« More Light than Fire | Main | Jesus is NOT an Easy Button »

September 25, 2007

Comments

How many millions of babies has Iran aborted? Germany killed 6 million Jews; we have killed 50 million of our own children. How many million more would it take for us to be a bad nation?

Quoting from Bret Stephen's article:

>>So there is Adolf Hitler on our imagined stage, ranting about the soon-to-be-fulfilled destiny of the Aryan race. And his audience of outstanding Columbia men are mostly appalled, as they should be. But they are also engrossed, and curious, and if it occurs to some of them that the man should be arrested on the spot they don't say it. Nor do they ask, "How will we come to terms with his world?" Instead, they wonder how to make him see "reason," as reasonable people do.
>>
>>In just a few years, some of these men will be rushing a beach at Normandy or caught in a firefight in the Ardennes. And the fact that their ideas were finer and better than Hitler's will have done nothing to keep them and millions of their countrymen from harm, and nothing to get them out of its way.

If all that would have been intended by giving Hitler a forum was to attempt to reason with him, then Bret is correct.

But if wars are not principled, then no one is right; And if you can't prove that your war is justified, how are you different than your enemy.

It is also for the prospect of being able to show the record to those who might have been lied to, to those who might side with your enemy - and not just because of the hope of being able to reason with your enemy - that granting Hitler a forum at Columbia University would have been a good idea.

Set your duckies in a row, so it's easier to knock them off.

• Ecc. 9:13-18
• Prov. 16:32

"The horrible truth is that we are in a worse position to keep evil on the scope of the Holocaust from happening again than we were when the U.N. was begun to do just that. This week's events vividly illustrate that."

This is the sort of nonsense that we were hearing prior to the Iraq War and it seems the War Party is at it again. The U.N. was begun in 1945. In 1945, Stalin was alive and the Soviet Union was in control of Eastern Europe. Solzhenitsyn was in the Gulag along with several million other folks, a goodly number of whom were going to be worked to death. Mao was three years away from taking over China. The Soviet Union was doing a serious nuclear program.

Now we are told that a speech or two by a loon is like the second coming of Hitler, Stalin, Mao?
We might want to reflect on the recent record of the current Iraniaks, before we pay them much heed again. Get a grip guys.

Gotta go with Alan on this one.

Sadly, Ahmadinejad appears to have been articulate and calm during most of the proceedings. He got support from the audience and gave a couple of wise rebuttles when the President of Columbia tried to nail him on a couple of questions that we all know the answer to, specifically about Israel. Like many tyrants, he is no fool and used a platform that was provided wisely.

Before anyone dumps on me, I don't believe what he believes, but I think that he certainly didn't hurt his public image at CU yesterday, and in a number of ways probably helped it.

The real interesting thing to see will be what he says at the UN today.

And sadly, we are seeing a genocide happening in Darfur but are tied up in Iraq and can do next to nothing about it. Had we remained focused on Afghanistan, we could have been a military presence in the Sudan and done exactly what Melinda says the UN is incapable (or unwilling) to do.

I do not see Melinda attempting to make a direct correspondence, but rather by analogy saying that "there is no moral compass in the prevailing worldview of the world to see Ahmadinejad as a very dangerous tyrant who could commit Hitler-like atrocities." In other words, a typology.

I am not a fan of Ahmadinejad, but even less so of US president George Bush who, while claiming to be a Christian, lies, engages in human rights violations, and has given the Body of Christ a black eye with his evil behavior. His actions make him appear like the forerunner of the Antichrist. The liberties of Americans and even of people outside of America have been eroded or destroyed by George Bush and his policies. It is time American Christians turn to Christ as their savior, instead of turning to a leader who talks the talk but cannot or will not walk the walk.

Hi Cary, that you have come to believe, "there is no moral compass in the prevailing worldview of the world to see Ahmadinejad as a very dangerous tyrant who could commit Hitler-like atrocities," is why those currently beating the drums for war with Iran are so dangerous. This guy is as close to Hitler as a tyrant as Iran is close to Germany as an industrialized power. We went toe to toe with the Soviet Union for forty years when the stakes were literally everything after doing the same with Hitler and Tojo.

That we have folks all hysterical and beating the war drums over this clown would be comical if the stakes weren't more dead American soldiers and Marines and a lot of dead Iranians.

A nuclear Iran would be a serious matter but I find it hard to believe that the nations that defeated Hitler and the Empire of Japan are incapable of dealing with the Mullahs who, like the Soviets and the Chinese, have demonstrated the ability to be rational actors.

You might also ask yourself why you would take seriously analysis from those who can't be bothered to inform themselves as to the actual distribution of power in a nation they are seem so eager to engage with arms?

Here is the organizational chart for Iran:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Schema_gvt_iran_en.png

By way of contrast here is what the power flows in Germany looked like when the NSDAP held total power:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/NSDAPChart.jpg

“I am not a fan of Ahmadinejad, but even less so of US president George Bush.”

Why do people continue to say this and expect people to take them seriously?


Just out of curiosity Alan, can you give me circumstances in which you would support war? Also, war unsanctioned by the U.N.?

Thanks


<>

That says it all, and it's where I stop taking the post seriously.

I'm used to hearing comparisons like this on political blogs or wherever, but to hear it here? And from someone who dares to mention Christ in the same sentence?

Please.

Hi Kevin, when we have been attacked - Japan, AQ/Taliban; or declared war on us - Germany.

Those examples, of course, don't need UN sanction.

Humanitarian situations like Rwanda and Sudan if there was international co-operation.

Hope this helps.

Alan,

I simply think you are missing the point. Melinda doesn't seem to be saying that Ahmadinijad needs to be overthrown and instigating a war with Iran is the necessary step. It more seems that you and others commenting are using this post as an opportunity to bring out "war with Iran, bad." There is no counter solution offered for how to deal with an evil tyrant, though, just "war with Iran, bad" as a foregone conclusion.

Yes; Alan, it does. I understand your view on war and humanitarian intervention. I agree - although “international co-operation” didn’t really mean a lot to the 800,000 tutsis in Rwanda but I understand where your head is. Thanks.

Additionally,

Would threats of attack from another country with nuclear capabilities in any circumstance warrant military action?

Thanks again


Also,

What about in the defense of another country attacked by a tyrant?

Thanks

Hi Kevin, we managed to deal with just such a constant threat for forty years and managed to prevail. If you mean intelligence that indicated an imminent attack, you must be thinking of Russia or China, as they are the only ones with a delivery capability that would need a war. The only way a nation like Iran could attack us with nukes (more likely a nuke) in the next few years would be to smuggle in in, and that is a police matter more than a military one.

As for aggression on third parties, we have treaties, including the UN treaty that covers such things or we would have to cobble together a real coalition. Iraq should have taught us the folly of asserting a phony coalition.

A word about this "tyrant" thing. Tyrant does not mean, "one who engages in tirades." Ahmadinejad is the elected President of Iran. He is also NOT the Commander in Chief of the Iranian Armed Forces; that job belongs to the Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

http://www.khamenei.ir/

Hi Cary, if I were lost on the Colorado Plateau, a good first step in surviving would be to not walk off the rim of a canyon. Likewise, when there is a very real campaign for a war that would be an obvious disaster, it is no argument against opposing that war to treat going to war as some sort of default action.

Iran is the size of Alaska and has a population of around 70 million. The current Administration can't handle a war with a nation the size of California with a population of about 25 million. Not doing something stupid is always a good first step. If Melinda isn't part of the War party then she should state that and stop making Hitler and Holocaust analogies over a speech.

Hi Alan,

I like that you have pointed to the political of Iran. I recall reading a Time Magazine that the situation in Iran is rather fuzzy.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1214964,00.html

Government documents may say one thing but the reality may be different. Of course, everyone likes a conspiracy theory so a great deal of the stories could be fictional. Finally, one must consider the power and effect of Hizballah.

Also, if Bush can “lie” so can Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - right Alan?

Hi Kevin, of course.

Kevin,

Of course, Bush can't lie. He's the infallible evangelical (I am one) Pope.

He can curse like a sailor (including the F-bomb), attend one of the most liberal churches in America (St. John's Episcopal), tell lewd jokes in public, blaspheme Jesus in public, flip the bird to the TV camera before going on the air, never renounce his secret society oaths, drink in public while proclaiming abstinence, say Ozzy Osbourne is his favorite musician, joke about WMD, say bin Laden isn't important, but he can't lie.

He's infallible.

He's not just the Pope. He's the War Pope, protecting us from Real Evil. We are, of course, the grateful, naive benefactors.

We didn't learn from Nixon.

We never learn.

God help us; and I mean it literally.

Just saw this.

Peggy Noonan on "the speech":

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

Sorry, Melinda, for three comments in a row.

I think I should temper what I said earlier by saying that I and our congregation pray for President Bush on a regular basis. Scripture tells us to do so.

What really is going on within the White House, let alone his heart, is really beyond our ability to know. He may be very well intentioned, and may feel trapped, but my concern is not him, but rather evangelical naivete driven by "true believerism" (centered on fear and hatred of our enemies, including the Clintons).

I don't want to change or oppose the system in any way. I just want us to get back to the Great Commission, which is *not* exporting Americanism, nor defending the "homeland". People like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and the late D. James Kennedy and Jerry Falwell have been absolutely killing our opportunities for evangelism of lost Americans, and few on this blog seem to notice or care.

In fact, I would submit that, right now, Dobson and Robertson are being as helpful to the evangelical community as Jesse Jackson is to the black community.

I don't know if anyone will see this or not, but even if one does, maybe it will help.

The comments to this entry are closed.