As a Catholic,
this moved me deeply.
Today, Muslims mostly filled the front pews of St John’s. Muslims who want their Christian friends and neighbors to come home. The Christians who might see these photos likely will recognize their friends here. The Muslims in this neighborhood worry that other people will take the homes of their Christian neighbors, and that the Christians will never come back. And so they came to St John’s today in force, and they showed their faces, and they said, “Come back to Iraq. Come home.” They wanted the cameras to catch it. They wanted to spread the word: Come home. Muslims keep telling me to get it on the news. “Tell the Christians to come home to their country Iraq.”
If you haven't seen this image yet, you need to. It's our generation's version of the Marines raising the flag on Mt. Suribachi.
The story is here.
The story is here.
43 comments:
I'd love to send this to some of my former lefty friends but I just can't bring myself to contact such stupidity that I put up with for far too long. It's nice to see my predictions come about and theirs such as "If the US invades Iraq it will be the beginning of the end of the US as a great power" look as silly as they appeared to me at the time.
They would no doubt cite the cost of the war as justification for their views but they never even think that there would have been a cost to doing nothing, not least the cost of having to deal with a bigger better armed threat the longer it was left.
And what really used to get up my nose was their air of moral superiority.
Just wait till John McCain is President, they'll be beside themselves with impotent frustration, but they'll be able to console themselves with MDS.
KT, It may indeed be this war's or our generation's Mt. Suribachi moment but as you pointed out in a previous post, its also the antithesis of the beat feet retreat atop the U.S. embassy in Saigon some 30+ years ago.
This picture is especially significant for us Diegans as San Diego is home to one of the largest contingents of Chaldeans (Iraqi Christians) in the U.S.
What an amazing picture.
ligneus,
I think your former lefty friends will be beside themselves with impotent frustration even if Hillary Clinton is elected President. I boldly predict that she will not start a withdrawal from Iraq until victory is in sight. I will not vote for her, but not because of any concern over foreign policy.
Ah good. So, it's mission accomplished then?
NOW will folks accept that Iraqis are able to act like decent humans?
Seems like ever since the war with Iraq ended, we've been told that the war against the terrorist scum will never end because...Arabs are inferior, or can't get democracy, or something. Odd how the tolerant folks never say WHY it won't work, exactly, just that it won't....
Yes, aon, it is Mission Accomplished, or close to it. And this is a different mission than the first one, which was indeed accomplished in the even you are alluding to.
aon,
Snide remarks usually denote a lack of knowledge of the facts. Though the mission in Iraq is accomplished, it is a battle in a much larger war so it's like saying mission accomplished when the D-Day landings established the Allied presence in France. Imperfect analogy, but most analogies are imperfect. Iraq is becoming a stable democratic country in a region that has been going from bad to worse for the last sixty years. It is also a base for operations to further the changes that must be made in the Middle East to avert a catastrophe that would make WW2 look like the Boer war and the reason for that being the threat, still not taken seriously by the left, of the dreadful WMD. If GWB hadn't bitten the bullet and done what the West had failed to do for so long, then sooner or later one of those countries would have had nuclear weapons, and if you think they wouldn't have used them, remember the dancing in the streets of the Arab and Persian world after 9/11.
This will surprise you but in fifty years time and maybe sooner, GWB will be looked on as one of the great presidents.
"then sooner or later one of those countries would have had nuclear weapons"
Such as, oh, I don't know, Pakistan?
Well, at least we know They aren't going to use them. Not while the army runs the place, with US backing, and imprisons any dissenters, sacks the Supreme Court etc. That's bound to make the extremists stop and think, isn't it? Doubt they'll try anything on now.
aon,
One mistake is not justification for allowing the situation as it was in the ME to worsen until the madmen running Iran, Syria and previously Iraq get their hands on nukes. At least in Pakistan there are those who realise the stakes and are resisting the extremist Islamists.
Anon-- sounds like you're getting all your info on Pakistan from CNN.
Go research a little.
It's a bit more complicated than you seem to think.
Oh, and especially look into that SOB woman that use to run it.
One mistake? I suppose Israel getting the bomb was on purpose then?
As for Pakistan. Musharraf seized power in a coup d'etat 8 years ago. Jailed any supreme court judges who opposed him, suspended the constitution twice, sacked the supreme court. Also closed all private tv stations and put the country under martial law.
Bhutto was twice democratically elected prime minister.
Who would you expect the land of the free to support?
Who would you expect the land of the free to support?
Whoever's in the best interest of our national security.
I find it interesting that some argue that we were too imperialistic in Iraq and then aruge we weren't sufficiently imperialistic everywhere. Contrary to the belief of some, America is not omnipotent and does not bear responsibility for every event everywhere.
*coughs* Oh, you mean the democratically elected woman who has TWICE been booted out on corruption and embezzlement, by two different groups?
The one that your boogieman allowed to come back?
The one that allied herself with your boogieman long enough to get back in the country, and is now stabbing him in the back?
Yeah, that's a delightful pick. Just like Hezbollah is a delightful pick. If I was Israel, I'd have the bomb, too-- not like their neighbors will play honorably, y'know.
You're quite right, KT Cat-- d*med if we do, d*med if we don't.
I suppose Israel getting the bomb was on purpose then?
Oh my, another lefty equating the democratic, rational, grown up nation of Israel with the 7th century mullhacracies such as Ahmadinejhad and co in Teheran. If you can't see the difference what's the point of talking?
Iran could be a great country with proper leadership, could be the example of what is happening now in Iraq will help towards that end, which was an important reason to invade and take out Saddam in the first place. Something else that my aforementioned lefty friends wouldn't or couldn't countenance.
When in passing I mentioned Pakistan getting the bomb was a mistake, I think it wasn't a 'mistake' as such since I believe that it wasn't known until too late that they were able to do that.
As for Bhutto, democratically in power she may have been but had she been a decent leader the coup by the military would not have been necessary. How Musharraf has handled the opportunity he provided himself is maybe another story, but it's easy to sit in judgement on a country like that without some appreciation of the difficulties it presents and we should not be deciding for them whether Bhutto or Musharraf should be leader. Unlike Iran, Musharraf is not threatening to wipe another country off the map.
KT: You're quite right. The US must selfishly defend it's own interests, even if it means turning the entire Middle East into an anarchic pile of rubble.
Foxfier: You are also correct. Weak leaders have no right to run a country, even if they are democratically elected. Unless they're Palestinian, in which case even strong democratically elected leaders have no recognised mandate.
Ligneus: I'm glad you've realised you didn't make a mistake when you mistakenly said that allowing Pakistan to get the bomb was a mistake. My mistake for mentioning it.
I don't quite understand how you manage to equate a 59 year old country as being "grown up" when another country that had dominion over the known world, back when most of Europe was having trouble inventing the wheel, isn't.
I am surprised that you were unaware of the imminent nuclear testing in Pakistan in 1998. Apparently India wasn't, hence the corresponding test across the border. Still, 1998, Clinton administration, what can you expect? (I'm surprised I beat you to that one.)
....Am I mistaken, or did he just suggest that the homicidal maniacs that have been shooting their own folks and are a known terrorist group to the point that even the UN won't help them are "strong leaders"?
Sorry, I thought that was your point. That Musharraf and his clique are strong leaders. Was I mistaken?
The US must selfishly defend it's own interests, even if it means turning the entire Middle East into an anarchic pile of rubble.
Exactly!
Fortunately, we're America, not Rome and we don't crush our enemies like Rome did to Carthage after the Second Punic War.
Instead, we do things like this. Man, am I proud to live in this country!
By the way, aon, I respect and am grateful for your pleasant conversation. You are always welcome here at the 'Post.
Who knows, one of these days you might even convert some of us knuckle-dragging, neo-con troglodytes. :-)
The reason I retracted calling it a mistake was because I'm not sure there was anything that could have been done at the time to stop it. It was a different time pre 9/11, there wasn't the political ethos if you like to take the kind of action that is now being taken against Iran. And yes, you beat me to it that it was Clinton's time, a philandering, dilletante of a president, only slightly better than the fool Carter.
A county's age has nothing to do with its 'grownupness', the Jewish civilisation is thousands of years old, that they only recently regained the country to which it belongs is irrelevant. I presume you mean Iran as the 'other country' and what you say is true about it having been a great civilisation, that doesn't make the Islamic theocracy running the place now grown up. Same goes for the Arab world, Iraq soon to be an exception to that thanks to GWB and the US Military.
I note all your comments are heavy on sarcasm, a weak method of stating your case, but then you have a weak case to state.
KT: I remember when I was at school we used to have used to have people that thought like that. "I'm bigger than you, so you'll do it my way or get beaten up." We used to call them "bullies".
In regard to your torture link, I tend not to get my hard news from bloggers as much as from places like Forbes magazine.
Thanks for the kind words. You never know, you might see the light yet
Ligneus: You're quite right about Clinton and Carter. After the Dayton Accord. and Mitchell Principles , in Clinton's case and the Camp David Summit in Carter's, peace started breaking out all over the globe. How can America expect to glorify GWB and the Mighty Military Machine if that happens? No wonder the $US was worth twice as much then. How could you encourage Chinese and UAE 'investment' in the US economy with a currency worth that much? We certainly wouldn't want that happening again.
I tend not to get my hard news from bloggers
Too bad. I work in this area. Michael Yon, Michael Totten, the milbloggers group and the US Torture blog give a great summary of reality.
As for being a bully, hardly. As powerful as we are, there are distinct limits to what a country of 280M can do in a world of 6B. Looking out for your own self-interests is what everyone does.
Still to a nation of 27,499,638, (July 2007 est.) such as Iraq, 301,139,947 (July 2007 est.) is a big number. In fact, even to Iran (pop. 65,397,521 (July 2007 est.) )it looks like a largish number. Mind you if Pakistan (pop. 164,741,924 ibid.)went renegade and teamed up with Afghanistan (31,889,923 ibid.) and the above(total: 289,529,006), "The Troops" are going to need more support than just a few bumper stickers.
I notice that in the post you say you are a catholic. RC I assume, not just universal in your tastes?
I still can't work out how so many American's can claim to be followers of Christ and not follow His teachings about loving your enemy etc. when there is ample evidence that this war is immoral to it's core, as are it's proponents.
Aon, I'm Roman Catholic. Our team has all the cool hats.
:-)
As for Christ teaching pacifism, try Luke 3:14. Even some soldiers were asking him, "And what should we do?" He told them, "Never extort money from anyone by threats or blackmail, and be satisfied with your pay."
He did not say, "Lay down your arms and let the Gauls sack Rome without opposition."
Loving your neighbor does not refer to allowing the Islamofascists to blow things up. On the other hand, I dare you to find any significant army in the history of the world that has shown as much charity to the defeated as the modern US Army. Go back and check out the US Torture and Atrocities blog. You can also try my favorite, the US Navy.
Aon, great research on the Papal comments. The Pope is always pacifist and you can find his quotes directed at both sides. When the other side doesn't listen, then it's time to "Render unto Caesar" (Matthew 22:21).
Aon, please come over to this post to continue the discussion. I mention you by name in a complimentary fashion.
Ummm...Luke 3:14 "People serving as soldiers asked John "what about us? What are we to do?" And he answered "Don't take anything by force or threaten the people by denouncing them falsely. Be content with your pay" (Christian Community Bible, Catholic Pastoral Edition)
Now, even allowing for the whole context, i.e. that this is actually John the Baptist's teaching, not Christ's, I'm sure you would agree that taking an entire country by force seems to be frowned upon somewhat. As for denouncing people falsely, do the letters WMD remind you of anything? How about the numbers 9/11? Or maybe "45 minutes"?Even Colin Powell is embarrassed about what he was lead to do at the UN.
Just for the removal of all doubt:
No weapons of mass destruction have ever been found in Iraq.
There were No Iraqis involved in the attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. However 18 of the 22 hijackers were Saudi Arabian.
Iraq was never within 45 minutes of launching an attack.
No UN resolution was passed to allow the US led "coalition" to invade Iraq. The invasion, as well as being immoral, was illegal.
"The Pope is always pacifist"
Well, I'm not really surprised. He is after all the representative on Earth of The Prince of Peace. I'd have my own faith shaken a bit if he, or any right-minded follower, thought killing and maiming people was a good idea.
As for "be satisfied with your pay/Be content with your pay" and "Render unto Caesar". Don't steal stuff. Pay your taxes. Sounds like reasonable advice to me. Nothing I'd nail a guy to a tree for.
And as long as we're bandying biblical quotes about how about "But I tell you this:do not oppose evil with evil;if someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him the other" Matthew 5:39 (ibid)
You might find that whole section of The Beatitudes revealing (verses 38-48) on His teaching about love for enemies.
I did read your other post, prior to tonight's post-fest. A couple of points about it. Your edited version of the story makes it seem like the USN went in all guns blazing. What in fact happened is that they boarded after the crew had already regained control. Giving succour and (first) aid to people that are on a ship flagged to a country that is a "potential enemy"? A laudable thing. Reminds me of a story I heard once about a guy from Samaria. The good Samaritan however didn't do a Charles Bronson on the victims attackers, much as the site you linked to seems to think they did. And good on the USN for not doing that too.
In your other post you state that I "implicitly questioned the accuracy of the theme". That is simply not true. I categorically question the integrity of any blog that headlines a story about the USN giving aid to a ship after the crew has battled a group of pirates and regained their ship with the title Navy Destroyer Battles Pirates. This is why I don't get my hard news from bloggers. I prefer the raw source. (Go Navy indeed) With this sort of distortion of the facts is it any wonder that I am somewhat sceptical of blogs? Perhaps this photograph of the Dai Hong Dan and the caption "Go North Koreans!" might have been more apt than the one you displayed.
That aside, I'm quite happy to continue discussing this with you in this forum. I think I'd embarrass you if I were to bring up your fellow bloggers shortcomings, and your susceptibility to them, in such a public place. I'm quite happy out of the limelight, just trying to convert people to peace one at a time.
aon, thanks for all your well-considered comments, but I know a lot about the military, a lot about history and I am utterly convinced that America is completely different and far better than any global power in the hisotry of Mankind.
Your question if I thought we should bomb the Middle East into rubble is nonsensical. We don't do that. Had we wanted to reduce Baghdad to ashes, we could have done that very easily with conventional weapons and B-52s just like we did to Dresden with iron bombs and the much less effective B-17. Wouldn't the obliteration of all Iraqi population centers have made it much easier to steal the oil? Why go to all the trouble of putting infantry on the scene and supporting free elections?
Is that the way the Germans handled the administration of France? The way the Boers handled the administration of Transvaal? The Russians in Hungary, the Romans in Gaul, the Japanese in Manchuria and on and on?
Doesn't this look enormously different to you? America is different. By and large, we are a force for good in the world. We are not perfect, but in general, we leave things better than when we found them. Whether it's freeing Europe or Iraq or delivering aid to Indonesia or defeating pirates, we do things that no one else is willing to do.
It's not that no one else can do it, either. The European Union isn't emasculated by necessity, it's emascualted by choice.
Yep, you caught me being lazy on the bible quote. Touche. I knew the quote was there and I grabbed it without rereading it. Sorry about that.
I am glad that you consider yourself so well informed, however I do not share your view of America being "completely different and far better than any global power in the hisotry (sic)of Mankind."
I'm at a loss as to what question you think is nonsensical. I assume you are referring to my statement (ironic though it may have been) "The US must selfishly defend it's own interests, even if it means turning the entire Middle East into an anarchic pile of rubble." to which you replied "Exactly". You state that"Had we wanted to reduce Baghdad to ashes, we could have done that...just like we did to Dresden". I feel that I should point out that, to the best of my knowledge, the Royal Air Force is not in fact American. (The Dresden fire-bombing of February 14th 1945 was carried out in three waves. The first was 796 Avro Lancasters and 9 De Havilland Mosquitoes who dropped 1,478 tons of high explosive and 1,182 tons of incendiary bombs. The second was 529 Lancasters which dropped over 1,800 tons of bombs. The third wave of 311 B-17s from the USAAF dropped 771 tons of bombs.The RAF had over 1,000 more planes and dropped over 3600 more tons of munitions than the USAAF. But then I probably don't need to tell you this as you know a lot about the military, a lot about history) But be that as it may, the US was involved. As indeed they were at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Mai Lei and, more recently in Fallujah.
Simply put, if the US military had gone in with such overwhelming force as to wipe out entire major population centers they would have become complete international pariahs. There could have been no "coalition of the willing" to give some sembence of moral authority to it. It would have been see for what it was. Armed robbery writ large.
How did the Nazi government administer occupied France? Using Goebbels' propaganda machine (Fox News ets. check). Politically loyal private bully boys (the Schutz-Staffel) to keep the local civilians and national military in line (Blackwater.check) Issuing ID cards that must be carried at all times (see Fallujah above. check)Have armed soldiers patrolling the streets and "fighting terrorists" where-ever they might come across them. Don't forget, The Maquis were considered terrorists by the country that occupied their land too.
P.S I note that you still have The Navy Rescues North Koreans from Somali Pirates as your headline on the story we discussed yesterday. Don't you think that in the interests of intellectual honesty it would be best to change that, unless you disagree with the USN's summary of the facts I posted yesterday?
THAT story is the sort of thing that makes me proud to be a Christian (though I suspect they did it because it was the right thing to do, much as any Jew, Moslem, Hindu or atheist would). Helping people from whom you don't expect any thanks or respect (though I also appreciated your posting of the NK gov's note of thanks. It might be worth updating your story with that link too.). That is how we stop wars. Doing nice things. Turning the other cheek. Loving our enemies.
Your apology regarding the bible quote is accepted. Have you had a chance to read the section I suggested yesterday?
Aon, thanks for coming by. You're always welcome to comment and debate. I'm done here. The Nazi argument took care of it for me. I'm sorry you think you're living in some analog to Nazi Germany. You might want to spend more time with people who work for Fox News, members of the USMC and survivors of Nazi Germany, former Nazis included. It would broaden your horizons significantly.
Re: Dresden. It was indeed the USAAF Eigth Air Force in the fight. The RAF carried more of the load due to weather.
The railway yards, near the centre of Dresden, had been targeted and bombed twice before the night of February 13 by the USAAF Eighth Air Force in daytime raids: on October 7, 1944 with 70 tons of high-explosive bombs, and then again with 133 bombers on January 16, 1945 during which 279 tons of high-explosives and 41 tons of incendiaries were dropped.[11] The firebombing campaign was to have begun with a USAAF Eighth Air Force raid on Dresden on February 13, but bad weather over Europe prevented any USAAF operations. Due to the conditions, RAF Bomber Command carried out the first raid...
Hmmm a reverse Godwin. Haven't seen one of those for a while. If I understand your "I'm done here. The Nazi argument took care of it for me." statement correctly, because I answered your question about the Nazi occupation of France, I brought up the Nazis and therefore you get to invoke Godwin's law. If you say so.
You also insist that because the US bombed Dresden both four months and one month earlier and then mopped up with a few planes and bombs after the British fire-bombing, that America can claim responsibility for the tens of thousands of civilian casualties that ensued. I'm sure there are a lot of people in England that to this day are thinking "If only." But if your argument is correct that does go to disprove your earlier repeated arguments that the US is different from Imperial Rome with regards to Carthage. Total destruction of the city, around the same casualties, essentially no reason for it apart from to show the opponent who was boss. Much like the other cities and towns mentioned above, particularly Mai Lei and Fallujah.
Cato's "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" is not a million miles removed from the current US administrations constant hyping up for a war against Iran.
Btw, have you had a chance to read the Beatitudes regarding love for your enemies yet? I can post the verses here if you need me to though I'd prefer if you just read them yourself, as my typing speed and accuracy isn't what it could be.
If you don't have one you could try asking your parish priest for one. The one I quoted to you from was sent to me by my brother when he was in the seminary and he told me that it comes out of the marketing budget.
Aon, you don't catch on, do you?
KT gave you every chance to be reasonable, every doubt-- until you finally pulled the last straw.
You. Are. Acting. Poorly.
Realize it and stop being such a raging jerk. Folks are ignoring you because of your actions.
K T Cat said..."Is that the way the Germans handled the administration of France?"
My reply "How did the Nazi government administer occupied France? Using..."etc.
The final straw of answering a direct question?
No.
If you actually lack the social ability to figure out where you have gone wrong, there is nothing I can do to correct it.
Go study some humans. Maybe you'll figure it out.
Thank you for your valued and informative input.
*smiles and feels far, far too old*
I really wish I believed you, Aon.
I didn't intend for you to believe me. Unfortunately (Pointy bracket)Sarcasm (/Point bracket)tags are not permitted and IMHO, would have been superfluous.
If you'd like to rejoin the discuss feel free, but please try to bring something constructive to it, not just this 'if you don't know I'm not going to tell you' idiocy. I stopped having those sorts of talks before I reached my teens.
That is a large part of the problem, Aon.
I am truly sincer; KT is being truly sincer when he keeps inviting you to constructive conversation.
You keep spitting at it like an ill-tempered child.
It has nothing to do with me "not going to tell you"-- there are simply some things that take a level of empathy, some odd knowlege, something that simply can't be "told" to understand.
You may be familiar with the word "grok"-- there are some things you must just "grok" to understand some explinations.
I choose to belive you lack that element, that something, however you phrase it, rather than believe you are a nasty, immature idiot who thinks he looks smart when he's actually showing himself for a fool, and is simply too rude to respond decently when a blog-host keeps offering respect and decency.
That view can change, but I am holding to it for a while longer.
I think I understand now. Because I try to use a little critical thinking rather than just go along with the clique I am somehow a raging jerk, lacking social ability, "an ill-tempered child" and lacking in empathy, in your opinion.
I however feel I am questioning certain premises that have been raised and asked for them to be justified with evidence and intellectual honesty. I feel you are not acting with any empathy to my position. I also note that while I am prepared to provide evidence to back up my assertions you do not seem to be prepared to do likewise.
I believe that this thread is based on the story linked to in the original post and is a discussion of whether the events leading up to it were good and justified. I have challenged the poster to defend the premise he has raised. He has done so and a discussion has ensued. No malice is held by either of us toward the other, that I am aware of, however your emotive insults attacking me personally in your preceding comments today have not added to the discussion.
Post a Comment