Everyone knows how faulty the situation was with intelligence and heated decisions in the days preceding the invasion of Iraq. America was still lusting for blood, especially since it had yet to capture the mastermind behind 9/11, and was hungry to kill something else.
Saddam Hussein was a perfectly legitimate target. He should have been taken out. While better planning should have occured, with a broader swath of intellectual opinion on possible outcomes accompanying those decisions, they didn't.
The clincher in all of this, however, is that people decry that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That's only partly right, as the network of terrorism does stretch throughout the Middle East, though attacking such targets may have only been undertaken by someone with the balls Osama Bin Laden obviously has.
I imagine, though, that the American people would have been more satisfied if President Bush had had a different standpoint on his invasion of Iraq, including a speech that may have gone something a bit more like this ...
My fellow Americans,
Today, American forces continue to scour the face of Afghanistan in search of the murderous radical terrorist Osama Bin Laden. We have not found him yet, but we will. The atroctities he incited from the September 11 attacks were tragic and abhorring. The young men and women of our great nation seek retribution for the blood spilt by Bin Laden and the crazed men who have served him, and are out there, destroying the Taliban and all who support it.
I come to you now, however, to discuss a new matter. While we yet scour Afghanistan, another, even more dangerous threat, looms at our doorsteps. This danger comes with threats of sponsoring further terrorism against the world, as we can already prove it has done within its own borders.
Saddam Hussein, in power for many years, has continually defied the greater world powers in nuclear armament and crimes against humanity, systematically slaughtering his own people time after time indiscriminately. We know what he has done. We know what he can do, and what he is willing to do.
Soon I will be sending more of our troops to invade a hostile country bent on our destruction. This is pre-emptive against a nation known for its state sponsoring of terrorism. We will do what wasn't done before - we will eliminate the threat on their ground, before it can come here again.
As a nation of freedom, to turn out heads from the threat this government poses to itself and those around it would be a tragedy of free thought and moral decency. Some of our young men and women will lose their lives, but the cost of freedom is never free, and to turn a blind eye to the tyranny here presents an evil greater than anything - the evil of apathy.
With your support, we can do what must be done as quickly as possible, but it will not be a short fight. What we do will be a long, hard road to walk, but in learning from our mistakes in Vietnam, we will not leave brothers behind, American or foreigner, and we will establish a hope of democracy and peace.
September 11th will never be forgotten, and should never be repeated.
Thank you, good night, and God Bless America.
We failed in Afghanistan. That should have been priority one, and I won't debate that. My point, however, is that President Bush would have been better off with the planned invasion of Iraq if he had 1) been blunt about the simple reasons we needed to go in and 2) taken more time to develop a proper strategy.
Iraq needed to be cut up, pure and simple. How, is a debate I don't have for you right now. I would leave that up to more intelligent strategists. But it was a danger and needed to be dealt with. Who can say if waiting would have been better? Patience is always a virtue, but we're beyond such discussions. We're there, now.
We need to finish the fight and finish it right, not just turn tail and run, leaving another post-Vietnam with killing fields. If we do, blood will certainly be on our hands.
It's time we owned up, turned blunt and did our moral and civic duty to the people of Iraq by finishing our mission, and then go home.
So what are the dangers of political fear? Soft resolve by your supporters. When leaders say what they mean, do what they say and demand the respect due for their solidity of choice, the public can't complain and will less prone to do so often. It's a matter of stark honesty about decisions and the steely resolve to live up to them.
And remember. It is OUR fault, we the American public, that the fiasco's continue today, because we're afraid to hear the truth, and don't demand our politicians to have balls.
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
Friday, May 18, 2007
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Responsibility for the degradation of political honesty
Our entire country cringes from our politicians. It doesn't matter how political you might be, the nature of the word "politician" gives off a bad vibe.
A job designed to be one of compromise and consideration turns into a lobbyist free-for-all at the expense of the citizens, regardless of the level of government - city, county, district, state or nation.
Politicians, since the beginning of time, have all been the same. Even our founding fathers weren't politicians. They were leaders who worked in politics.
And THAT is our key lack, here. With good reason, of course. Most good leaders hate politics because of the Janus-like qualities they all seem to come with like fries to burgers - almost inseperable.
This year seems especially polarizing as we have an inordinate number of politicians running for office, and none of them invoke the confidence in citizenry we hope for. Instead, we're left shaking our heads wondering when our nation will end from the endless squabbling our politicans do for their own personal gain.
The problem of political integrity, however, does not fall on the politicians. The men and women of our federal government who never fail to fail us are there for one simple reason - we let them stay. Instead of demanding in a unified voice that we want politicans of real integrity, and that in one voice we will denounce those who do not fulfill their political promises, we shake our heads and do nothing.
It's our fault. It's our responsibility as citizens of a country that can elect our own leaders, and we're squandering it. We shake our heads, and do no thing; that's exactly what those two-faced civil abusers count on time and time again.
What began as a simple process for electing our government officials, with a series of proper checks-and-balances, has turned into a series of political loopholes and government-speak; something similar I'd associate with lawyers who can sound so smart when speaking about something so simple, that they make you feel you don't have the intelligence to make a proper decision about what's write for yourself.
We've let these men and women bamboozle us. And it's still our fault. A man committing a crime in a community is a tragedy. The community letting that man stay is absolutely horrific beyond words.
I don't want to elect another politican to office again. I want to elect a leader - a man who says what he means, means what he says, and will do exactly what he promises before entering office once in office. Is that too much to ask? Is there some meeting politicans have once they've 'joined the club' that says, "Okay, here's what you can do, and what you can't do. We don't care what you promised before hand because we're not going to help you fulfill any of them."
While society in general is not conducive to positive change, that is no excuse for a person willing to fight his way to the top. He, or she, should be adept at circumventing such opposition to change.
What would someone say is the best way to solve the problem of complicated and easily abused politics?
Simplify them.
Simplify politics. Create transparent government leadership while preserving the trust and integrity of the job. Destroy loopholes and complications. Call politicians to account for following their promises through that transparency, and when they fail, to be removed so improvement can progress.
This isn't an attempt to micromanage our leaders. Instead, it's simply to call them to account for what they say and what they do.
It's time for citizens to find a better way than politic-dependant news agencies (conservative or liberal) to see exactly what the government is doing without direct governmental influence, while preserving the nature of classified operations and national security issues.
The formation of such an agency is not the purpose of this commentary. The need for political integrity, is. While firing all politicians isn't realistic, finding greater ways to make them accountable is.
It's the responsibility of the citizenry of a nation to hold their leaders accountable. We aren't. We're depending on talking heads and biased news to tell us how well they're doing. Greater impact analysis is welcome if it's objective and nonpartisan.
We must fight, once more, to make politics more hands on and rid ourselves of the complications created by those in power, who desire to stay in power, at the cost of citizen benefit.
Otherwise, we're just waiting for the government to return itself into a tyranny. It happened in Greece and it happened it Rome. It will, eventually, happen here in the States. No nation has ever survived its own humanity. The best we can hope for is God to preserve us for as long as possible. But until that day comes, we must fight for the preservation of the integrity of our own government.
For ourselves and our children.
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
A job designed to be one of compromise and consideration turns into a lobbyist free-for-all at the expense of the citizens, regardless of the level of government - city, county, district, state or nation.
Politicians, since the beginning of time, have all been the same. Even our founding fathers weren't politicians. They were leaders who worked in politics.
And THAT is our key lack, here. With good reason, of course. Most good leaders hate politics because of the Janus-like qualities they all seem to come with like fries to burgers - almost inseperable.
This year seems especially polarizing as we have an inordinate number of politicians running for office, and none of them invoke the confidence in citizenry we hope for. Instead, we're left shaking our heads wondering when our nation will end from the endless squabbling our politicans do for their own personal gain.
The problem of political integrity, however, does not fall on the politicians. The men and women of our federal government who never fail to fail us are there for one simple reason - we let them stay. Instead of demanding in a unified voice that we want politicans of real integrity, and that in one voice we will denounce those who do not fulfill their political promises, we shake our heads and do nothing.
It's our fault. It's our responsibility as citizens of a country that can elect our own leaders, and we're squandering it. We shake our heads, and do no thing; that's exactly what those two-faced civil abusers count on time and time again.
What began as a simple process for electing our government officials, with a series of proper checks-and-balances, has turned into a series of political loopholes and government-speak; something similar I'd associate with lawyers who can sound so smart when speaking about something so simple, that they make you feel you don't have the intelligence to make a proper decision about what's write for yourself.
We've let these men and women bamboozle us. And it's still our fault. A man committing a crime in a community is a tragedy. The community letting that man stay is absolutely horrific beyond words.
I don't want to elect another politican to office again. I want to elect a leader - a man who says what he means, means what he says, and will do exactly what he promises before entering office once in office. Is that too much to ask? Is there some meeting politicans have once they've 'joined the club' that says, "Okay, here's what you can do, and what you can't do. We don't care what you promised before hand because we're not going to help you fulfill any of them."
While society in general is not conducive to positive change, that is no excuse for a person willing to fight his way to the top. He, or she, should be adept at circumventing such opposition to change.
What would someone say is the best way to solve the problem of complicated and easily abused politics?
Simplify them.
Simplify politics. Create transparent government leadership while preserving the trust and integrity of the job. Destroy loopholes and complications. Call politicians to account for following their promises through that transparency, and when they fail, to be removed so improvement can progress.
This isn't an attempt to micromanage our leaders. Instead, it's simply to call them to account for what they say and what they do.
It's time for citizens to find a better way than politic-dependant news agencies (conservative or liberal) to see exactly what the government is doing without direct governmental influence, while preserving the nature of classified operations and national security issues.
The formation of such an agency is not the purpose of this commentary. The need for political integrity, is. While firing all politicians isn't realistic, finding greater ways to make them accountable is.
It's the responsibility of the citizenry of a nation to hold their leaders accountable. We aren't. We're depending on talking heads and biased news to tell us how well they're doing. Greater impact analysis is welcome if it's objective and nonpartisan.
We must fight, once more, to make politics more hands on and rid ourselves of the complications created by those in power, who desire to stay in power, at the cost of citizen benefit.
Otherwise, we're just waiting for the government to return itself into a tyranny. It happened in Greece and it happened it Rome. It will, eventually, happen here in the States. No nation has ever survived its own humanity. The best we can hope for is God to preserve us for as long as possible. But until that day comes, we must fight for the preservation of the integrity of our own government.
For ourselves and our children.
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
America's War
The War Against Terror (the politically correct name for the "War Against Radical Islam") truly began when America helped Israel recreate it's nation within its ancient borders, lost a thousand-plus years ago. Post-holocaust Israeli's from across the world congregated in the western Middle East and resettled, forcing the Palestinians out.
The Islamic world blames American for Israel's return, calling them Satan and us Satan (didn't know Satan had multiple-personality disorder) and that Allah wished us wiped from this world. Apparently the crusades weren't enough for them to hate us, but restoring Israel certainly stepped on their foot and called their mothers Candian.
The attacks on America (and the rest of the world) were largely sparse, though undeniable, and were hidden cleverly through a host of separate nations and political leans. The disbelievers of Radical Islamic aggression pawned off the true reason for attacks against the US on all reasons other than the America-helped-Satan-park-off-our-Mediterranean-coast reason that the Radical Islamic world has held against us for sometime.
We faced embassy bombings, ship bombings, plane hijackings, lengthy hostage situations and, eventually, successful bombings against nationally iconic and monetary structures within our very borders (9/11, folks). When, at any point, did Bush begin this war?
To assume that Osama Bin Laden was our only enemy after 9/11 is a terrible waste of a mind. To think that eradicating him would have solved our problem is the same reason that every American retaliatory action against terrorist perpetrators never actually solved anything. Sure, US forces hunted down and killed a number of aggressors involved in our bombings and hijackings, but it never solved the actual root of these problems.
Bush, while at times bumbling, took the war home to the root of the aggressors. The statistics that show a climbing number of terrorists is not a simple result of US forces occupying Iraq - it's a display of what had remained quiet for so long. Just because you kill an ant outside of an ant hill doesn't mean you took away the power of your enemy - it's all within the anthill. Kicking it doesn't not make more agressors, it simply shows them.
Bush has failed in killing Osama Bin Laden. He must dedicate our forces to finding him even moreso than in the past - but to leave Iraq thinking that leaving the anthill be is a mistake to be sure. It will just build itself up again.
This is not just Bush's war. It's not the Republican's war.
It's America's war. It's a war too many have denied we've been in since the first attacks against our citizens worldwide. The war didn't being in 2001, it began in the 1940's, when Israel was created.
This war won't end. At this point, there has to be a level of respect afforded by each nation/politick, and that won't happen without a lot of people dying on each side. If not now, it will be later - to be frank, even if now, it will still be later.
This is a war for the ages, since the ages. Until Israel is destroyed or radical Islam is ground to a very small number or completely irradicated, this will not go away.
Those who seek to end the war need to understand that putting off to tomorrow only endangers our children, not protects them.
This is America's War, and we need to treat it as such. Instead, politicans are afraid to support it because those too short-sighted only see the American dead - ignoring the hard, long-term truths that come with fighting this bloody, dirty, and very angry fight.
Lives are not just at stake, our souls are. This is a fight for the soul of peace and the soul of democracy. After thousands of years, a nation of true democracy, free from sovereign domination, arose from the tyranny of British rule. And without a fight, this glorious democracy we know as America will soon again be under the thumb of a power seeking to rule by an iron fist, rather than the purity of thought and communal agreement.
"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton said that. Let radicals have power, and be assured they will not have your welfare in mind. Keep power distributed equally among the populace - checks and balances with systems of self-repudiation and authentication.
Oh, wait. Democracy.
Johnathan Michael
Marietta
The Islamic world blames American for Israel's return, calling them Satan and us Satan (didn't know Satan had multiple-personality disorder) and that Allah wished us wiped from this world. Apparently the crusades weren't enough for them to hate us, but restoring Israel certainly stepped on their foot and called their mothers Candian.
The attacks on America (and the rest of the world) were largely sparse, though undeniable, and were hidden cleverly through a host of separate nations and political leans. The disbelievers of Radical Islamic aggression pawned off the true reason for attacks against the US on all reasons other than the America-helped-Satan-park-off-our-Mediterranean-coast reason that the Radical Islamic world has held against us for sometime.
We faced embassy bombings, ship bombings, plane hijackings, lengthy hostage situations and, eventually, successful bombings against nationally iconic and monetary structures within our very borders (9/11, folks). When, at any point, did Bush begin this war?
To assume that Osama Bin Laden was our only enemy after 9/11 is a terrible waste of a mind. To think that eradicating him would have solved our problem is the same reason that every American retaliatory action against terrorist perpetrators never actually solved anything. Sure, US forces hunted down and killed a number of aggressors involved in our bombings and hijackings, but it never solved the actual root of these problems.
Bush, while at times bumbling, took the war home to the root of the aggressors. The statistics that show a climbing number of terrorists is not a simple result of US forces occupying Iraq - it's a display of what had remained quiet for so long. Just because you kill an ant outside of an ant hill doesn't mean you took away the power of your enemy - it's all within the anthill. Kicking it doesn't not make more agressors, it simply shows them.
Bush has failed in killing Osama Bin Laden. He must dedicate our forces to finding him even moreso than in the past - but to leave Iraq thinking that leaving the anthill be is a mistake to be sure. It will just build itself up again.
This is not just Bush's war. It's not the Republican's war.
It's America's war. It's a war too many have denied we've been in since the first attacks against our citizens worldwide. The war didn't being in 2001, it began in the 1940's, when Israel was created.
This war won't end. At this point, there has to be a level of respect afforded by each nation/politick, and that won't happen without a lot of people dying on each side. If not now, it will be later - to be frank, even if now, it will still be later.
This is a war for the ages, since the ages. Until Israel is destroyed or radical Islam is ground to a very small number or completely irradicated, this will not go away.
Those who seek to end the war need to understand that putting off to tomorrow only endangers our children, not protects them.
This is America's War, and we need to treat it as such. Instead, politicans are afraid to support it because those too short-sighted only see the American dead - ignoring the hard, long-term truths that come with fighting this bloody, dirty, and very angry fight.
Lives are not just at stake, our souls are. This is a fight for the soul of peace and the soul of democracy. After thousands of years, a nation of true democracy, free from sovereign domination, arose from the tyranny of British rule. And without a fight, this glorious democracy we know as America will soon again be under the thumb of a power seeking to rule by an iron fist, rather than the purity of thought and communal agreement.
"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton said that. Let radicals have power, and be assured they will not have your welfare in mind. Keep power distributed equally among the populace - checks and balances with systems of self-repudiation and authentication.
Oh, wait. Democracy.
Johnathan Michael
Marietta
A Bigger Pictures
Let's make a quick summary of the situation.
> Abraham had two sons - one became the father of Israel, the other became the father of Islam (epso-facto-like)
> 1,000 years after Christ, Mohammed preaches a new salvation by the same god and sets a series of rules, returning a mindset of salvation-by-action, the same mindset Israel carried and surprassed with the arrival of Christ's "Way," but now with world domination in mind.
>> Both faiths of Christianity and Islam teach of their faith eventually ruling over the world peaceably, while radicalists in both parties (Islamic extremists now, obviously, a bit larger number than a couple of hard-core baptist rednecks from Oregon).
> America was a shining example of Christian triumph - a country of religious freedom (from the state-driven churches of it's mother country) and, in time, a place to equally accept religions from all nations, whether in agreement or tolerance.
> The Arab world is a shining (and really only) example of Islamist survival - a collective of religious unitarianism based on the principles of Mohammed (however you wish to spell his name) and his revelation from Allah, dedicated to the systematic infill of governmental power around the world and eventual acquisition of control.
A - Christianity, in its base, un-"enlightened" form (as many progressive Christians might refer to it), is the sunshine policy of world acquisition (refer to South Korean politics on Google if you like). Through a successive presentation of God's love and his desire to be with us, Christianity is dedicated to bringing the faith (repeat, faith) of Christianity across the world. It, in and of itself, is not dedicated to ruling the world until the supernatural return of its deity, namely, God - Jehovah (not Allah).
B - Islam, while in majore is dedicated to peace, seeks a more determined method of world acquisition. While this isn't to be compared with radicalism, it does involve more stringent measures of religious law once muslims in power can make it so. Technically, it's the peaceful way of controlling the world.
>> The issue with this is that faith should never be determined by a binding authority other than the Deity himself, should he choose to proliferate faith from his followers that way. To choose a faith based on a love for a spouse or an affinity for how well a pastor's robes look is a poor road to walk toward eternity.
America was the shining example of Christianity, and is now growing decidedly desperate to devoid itself of the God that created it (from the mouths of the very men who began the nation, never mind you). Leaders (and loud-mouths) in this nation are changing the social climate to a free-for-all of decadence and debauchery, based on short-term goals and near-sighted issues. While 'owies' should be treated short-term, ignoring the roots of social illnesses will cause civic gangrene.
It's politically incorrect to be morally good, because it bases itself on a system that makes someone feel bad when they do something wrong. (Duh, it's wrong.)
Yes, there are right and wrong. No you can't pretend otherwise.
>>Yes there are consequences for doing wrong.
>>Yes there are consequences for doing right.
Namely, Christianity, after thousands of years, is once again on a path downhill. A faith of love and 'sunshine' is on the chopping block of nations growing fatter on the decadence of self-adoration.
Who wants to be reminded how dirty you are? Obviously, you kick the clean guy out of the room so you can't tell the difference between yourself and everyone else. Then no-one is clean, no-one is dirty. No-one can be special because you're too lazy to be special, or self-content enough not to be.
Those in our legislatures and in our loudspeakers decry the value of morality in hopes our nation will lose so much definition, we won't hurt anyone's feelings.
Being afraid of feelings is not disease, it's pathetic. It's an addiction to the here-and-now, afraid of working through painful times because no-one can easily see the prosperity on the other side. America's prosperity today is the result ONLY of the hard work and sacrifice of our forefathers, from the Revolution to the Great War, both in peace and in conflict, home and abroad.
Whatever issues we get caught up in in today's political climate, it's important we remember the bigger issues our children will face, and it won't be as simple as global warming (meteorologically) or physical immigration (though these are important issues) - it's remembering that in the end, we all die, and we all go somewhere.
When people die, they don't thank Darwin, they ask for God. The question is: which God do you believe in? Do you want to believe in a God of love or a God of war? A god of cosmic mistakes (Big-Bang Theory) or a God of self-enlightenment (Buddha). A god of Karma (Hindu) or a god of ... well, no god at all (Atheism)?
When a major faith begins digging its way from its den and dedicatedly begins trying to force its faith on you through coercion or quiet revolution, should we really worry so much about who's going to be kicked off American Idol next?
I'm a Christian, and while my faith is a faith of love, I have every intention of fighting for its survival. Right now, nations around the world, and faiths around the world, are looking for ways to end my faith, because my faith is one of the intention of the heart, not simply action of the hand. It requires people truly believe, not simply act.
When Christ came, he said that it's not just what you do, (though doing is important), but what you believe. According to the previous faith (Judaism), you simply had to act. Now, you had to believe and fulfill yourself by your heart. Not sleeping with another man's wife wasn't enough anymore, not thinking about sleeping with another man's wife became issue.
It called everyone to their own personal account - and that terrifies non-Christians bent on satisfying their lusts for debauchery on all forms.
This sounds like a religious blog, and in part, it is. But keep this in mind: all politics are based on faith. Politicians are the most religiously devout of anyone you will ever meet - whether their god is Jehovah or themselves.
So choose your faith. Understand that as world religion goes beyond the separation of church and state and once again returns war to the level of the crusades (whether to conquer or to survive), your very life will depend on whom you choose - both in this life and after.
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
> Abraham had two sons - one became the father of Israel, the other became the father of Islam (epso-facto-like)
> 1,000 years after Christ, Mohammed preaches a new salvation by the same god and sets a series of rules, returning a mindset of salvation-by-action, the same mindset Israel carried and surprassed with the arrival of Christ's "Way," but now with world domination in mind.
>> Both faiths of Christianity and Islam teach of their faith eventually ruling over the world peaceably, while radicalists in both parties (Islamic extremists now, obviously, a bit larger number than a couple of hard-core baptist rednecks from Oregon).
> America was a shining example of Christian triumph - a country of religious freedom (from the state-driven churches of it's mother country) and, in time, a place to equally accept religions from all nations, whether in agreement or tolerance.
> The Arab world is a shining (and really only) example of Islamist survival - a collective of religious unitarianism based on the principles of Mohammed (however you wish to spell his name) and his revelation from Allah, dedicated to the systematic infill of governmental power around the world and eventual acquisition of control.
A - Christianity, in its base, un-"enlightened" form (as many progressive Christians might refer to it), is the sunshine policy of world acquisition (refer to South Korean politics on Google if you like). Through a successive presentation of God's love and his desire to be with us, Christianity is dedicated to bringing the faith (repeat, faith) of Christianity across the world. It, in and of itself, is not dedicated to ruling the world until the supernatural return of its deity, namely, God - Jehovah (not Allah).
B - Islam, while in majore is dedicated to peace, seeks a more determined method of world acquisition. While this isn't to be compared with radicalism, it does involve more stringent measures of religious law once muslims in power can make it so. Technically, it's the peaceful way of controlling the world.
>> The issue with this is that faith should never be determined by a binding authority other than the Deity himself, should he choose to proliferate faith from his followers that way. To choose a faith based on a love for a spouse or an affinity for how well a pastor's robes look is a poor road to walk toward eternity.
America was the shining example of Christianity, and is now growing decidedly desperate to devoid itself of the God that created it (from the mouths of the very men who began the nation, never mind you). Leaders (and loud-mouths) in this nation are changing the social climate to a free-for-all of decadence and debauchery, based on short-term goals and near-sighted issues. While 'owies' should be treated short-term, ignoring the roots of social illnesses will cause civic gangrene.
It's politically incorrect to be morally good, because it bases itself on a system that makes someone feel bad when they do something wrong. (Duh, it's wrong.)
Yes, there are right and wrong. No you can't pretend otherwise.
>>Yes there are consequences for doing wrong.
>>Yes there are consequences for doing right.
Namely, Christianity, after thousands of years, is once again on a path downhill. A faith of love and 'sunshine' is on the chopping block of nations growing fatter on the decadence of self-adoration.
Who wants to be reminded how dirty you are? Obviously, you kick the clean guy out of the room so you can't tell the difference between yourself and everyone else. Then no-one is clean, no-one is dirty. No-one can be special because you're too lazy to be special, or self-content enough not to be.
Those in our legislatures and in our loudspeakers decry the value of morality in hopes our nation will lose so much definition, we won't hurt anyone's feelings.
Being afraid of feelings is not disease, it's pathetic. It's an addiction to the here-and-now, afraid of working through painful times because no-one can easily see the prosperity on the other side. America's prosperity today is the result ONLY of the hard work and sacrifice of our forefathers, from the Revolution to the Great War, both in peace and in conflict, home and abroad.
Whatever issues we get caught up in in today's political climate, it's important we remember the bigger issues our children will face, and it won't be as simple as global warming (meteorologically) or physical immigration (though these are important issues) - it's remembering that in the end, we all die, and we all go somewhere.
When people die, they don't thank Darwin, they ask for God. The question is: which God do you believe in? Do you want to believe in a God of love or a God of war? A god of cosmic mistakes (Big-Bang Theory) or a God of self-enlightenment (Buddha). A god of Karma (Hindu) or a god of ... well, no god at all (Atheism)?
When a major faith begins digging its way from its den and dedicatedly begins trying to force its faith on you through coercion or quiet revolution, should we really worry so much about who's going to be kicked off American Idol next?
I'm a Christian, and while my faith is a faith of love, I have every intention of fighting for its survival. Right now, nations around the world, and faiths around the world, are looking for ways to end my faith, because my faith is one of the intention of the heart, not simply action of the hand. It requires people truly believe, not simply act.
When Christ came, he said that it's not just what you do, (though doing is important), but what you believe. According to the previous faith (Judaism), you simply had to act. Now, you had to believe and fulfill yourself by your heart. Not sleeping with another man's wife wasn't enough anymore, not thinking about sleeping with another man's wife became issue.
It called everyone to their own personal account - and that terrifies non-Christians bent on satisfying their lusts for debauchery on all forms.
This sounds like a religious blog, and in part, it is. But keep this in mind: all politics are based on faith. Politicians are the most religiously devout of anyone you will ever meet - whether their god is Jehovah or themselves.
So choose your faith. Understand that as world religion goes beyond the separation of church and state and once again returns war to the level of the crusades (whether to conquer or to survive), your very life will depend on whom you choose - both in this life and after.
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
There is no true love without respect
"We must denounce this war! But we must support our troops!"
There is no true love or support without respect. It's otherwise just a word or a hope, or an empty thought of emotion. Real love requires action, and to truly show love to American troops, citizens must support their decision to fight overseas. That includes trusting them to know what the best course of action overseas is.
While not all troops believe the US should be there, a hosting majority, especially those who have been on the frontline, believe in what is being accomplished. As much as Congress denounces the war, troops denounce the cowardice on Capitol Hill. What has made this into a Vietnam is less because of the actions in the Military Area of Responsibility, but more of the indecisive nature of politicians and the games of power they play at the expense of solid military support.
President George W. Bush may not be a perfect president - who has been? - and while mistakes have been made, the end goal is more important than how comfortable Americans feel, namely because the war is keeping citizens alive. Unfortunately, too many prefer luxurious comfort to breathing.
Vocalizing a support for troops, but disregarding their voluntary decision to join the service and fight overseas, is no different than going to a doctor and disbelieving his diagnosis of a serious illness. The troops see a sickness that, left unchecked, will cause incalculable damage to any free-thinking nation.
Americans need to turn off CNN and talk to a soldier who's been out there - not the dropouts, the kicked-outs or the dishonorably discharged - and make their decisions by first-hand accounts. Look up soldier blogs on-line that display the good being done, the people being saved and the respect of the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan troops earn by their actions.
Americans here can decry war and the US's involvement in Iraq, but the military is finally accomplishing a difficult task that has needed doing for far too long. Whatever the initial motivations for the country to enter this wa , let there be no misconception as to when it began. It began centuries ago by two incredibly different forms of thought powering them - radical Christianity and Islam.
Radical Christianity has, for the most part tapered. The Roman Catholic church no longer leads armies or dominates world leaders as it did in its empiric days. Radical Islam, however, has resurfaced with little opposition - an arrangement that only increases its bloodlust for world domination.
Troops have seen the necessity of American actions overseas. While the situation has been less than favorable at times, they're making a difference. So next time anyone wants to doubt the dangers involved, ask a soldier who has trained to see the dangers, has seen the dangers firsthand and has been willing to put his or her life on the line to see that those dangers don't come home.
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
There is no true love or support without respect. It's otherwise just a word or a hope, or an empty thought of emotion. Real love requires action, and to truly show love to American troops, citizens must support their decision to fight overseas. That includes trusting them to know what the best course of action overseas is.
While not all troops believe the US should be there, a hosting majority, especially those who have been on the frontline, believe in what is being accomplished. As much as Congress denounces the war, troops denounce the cowardice on Capitol Hill. What has made this into a Vietnam is less because of the actions in the Military Area of Responsibility, but more of the indecisive nature of politicians and the games of power they play at the expense of solid military support.
President George W. Bush may not be a perfect president - who has been? - and while mistakes have been made, the end goal is more important than how comfortable Americans feel, namely because the war is keeping citizens alive. Unfortunately, too many prefer luxurious comfort to breathing.
Vocalizing a support for troops, but disregarding their voluntary decision to join the service and fight overseas, is no different than going to a doctor and disbelieving his diagnosis of a serious illness. The troops see a sickness that, left unchecked, will cause incalculable damage to any free-thinking nation.
Americans need to turn off CNN and talk to a soldier who's been out there - not the dropouts, the kicked-outs or the dishonorably discharged - and make their decisions by first-hand accounts. Look up soldier blogs on-line that display the good being done, the people being saved and the respect of the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan troops earn by their actions.
Americans here can decry war and the US's involvement in Iraq, but the military is finally accomplishing a difficult task that has needed doing for far too long. Whatever the initial motivations for the country to enter this wa , let there be no misconception as to when it began. It began centuries ago by two incredibly different forms of thought powering them - radical Christianity and Islam.
Radical Christianity has, for the most part tapered. The Roman Catholic church no longer leads armies or dominates world leaders as it did in its empiric days. Radical Islam, however, has resurfaced with little opposition - an arrangement that only increases its bloodlust for world domination.
Troops have seen the necessity of American actions overseas. While the situation has been less than favorable at times, they're making a difference. So next time anyone wants to doubt the dangers involved, ask a soldier who has trained to see the dangers, has seen the dangers firsthand and has been willing to put his or her life on the line to see that those dangers don't come home.
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
