I haven’t mentioned Joseph Kony on this blog since 2005. Maybe it’s because he’s someone whom I would rather forget. His crimes are so horrifying that it’s hard to let yourself imagine that it’s real. But it is.
Michael Gerson of the Washington Post writes today about Kony and about what the U. S. and the international community might do about him. Gerson warns,
We are seeing the second coming — surrounded by an army of children and trailing clouds of death — of Joseph Kony. If this is not a cause for horror — and a justified cause for international action — it is difficult to imagine what would be.
Gerson’s piece is not for the faint of heart. Consider yourself warned as you pray with me, “Maranatha.”
11 Deliver those who are being taken away to death,
And those who are staggering to slaughter, O hold them back.
12 If you say, “See, we did not know this,”
Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts?
And does He not know it who keeps your soul?
And will He not render to man according to his work?
20 He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.
Kinda gives you a new perspective on complaining about $4-a-gallon gas.
The problem is, what can the U.S. really do? What can the world really do? Invade, and you’ll have to deal with Sudan as well. Send aid, and it’ll get into the wrong hands. Send a UN force, and they won’t do anything except observe. Kill off this guy, and probably watch one of his right hand men take his place (one’s got to assume that the power that Kony wields is something along the lines of intoxicating).
Short of doing what the French did during the first Algerian Uprising (killing off every known leader that the resistance had), I can’t see what else would possibly be anything close to a long term solution.
Here we are in total agreance Paul. The former seems futile and the latter unthinkable.
I can’t believe people can be so evil…
I believe this verse applies to Kony: “The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.” (Psalms 11:5)
It’s good to be a christian and know that God deals with people on HIs terms, and all will have to give an account.
“The problem is, what can the U.S. really do?”
Kill them. Kill them all. Evil has to be dealt with, not tolerated or talked about or have money thrown at it.
with what soldiers?
I agree with the (old school) French model of dealing with terrorists (see post #2).
But we have no soldiers with which to wipe out a likely humongous leadership council, and that’s if we know exactly who they are and where they’re at.
The answers are easy.
Executing the answers is almost never easy.
Interesting theology :o)
Kill them. Kill them all. Evil has to be dealt with, not tolerated or talked about or have money thrown at it.
Did you delete my comment? And, if so, why?
I deleted your comment for two reasons. The first reason is to head-off a rancorous debate about Calvinism. That’s not what I want this thread to be about. Second, it was very plain from the way things started that it wouldn’t have been a very fruitful discussion.
hey, Denny deleted mine, too!
Sheesh, does Denny think he OWNS this blog or something? 😛
You have every right to delete posts, and I am more than willing to apologise if I offend. However, deleting TWO posts of mine and only acknowledging Quixote in post 8 is a little disappointing.
I’m much more important than that!!! :o)
Paul and Ferg,
See number 8.
I get it. I was just having fun with you.
I can joke sometimes. Hopefully, once in a while, they’re actually funny.
Paul, I thought you were amusing, but that probably just shows that neither of us are funny!! actually, no I am funny. In fact, I’m awesome.
We do have a great special forces capability and armed UAVs if the carrier groups are tied up.
The “kill em all” isn’t so much a theology but a political/military methodology.
With what soldiers?
How ’bout we form another coalition, or maybe get our troops out of Iraq and send ’em in to do something that has a definable objective?
I’m sure many would be willing to take these guys out…
I know Brian I was being facetious. However I do still think it’s a pretty shocking methodology.
It seems like that attitude comes free in a country where guns are sold in grocery stores and auto shops and capital punishment is high on peoples agendas and more than 50% of government spending goes on the military.
We need to spend a great deal on the military. We are the defacto military for so many of our allies. For instance, Canada doesn’t really need a military. They have ours. I wonder what other countries know they can rely on us to bail them out? Do you know of any?
I really hope you don’t actually justify the spending of $700 million dollars on your military Todd.
â€œCount out 60 seconds and 3 of the worldâ€™s children will have died for lack of safe water/sanitation. Count out another 60 seconds, and within these two minutes the US will have spent $1.3 million on its military.â€
And please don’t paint the picture that your country is the saviour of the world. It’s not.
I don’t think there is anything in this world I would try to justify. I just find the moralistic judgments of many of my European brothers and sisters to be very ironic. A simple “thank you” would do.
It’s truly sad when Europeans act all self-righteous and believe that they exist EXCEPT by the aid of the United States. America is indeed the de facto military for almost all other countries, and this is not a good thing. We should leave Europe to save themselves next time a Bosnia comes up, and see how that works out for them. By letting them mooch off of our military, they waste that money on other things. Not only do we spend the most on the military, we also give the most to charities. Funny how that works.
Spoiled children inevitably will resent the ones who have spoiled them. I think that works nationally and internationally as well.
Good analogy, Todd. Yes, we made a big mistake of allowing ourselves to become the world’s military beyond the most extreme needs.
If the United States chose an isolationist posture I suppose we could spend much less on the military. Of course, if that had been the U.S. policy then German would be the official language in France and the U.K.
One more thought for Ferg: Not for one moment do I believe the U.S. is “the savior of the world.” We have however gotten the U.K. out of a sling more than once. Again, a “thank you” would be in order.
Wow, that was an incredible few posts. I’m taken a back at the venom of you guys.
I would say thanks, except I’m NOT from the UK, I’m from Ireland.
And I’m actually astounded that you guys only see the positive and are completely ignoring the fact that your ‘military’ is generally run by greed, not by wanting to save the world. there is no way the US are altruistic in all their actions. a bit of perspective would be nice guys. I apologise if my point came across harsh, I don’t think it deserved such an attack from.
My only point was that you spend TOO much money on the military, you can say plenty of truthful things about my country and I won’t jump on the patriotic defense.
I don’t think we spend too much considering the circumstances (we’re about the only military left in the West). It would be nice to spend less, but until the rest of the West begin to carry their own weight again, that’s the way it is. So it is terribly ironic that someone from a country/continent that doesn’t carry it’s own weight militarily would lecture the U.S. on military spending.
As for your statement that our military is generally run by greed, do you have any evidence or proof of this or are you just amazingly ignorant on this point? I can give you dozens of examples where the military was NOT run by greed, can you give one where we have been? WWII, Korea, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq (both the first and the second time), etc. All of those had mostly or entirely altruistic reasons for our involvement.
You still don’t see my point. The fact that you spend as much as you do on war is INSANE. It’s not just america so don’t get me wrong. I think most budgets from countries are messed up, can you not see that a kingdom view would have monies better spent? If you want to justify your country spending so much money on war when your health and education system is in the gutter, be my guest.
(my countries health system is pretty bad too, so i’m not just getting at your country).
I could write a 15 page post on the iraq war and it’s links to oil but I’ll not bother. I have no problem in seeing that america has helped many countries out, but its the blinkers that you have on that will not see that it has not always acted as a country that is apparently ‘God’s country’. bullet the blue sky…
re: greed & Iraq: In all fairness, without some candor from Cheney and Bush (which we haven’t gotten), you can’t say for certain that the reasons for going to Iraq the second time were altruistic. All the evidence isn’t in yet. Not by a long shot.
I didn’t realize Sudan would be an issue in this? Are they allies with the LRA?
It is unfortunate that the US is already spread out so much. I would have just wanted to go in and (maybe with the UN if they had the courage and honor to fight) kill all their leaders. Then let the Ugandan Government take back over. I’m being quite serious as well.
True Paul. I’m just saying look at the evidence. What do we have is many valid and altruistic reasons for invading Iraq. Furthermore, we haven’t benefited in gas prices or what not. Instead, it’s been quite the opposite. And Iraq’s oil has been used to rebuild (or build for the first time) their infrastructure. Cheney himself said that was the goal, that the oil fields would be used to support Iraq’s rebuilding years.
“Of the four wars in my lifetime none came about because the US was too strong.” – Ronald Reagan
I believe our military spending is justified.
Hmm, seems some of the comments have been deleted. Oh well, that kills the conversation. I agree with Mark, our military spending is more than justified.
I am not wearing blinders. America is as sinful as anywhere else in the world. We are deeply flawed. But still the world stands at our doorstep trying to get in.
I would be just fine if we had left Europe to fend for herself. But we all know what the outcome would have been.
I am sorry if I am a little touchy about Europeans trashing the country that has ensured their survival. What makes it particularly hard to hear is that those who have benefited so much from American might are the ones who hold us in such contempt. How about we let Ireland lead the way in bailing out Africa?
Todd, I accept your apology for getting my citizenship wrong.
and don’t be so rude…
“How about we let Ireland lead the way in bailing out Africa?”
I’m not here to rag on your country. I actually thought people would agree that your spending on the military was a bit high and we could discuss why that was so but I guess I was wrong. I also generally feel like my comments aren’t seen as good for discussion as they seem to make you all get on a high horse. I might join Brett and Bryan L and vacate the premises.
Yes, we wouldn’t want anyone getting on a high horse now would we?
What makes my comment about Ireland any more rude or pretentious than your comments about America?
Is there any give with you? You ignore the bottom half of my post where I’m trying to reach out. I think I’ve apologised about 3 times already in this post, cause I genuinely don’t want to cause offence, I had one point I wanted to get across and I didn’t hear a satisfactory response to it (doesn’t mean I’m right and I’ll get it!).
This is where the internet is very difficult cause you cannot see peoples characters and hearts. I come to this place to learn and to have good discourse. There are people on here such as DJ who very much disagree with some of my theological leanings, however he’s very respectful and if i say something hot headed or out of line, he calls me on it, he doesn’t take it to a higher level and we can have great discussions.
However, I feel like I’m being sucked in to a vicious circle of near nastyness and again for my part I apologise and it was NEVER my intention to offend your country or you.
I believe that until 9/11 the US military was actually trimming itself some. I’m not sure if we spend too much or not, I don’t know exactly how much we spend compared to how much we need to spend to stay at our current power level compared to the power level we need to be. Does anyone have actual numbers at least on out spending per capita compared to other nations?
I like the U2 reference there in post 28 Ferg…;)
There were actually two of ’em if you read carefully…
First U2 from the Irishman. What’s next, Van Morrison or The Pogues?
Thanks Josh, that was a little entertainment for myself in the midst of the intensity to see would anyone catch on. good job. and yeah paul, there were 2!!
Todd and Darius, I patiently await your response!
Sorry Ferg, but Denny deleted half of our posts on the topic of military spending (perhaps because it was off-topic, I don’t know). So I had kinda dropped the subject. What response are you waiting for; I don’t see any particular question in your last post. If you are wanting a deeper discussion of our military spending, sure, let’s do it. The reason I think it is ludicrous of you to say that our military budget is too high is that we live in a world that needs militaries. I would love to have zero money spent on war and armies, but that ain’t the world in which we live (and it will never be so, considering that people are getting more evil with advances in technology and learning). So someone has to spend money on the military (at least in the West), and since the rest of you Western countries are tranforming your militaries into replicas of the UN (impotent “peacekeepers” who in fact enable evil and genocide), America has been given the responsibility to protect the world. If the rest of the West would carry their own weight, America could drastically cut their military spending and spend most of it on defense-related items.
Wow, no i actually thought you’d perhaps be gracious and accept my apology or even acknowledge it. and perhaps acknowledge your harsh comment in post 21 calling me self-righteous but i guess i had expectations too high. i’m done with the ‘argument’, i just thought you might be cordial.
I guess I don’t see anything for which you need to apologize… you have your opinion and I have mine. We both think the other’s opinion is ludicrous and while you perhaps have not addressed our reasoning or arguments, you also have not thrown out ad hominem attacks. So no apology is necessary. Your comment “And please donâ€™t paint the picture that your country is the saviour of the world. Itâ€™s not” was pretty self-righteous, like you have forgotten that Ireland (and the rest of the world) would not exist in its current form had it not been for the ongoing help of the USA. Say what you will about our military spending, but pretending that the world has nothing for which to thank America is the height of arrogance. You don’t have to apologize for that statement (I’m not easily offended and have very thick skin), but don’t expect for it to be left unscathed.
I’m with Darius on this. I don’t know why you are being so sensitive. You made a statement that, in my mind, was rather arrogant. You also did not offer any substance to back up your claim.
The fact is, Europe owes its existance to the U.S. military. We offered up thousands and thousands of our sons to ensure Europe is free. And guess what? We’ll do it again if need be and still, U.S. flags will be burned in European streets.
As far as Africa is concerned, the Bush administration has done more for Africa than any other nation on the planet. If our allies were capable of defending themselves then we would probably have even more money available to throw at Africa.
I don’t know why pointing these things out seems to hurt your feelings? Would it be better to simply say, “Ferg, no offense but I humbly disagree with you. I don’t want to back that up in anyway because that would seem mean and pushy. Anyway, no offense”?
It’s not the pointing out that bothers me. I’ve no problem in being wrong (well, we all do; but you know what i mean!!) I don’t care what you say, it’s HOW you say it, and the attitude behind it. And I guess how you continue to do it. You don’t know who I am, but you are wondering ‘why I’m so sensitive’. maybe there’s stuff going on for me, you don’t know. perhaps you’ll tell me to stay clear, perhaps you’re right; i just felt i’d thrown out a few graces and got none in return. I apologised for my comment about your country and i guess i just wanted some kind of acknowledgement from you that perhaps you were pretty harsh in your comments back rather than just hitting me with intelligent discourse ( such as 34 and 36). and also an acknowledgement of my apology as thats what it seemed like you were looking for in post 36 which is why i followed it by backing down. anyways, maybe we’re misunderstanding each other and maybe I sound like i’m 12, but anyways, thats my heart.
It’s your blog so you have an editorial right to delete whatever comments you want, but the point about Calvinism in light of this man’s reign of evil is something perhaps you should consider. Offblog or in another thread if you’d like, but the point remains. Perplexing and problematic as it may be…the point remains.
Though, we did just have an 164-comment thread on Calvinism…
There’s a time for debate, and there’s a time to stand united across the theological spectrum in the hope of the gospel in the midst of a sad, sad world.
On what shall I stand? On what hope? If it be God, then it be God and there’s nothing sad about it.
I’ve posted a reply to your statement on the post, “Where does Arminianism come from?” from 5/28. If you want to discuss Calvinism as it relates to Kony, let’s do it there.