A Thought-Provoking Article On War And The USA Today

[NJ Stinks]

The article below is from the Washington Post website. It's bound to elicit interesting comments here.

For the record, IMO the writer raises some excellent points. ______________________________________________

How little the U.S. knows of war



By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, January 4, 2011;


I present you with a paradox. The U.S. Army that fought the Vietnam War was reviled, not spit upon (that's a myth) but not much admired, either. In contrast, the Army of Iraq and Afghanistan is embraced and praised. Yet one was an army of the people, draftees and such, and the other is an army of volunteers, strangers to most of us. What's happening here? The answer, I fear, is a cliche: Familiarity breeds contempt.

That "I fear" in the preceding paragraph is not an artsy pause but a genuine emotion. The Vietnam War Army happened to have been my Army. I was on active duty as a reservist, not for very long but long enough for the Army to have lost all its mystery. I found the Army to be no better and no worse than other large institutions. Some of its leaders were fools, and some soldiers were thieves, and everyone wasted money like there was no tomorrow. This is the truth and everyone once knew it.

No more. I sometimes think I am the only person around who has been in the military. This is because most people I know are college-educated professionals, many of them writers. But if I throw in politicians and even the White House staff, nothing much changes. Lots of people know the expression "lock 'n load" but very few know how to do it.

The military of today is removed from society in general. It is a majority white and, according to a Heritage Foundation study (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-in-the-us-military-the-demographics-of-enlisted-troops-and-officers), disproportionately Southern. New England is underrepresented, and so are big cities, but the poor are no longer cannon fodder - if they ever were - and neither are blacks. We all fight and die just about in proportion to our numbers in the population.

More at the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/03/AR2011010303444.html?nav=hcmoduletmv

[JustRalph]

Let me save you two minutes of reading

1 This guy doesn't like that some look up to todays military

2 This guy thinks war is bad

3 This guy thinks that many Americans are disconnected from the reality of war.

There, you didn't miss much

[bigmack]

How is the usual nerds find interest in the writings of the same old tired nerds?

Cohen cheated with Peter Jennings wife, declares that "Israel itself is a mistake," was reprimanded by WaPo for inappropriate behavior towards a female employee, and is generally just another garden variety Jewish Columbia grad who churns out less than interesting columns that tweak liberal nerds.

Fascinating. :sleeping:

[Johnny V]

2/3 of those serving in Vietnam were volunteers. (in WWII on the other hand were 2/3 draftees). 70% of the KIA in Vietnam were volunteers.

The casualties were 86% Caucasian, 12.5% African-Americans and 1.2% other races. Obviously blacks were never cannon fodder as he mentions. The so called "well to do" or better educated servicemen actually had a slightly elevated risk of dying because many were infantry officers or pilots.

I always felt that there were maybe more southerners represented in Vietnam proportion wise than some other regions based, not on any facts, but on my experience and the friendships I made and the composition of my units.

[lsbets]

The article below is from the Washington Post website. It's bound to elicit interesting comments here.

For the record, IMO the writer raises some excellent points. ______________________________________________

How little the U.S. knows of war



By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, January 4, 2011;


I present you with a paradox. The U.S. Army that fought the Vietnam War was reviled, not spit upon (that's a myth) but not much admired, either. In contrast, the Army of Iraq and Afghanistan is embraced and praised. Yet one was an army of the people, draftees and such, and the other is an army of volunteers, strangers to most of us. What's happening here? The answer, I fear, is a cliche: Familiarity breeds contempt.


First, the spitting is not a myth. It happened to many people I know. So, the guy starts out dead wrong.

Second, outside of the deep blue states, servicemen are not strangers. They are sons and daughters, nieces and nephews, friends and neighbors. When I went to Iraq I stood out because I was the first one to go. Now I can name at least a dozen who went from my small town. Perhaps the problem is that those who feel patriotism is best expressed by paying higher taxes don't feel compelled to swear the oath and put on the uniform. They look upon Kennedy as a hero not for his service and courage in WWII, but as a hero for his oratorical prowess. I would argue that the premise of Mr. Cohen's article is more of an indictment of those who feel entitled to have others defend them while they sit home and do nothing.

[BlueShoe]

The Vietnam War Army happened to have been my Army. I was on active duty as a reservist, not for very long.

This is because most people I know are college-educated professionals.
So he served briefly 40 years ago as a reservist? Doing what, a pastry chef in North Carolina perhaps? We have an insulated liberal working for a liberal newspaper surrounded by other like minded liberals smug and secure in their effete little tight circles. It is he and his eliteist associates that are removed from society, not the Armed Forces as he states.

[NJ Stinks]

How is the usual nerds find interest in the writings of the same old tired nerds?

Cohen cheated with Peter Jennings wife, declares that "Israel itself is a mistake," was reprimanded by WaPo for inappropriate behavior towards a female employee, and is generally just another garden variety Jewish Columbia grad who churns out less than interesting columns that tweak liberal nerds.

Fascinating. :sleeping:

Shoot the messenger! :jump:

[BlueShoe]

Shoot the messenger! :jump:
If he wrote the false message that he delivered, yes indeed.

[mostpost]

Let me save you two minutes of reading

1 This guy doesn't like that some look up to todays military

2 This guy thinks war is bad

3 This guy thinks that many Americans are disconnected from the reality of war.

There, you didn't miss much
Thanks for the offer. I read it anyway,
1. It's perfectly fine to look up to the military. As a profession it is
an honorable one. It is also fine to point out that some military leaders
are fools and some soldiers are thieves.
The way I read it Cohen objects to worship of the military just because
it is the military. Praise the military for its role in protecting our country. Praise it when it does so in conjunction with our principles and values. Praise our military leaders when their strategies and tactics provide success with minimum casualties. But don't praise it or them when out of control soldiers murder unarmed civilians; when Colonels who want to be Congressmen use illegal interrogation techniques, or when leaders allow their egos to start wars.

2. War is bad. It rarely solves the problem. The aftermath often makes things worse, as in the case of World War I. Very often nowadays what we have after a war is the same, or worse, than what we had before the war. Very often we fight and our soldiers die while politicians posture and bluster. Then after several years we negotiate and end up with what we could have gotten to begin with.

3. People are disconnected from the reality of war.

[mostpost]

How is the usual nerds find interest in the writings of the same old tired nerds?

Cohen cheated with Peter Jennings wife, declares that "Israel itself is a mistake," was reprimanded by WaPo for inappropriate behavior towards a female employee, and is generally just another garden variety Jewish Columbia grad who churns out less than interesting columns that tweak liberal nerds.

Fascinating. :sleeping:
Irrelevant to the discussion! :sleeping:

[woodtoo]

Freedom is not free,it is worth fighting for.Ask your forefathers.

[boxcar]

The way I read it Cohen objects to worship of the military just because it is the military.

You could learn something from this guy. Turn away from your own idolatry and tear down the altars you have built to your god the State. :rolleyes:

3. People are disconnected from the reality of war.

That may be; but how much more is the huge disconnect people have with coming to terms with the human condition that requires humans to protect themselves from their fellow man?

Boxcar

[Tom]

The guy is entitles to his opinion. Let him express it.



Then we shoot him.

[mostpost]

First, the spitting is not a myth. It happened to many people I know. So, the guy starts out dead wrong.

Second, outside of the deep blue states, servicemen are not strangers. They are sons and daughters, nieces and nephews, friends and neighbors. When I went to Iraq I stood out because I was the first one to go. Now I can name at least a dozen who went from my small town. Perhaps the problem is that those who feel patriotism is best expressed by paying higher taxes don't feel compelled to swear the oath and put on the uniform. They look upon Kennedy as a hero not for his service and courage in WWII, but as a hero for his oratorical prowess. I would argue that the premise of Mr. Cohen's article is more of an indictment of those who feel entitled to have others defend them while they sit home and do nothing.

I'm not sure if we are getting what Cohen is saying here. I think I did not get it at first. At first reading he seems to be saying that we should be critical of our servicemen, but we are not because we don't know them, and we idealize them for the sacrifices they make. What I hear from Cohen, on second reading, is not that we are actively over praising our servicemen, but that we are ambivalent towards them.

I agree with that. I believe the all volunteer army has allowed most of us to disconnect from war. Somebody died in Afghanistan? Well, that's too bad. But it's not my son or brother or husband or daughter so it's sad, but not that sad.

This may surprise some here, but I favor reinstatement of the draft and universal service. Obviously we do not need every eligible person to serve in the military so:
1. Everyone, male and female, registers at age 18.
2. Everyone is tested physically, mentally and psychologically to determine fitness for service both militarily and civilian.
(This testing should take place within six months of registration)
3. A lottery is established such as we had in the VietNam era.
4. Those whose numbers come up in the lottery are drafted and serve two years in the military. No student deferments.
5. After they have completed their service, they are eligible for 100% college scholarships or Trade school scholarships. Including Room and Board.
6. Those whose numbers did not come up in the lottery will be required to spend three of the next five years in one of the civilian volunteer services such as Vista or Peace Corps or working with a church group or some such.
7. These people would also be eligible for tuition aid or loans, but not to the degree of the military people.

Let me conclude by saying that I did sserve in the military, although never in combat. I do not believe that paying taxes is equal to service, especially not combat service. I admire Kennedy for what he did not for what he said. And I did not sit home while others defended me. I did not do what you did, but I did all that was asked of me.

[Dave Schwartz]

MostPost,

I have two questions for you; elaborate answers are not necessary.

1. Did you serve on active duty in the military.

2. Were you ever in harm's way while in the military?


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[hcap]

That may be; but how much more is the huge disconnect people have with coming to terms with the human condition that requires humans to protect themselves from their fellow man?That IS is what war is about isn't it? And most wars are like WWI. So the question is HOW many are necessary? History de-nobles quite a few.
...The total number of casualties in World War I, both military and civilian, was about 37 million: 16 million deaths and 21 million wounded. The total number of deaths includes 9.7 million military personnel and about 6.8 million civilians. The Entente Powers (also known as the Allies) lost about 5.7 million soldiers while the Central Powers lost about 4 million.

[boxcar]

That IS is what war is about isn't it? And most wars are like WWI. So the question is HOW many are necessary? History de-nobles quite a few.

'cap, gird up the loins of your mind, for I have a serious question for you: Why have all nations upon the earth found it necessary to have laws?

Boxcar

[mostpost]

MostPost,

I have two questions for you; elaborate answers are not necessary.

1. Did you serve on active duty in the military.
Yes
2. Were you ever in harm's way while in the military?
No
Regards,
Dave Schwartz
I see you posted one minute after I did, so you probably didn't read my last paragraph in #14

[hcap]

'cap, gird up the loins of your mind, for I have a serious question for you: Why have all nations upon the earth found it necessary to have laws?Duh teach, you mean like the Nazi's Nuremberg Laws?

The laws condemning witches during the the Salem witch trials?

As you might point out, societies are sometimes as guilty as those breaking their laws. War is usually justified by de-humanizing the enemy. The British had a propaganda campaign during WWI casting the German soldiers as baby killers and eaters. The individual human condition is not always benign, (the justification for laws), but neither are groups of humans who band together in false patriotism proclaiming God is on their side.

I am surprised your anti-statist view does not see war as a godless abomination, just like all them lazy shiftless unemployed poor folks waiting for handouts and stealing your hard earned wealth.

[Spiderman]

I'm not sure if we are getting what Cohen is saying here. I think I did not get it at first. At first reading he seems to be saying that we should be critical of our servicemen, but we are not because we don't know them, and we idealize them for the sacrifices they make. What I hear from Cohen, on second reading, is not that we are actively over praising our servicemen, but that we are ambivalent towards them.

I agree with that. I believe the all volunteer army has allowed most of us to disconnect from war. Somebody died in Afghanistan? Well, that's too bad. But it's not my son or brother or husband or daughter so it's sad, but not that sad.

This may surprise some here, but I favor reinstatement of the draft and universal service. Obviously we do not need every eligible person to serve in the military so:
1. Everyone, male and female, registers at age 18.
2. Everyone is tested physically, mentally and psychologically to determine fitness for service both militarily and civilian.
(This testing should take place within six months of registration)
3. A lottery is established such as we had in the VietNam era.
4. Those whose numbers come up in the lottery are drafted and serve two years in the military. No student deferments.
5. After they have completed their service, they are eligible for 100% college scholarships or Trade school scholarships. Including Room and Board.
6. Those whose numbers did not come up in the lottery will be required to spend three of the next five years in one of the civilian volunteer services such as Vista or Peace Corps or working with a church group or some such.
7. These people would also be eligible for tuition aid or loans, but not to the degree of the military people.

Let me conclude by saying that I did sserve in the military, although never in combat. I do not believe that paying taxes is equal to service, especially not combat service. I admire Kennedy for what he did not for what he said. And I did not sit home while others defended me. I did not do what you did, but I did all that was asked of me.

I agree with the reinstatement of the draft. Service in the military provides a unique growth experience. Draft personnel should not be restricted to the Army, but to all branches of the military. ASVAP scores would determine the route of the draftee.

[Dave Schwartz]

Thanks, Mosty.

It does change one's perspective as well as another's perspective of you.

I recall listening to an opinionated buffoon go on at a dinner party once about his thoughts on war. Without answering "yes" to at least one of those questions one should not pontificate too much about opinions of war. It is much like a man describing the pain of child birth.


Dave

[Robert Goren]

Thanks, Mosty.

It does change one's perspective as well as another's perspective of you.

I recall listening to an opinionated buffoon go on at a dinner party once about his thoughts on war. Without answering "yes" to at least one of those questions one should not pontificate too much about opinions of war. It is much like a man describing the pain of child birth.


DaveDave, how did you get invited a party with Rush Limbaugh in attendance?:rolleyes:

[boxcar]

Duh teach, you mean like the Nazi's Nuremberg Laws?

The laws condemning witches during the the Salem witch trials?

As you might point out, societies are sometimes as guilty as those breaking their laws. War is usually justified by de-humanizing the enemy. The British had a propaganda campaign during WWI casting the German soldiers as baby killers and eaters. The individual human condition is not always benign, (the justification for laws), but neither are groups of humans who band together in false patriotism proclaiming God is on their side.

I am surprised your anti-statist view does not see war as a godless abomination, just like all them lazy shiftless unemployed poor folks waiting for handouts and stealing your hard earned wealth.

Can't you ever answer a simple, strightforward question in like manner? All nations have laws because there is a second universal presumption about all men: All mankind is presumed to be lawless. Governments make laws to essentially protect us from one another. They make laws that are designed to govern human behavior. They make laws to help restrain our lawless proclivities.

1 Tim 1:9
9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,
NASB

This principle extends to man-made laws, which is why God ordained human government immediately after the Flood. But in the beginning there was no law because none was necessary. Man was created perfect. But man failed to pass the righteousness test in the Garden's paradisiacal environemnt and consequently fell. Codified law soon became necessary and was introduced to Israel by Moses in covenant form. And the Law will continue until "all is accomplished" (end of the age), at which time it, again, will become unnecessary in the New Creation (Mat 5:18); for the damned in hell will have no need or desire for it, and the redeemed in Paradise will have no sinful desires or inclinations within their glorified bodies that will need to be restrained.

Therefore, since all mankind is presumed lawless both in the bible and in reality as we know it, wars will also be a reality until the end of the age; for there is none righteous on the earth, no, not one! (Rom 3:10). However, this fact does not detract from what you said -- that wars are godless abominations, generally, except when a nation needs to protect itself from one ore more lawless nations.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Dave, how did you get invited a party with Rush Limbaugh in attendance?:rolleyes:
:lol:

[mostpost]

Can't you ever answer a simple, strightforward question in like manner? All nations have laws because there is a second universal presumption about all men: All mankind is presumed to be lawless. Governments make laws to essentially protect us from one another. They make laws that are designed to govern human behavior. They make laws to help restrain our lawless proclivities.

1 Tim 1:9
9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,
NASB

This principle extends to man-made laws, which is why God ordained human government immediately after the Flood. But in the beginning there was no law because none was necessary. Man was created perfect. But man failed to pass the righteousness test in the Garden's paradisiacal environemnt and consequently fell. Codified law soon became necessary and was introduced to Israel by Moses in covenant form. And the Law will continue until "all is accomplished" (end of the age), at which time it, again, will become unnecessary in the New Creation (Mat 5:18); for the damned in hell will have no need or desire for it, and the redeemed in Paradise will have no sinful desires or inclinations within their glorified bodies that will need to be restrained.

Therefore, since all mankind is presumed lawless both in the bible and in reality as we know it, wars will also be a reality until the end of the age; for there is none righteous on the earth, no, not one! (Rom 3:10). However, this fact does not detract from what you said -- that wars are godless abominations, generally, except when a nation needs to protect itself from one ore more lawless nations.

Boxcar
Thank you for answering the question which Hcap would not answer. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Too bad you answered it wrongly. :eek:
Laws are not made because all men are lawless. They are made because some men are lawless. Laws are made so that lawful men can be protected from lawless men without having to become lawless themselves.
If someone steals your horse, you don't steal his. You report the theft and society handles the matter.

Once again your biblical quotation does not prove your point. It proves ours.
When Paul wrote to Timothy: realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, he was acknowledging that there were (are) righteous men. Paul says that laws were necesary because there are unrighteous men, not that everyone, or even most are unrighteous.

As for Matthew 5:18 that refers to God's law not man's. Furthermore, this:
for the damned in hell will have no need or desire for it, and the redeemed in Paradise will have no sinful desires or inclinations within their glorified bodies that will need to be restrained.
is nowhere to be found in my bible.

[NJ Stinks]

First, the spitting is not a myth. It happened to many people I know. So, the guy starts out dead wrong.

Second, outside of the deep blue states, servicemen are not strangers. They are sons and daughters, nieces and nephews, friends and neighbors. When I went to Iraq I stood out because I was the first one to go. Now I can name at least a dozen who went from my small town. Perhaps the problem is that those who feel patriotism is best expressed by paying higher taxes don't feel compelled to swear the oath and put on the uniform. They look upon Kennedy as a hero not for his service and courage in WWII, but as a hero for his oratorical prowess. I would argue that the premise of Mr. Cohen's article is more of an indictment of those who feel entitled to have others defend them while they sit home and do nothing.

Isbets, I don't disagree with much of anything in your post above. Except maybe your point "that those who feel patriotism is best expressed by paying higher taxes don't feel compelled to swear the oath and put on the uniform." I'm for higher taxes to pay our debts (including war debts) and I'm also for bringing back the draft.

What I put in bold above is what I definitely thought was a major premise.

[hcap]

Thank you for answering the question which Hcap would not answer. Too bad you answered it wrongly.
Can't you ever answer a simple, strightforward question in like manner? All nations have laws because there is a second universal presumption about all men: All mankind is presumed to be lawless. Governments make laws to essentially protect us from one another. They make laws that are designed to govern human behavior. They make laws to help restrain our lawless proclivities.So?
Seems obvious. Why is is necessary for you to quote God-or at least your version of God? Can't you ever discuss a simple, stright forward topic without a a commercial from on high?

However, this fact does not detract from what you said -- that wars are godless abominations, generally, except when a nation needs to protect itself from one ore more lawless nations.
That's all that needs being said. My point was that the abomination of war is of more concern than minor human frailties like cheating welfare. One is performed by a organized group and involves the death and maiming of millions, the other by some individuals who don't injure socitey in any way close.

So I thought you would be railing against war often. Certainly more often than bitching about extended unemployment benefits

[mostpost]

Boxcar,
The Romans verse you quoted above (#23?) does not prove your point either. Paul was quoting Ecclesiates 7:20 and quoting it badly.
From your favorite NASB:
Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins.
You interpret that to mean that man is inherently evil.
I interpret it to mean that man has good intentions, that he does the right thing most often, but that he is flawed and sometimes fails to act as well as he should. In other words man is good; man is not perfect.

[boxcar]

Thank you for answering the question which Hcap would not answer. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Too bad you answered it wrongly. :eek:
Laws are not made because all men are lawless. They are made because some men are lawless. Laws are made so that lawful men can be protected from lawless men without having to become lawless themselves.
If someone steals your horse, you don't steal his. You report the theft and society handles the matter.

Once again your biblical quotation does not prove your point. It proves ours.
When Paul wrote to Timothy: he was acknowledging that there were (are) righteous men. Paul says that laws were necesary because there are unrighteous men, not that everyone, or even most are unrighteous.

As for Matthew 5:18 that refers to God's law not man's. Furthermore, this:

is nowhere to be found in my bible.

Read Romans 3:10 and then get back to me about how many righteous men there are in the earth. In addition to this NT passage (which is actually quoting an OT one, you might consider also Pr 21:2. With respect to Divine Law, everyone one of us lawless because if we violate God's law at one point, we are guilty of all (Jas 2:10). And with respect to Man's Law, everyone of us is lawless in some respect to some degree to some law(s).

The only righteous men in the earth are Christians -- and that is not due to how we live our lives but instead it's due to Christ's righteousness being imputed to Christians. Christians are positionally righteous in Christ, not practically.

But you are right about Mat 5:18. Of course it's referring to God's law. The fact that God's law remains in force until the end of the age proves my point, not yours. In the beginning, there was no need for Law. After the Fall, there was a need. At the End of the Age, there, again, will no longer be a need. But in this age, divine and man-made laws will prevail.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Boxcar,
The Romans verse you quoted above (#23?) does not prove your point either. Paul was quoting Ecclesiates 7:20 and quoting it badly.
From your favorite NASB:

You interpret that to mean that man is inherently evil.
I interpret it to mean that man has good intentions, that he does the right thing most often, but that he is flawed and sometimes fails to act as well as he should. In other words man is good; man is not perfect.

You conveniently forgot about the larger context of Rom 3:10, which is:

Rom 3:10-18
"There is none righteous, not even one;
11 There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good,
There is not even one."
13 "Their throat is an open grave,
With their tongues they keep deceiving,"
"The poison of asps is under their lips";
14 "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness";
15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood,
16 Destruction and misery are in their paths,
17 And the path of peace have they not known."
18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."
NASB

If man is essentially "good", as you say, that truth should be broadcast across the pages of scripture. I'll be waiting for you to substantiate your view.

Boxcar

[hcap]

The inherent contradiction in box's anti "statist" philosophy is that although all big governments may evilly take his wealth, when those same statist regimes bomb one another and wantonly destroy civilian populations, God is one one side rather than the others'

Not to mention multi-billion dollar corporate organizations able to really do a job on society. On a scale of human degradation and lawlessness that makes the "lazy shiftless no good evil-doing poor" seem like godlike angels.

[boxcar]

The inherent contradiction in box's anti "statist" philosophy is that although all big governments may evilly take his wealth, when those same statist regimes bomb one another and wantonly destroy civilian populations, God is one one side rather than the others'

I never said that. Why do you have to be so dishonest? All I have ever said is that wars will be with us until the end of the age. They will because Jesus said so. They will because of the human condition. And they will because for some odd reasons nations feel compelled to also protect themselves from aggressors. It must have something to with our survival instinct. :rolleyes: (And, yes, some peoples would prefer to be dead rather than red. :rolleyes: )

Not to mention multi-billion dollar corporate organizations able to really do a job on society. On a scale of human degradation and lawlessness that makes the "lazy shiftless no good evil-doing poor" seem like godlike angels.

The fact that you're able to recognize all these failings in fallen man speaks volumes. But if you want to talk about inherent contradictions, then how can you be so in the tank socialism -- which largely consists of state-controlled, state-regulated living for the masses? By your own admission, the state is a murderer, as I have often pointed out in various other ways. So, we're in agreement here. And the state's politicians also rely heavily upon the very corporations it publicly demonizes for financing their campaigns; but then turn around and generously reward those corporations with welfare programs. (Can you spell "quid pro quo"?) Methinks your trust in State Almighty is wee bit misplaced and misguided.

Boxcar

[skate]

That IS is what war is about isn't it? And most wars are like WWI. So the question is HOW many are necessary? History de-nobles quite a few.

Necessary;
A war that prevents... bigger war... like Iraq.

A war that suffers a small lose of life (5000 lost troops)....like Iraq, unlike WWI which lost somewhere around 11,000 lives-on Day One.;)

Hey, if the North went and used Grant from the beginning, we could have saved (?) maybe 555,000 men.

Abe messed up here, unlike BigDick Cheney.:)

[hcap]

Box, we have had many discussions where you have justified biblical atrocities and genocide, including infanticide, as God's will. I guess that qualifies you as a God on one side proponent.

And as many times as I explained the real value of biblical stories is in symbolism and archetype fable like tales (and somewhat distorted), you insisted; NO IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED LITERALLY

Yes the state can be rotten to the core. But feeding the poor and taking care of the weak financed by the general tax base, does not equate to Stalinist Russia. Or Nazi Germany.

[Robert Goren]

Necessary;
A war that prevents... bigger war... like Iraq.

A war that suffers a small lose of life (5000 lost troops)....like Iraq, unlike WWI which lost somewhere around 11,000 lives-on Day One.;)

Hey, if the North went and used Grant from the beginning, we could have saved (?) maybe 555,000 men.

Abe messed up here, unlike BigDick Cheney.:) I am not sure that the Iraqi war prevented a bigger war. I not sure that using Grant sooner would changed anything either although I think a pretty strong case can be made for turning Sherman lose sooner. The South lost the civil war because they ran out of supplies for their troops. I am not sure putting Grant in charge of the Northern army would have caused the South to burn through their supplies any quicker.

[NJ Stinks]

The South lost the civil war because they ran out of supplies for their troops.

That's what my northern schools taught me.

[boxcar]

Box, we have had many discussions where you have justified biblical atrocities and genocide, including infanticide, as God's will. I guess that qualifies you as a God on one side proponent.

What you forget is that in the OT, God often used Israel as his instrument of justice and would send his chosen nation out to war against their enemies (God's and Israel's alike). So, yeah...I'd say that God had a stake in the outcome. :D

But to be fair and balanced, God also used those same godless nations to punish covenant-breaking Israel for its sins. Assyria and Babylon come immediately to mind.

And as many times as I explained the real value of biblical stories is in symbolism and archetype fable like tales (and somewhat distorted), you insisted; NO IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED LITERALLY

We'll never agree with this because my hermeneutics are grounded in NT examples of how Christ and his Apostles interpreted the OT. I take my cues from them. For this, I make no apology.

[quote]Yes the state can be rotten to the core. But feeding the poor and taking care of the weak financed by the general tax base, does not equate to Stalinist Russia. Or Nazi Germany.

Then if you concede that the state can be "rotten to the core", 'cap, what makes you think there's no ulterior motive for liberal pols wanting to help the poor -- such as another quid pro quo arrangement at the polling places? :bang: :bang: And what makes you think that keeping people poor and dependent on the state wouldn't work to the long term benefit of liberal pols?

As Jesus himself essentially said, "when the eye is bad, the whole body is dark." Or a "little leaven leavens the whole loaf".

Boxcar

[highnote]

The only righteous men in the earth are Christians -- and that is not due to how we live our lives but instead it's due to Christ's righteousness being imputed to Christians. Christians are positionally righteous in Christ, not practically.
Boxcar

Not sure what you mean by "righteous". Can you elaborate?

[boxcar]

Not sure what you mean by "righteous". Can you elaborate?

Sure. It's very simple. Righteous = Sinless.

Boxcar