tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post6807638387964042824..comments2024-03-24T11:30:08.199-07:00Comments on Can you believe?: Friday PS: The "surge" is not a failure!Johan Maurerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13771067774042071617noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-3034281524883181642007-09-09T11:30:00.000-07:002007-09-09T11:30:00.000-07:00I found this article editorial in the Ottawa Citi...I found this article <A HREF="http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=1d0cf6ba-83fc-4a53-8fd1-91cc244b6300" REL="nofollow">editorial</A> in the Ottawa Citizen two months ago . I thought it explained very well why this war is failing, as well as why any further war would fail. It echoes the thoughts in this posting.Nancy Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14260235828442346455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-90125432082217176892007-09-08T16:59:00.000-07:002007-09-08T16:59:00.000-07:00Johan --As one committed to Friends testimony agai...Johan --<BR/><BR/>As one committed to Friends testimony against all war, but also with a history of active dialog with just-war Christians, I say amen! You have hit the nail on the headAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-44049881699017638782007-09-08T14:26:00.000-07:002007-09-08T14:26:00.000-07:00Warm greetings to Marshall and Michael.Marshall gi...Warm greetings to Marshall and Michael.<BR/><BR/>Marshall gives me an opening to expand on the brief comment about my discomfort in even presuming to discuss military options. I believe all military options are utterly flawed, morally, of course. As the <A HREF="http://www.fum.org/about/declarationfaith.htm#Peace" REL="nofollow">Richmond Declaration of Faith</A> says, "We would, in humility, but in faithfulness to our Lord, express our firm persuasion that all the exigencies of civil government and social order may be met under the banner of the Prince of Peace, in strict conformity with His commands."<BR/><BR/>My specific point in this "surge" piece is to urge us as citizens not to argue simply from inside the predetermined frames and false dichotomies that we're presented with. Even those who agree with the logic of conventional secular statecraft should reject those arguments.<BR/><BR/>In a secular, pluralistic nation, people of goodwill can differ over just wars, vocational pacifism, and absolute pacifism. However, from a specifically Christian worldview, I would want to go on to point out that any policy that is initiated through deceit and carried out corruptly will have diabolical spiritual consequences that will hurt all of us, and sap that goodwill. As a citizen (and particularly as a fellow-citizen of the occupation soldiers), I don't need to insist that everyone who reads my words be convinced of pacifism before requiring our government to become truthful and accountable again.<BR/><BR/>So ... yes, Marshall is right, all wars are morally flawed from a biblical viewpoint; and the teaching voice of the Friends church worldwide agrees that no war, however justified it appears to be by carnal logic, is exempt. However, some of our own friends and neighbors are now in Iraq, and are affected by what our non-pacifist national leadership decides to do next. Many Iraqis, equally loved by God, will be immediately affected by those decisions as well. I may pray for conversion among those leaders, but I also, as a citizen, want their arguments to be, at a minimum, HONEST and INTELLIGENT, and want our friends and neighbors back home in one piece, guns and all. <BR/><BR/>And in a democracy, what you and I want is still supposed to count for something, but it won't if all our interventions are trapped by the self-serving rhetorical frames set by the leaders and confirmed by lazy commentators.Johan Maurerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13771067774042071617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-18070801813230480072007-09-08T11:53:00.000-07:002007-09-08T11:53:00.000-07:00Johan,Thank you very much for this post. I believe...Johan,<BR/><BR/>Thank you very much for this post. I believe you make very important points.<BR/><BR/>I have sent the link to the discussion listservs for Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting & Association (SAYMA), to which I belong, and of Southeastern Yearly Meeting (SEYM), within which I currently reside and attend.<BR/><BR/>I've also linked to your post on SEYM's Peace and Social Concerns website, which I edit.<BR/><BR/>You can find the link at http://seympeace.org/index.html#NEW<BR/><BR/>Thanks again,<BR/>MichaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-39904779724338326152007-09-08T03:41:00.000-07:002007-09-08T03:41:00.000-07:00You write, "The issue has always been that the war...You write, "<I>The issue has always been that the war itself, and the ongoing occupation, are utterly flawed--in philosophy, morality, legitimacy, implementation, and lack of exit strategy.</I>" This of course leaves the door open to the argument that if a war lacks such flaws, it is justifiable.<BR/><BR/>I personally would prefer to say, <I>We are commanded with Peter to put up our swords, we are commanded not to fight for the kingdoms of this world, but to be unresisting toward evil and turn the other cheek, and therefore we may not engage in this or any war, no matter how justifiable.</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com