outvoted, I present this:
And here's the Montgomery Advertiser story.
Senate ends with a bang
Wow.
All I've got to say is: Gentlemen, for the sake of the rest of us, grow up, get your stuff together, act like the people you are supposed to be - leaders - and move this state and region forward. If you can't do it, then maybe the good people of Alabama will stop electing the same old people like yourselves and put fresh faces and minds in there who will.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
A lot on my mind
So far so good on the blogging for days. I know it doesn't count but that's OK.
Hurting a little for my hometown. I've done service work in the apartment complex where a top floor is gone from one of the buildings in Montgomery.
I bought hundreds of gallons of gas at a convenience store across the street from the skating rink which looks like somebody crumpled it by hand. Thank God the loss of life was limited.
The election
As I try to approach politics from a standpoint of fairness, I want to limit what I say about the results of this month's general election. But I will say that I believe that anything that smells like a withdrawal or a curtailing of our actions in Iraq will look to some in the Middle East as if we are weakening.
I'm concerned they'll see this as an opportune time to attack again. Do I wish for it? Absolutely not!
Revamp the strategy? Yes. Involve a greater number of troops? More than likely. Start a noticeable pullback within the next several months?
Not a good idea.
Sure, it sounds like re-packaging of some bad policy decisions, but I think there's some merit in the notion that the fight in Iraq is the front line in the War on Terror.
Do we want it in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., Manchester, Tenn. or Bakersfield, Calif., just to name some towns in America at random? I think not.
I pray that our leaders understand that a misstep now in the War on Terror could have grave consequences for our nation and that any change in course they make is with due diligence.
Hurting a little for my hometown. I've done service work in the apartment complex where a top floor is gone from one of the buildings in Montgomery.
I bought hundreds of gallons of gas at a convenience store across the street from the skating rink which looks like somebody crumpled it by hand. Thank God the loss of life was limited.
The election
As I try to approach politics from a standpoint of fairness, I want to limit what I say about the results of this month's general election. But I will say that I believe that anything that smells like a withdrawal or a curtailing of our actions in Iraq will look to some in the Middle East as if we are weakening.
I'm concerned they'll see this as an opportune time to attack again. Do I wish for it? Absolutely not!
Revamp the strategy? Yes. Involve a greater number of troops? More than likely. Start a noticeable pullback within the next several months?
Not a good idea.
Sure, it sounds like re-packaging of some bad policy decisions, but I think there's some merit in the notion that the fight in Iraq is the front line in the War on Terror.
Do we want it in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., Manchester, Tenn. or Bakersfield, Calif., just to name some towns in America at random? I think not.
I pray that our leaders understand that a misstep now in the War on Terror could have grave consequences for our nation and that any change in course they make is with due diligence.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Where has the indignation gone?
It's buried under time, and certainly under the numbers of war dead, but there was a moment when this nation clamored to set the scales right by the imbalance created by Sept. 11, 2001.
Decisions were made on faulty intelligence - hopefully flawed by miscalulation than by intentional deceit - to unseat Saddam.
Sure, the protracted nature of things in Iraq give us a sense that we shouldn't have done anything.
Where would be now if we hadn't? Sure it sounds jingoistic to some ears, but should we have taken the passive approach and wait 'til someone struck again before going forward?
To second-guess the current situation in Iraq, in my view, is to Monday-morning-quarterback decisions which are three years old, and undermine the sacrifices our men and women have made.
Decisions were made on faulty intelligence - hopefully flawed by miscalulation than by intentional deceit - to unseat Saddam.
Sure, the protracted nature of things in Iraq give us a sense that we shouldn't have done anything.
Where would be now if we hadn't? Sure it sounds jingoistic to some ears, but should we have taken the passive approach and wait 'til someone struck again before going forward?
To second-guess the current situation in Iraq, in my view, is to Monday-morning-quarterback decisions which are three years old, and undermine the sacrifices our men and women have made.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Not a fan
The Bush administration rightfully earned much of the criticism it received over its repsonse to Hurricane Katrina.
I also do think something smells funny about all the Haliburton contracts.
On the whole I do support the administration's approach to the War on Terror and I think people like Cindy Sheehan are a distraction to an effort which is right on the whole (I think the WMDs are in the hands of people friendly to Saddam, but that's just a hopeful wild guess.).
Anyway, I do have one significant bone to pick about the nomination of Harriet Miers - it looks a bit too much like cronyism.
If I were the president, I'd be inclined to nominate someone I felt personally comfortable with and who'd given me what found to be solid advice.
But the president isn't the one with final say.
She probably can handle the job but even though the lean toward bench experience among court nominees is apparently fairly recent, I think it's a good trend. I think the president is committed to Ms. Miers but will probably have to rethink his approach after she gets shot down.
I also do think something smells funny about all the Haliburton contracts.
On the whole I do support the administration's approach to the War on Terror and I think people like Cindy Sheehan are a distraction to an effort which is right on the whole (I think the WMDs are in the hands of people friendly to Saddam, but that's just a hopeful wild guess.).
Anyway, I do have one significant bone to pick about the nomination of Harriet Miers - it looks a bit too much like cronyism.
If I were the president, I'd be inclined to nominate someone I felt personally comfortable with and who'd given me what found to be solid advice.
But the president isn't the one with final say.
She probably can handle the job but even though the lean toward bench experience among court nominees is apparently fairly recent, I think it's a good trend. I think the president is committed to Ms. Miers but will probably have to rethink his approach after she gets shot down.
Saturday, September 03, 2005
The Blame Game
America enjoys many sports, some of which people from within our own borders invented or perfected.
But our favorite is - who can we blame and how bad can we make them look? I'll take part a little bit but let me say this from the outset: There's plenty blame to go around. I don't think it can be placed at one person's feet.
No matter how badly people like Bill Maher want President George Bush to fall in disgrace, I don't think this situation has any one clear bad guy, though clearly there's plenty blame to go around.
By the way, maybe Bill Maher ought to take his scrawny butt down to the Big Easy and help out instead of flapping his gums about this being Bush's "Waterloo." I would go but I have a baby on the way, I'm still moving and I'm trying to find other ways to help.
Mayor Ray Nagin told people to go to the Superdome as a last resort, but for some reason, the resources weren't in place to help people when they arrived, so we had a literal stinking mess with death and the worst of humanity all around.
The feds appear not to have taken the initiative to overstep local and state authority, but that may be out of reluctance to set a precedent or simply not knowing where to start, not out of a lack of concern or turning a blind eye because the overwhelming majority of those left behind are black.
The situation in New Orleans for those who legitimately need help is horrifying.
Why did it take so long for help to start arriving? The answer isn't immediately clear, but I do wonder if our military resources are stretched way too thin.
Maybe there was a reluctance to send in the regular Army and use the same ammunition we're using in the War on Terror. It sounds like we should clear New Orleans on a house-to-house, block by block effort and apparently those resources are not available.
We should have had at least two brigades of regular Army ground-pounders in place by now alongside the National Guardsmen.
While everyone knew New Orleans was built in a bowl, why wasn't there a coherent plan to clear it out if something catastrophic happened? I have no idea, but maybe we need to learn a whole bunch of lessons out of this.
Ok, time to go make another move run. More later.
But our favorite is - who can we blame and how bad can we make them look? I'll take part a little bit but let me say this from the outset: There's plenty blame to go around. I don't think it can be placed at one person's feet.
No matter how badly people like Bill Maher want President George Bush to fall in disgrace, I don't think this situation has any one clear bad guy, though clearly there's plenty blame to go around.
By the way, maybe Bill Maher ought to take his scrawny butt down to the Big Easy and help out instead of flapping his gums about this being Bush's "Waterloo." I would go but I have a baby on the way, I'm still moving and I'm trying to find other ways to help.
Mayor Ray Nagin told people to go to the Superdome as a last resort, but for some reason, the resources weren't in place to help people when they arrived, so we had a literal stinking mess with death and the worst of humanity all around.
The feds appear not to have taken the initiative to overstep local and state authority, but that may be out of reluctance to set a precedent or simply not knowing where to start, not out of a lack of concern or turning a blind eye because the overwhelming majority of those left behind are black.
The situation in New Orleans for those who legitimately need help is horrifying.
Why did it take so long for help to start arriving? The answer isn't immediately clear, but I do wonder if our military resources are stretched way too thin.
Maybe there was a reluctance to send in the regular Army and use the same ammunition we're using in the War on Terror. It sounds like we should clear New Orleans on a house-to-house, block by block effort and apparently those resources are not available.
We should have had at least two brigades of regular Army ground-pounders in place by now alongside the National Guardsmen.
While everyone knew New Orleans was built in a bowl, why wasn't there a coherent plan to clear it out if something catastrophic happened? I have no idea, but maybe we need to learn a whole bunch of lessons out of this.
Ok, time to go make another move run. More later.
Monday, August 08, 2005
Views on the War
In general, I'm in support of our nation's global pursuit of terrorists.
As a Christian, I'm conflicted about my visceral desire to see faceless cowards meet an untimely death at the hands of shadow warriors, exterminating the threat before it even surfaces - before they slice off the heads of innocent civilians, denotate improvised explosive devices with a cell phone from a mile away and snuff out life in random yet calculated efforts to disrupt Western civilization.
Scripture encourages us to pray for our enemies and see them come to know the Lord. Do these enemies pose a threat so great as to ride our anger to its ultimate conclusion? Or do we merely sit around and wait for the next high-profile target to fall victim to the deluded?
Somewhere in between lies the right answer.
In the mean time, I'll pray.
I'll also pray that somehow our military leaders use the knowledge gleaned from the tactics of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets to protect our men and women.
Somehow I've gotten the impression that our military leaders have said that they don't know how to combat IED attacks because we've never had experience with them.
Maybe they haven't said it, but it's how they're acting.
Maybe they didn't tell us everything they were doing, but the mujahadeen - whom we supported as I understand - used tactics very similar to those being employed by the "insurgents" in Iraq. Remember that bin Laden supposedly was among the mujahadeen at some point along the way.
Here's an example I saw on television:
The mujahadeen would get explosives, implant them on or near the road bed, then recreate tank track impressions over the explosive-laden area. Then, BOOM! (I saw this on a recent Military Channel show the name of which I never caught.)
So let's use the knowledge - whether we taught them how to do it or not - to save lives and get us back to the job at hand, securing Iraq enough to turn it over to the Iraqis.
I have a friend who's being deployed soon and I want to see her come home in one piece and alive. I don't think it's too much to ask that we do everything we can to keep our sons, daughters, sisters, brothers and friends alive as they go about their duties.
As a Christian, I'm conflicted about my visceral desire to see faceless cowards meet an untimely death at the hands of shadow warriors, exterminating the threat before it even surfaces - before they slice off the heads of innocent civilians, denotate improvised explosive devices with a cell phone from a mile away and snuff out life in random yet calculated efforts to disrupt Western civilization.
Scripture encourages us to pray for our enemies and see them come to know the Lord. Do these enemies pose a threat so great as to ride our anger to its ultimate conclusion? Or do we merely sit around and wait for the next high-profile target to fall victim to the deluded?
Somewhere in between lies the right answer.
In the mean time, I'll pray.
I'll also pray that somehow our military leaders use the knowledge gleaned from the tactics of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets to protect our men and women.
Somehow I've gotten the impression that our military leaders have said that they don't know how to combat IED attacks because we've never had experience with them.
Maybe they haven't said it, but it's how they're acting.
Maybe they didn't tell us everything they were doing, but the mujahadeen - whom we supported as I understand - used tactics very similar to those being employed by the "insurgents" in Iraq. Remember that bin Laden supposedly was among the mujahadeen at some point along the way.
Here's an example I saw on television:
The mujahadeen would get explosives, implant them on or near the road bed, then recreate tank track impressions over the explosive-laden area. Then, BOOM! (I saw this on a recent Military Channel show the name of which I never caught.)
So let's use the knowledge - whether we taught them how to do it or not - to save lives and get us back to the job at hand, securing Iraq enough to turn it over to the Iraqis.
I have a friend who's being deployed soon and I want to see her come home in one piece and alive. I don't think it's too much to ask that we do everything we can to keep our sons, daughters, sisters, brothers and friends alive as they go about their duties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
