What’s Notable about Romney’s Speech?

Gov. Mitt Romney dropped out of the race for President today. In his speech, he said something remarkable:

“Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror. They would retreat and declare defeat. And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child’s play. About this, I have no doubt.

“I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

“This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters… many of you right here in this room… have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country.”

One thing is for sure. Voters will have a stark choice between McCain and whoever the Democrats decide to nominate (either Obama or Clinton). McCain vows to win the war in Iraq. Obama and Clinton vow to end the war before achieving victory. The difference between the two sides couldn’t be more pronounced.

84 Responses to What’s Notable about Romney’s Speech?

  1. Bryan L February 7, 2008 at 3:27 pm #

    What would a “victory” in Iraq look like? How many more years? After all was said and done would we see it as a “victory”? How many more people would have to die over there (Iraqi’s and Americans)? Are we imagining that we would stomp out all terrorist, all extremist? I’m curious what it would look like.

    Maybe you can enlighten me because as it is I have a hard time buying into the rhetoric that a vote for Hilary or Obama means the destruction of America after all it seems to have gotten pretty bad with a Republican in office. Someone like me needs more convincing that it’s not just gonna get worse with another Republican: more war, more record spending, more recession, little positive change.

    Bryan L

  2. Brett February 7, 2008 at 3:51 pm #

    Bryan,

    I couldn’t agree more. These are ignorant statements and the war in Iraq is a complete joke.

    “McCain vows to win the war in Iraq. Obama and Clinton vow to end the war before achieving victory.”

    So lets just stay in Iraq for the remainder of our lives. The statistics even prove there are more terrorists now than pre-911. These is absolutely absurd.

    Okay evangelical Christians, this is where you have to decide. More violence, destruction, going in debt, death, heartbreak, a bigger threat of terrorism. Those don’t all sound too good and Christian to me. Not to mention that so much of his focus would go towards Iraq and the war that he wouldn’t have time to fight the battles of abortion…much like your boy Bush.

    If the war in Iraq is McCain’s strong point and main dividing line, then the choice should be clear. It was a joke to begin with, it’s been a joke since we’ve been there, and it’ll be a joke when we leave. Utterly and completely unnecessary.

    However, I will say that Romney dropping out like this is probably a good thing for his party and gives them hope. As always, Republicans sure do make many mistakes and have it wrong on many issues, but for some reason they know how to win elections!

  3. Ken February 7, 2008 at 4:11 pm #

    Bryan and Brett: A question to answer your question about the duration of an American military presence in Iraq–

    How long have we been in Germany and Japan?

  4. Bryan L February 7, 2008 at 4:34 pm #

    Are you saying we haven’t had “victory” in Germany or Japan? Also those situations are a bit different than Iraq. A closer analogy might be Vietnam. Really ask yourself who we are fighting in Iraq: the Iraqis or cockroaches that multiply like crazy and hide really well (not to mention blending in really well)?

    So what was your answer ’cause I don’t think I caught it.

    Bryan

  5. naum February 7, 2008 at 4:40 pm #

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wnq6cD5jk1Q

    Wow, Christians for Caesar!

    Supporting an illegal, immoral, elective invasion of a country that posed no threat to the U.S..

    Sanctioning the senseless slaughter of the innocent. While their despotic ruler inflicted tyranny, women, children and other victims of “collateral damage” continue to suffer as victims of massive air bombing and UAV drones.

    And define “winning” in a country, for which 90%+ of Iraqis (sans Kurds) want U.S. occupation to end now. For which nearly a majority support insurgent causes. What did we go to war for? WMD? Depose Saddam? To implement a puppet, subservient government to obey “U.S. interests”?

  6. Matt Svoboda February 7, 2008 at 4:57 pm #

    Denny,

    Why no personal comments of your man going down?

  7. Paul February 7, 2008 at 5:07 pm #

    what’s noble about Romney’s speech?

    Nothing.

    what’s noble about thinking that sheer pandering and fearmongering is noble?

    Even less.

    Denny, I have to ask this, and I’d really, really, really like a response:

    How does supporting this war show Christ’s love for the world?

    If that’s our goal as Christians, to spread the Gospel through living as Christ did to the extent that we can, how does supporting a preemptive war built on false pretenses give the non-Christian world a good glimpse of what Christ has in store for us?

  8. Brett February 7, 2008 at 5:18 pm #

    Ken,

    That’s a good try on attempting to show how some war is good, but there is absolutely no way in 1 million years that you could compare the two. In fact, I would like to assume that you were joking by that comment but based upon some of the responses on here to some things I think otherwise. You can’t really be serious, can you? Please tell me you’re joking. There is no optimism we can have about this stupid war. It’s just a whee-bit different than WWII, and I am astonished that you would bring that up to try and make your point.

  9. Benjamin A February 7, 2008 at 5:54 pm #

    Bryan L & Brett,

    Neither of you have a completely informed picture of America’s foreign policy. I bet its mostly informed from what you see and read through the liberal media. So the emotionally charged rhetoric [“more violence, destruction, going in debt, death, heartbreak, a bigger threat of terrorism”] and [“more war, more record spending, more recession, little positive change”] isn’t compelling.

    Question: Will Hillary or Obama nominate the next conservative Supreme Court Justice that is probably needed to win some ground on abortion issues?

    More lives are lost every year to abortion than the total number of American lives lost in Iraq. And last I checked, we still have an all volunteer military. Though we mourn the loss of each life, their life wasn’t wasted, as Brett seems to indicate, but instead will be remembered for their courage and sacrifice to their country and for the cause of freedom against radical Islamic ideals.

    Theodore Roosevelt’s words while running as an independent presidential candidate in 1912 are just as fitting today as was then-

    “The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines, boss ridden and privilege controlled, each a jumble of incongruous elements and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly what should be said on the vital issues of the day.”

    Hebrews 11:4 “Though he is dead, he still speaks.”

  10. Bryan L February 7, 2008 at 6:19 pm #

    Benjamin would you like to share with us your completely informed, unbiased view of American foreign policy.

    “Emotionally charged rhetoric”? Did you read Romeny’s speech and Denny’s comments?!! Did you read you own comments?!!

    I asked some questions yet so far no one wants to answer them. What does a victory in Iraq look like, since for Romney he must drop out of the race because it it is imperative that a Democrat not be elected because that would lead to defeat and eventually turmoil for America?

    It’s easy to say we must stay and fight this “war” ’til we have victory as the future of our nation depends on it, but if we don’t even know what victory looks like or whether it is really attainable (or that desirable in the end) then I’d rather go with someone who does have a clear picture of what their goals look like (being withdraw).

    BTW this wasn’t at all about abortion. It was about Romney’s comments. Let’s not do a bait and switch. Pleases let’s try to keep it on topic.

    Bryan L

  11. celucien joseph February 7, 2008 at 6:26 pm #

    I guess we need to waste another trillion dollars to win dollar? Oh yes, send more innocent American troops to lose their lives!
    Lou

  12. celucien joseph February 7, 2008 at 6:27 pm #

    I meant to write, ” I guess we need to waste another trillion dollars to win the war”

  13. Bryan L February 7, 2008 at 6:30 pm #

    What’s weird Celucien is it took me 3 reads of what you first said to even catch the mistake. weird how the mind fills in words for us.

  14. Brett February 7, 2008 at 6:50 pm #

    I guess Benjamin A. has access to something that we don’t Bryan. I mean, all we watch is the liberal media, but Benjamin has the inside scoop. He’s also completely objective and unbiased when it comes to these issues as well. Hey Benjamin, how bout you run for president? I would vote for you since you’re the only one who really knows what’s going on.

    It’s also strange how when Bryan or myself type something, it’s emotionally charged rhetoric, but when you type something, it’s completely objectives and unbiased. I’m sure you never speak from your emotions do you? Maybe that’s another reason you should run for president. You wouldn’t give emotionally charged rhetoric. Wow, I really respect that in you.

    And why in the world am I not surprised that somebody of your kind would play the abortion card? It always ends up like this. You all have it in your head that if we just get the republicans in office, then Roe v. Wade will be overturned. Well, news flash, a Republican has been in office for the last 7 years, a Republican who you all swore by and claimed was a Christian and gave you hope. Now let me ask you a question, can my daughter still go downtown and have an abortion if she were pregnant? Is it still legal for her to do that? It appears the big “Christian” “conservative” Republican party likes to talk a big game, but back it up with no actions. Amazing

    Also, it’s not exclusively the American lives lost in Iraq I’m worried about, it’s the Iraqi civilian lives. In case you’re uninformed (which I’m sure you’re not since you have this inside source that gives you the conservative and objective truth unlike my liberal media source), the death toll for Iraqi civilians is well in the 6 digits. We’re talk women and children here pal. As global Christians (and I hope you’re not so ethnocentric to think God is an American and always on our side, as well as not caring about the rest of the world), all nationalities and lives of all races matter to me every bit as much as an American life.

    Also, I never said their lives were wasted so stop putting words in my mouth please. As a pacifist I say they shouldn’t have signed up in the first place (if they’re
    Christians), because military power is not the answer to the world’s problems.

    And finally, your proof-text of Hebrews 11:4 is absolutely dishonoring the word of God. You honestly think you can quote Roosevelt and then back it up with a proof-text from Hebrews as if that is what the book is talking about? I hate to break this to you, but that verse is talking about Abel, not Roosevelt, and it is talking about faith, not war or American politics. Poor, dangerous hermeneutics my friend.

  15. Denny Burk February 7, 2008 at 7:04 pm #

    Paul,

    I think you and I have discussed the war on this blog before. So I suspect that we would just be covering old ground if we took it up again. My views are the same as before:

    1. Just Is A Biblical Concept: From Augustine forward, many Christians have believed that Jesus’ command to “love your neighbor” sometimes means executing a just war.

    2. The Lead-up to the War in Iraq: Your description of the causes of the Iraq War is not true to the facts in my view. No one lied or put forth “false pretenses.” I don’t think that is a legitimate claim, and you would be hard-pressed to make that case.

    There’s much more, but I do think we’ve already done this.

    Denny

  16. Ben Stevenson February 7, 2008 at 9:08 pm #

    Even if the starting the Iraq war was the wrong decision, and if the motives for starting the war were wrong, and if the war has been mis-managed and caused too many innocent casualities, even then, I strongly believe it would be wrong to leave Iraq now. The surge appears to be working. I think leaving Iraq would make the situation worse there.

  17. Drew M. February 7, 2008 at 9:56 pm #

    Brett, after reading your comments on this post, I would like to hear your views/comments on Romans 13:1-7 and the biblical idea of God using governments and authorities as His “sword” of justice. Thanks.

  18. Mark February 7, 2008 at 10:05 pm #

    “And why in the world am I not surprised that somebody of your kind would play the abortion card?”

    I hope you realize how very condescending that appears to be. As one of those silly people who believe that the pro-life issue is the greatest human life crisis of our time I take exception to your handling of the issue. And I don’t really see how it is “off topic” in a conversation about the war being wrong because of the loss of human life. Concern for life is concern for life. And no, I do not believe that electing a Republican president will necessarily result in Roe v. Wade being overturned, but I am smart enough to realize that the best chance we have for that ever happening is to start through the judicial system. Bush has appointed two very pro-life justices to the Supreme Court and they have already had a positive effect. That is at least a little “action” to back up talk. As opposed to the alternative candidates who would only make abortion more accessible at every stage and would appoint justices who would assure this. Your laughing off of supporting pro-life candidates because they have not completely reversed R v. W is juvenile and ignorant.

    As for your compassion for the Iraqi citizens (who, the vast majority, have been killed by terrorists and not Americans) does that same compassion extend to the hundreds of thousands of people who were killed and tortured (many in ghastly ways) under Saddam’s regime? If so, what would this compassion have you do?

  19. Lucas Knisely February 7, 2008 at 10:17 pm #

    Ron Paul regurgitaters are wearing me out. I suppose I could just rephrase right wing talking points that support the war in response to all the Ron Paul anti-war talking points that get spewed on this site anytime politics come up. But what would that accomplish? Nothing.

  20. Brett February 7, 2008 at 10:34 pm #

    “1. Just Is A Biblical Concept: From Augustine forward, many Christians have believed that Jesus’ command to ‘love your neighbor’ sometimes means executing a just war.”

    Case in point about Christians listening to Augustine more than the Bible. This seriously has to be the most corrupt, twisted view for loving your neighbor imaginable. Like Augustine or not, he was dead wrong about this heresy. Denny, come on man, you can’t be serious about believing this junk. It is NOT biblical, I guarantee you that. What in the world have we come to?

  21. Bryan L February 7, 2008 at 10:37 pm #

    I didn’t know Ron Paul was the only person opposed to the war. Wow, maybe I should have paid more attention to him.

  22. Brad February 7, 2008 at 10:56 pm #

    With all due respect — I read this blog almost every day. I LOVE a good debate (which is why I come here), but I’ve been discouraged to see such a lack of grace of late among fellow christians. Understandable passions and frustrations aside, how would a non-christian interpret these and other related posts if they happened to stumble across this blog? If christians treat each other routinely with such sarcasm and condescension, how could a non-christian reader expect any better from these same individuals?

    I wish that somone here would acknowledge that neither of the parties are without stain. That both have flaws, because they’re composed of flawed people. Neither Clinton, Obama, McCain, Romney, nor Huckabee will be a saviour to this nation. It DOES matter who is elected, but ultimately all will disappoint to some degree.

    I’m a member of a party — I cast my vote at my caucus. I’m proud of many of my party’s priorities and embarassed of some of the others. And I worship every week with members of the other party. I don’t understand the ordering of their priorities, and they probably feel the same way about me. But given the choice, I’d rather get to know them better than drive them away….

    I’m honestly not trying to look down from a high horse — I’ve been in my share of partisan conversations that I wish I could take back in part. All I ask is that we are aware of our witness — people are watching.

    Blessings

  23. Drew M. February 7, 2008 at 11:11 pm #

    I directed my last question to Brett, but I would like to hear responses from anyone who shares similar beliefs about war, just or not.

  24. Brett February 8, 2008 at 12:03 am #

    Drew,

    Sorry, I didn’t see your earlier question. I totally agree with this and say “amen” to it. However, as westerners we tend to take a general rule or saying of wisdom and think it applies in all situations, all times, all places, etc. We think that this is always the case, which it certainly is NOT. Sometimes, the government doesn’t work this way. Innocent people get convicted and executed. Harmless, innocent civilians get murdered. Therefore, this passage is a general rule with certainly some exceptions.

    It also says to obey the governing authorities, however, in the context Paul is saying not to repay evil for evil, don’t commit evil deeds, etc. So he’s basically saying don’t do evil things so you won’t get in trouble with the government. So, since it says to obey the governing authorities, does this mean we have to in all circumstances, all places, all times? I ask you honestly about this. I will bring to your attention that China is closed to the Gospel, yet missionaries and mission teams go there all the time and lie to the government about what they’re doing. Is this a sin? Is this wrong?

    I had a friend who was on a trip to Mexico one time and he met a young slave girl who was raped and treated harmfully. Well, it’s illegal to take an illegal alien to the US. So what do you do? Do you “trust in God’s sovereignty” and not do anything and go back to your nice, comfortable home? The Bible has some pretty harsh words for people like that. To make a long story short, she came to the US with my friend and was able to be reunited with some family she had living over here by God acting in a totally miraculous way at the border. So, was it a sin?

    The Bible is certainly clear that God uses the government and other nations to execute judgment sometimes. However, that doesn’t mean that every time a war is going on or a sentence is declared that it is from the Lord. I’ll ask you a question…was it God’s will that Hitler execute 6 million Jews? Was God executing judgment on them through Hitler? Be careful with your response, because we honestly don’t know. There was no prophetic word that declared it so and we can’t assume this is the case in every single situation. I hope you get my point, ask me a follow-up question if you want and I can try to clarify a little. Thanks for the question.

  25. Benjamin A. February 8, 2008 at 12:34 am #

    Bryan & Brett,

    1. Re-read my post. I never claimed to have a comprehensive view of foreign policy. You both write as if you do however, and I find it very funny. We who visit this site are not ‘sheeple’. You both speak as if you “know” what the Iraqi people want; you don’t have a clue, and neither do I, but I’m not pretending as if I do. So please, save yourself the embarrassment. When it’s your OPINION just say so. That’s my opinion!

    2. If you were as passionate about the loss of human life in the womb, as you are about the loss of human life in war time, you would never even consider Clinton or Obama for President. The fact that you support either of these as a needed change for the good of America, in my opinion, is proof enough to suggest you both are clearly not pro-life. Anti-war pro-life sure. But not Christian values pro-life. The fact that you can’t/don’t/or just won’t see how important it is for Christian values pro-life to get one more Justice to hopefully end the massive slaughter of innocent human life, and you speak so arrogantly against all the efforts to rescue unborn human life, is simply untenable (see Brett’s post #14).

    3. Brett, I understand Heb.11.4 technically. Sorry for going over your head with that one.

    4. Re-read post #18 and stew.

    5. Questions: Will Hillary or Obama nominate the next conservative Supreme Court Justice that is probably needed to win some ground on abortion issues? Which one are you banking on to bring an exit strategy for abortion?

  26. Alex Chediak February 8, 2008 at 1:12 am #

    Denny,

    You are right: McCain would represent a stark contrast from either Obama or Clinton. However, with James Dobson set to endorse Huckabee soon, this thing may not be over yet….

  27. Ken February 8, 2008 at 8:13 am #

    It’s rather amusing (and enlightening) to see how folks read volumes into a simple statement–or in this case a question.

    My SOLE point in responding as I did by bringing up the duration of our military presence in Germany and Japan is to establish precedent. American policy over the past 60-odd years has been to maintain a physical presence in a region of conflict, former or ongoing, wherever possible. I could have added Korea and Saudi Arabia to that list. The reason we’re not still in Vietnam is that we lost that war. I had absolutely no intention of drawing a parallel between “good” WWII and the conflict in Iraq.

    Y’all really need to check your presupps at the door when you respond to other people’s comments.

    Soooo–“good” or “bad” war, expect us to be in Iraq a long time, unless the feds, whoever’s in power, decide it’s another Vietnam and pack the bags.

  28. Bryan L February 8, 2008 at 8:32 am #

    Ken do you arguing that we should have stayed in Vietnam?

    Drew,
    The problem with Rom 13 is that it can be seen as justification for a state carrying out justice among its own people and establishing order and peace. It’s not as easy to move from that to the idea that nations are God’s instrument to bring justice to other nations. This gets even more complicated when Americans see America as that nation that God has chosen to bring justice and peace to the world. This is something that N.T. Wright has pointed to before (which Denny takes issue with) that when America starts believing this (in America the bringer of justice and peace) then they sound eerily like another nation that was a super power in Jesus and Paul’s day.

    Blessings,
    Bryan L

  29. Drew M. February 8, 2008 at 8:45 am #

    Bryan,
    Thanks for the response, but I didn’t see where you explained what you think the Rom. 13 passage means. Could you elaborate on the passage only, and not on misinterpretations or what other scholars think about it. I’d like your interpretation. Thanks again.

  30. Bryan L February 8, 2008 at 8:47 am #

    sorry that sentence to Ken should have said “Ken do you beleive that we should have stayed in Vietnam?

  31. Ken February 8, 2008 at 8:50 am #

    Bryan: No. It is my opinion that the war in Vietnam was won militarily but lost politically and psychologically and the end result was a defeat for the US. To the extent that the war was badly mishandled by civilian authorities and the war effort sabotaged the reality is that the US could not have done anything but leave. Staying would have been counterproductive under the conditions operative at the time.

  32. Ken February 8, 2008 at 8:56 am #

    Retrospectively, however, one can see that one consequence of US military withdrawal from SE Asia and loss of prestige was the enabling of the debacle in Cambodia–Pol Pot and the killing fields. That is one lesson we should take from these events–we have to give a thought to the consequences of our actions and recognize that nature abhors political vacuums as well.

  33. MatthewS February 8, 2008 at 9:07 am #

    Bryan,

    Going back to your original question, I am concerned that perahaps nobody in the Bush administration had a good answer for that from day one of this offensive. When did the President ever articulate the objective that, when accomplished, would allow us to bring our troops home and go on with our lives? On the current plan, are we doomed to an unending police mission in Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan with no clear objective?

    Still, what Romney said concerns me. It seems logical that a “loss,” whatever that is at this point, could very much result in worse attacks against the US. Better we fight terror abroad than at home. 9-11 wasn’t the end of anything from the terrorists’ perspective.

    I wish I had a more well-formed opinion to defend. I just wanted to throw my two cents in.

  34. Jason February 8, 2008 at 9:23 am #

    Paul,

    The blog post is titled “What’s Notable about Romney’s Speech?”, not “What’s Noble . . .” I think you made the presumption that Denny was commending Romney, when in actuality he was only commenting on what he said. Ultimately Denny’s point appears to be that the Republican and Democratic candidates hold to very starkly different stances on the war.

    Bryan L,

    I definitely can’t say that I fully understand why we are in Iraq, and how long we should be there. I also know that I can’t say what will happen if we stay, and I definitely can’t say what will happen if we leave. Will it be better for Iraq if we stay or leave? Will it be better for us if we stay or leave?

    But can we say that we should have compassion for all as a universal theme (which I agree the Bible clearly commands) and at the same time think that justice is not also a universal theme regardless of state affiliation. I’m not arguing that America is the bringer of justice and peace, but who is trying to bring the justice and peace?

    Alrighty, I’m done.

    🙂

    Jason

  35. anti-left February 8, 2008 at 10:49 am #

    go hug a tree you liberal cowards. Typical babies who do not like hard work and sacrifice. If the American people were like you in the 1940’s we would all be speaking German or Japanese. I believe we can all agree that McCain knows the cost of war and what our soldiers go through far too well. There is nothing dumber and more short-sited than a liberal.

  36. Paul February 8, 2008 at 11:11 am #

    Sited? Yeah, the conservative movement has done you wonders, brother.

  37. Don February 8, 2008 at 12:12 pm #

    This has been said before but again let’s say it… clinton and obama both along with edwards had said in a early debate that they would not be able to get out of Iraq in their first term…. Now clinton said yesterday 60 days… The war on terror will go on … Some of you do not get it… You talk all the time about being pro-life, Do you want clinton or obama picking the next 2- supreme court judges or at least maybe get someone conservative from McCain? McCain will be weak on the border but better then those two…

    Huch-a-phony and he is just that is not going anywhere but maybe VP.. He did his job blocking Romney..Now McCain will need him to shore up the south.

    McCain is NG a fox in the henhouse.. Sad to say he is far better then the dem. choice..

  38. Brett February 8, 2008 at 1:08 pm #

    Drew, please see my answer to your question. I would like to hear your comments and feedback.

    Also, I never said I was a democrat. I’m actually registered as an independent. I just find it humorous that you all think Christians have to vote Republican because we’ve had Republicans in office for years since Roe v. Wade and it is still legal. Instead of putting our hopes in a candidate, we should rather minister to the people seeking to have an abortion and lay down our lives for them.

    Also, just because you’re a conservative theologically doesn’t mean you have to be one politically contrary to popular opinion. It’s insane that you all side with the Republican party on every issue b/c frankly on some things they just do a terrible job.

    Also, anti-left, it is people like you who give your party a bad name. Your comments are so ignorant I will choose not to address them.

  39. Mark February 8, 2008 at 1:52 pm #

    Brett,
    Since I haven’t received a response I’ll repost my question:

    As for your compassion for the Iraqi citizens (who, the vast majority, have been killed by terrorists and not Americans) does that same compassion extend to the hundreds of thousands of people who were killed and tortured (many in ghastly ways) under Saddam’s regime? If so, what would this compassion have you do?

    Because your anti-war stance seems antithetical to this comment: “So what do you do? Do you “trust in God’s sovereignty” and not do anything and go back to your nice, comfortable home? The Bible has some pretty harsh words for people like that.”

  40. Paul February 8, 2008 at 2:42 pm #

    Mark,

    I’ll answer for now, and see if Brett chimes in at some point.

    1) that vast majority of citizens that have been killed by terrorists would not have been killed if it were not for the fact that we invaded and caused mass chaos. Yes, Sadaam killed a lot of people, and he was a nasty guy, but at the rate we’re going, more Iraqis will be dead in less than 10 years than were killed in over 20 under Sadaam. That’s very, very telling.

    2) And, I can’t speak for Brett on his anti-war stance, but my anti-war stance goes something like this: unless we’re attacked or declared war upon, we have no business invading (as in Iraq)or getting involved in the running of other countries (see our heinous foreign policy re: South America). We had no business going to Iraq, especially considering that we were still supposedly looking for Bin Laden, and putting our 100K+ troops that we have in Iraq into Afghanistan would go a long way towards routing Al Quada once and for all.

    Don, for all of his blowhardedness, is right on at least one point: at this point, considering the mess that we’ve made, there’s no sane way of pulling out of Iraq anytime soon. Our boys will continue to die while chickenhawks here at home keep taking about how “they weren’t called to military duty.”

  41. Benjamin A February 8, 2008 at 3:02 pm #

    Bryan L / Brett & maybe Paul-

    5. Questions: Will Hillary or Obama nominate the next conservative Supreme Court Justice that is probably needed to win some ground on abortion issues? Which one are you banking on to bring an exit strategy for abortion?

    Seeing how concerned you are for human rights issues around the world, I want to bring your consideration back to the womb.

    Brett, you can lay your life down for as many people as you want, and I might applaud you for your efforts. But that will do nothing to stop the massacre that is happening all across America every day. Did you catch that? Every day innocent human life is being murdered in the womb and yet you advocate support for candidates that only want to allow that to continue. Your more concerned about an exit strategy for Iraq?

    Did you read Mark’s post #18? He wants you to answer his question. Why don’t you see what is so obvious? As Mark put it in post 18-

    “Concern for life is concern for life. And no, I do not believe that electing a Republican president will necessarily result in Roe v. Wade being overturned, but I am smart enough to realize that the best chance we have for that ever happening is to start through the judicial system.”

    Why is it so hard to understand that conservative Christians are looking to support a candidate that will, like Bush, put conservatives in the bench all across our land and in the highest bench of our land. For the hope of one day seeing an end of legalized murder. What is so difficult about getting that?

  42. Don February 8, 2008 at 4:08 pm #

    Paul, Your on the money , but we are there we have to remain there, I can’t wait to hear we are pulling back.. WE have taken a military and made police officers out of them. Each shooting is looked at like a police shooting here in the US. When the powers to be made this a police situation that was the time to say Enough. They are not cops they are army Marines etc…. But you have to admit none of thes people running Dem/Rep. will pull out… It’s all talk. Things have gotten better the dems don’t talk about it.. Now it’s the economy. Again all BS nothing will change… The two most important issues: #1. The border #2 Supreme Court picks. {2 of the crew is waiting for a Dem so they can retire}.. Who wants clinton or obama to make that call? At least McCain has a long proven track record being pro-life… Hey I don’t like the guy, I think he will open the border and say come-on in fellows…

  43. Brett February 8, 2008 at 4:36 pm #

    Mark,

    Sorry, I didn’t know you were asking me a question. Paul actually did an excellent job of answering the question and I completely agree with him on both of his points. I’m pacifistic in the sense that I will not go to war, but not in the sense of the country not going to war. I actually was totally behind us going to Afghanistan post-911 and thought we should have never entered Iraq. Like Paul says, our presence their and the fatalities (even though not all of them are from our bullets, they are from our presence) will surely surpass in torture Saddam ever committed.

    As for you saying my war stance is anti-thetical to my previous comment…I don’t think it is at all. I brought the story of the girl in Mexico up because my friend was there with her, face to face, and had the opportunity to do something about it. He chose to and God worked it out. Do I have the opportunity to do something about Iraq…well, besides praying, no. So these are 2 totally different examples. If I were in Iraq, then maybe I could do something if I saw the suffering firsthand, but here in the US, I can’t do anything besides pray.

  44. Drew M. February 8, 2008 at 7:18 pm #

    Brett,
    Thanks for your thoughtful answer. I’m sorry I missed it earlier. I realize that the teaching in Rom. 13 is general in it’s scope, and I think it is obvious that Christians should not obey their governing authorities no matter what. If that were the case, many of the first believers would not have been martyred because they would have denied Christ as Lord at the request of Caesar. You said in the last part of your response that we should not assume that every war IS “from the Lord.” Obviously you would agree then that we should not assume every war IS NOT from the Lord, correct (pardon my double negative)? Is there some way of determining, then, if a war is “from the Lord” or not?
    I believe that God deals with nations in a different way than He does with individuals. Because of this, it seems to me that we should too. Just because I might support the war in Iraq doesn’t mean that I can’t love the Iraqi people. Or just because I supported the decision to disunify the Taliban doesn’t mean that if I met a member of the Taliban I wouldn’t show him love.
    We agree that the idea of God using governments/authorities as His “sword” is a general rule. I, however, do not believe that this is the case with the first idea found in chapter 13…”For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been insituted by God.” Would you agree that this is true in every case? If not, please explain why. Thanks for the discussion.

  45. GrimeTime February 8, 2008 at 10:36 pm #

    Bryan, Brett, Paul, Don

    This is the only issue for me: 50,000,000 babies murdered inside and outside the womb by their mothers and so-called doctors since Roe v Wade. All in the name of choice. What about their choice? If you could ask them and hear their response, they would choose to live.

    Boarder control, the war, the economy; it’s all important, but compared to infanticide I really couldn’t care less. Why does any of it matter if we just kill our babies before any of that stuff effects them? You say that the war is unjust. Why do you care if Americans and Iraqis are dying if you don’t care about over 3,000 babies are murdered every single day?

    And if you did care about that, then you would support the most pro-life canidate out there, which is Huckabee, despite all other issues. And why do people blame republicans for not already overturning Roe v Wade, like it’s our fault? It’s decided at the Supreme Court and Bush has already nominated and seen through two faithful constructionists. I just pray that some more of the liberal justices retire or die soon so we can get another constructionist in there and get Roe v Wade overturned.

    Woe to those who call evil good and good evil. Isaiah 5:20

    But that’s just the first step. If we really want to see abortions stopped and this nation changed, then people need to get saved. And that happens when You repent (turn from your sins) and trust in Christ alone to save you. If you do that you will become born again and God will change your heart from wickedness to righteousness. He did it to me 9 years ago.

    Last thing. If Barack gets elected, wouldn’t that make us an “Obama”nation?

  46. Lucas Knisely February 9, 2008 at 10:22 am #

    Yes, Sadaam killed a lot of people, and he was a nasty guy, but at the rate we’re going, more Iraqis will be dead in less than 10 years than were killed in over 20 under Sadaam.

    No.

  47. Paul February 9, 2008 at 11:57 am #

    sorry Lucas, but yes. look up the numbers.

  48. Lucas Knisely February 9, 2008 at 12:16 pm #

    No.

  49. Mark February 9, 2008 at 2:18 pm #

    So Paul, essentially your answer to the question is: “my compassion would have me do nothing” That’s basically what I was looking for.

    Blaming the soldiers for the actions of the terrorists is akin to blaming a woman getting raped on the fact she was wearing a short skirt.

    As far as your “numbers”, there has been a dramatic decrease in deaths in the last several months and a dramatic increase in Iraqi civillian approval of US presence as a result. Your estimation (or your sources) of the number of deaths in the next ten years certainly does not reflect this. Sure you could cite stats from the deadliest months and multply them to satisfy your argument. However, Lucas is probably (always hard to tell with a well-articulated “No.” for an answer) alluding to the fact that he could do the same with the stats from the last several months and say there will be minimal deaths in the next few years.

    Also, I’m not quite sure what “numbers” you are referring to as far as deaths under Saddam’s rule because nobody has concrete numbers. According to human rights groups the numbers vary since they didn’t keep records and wouldn’t allow human rights groups into the country. It could be under 1,000,000 or as many as 2,000,000 people could’ve lost there lives under Saddam. We’ll probably never know. And we’re talking about gassing, raping, beheading, and other cruel methods of torture and death. But hey, he was just “a nasty guy” what can you do?

  50. Brett February 9, 2008 at 6:24 pm #

    Yes.

  51. Lucas Knisely February 9, 2008 at 10:57 pm #

    Paul, you’ve got it backwards. You made the claim so you should provide the proof, not send me looking for what I know doesn’t back up your claim.

    You see, an unbacked claim doesn’t need disproved since it fails to stand in the first place. And if someone questions or denies the unbacked claim, the response should not be, “look up the numbers”.

    The moon is made of cheese. You say it isn’t? Go find the proof for my claim… it’s out there.

  52. Paul February 10, 2008 at 2:23 pm #

    Lucas,

    okay. This one from USA Today dates back to 2006, saying that 600,000 had been killed already…

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-10-10-iraq-dead_x.htm

    This one from the Guardian said 650K in 2006…

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1920166,00.html

    Even if you want to be conservative, the WHO said in a Reuters report that 151K Iraqi civilians (not including militants, mind you) had died between ’03-’06.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL0957661720080110

    Want me to keep going?

    No matter what, too many innocents have died in this war waged under false pretenses (935 lies in the lead up to war is the accepted number these days) for it to make any sense.

    Moon ain’t made out of cheese any more, Lucas.

    so, to answer your previous post, yes.

  53. Benjamin A February 10, 2008 at 4:35 pm #

    Bryan L/ Brett/ Paul/ etc.

    Why won’t any of you deal with post #’s 18,41 or 45?

    You guys seem more concerned about an exit strategy from Iraq than an exit strategy from abortion.
    If you want to compare the numbers of innocent lives being murdered daily we could do that. You already know the answers. So why aren’t you as passionate about abortion, and making sure we have a President who is for life, who will probably pick the next 2 S.C.Justices, as you are about leaving Iraq?

  54. Paul February 10, 2008 at 4:40 pm #

    Mark,

    considering that you’re needling me about my compassion, why aren’t you speaking out about us going into any number of countries in Africa where genocides are happening at this very moment? I would assume because there’s little oil in Africa.

    And I’m not blaming the soldiers for the acts of the terrorists. I’m blaming the idiots who decided to invade in the first place. The invasion shouldn’t have happened. But when it did, it was executed in such a horrifying manor that it put our boys at unnecessary risk. But no one thinks about these things, and as long as we’re blowing up brown people that have a different religion than us, then we’re doing God’s will. Please.

    Insofar as the abortion argument goes, short of a constitutional amendment that will never happen, you’ll never completely outlaw abortion in this country, because an overturn of Roe v. Wade would only give the right to an abortion back to the states.
    South Dakota had a referendum up in the 2004 election, and the republicans did their best to silence it. Let’s face it, abortion is nothing more than a talking point to every one of the republican candidates, save for Huckabee, who, sadly, has no shot at the presidency. Too many of your fellow republicans vote with their wallets instead of their consciences, and McCain will be your end result. Nice work on that one, guys.

    As I’ve said a million times before, if you want to stop abortion, you need to educate. If SWEDEN’S abortion rate can be one of the lowest in the world, certainly America could follow their lead, right?

  55. Drew M. February 10, 2008 at 5:29 pm #

    Just to throw it out there…there is a lot of oil in Africa. Nigeria, Algeria, Libya, and Angola were among the top 15 oil exporters in 2006.

  56. Lucas Knisely February 10, 2008 at 5:38 pm #

    Sorry Paul, those numbers have been proven to be false. Poor George Soros =(

  57. Paul February 10, 2008 at 5:39 pm #

    well, Lucas, this time it’s up to you to prove they’re false.

    ball’s in your court, mon frere.

  58. Paul February 10, 2008 at 5:40 pm #

    Drew,

    unfortunately for the thousands of lives being slaughtered every day, there’s no oil in Darfur.

  59. Lucas Knisely February 10, 2008 at 5:43 pm #

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3177653.ece

    Yay for truth. The real amount of deaths vs. those killed under Sadaam? Lets remind everyone what you said:

    Yes, Sadaam killed a lot of people, and he was a nasty guy, but at the rate we’re going, more Iraqis will be dead in less than 10 years than were killed in over 20 under Sadaam.

  60. Bryan L February 10, 2008 at 5:45 pm #

    Benjamin,

    Sorry the conversation turned into a joke for me a while back (as do much of the discussions here) and I no longer felt like continuing in it. Besides I was the first to ask some questions and no one answered mine except for a few I don’t knows.

    This thread turned out to be a bait and switch. Romney and Denny made comments to the effect that if you vote for a Democrat then our country would be in big trouble because we would lose in Iraq and all of the sudden we’d be getting attacked more often. When commenting on why I didn’t see this as so it then became about abortion? What? Where did that come from? This is just silly.

    I no longer feel like answering a bunch of questions when many times I just get ignored when I answer or I just get more questions thrown my way.

    Bryan

  61. Paul February 10, 2008 at 6:13 pm #

    golly gee, Lucas, time for you to read whole posts…I quoted the 151K number as well. Still, 151K civillians dead in 3 years is still quite heinous.

    In 22 years, it is estimated that Saddam killed 1.2 million Iraqis. Which is less than 50K per year.

    So, according to the figures that you’ve posted, Iraq is no better off since we invaded than they were under Saddam.

    And according to McCain, we could be there for another 100 years. If the Republicans get their way, eventually, there will be no such thing as an Iraqi.

  62. Mark February 10, 2008 at 6:43 pm #

    “considering that you’re needling me about my compassion, why aren’t you speaking out about us going into any number of countries in Africa where genocides are happening at this very moment? I would assume because there’s little oil in Africa.”

    Ah yes, I was waiting for that response. I almost wish we were having this conversation in person so you could ask me that question in front of my two children, both of whom my wife and I adopted from Liberia. Your assumption that I have no compassion for the tragedies (and be assured they are real tragedies) in Africa would certainly ring hollow. However, I have no problem if you want to believe that I’m blowing smoke about my children because the onus isn’t on me to prove I have compassion. You see, I believe we should’ve done something for the suffering and murdered people under Saddam’s reign whereas you have stated we shouldn’t have done anything. I wish we could do something for all the suffering people living under cruel governments around the world but if we can’t (or won’t) I don’t see the problem in saying “something is better than nothing”. Whereas you seem to be comfortable saying “nothing is better than something”. Your argument of “if we can’t solve all the world’s problems than we shouldn’t even try to solve one” is unconvincing.

    “But no one thinks about these things, and as long as we’re blowing up brown people that have a different religion than us, then we’re doing God’s will.”

    That is a highly offensive comment and has no place in any educated discussion. I help coach high school boys basketball and they will occasionally do something arrogant or cocky (point at the crowd, tug on their jersey, point at themselves, etc.) and I will tell you what I tell them. You’re better than that. I don’t know you personally, but at least i hope this to be true.

    “And I’m not blaming the soldiers for the acts of the terrorists. I’m blaming the idiots who decided to invade in the first place. The invasion shouldn’t have happened. But when it did, it was executed in such a horrifying manor that it put our boys at unnecessary risk.”

    Again, this misses the point. Let me make this very easy for you. Blame the terrorists. The people who strap bombs to their chests and kill their own countrymen, they are the ones at fault. The vast majority of deaths in Iraq are a result of these people not “the man”. Provide me with statistics of Iraqi civilian deaths directly at the hands of US soldiers and then we can talk. But to show stats of deaths of Iraqi citizens at the hands of terrorists is unconvincing because that is precisely what the US presence is seeking to eliminate. I know, I know, you’ll say it never would’ve happened if we didn’t do anything. But to say, “Look you tried to stop a cruel, murdering, terrorist, and more cruel, murdering, terrorists popped up. We shouldn’t have done anything.” just doesn’t hold weight in my opinion.

    Look, this may surprise you but I am not an unconditional Bush supporter. I think he had an agenda with Iraq and in before he was elected in 2000 I saw him talk about Saddam and I came away saying to my wife, “If Bush is elected we will go to war with Iraq.” I’m not going to go as far as saying he blatantly lied, but I think his agenda blinded him into believing what he wanted to. Because of this I think we went into war unprepared and without a proper strategy and understanding of how the war would be fought and “won”. I agree that Bush is often arrogant and obtuse, but I’m not going to go as far as saying the war is wrong. Why? Because we did something. A cruel dictator was killing and torturing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people and we stopped him. Now we are trying to stop cruel terrorists from killing their own countrymen. Because of this, I refuse to agree with some who say this war is a “joke”.

  63. Brett February 10, 2008 at 7:29 pm #

    Okay, for some reason 20 comments just got added onto my screen that I had never seen before and I’m getting hammered for not answering questions I just read. Maybe Denny is controlling what I saw 🙂 This has gotten a little out of hand and I don’t even know where to start. There no way I can attempt to answer all the questions brought up b/c I can’t remember them and there is not enough space. I’ll just address a few things:

    Drew, yes, it does say that all authority is placed there by God. However, in other places it says that Satan is the one who controls the authorities of this world. So what do we do with that? Hermeneutics is the key here, and we must have healthy ones in order to reconcile these two views. There is no way we can say that us being in Iraq is God’s will, just like we can’t say it was God’s will that Hitler execute 6 million Jews. We cannot place our trust in the authority structures of this world…period. In fact, I believe that God really wants no war, however, he might permit it based on consequences. It is his desire that we all live in peace with one another.

    Benjamin A., as always, it’s turned into the abortion question. Let me tell you something, I think abortion is absolutely horrendous and terrible. There is no way I would tell anybody to get one. It is an injustice and it breaks God’s heart. However, there are alot of other things that break God’s heart as well. The war is despicable, our lack of help in places like Darfur and Rwanda when we had the ability to is despicable, the health care crisis and legal system is despicable. I could go on and on. More than that, I find that many people who sit in church pews and vote anti-abortion have had abortions themselves! There is much hypocrisy going on there.

    Our job is not to pass laws to make this country more moral. Our job is to lead people to Christ in order that their hearts may be changed and they will become more moral as a result of this. It has been 35 years since Roe vs. Wade, we have had big conservative Republican “Christians” in office…nothing has happened. I am NOT placing my trust in a Republican candidate because they haven’t done jack crap. As Paul said, education is the key, and it starts in our homes.

    Bottom line, your attitudes for how to go about this are misconstrued and hopeless. If you think you’ve done your duty by voting for a Republican (when they don’t do crap about it), then so be it. However, my duty is to befriend these people who have had one and are contemplating getting one and show them Christ’s love and educate them about their options. The root problem is a lack of self-control in any case. You make it sound like I’m evil. Think what you want, but I refuse to vote for an idiot Republican candidate for the sole sake that he is pro-life and has “better morals” than another candidate…when in reality they won’t do anything about it just like your boy George Bush and his daddy. Enough said

  64. Denny Burk February 10, 2008 at 7:47 pm #

    Dear All,

    I was gone all weekend. When I got back to a computer, many of your comments were stuck in my moderation queue. I just released them today. Sorry for the delay.

    FYI, it is a very rare occasion that I would delete a comment. Unless someone uses foul language, I usually approve all comments. So if you wrote something that you don’t see on the comments, it’s either because I’m away or because you used a word or link that made it go directly to my spam folder.

    Thanks,
    Denny

  65. Scot McKnight February 10, 2008 at 10:13 pm #

    Denny,

    Good post … and I do think at the level of rhetoric there is a big difference between McCain and Obama/Clinton on what they will do with Iraq.

    What they “say” and what will happen, should either Democrat become President, may not be the same. At that point they will have to become much more in tune with the Secr of Defense and, following that, I suspect both of them may well not be able to follow through on such a move. Still, that maybe needs to be brought up. Claim vs. what will actually happen.

    Bigger question for me: Do you really believe our invasion of either Afghanistan or Iraq was just war?

    I debated a military philosopher, one strongly in support of Bush, at Willow Creek a few years back. I took the pacifist side. The military philosopher, who is both Christian evangelical and a military person, made it quite clear that he didn’t think this war was a just war action but a crusader war action.

    Augustine articulated just war; that theory has been modified for the good at times. But, it is harder to say that just war is biblical. Rather, isn’t it better put like this: biblical principles can be used to construct a just war theory? (I accept that.) The NT knows nothing like a just war theory for invasion of another country.

    Anyway, good to visit with you brother.

    You sure do get some folks riled up over here.

  66. Lucas Knisely February 10, 2008 at 10:33 pm #

    Paul, you need to re-read your statement very closely.

    Yes, Sadaam killed a lot of people, and he was a nasty guy, but at the rate we’re going, more Iraqis will be dead in less than 10 years than were killed in over 20 under Sadaam.

    And then…

    golly gee, Lucas, time for you to read whole posts…I quoted the 151K number as well. Still, 151K civillians dead in 3 years is still quite heinous.

    First, I read your whole post. Second, you’ve got a subtle retreat in it:

    No matter what, too many innocents have died in this war waged under false pretenses (935 lies in the lead up to war is the accepted number these days) for it to make any sense.

    You disguise your retreat with more rhetoric. No matter what? So even if your initial claim is utterly false, according to more unsupported rhetoric you retreat to, “too many innocents have died.” Nobody is disputing that innocent people have died. Your initial claim was that we are going to cause more damage and death than Saddam at “the rate we’re going”. That is what I’m disputing.

    You are also ignoring the fact that we’ve been over there since 2002. So you take 2002 until now, take 150,000 and divide that by 6 years, and we are tracking about half of what Saddam was doing. He was in power for 24 years, so take 150,000 times 4 and you get 600,000 (That’s about half of 1.2 million). And the major difference? He was attacking his own country, and we are trying to liberate it. War time casualties are far different than self inflicted genocide. One is intentionally evil, and the other is collateral damage. Even Sam Harris will back me on this point.

    So not only is your math completely off, your parallel is unfair. This is so typical of anti-war talking points. Throw out emotionally charged rhetoric, back it up with ZERO facts, and then when you get called on it, retreat to “No matter what people died, Bush lied, and this war is illegal.”

    Oh, and McCain saying we might be there for 100 years is no different than Hillary and Obama saying we will probably always have a presence there in some fashion (guarding embassies, etc). McCain never said we would be “at war” for 100 years, he said we might need to “be there” for 100 years. These semantics games are usually why I avoid talking with those who claim the war is “illegal” and that we’ve all been “lied” to. Very little ever seems to get accomplished since we start with little to no facts. And if you don’t care about facts, why care about falsely representing what McCain said?

    This McCain slant is much like your mathematical foul up and exaggerated rhetoric about how many people have died and will die. You’re just throwing things out that aren’t factually based to back up your position. “McCain is okay with being over there for 100 years!” He is? “If he and the Republicans get their way, there won’t be Iraqis anymore!!?” I mean… come on…. Really?

    I’m not pro-war and I’m not pro-Bush. You are free to be against this war and this administration. But I’m pro-truth, so cut the rhetoric and start saying things that are factually backed.

  67. Don February 11, 2008 at 6:49 am #

    Paul, I guess your position is that before we went in Iraq all was fine and dandy. If your numbers are right did we kill all of the 151K? But you are right there many horrible places in the world that need help like Darfur.. But the world does not care enough and if the US did do something there we would be hated for that action as well. I agree with you 100% on the Roe/Wade issue.. It would not end and would end up a state by state issue…

    For those that think there is a maagic wand that will end the madness sorry… And your fanasty that a clown like Huck-a-phony will or can do anything is just that, a fanasty.. Not a fan of McCain’s but he does have a long strong record on being pro-life, and that is very undersold by all of you… Not that he will get anywhere other then maybe getting 2 supreme court judges selected.. The battle will be is there enough seats in the senate to get them through the judicial panel. If the GOP gives up too many seats in the house and the senate McCain {if he wins} will be unable to get anything done on many levels and I belive that will be when he does his reach over and play nice with the dems. I hear now and read that he may pick Huck-a-phony to be VP…Poor pick but I know he needs a pick from the south.. I have also heard good things about Gov. of Miss. and the new Gov. of LA… Any thoughts on these guys…

  68. Benjamin A February 11, 2008 at 1:23 pm #

    I’m surprised at the apathy toward winning the war in the womb.
    Bryan L, you have never tired of giving your opinion, yet on the issue of saving innocent lives in the womb all you can do is say, ” . . . This is just silly. I no longer feel like answering a bunch of questions when many times I just get ignored when I answer or I just get more questions thrown my way.”
    Apathy. My guess is you are not pro-life as it relates to human life in the womb. Hope I’m wrong.
    Brett, always with a ready reply, can only say, “. . . I am NOT placing my trust in a Republican candidate because they haven’t done jack crap. As Paul said, education is the key, and it starts in our homes.”
    Well, it appears that the education process didn’t work. And which Democratic candidate do you think will do any better on abortion and all the other issues you cited? Bill Clinton was a savior for the Democratic party and had 8 years to face each of these same issues (“our lack of help in places like Darfur and Rwanda when we had the ability to is despicable, the health care crisis and legal system is despicable”). President Clinton, with a democratic congress (for some time) did nothing. Your beloved liberals did nothing either.
    Brett, should Christian’s simply pull out of any public involvement to allow non-Christians to make all the rules (Laws)? You say, “Our job is not to pass laws to make this country more moral. Our job is to lead people to Christ in order that their hearts may be changed and they will become more moral as a result of this.”
    Is it really either/or? Not both/and? These two are not mutually exclusive.
    Apathy!
    Don, your comment, “I agree with you 100% on the Roe/Wade issue.. It would not end and would end up a state by state issue…”.
    Sounds as if your towel has been thrown in the ring as well . . .
    Apathy.
    I’ll end with Mark’s words from post 18-
    “As one of those silly people who believe that the pro-life issue is the greatest human life crisis of our time I take exception to your handling of the issue. And I don’t really see how it is “off topic” in a conversation about the war being wrong because of the loss of human life. Concern for life is concern for life.”

  69. Bryan L February 11, 2008 at 1:48 pm #

    Benajmin, why do you assume to know more about me than you do. Understand that this is not a conversation I’m interested in having. It’s been played out here. I was interested in discussing the original purpose of the post and what Romney said as well as Denny’s comments. Sorry if I don’t believe all roads should lead to abortion and that that should be the subject we always end up talking about. If I knew that’s what people would have wanted to talk about instead of what Romney said then I wouldn’t have commented in the first place.

    Bryan

  70. Brett February 11, 2008 at 4:20 pm #

    Benjamin A,

    You’re attributing to me beliefs that I don’t have. “You’re beloved liberals”, I’m not a liberal. I’m not even a registered democrat. In fact, I probably won’t even vote. When I posted earlier I was speaking just as much to the democratic party as to the Republican. Abortion rates during Bush’s term are around the exact same as when Clinton was in office. What defense are you going to give that one? Do I need to get the stats for you? Bottom line, don’t put your trust in a candidate because your expectations will not be fulfilled. It’s people like you who think the Republican party is the “savior” party that makes me laugh and shake my head. In 100 years, people will laugh and mock at what a joke your boy Bush was, and Clinton will be much more respected. George Bush is a complete idiot. Not only can he not talk, he’s prideful and stubborn, and he makes rash, stupid decisions. He has been a disgrace for your party and you all will probably lose the election just because of the bad name he has given to you guys.

    I didn’t say it was either/ or. I’m saying that fine if YOU want to have it both/and, but don’t preach that this is what it should be. You’re fighting the wrong battles pal, and I hope some day you wake up to see the truth. You are a typical conservative “Christian” republican, and you don’t know half as much as you think you do.

    You keep placing your hope in candidates for ending abortion, but I guarantee you it is a losing hope. I hope I’m wrong. I would rejoice if it gets overturned. But 35 years later…and we’re right where we began. And the sad thing is, people like you think if we just keep voting Republicans in there, they’re going to do something about it. AMAZING! Your attitudes toward life-change and morality are sure NOT biblical. Do I need to type that again? Your attitudes toward life-change and morality are sure NOT biblical.

    Benjamin A…the poster child for a right-wing, closed-minded, hateful, “Christian” Republican. Wake up pal

  71. Lucas Knisely February 11, 2008 at 4:48 pm #

    Brett,

    You said:

    Abortion rates during Bush’s term are around the exact same as when Clinton was in office.

    Nope: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=4151508&page=1

    You also said:

    Your attitudes toward life-change and morality are sure NOT biblical.

    Neither is name calling and mean spirited rhetoric, brother.

  72. Lucas Knisely February 11, 2008 at 5:05 pm #

    Oh, and one more thing Brett…

    Justices uphold ban on abortion procedure
    President Bush, who signed the law in 2003 and appointed two of the justices who upheld it, said the prohibition “represents a commitment to building a culture of life in America.
    CNN

  73. Brett February 11, 2008 at 5:40 pm #

    Lucas,

    We can all play that game buddy! Also, the article doesn’t even mention anything about your boy Bush, because he sure is not to credit.

    http://www.abort73.com/HTML/II-A-abortion_statistics.html

    Also, please keep in mind that California, Alaska, and New Hampshire don’t even provide data for their abortions. So even if there were 1.21 million abortions in 2005 and 1.31 in 2000, that doesn’t necessarily mean that there were more in 2000 because the rate in those 3 states could have been much less than in 2005.

    You throw articles and statistics around thinking you’re so sly and can prove people wrong. I can do the same thing bro.

    Also, the thing you posted about Bush really doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things. Is abortion still legal? Of course so. Just because a procedure is outlawed doesn’t mean abortions are going to decrease.

    Good try brother. Also, the pride behind your posts is evident. So although my mean-spirited rhetoric is not biblical, neither is your arrogance and pride.

    Good day

  74. Paul February 11, 2008 at 5:42 pm #

    Okay, let’s try to tangle in the following order…

    Lucas,

    1) I think you seem to think that the numbers I quoted were current. They’re not. They’re from 2006. And we went to Iraq in 2003 (I actually remember the night that war was declared, to the day), not 2002. So, in three years, 151K (minimally)people had died. And at that point, at BEST we’re keeping pace with Saddam. Learn to read every word of every article you read, my man.

    2) War casualties are different from “self-inflicted” genocide: really? try telling that to the people who died either way. I’ll bet they’re still dead, either way.

    2) There is no rhetoric regarding the lies that were told in the run up to war. This explains more…

    http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

    sure, I’m certain that you’ll claim that since it didn’t come from Fox News that it’s not accurate, but there it is, right in front of you.

    3) No Republican has any business talking about unfair rhetoric, unfair parallels or unfair anything. Remember, this is the party that did a slime campaign on McCain in 2000, who viciously attacked Harold Ford with blatantly racist commercials and decried Max Cleland as a coward. The right knows little about fairness, and to claim a right to it when someone is telling you about how wrong their actions are is at the very least, ludicrous.

    And as for Mark’s claim that we should blame the terrorists for those deaths, I will say, he’s right. But those terrorists weren’t out in the open under Saddam’s rule. So, genocide upon the Kurds has been replaced with Sunnis killing Shiites and vice versa. We could have feasibly focused more of an eye on the human rights aspect of Saddam’s rule without going to war. But Mark’s also right that Bush had some strange desire to invade Iraq before he even became president. This is the result, and the result is not good.

    Benjamin and the rest of the “let’s ruin the country because someone SAYS they’re pro-life” crowd…

    Benjamin A: “Well, it appears that the education process didn’t work.”

    really? What education process? Even under Clinton, sex ed was mandated to be a mostly abstinence only affair, which is akin to stopping math education after you’ve gotten through addition. Let’s face it, kids have sex. Probably even your kids. And while it’s not the utopian way, it’s the real world way, and if we want to see an end to abortions, you’re going to need to see an end to unwanted pregnancies. If you want to see an end to unwanted pregnancies, then you’re going to have to teach kids to use condoms. I’m sorry. It’s the way of the world. What part of WE, THE CHRISTIAN U.S. of A. has one of the highest abortion rates in the developed world don’t you get? It’s because we turn a blind eye to all of this stuff that we don’t want to talk about, and then we wonder why we suffer the consequences. Once again, I’ll say, our way isn’t working. Sweden’s way does. But do we follow those darn Yurpeens? Nope. Of course not. America is too arrogant to try to learn from anyone else.

    The result of this will be one of two things…

    a) Republicans will keep getting into office, and keep making grand gestures while keeping abortion safe and legal, if not federally, then on a state by state basis.

    b) somehow, beyond all political reason, abortion will be outlawed. At which point, because we’ll still refuse to teach our kids about proper contraception, abortions will go down, but the ones that do happen will be far more dangerous, resulting, often times, in the deaths of two instead of one. Let’s face facts, prior to Roe v. Wade, I would be willing to bet that we saw almost as many abortions, the only difference being the fact that they were in back alleys, and not in sterile clinics. A woman who doesn’t want to have a baby bad enough isn’t going to let something as petty as the law get in her way.

  75. Brett February 11, 2008 at 5:43 pm #

    Also, in 1995, when big Clinton was president, there were as few abortions as there were in 2005, when big Bush was president. Need data? Here ya go:

    http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/us_stats_abortion.asp

  76. Lucas Knisely February 11, 2008 at 5:55 pm #

    *shakes head*

    No.

  77. Paul February 11, 2008 at 6:06 pm #

    why are my comments, and seemingly my comments alone awaiting moderation?

    Sorry I’m brash, I guess.

  78. Brett February 11, 2008 at 6:20 pm #

    In a state of denial there Lucas? Somebody beat you at your own game? Can’t deny the facts. You can just keep acting like a lil kid though, it’s all good.

    *shakes head*

    Yes.

  79. Lucas Knisely February 11, 2008 at 6:45 pm #

    Brett,

    You can’t seem to stay on topic, so I’m not going to continue this discussion.

    And you excuse your name calling and mean spiritedness by claiming I am arrogant and prideful? Accusations like these are pretty extreme considering I’ve done nothing to deserve it. You, however, have name called and you have in fact spewed mean spirited rhetoric in the name of defending your position. I suppose that and previous uncharitable entries you’ve posted on this site should have been my clues to no longer engage you.

  80. Brett February 11, 2008 at 7:07 pm #

    Not stay on topic? What in the world are you talking about? I refuted your abortion statistics and now to try and make me look like I’m an idiot and tell me I can’t stay on topic? AMAZING! I think you just got proven wrong and can’t admit it if you want my honest opinion.

    Trust me, Lucas, I will gladly no longer speak with you. I have no respect or sympathy for immature people like you who act like little kids when they post things. You honestly think you’re being civil in these discussions? To both me and Paul? Come on man, you respond to us like a complete jerk and then point the finger at us and tell us we’re mean spirited and calling names! Come on man!!! I’m just giving you a taste of your own medicine.

    So, I say this with joy, don’t expect anymore dialogue from me.

  81. Brittany February 15, 2008 at 12:42 am #

    I would like to throw some emotional rhetoric into the ring and say, “I’m sure glad that some posters are referring to orphaned children and civilian destruction as ‘collateral damage.'”

    If this kind of thing was going on, say, within U.S. borders, and some American children were killed by accident (or willful negligence), would anyone feel OK referring to that as “collateral damage”?

    Of course not! It would be a tragedy of the HIGHEST order.

    The rhetorical distinction constructed out of this situation, designed to dehumanize “the enemy” (and, incidentally, all their children as well), is a little startling.

    A young man – very early twenties, I think – who had done a tour of duty in Iraq through the Army, spoke in my home church for a men’s breakfast. He talked about how careless the planning and carrying-out of bomb-dropping was over there, and how civilians get killed all the time because the military doesn’t care who gets killed in the process. And I think the worst part was how blase he was about it – it didn’t matter at all to him. When my father told me about his talk, I think it was the most chilled I’ve ever felt about this war. My father (one of the most conservative people I know, FYI) said, “Well, it’s no wonder they hate us over there.” And if that’s the case, I have to agree.

  82. Lucas Knisely February 15, 2008 at 10:39 am #

    Brittany,

    I never said I didn’t care, nor did I say that the citizen deaths don’t matter. But if tomorrow, President Bush started executing thousands upon thousands of his own US citizens, and another country stepped in to stop him, and in the process some US civilians were killed, I think all the Bush haters in this country would sing a different tune. “Well it is part of a greater cause, Bush is a tyrant.”

    I’m not dehumanizing the enemy, since I never said the citizens were the enemy. The terrorists are the enemy. However, citizens that die because of war will always be tragic. But you can’t let that be your focal reason to stop a war. Why not? Because when you enter a war, you do it with the understanding that collateral damage will happen. Sure, most of the people that are now against the war probably didn’t think about that fact in the beginning. But it’s a fact that goes ignored and then gets exploited as a reason to stop the entire war.

    How many American soldiers have been quoted at saying things like, “Let us finish what we started, we are finally having success.”? How many would have died in vain if nay-sayers get there way? But we, as American citizens, sit back in our comfortable environment, and let agenda driven Politicians control what we think. Sitting in Starbucks, with our expensive laptops and iPods and $7 dollar cups of coffee, reading the New York Times and Bush Hating Blogs, thinking we’re “informed”.

    We, the unqualified and the unprofessional, sit back and hotly judge those who are put in positions to make decisions that we could never make. If Gen. Petraeus says, “We need to move these troops from here to there, and we need some more for this province here.” he is qualified to make that call, and we aren’t. But when it comes to staying there or leaving there, everyone thinks they’re an expert because they read a few blogs and news articles.

    And here’s the definition of Collateral Damage for those interested:

    Collateral damage is a term used by the U.S. military for unintended or incidental damage caused during a military operation.

  83. Paul February 21, 2008 at 2:42 pm #

    Maybe Romney’s gonna jump back in the race now?

    This could get interesting.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Denny Burk » Were the Invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq Just? - February 12, 2008

    […] friend Scot McKnight posed a fair question in the comments section of a previous post (comment #65), and I think a proper response deserves a new post. Here’s Scot’s […]

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes