catapult magazine

Anybody remember those heated debates we had here before, during, and after the American invasion of Iraq? An article I read today reminded me about the argument we had about WMD, the UN, weapons inspections, and preemtive war.

http://www.slate.com/id/2137953/?nav=tap3

So I’m wondering if people still generally have the same ideas about this thing as then, or has anybody changed their mind.

Here’s one of the treads from those bad-ol days:
http://www.cultureisnotoptional.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=315&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

The lack of WMD really compromises the proposed imminence of harm that stood in the fore of many arguments favoring invasion. If one uses a benefit/burden calculus, the lack of WMD takes a huge chunk out of the expected benefit (i.e. greater world safety).

My opinion hasn’t changed much (unfortunately)…but I’m amazed that Bush is still pushing his pre-emptive war doctrine so hard, considering where we are at this point in history and where it’s gotten us so far.

Perhaps Bush is reminding us of his new pre-emptive war doctrine because he sees Iran swaggering ever closer on the horizon.

Originally I didn’t think we should invade and I still stick with that opinion. I’ve had two friends die over there. I don’t think anyone really gets the impact of war until it hits your own backyard. However, since we did do it, and we can’t take it back we can’t just up and leave either. That’s called between a rock and a hard place. You can’t leave an entire country floundering aimlessly. I’m not even sure where we should go from here honestly. The people should come first. Hell, people should always come first. But that doesn’t seem to be the way it works. I can only hope they’ll figure out a way to strenghten Iraq and get us the hell out of there. Bush has completely dismantled the foundations of our country. And way too many people don’t see it. The man called The U.S. Constitution "just a piece of paper". That really frightens me. This is our leader…the President of the United States of America…but the Constitution means nothing to him, the War in Iraq is big business for him instead of about life and death, he even tried to sell out our ports to the UAE. The UAE who has proven ties and monetary support to the Al Queda, who has smuggled nuclear components to countries such as North Korea, who was one of the only countries to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, and two of it’s citizens participated in the 911 attacks. I can’t understand how he has any supporters left. Anyways, I just went off on a tangent. But I guess there’s no room to wonder about how I really feel lol.

~Heidi

I think Bush is wrong and the Liberal assumption that demilitarization and/or mere "talks" will solve this problem is also wrong. And there are probably a thousand more ways human beings can be wrong in this situation. What cannot be denied is that there is a rising conflict between ideologies (East-West, Capitalism-Socialism, Modernism-Fanaticism) and something will be done about it, if not now, then later. Certainly Bush is bound to be wrong. Gore would have been wrong too. And Kerry would have been wrong. What’s happening cannot be controlled or easily corrected. If the world really were as manipulatable as pragmatic utilitarians would have us believe, then maybe we could do something constructive with our world, but we will most likely be destructive. That’s where I would put my money, on more mistakes by all involved and not involved. And then, somehow, who knows how?— God will have taught us all a lesson once again. Which is why I think God is the coolest.

I believe that God has given us the tools to be constructive rather than destructive. All we have to do is apply them. People are always saying that one person cannot change the world, but I say why not? It’s like the domino effect. One person starts doing what he or she can, then another sees it and says hey i can do that, and so on and so forth. There’s a song I identify with called "The Change". It says everything I believe and how I feel regarding our world.

"The Change"

verse 1: One hand reaches out and pulls a lost soul from harm…while a thousand more go unspoken for, they say what good have you done by saving just this one. It’s like whispering a prayer in the fury of a storm.

Chorus: And I hear them saying, you’ll never change things, and no matter what you do it’s still the same thing. But it’s not the world that I am changing, what I do is so, this world will know that it will not change me.

verse 2: This heart still believes that love and mercy still exist. While the hatreds rage, and so many say that love has lost importance in madness such as this, it’s like trying to stop a fire with the moisture from a kiss.

Chorus *

As long as one heart still holds on then hope is never really gone

Chorus *

What I do is so this world will know that it will not change me, What I do is so this world we know, never changes me.

? Garth Brooks.

I think that says it all.

~Heidi

sounds like grant is cultivating political apathy in light of the inevitable imminent apocalypse. this line of thinking is a self-fulfilling prophecy. it would be nice to have leaders with an optimistic creative vision for the world instead of the cynical "realism" so popular at the moment.

also i’m surprised to hear you talk about rising conflicts between capitalism and socialism. i don’t see that. i see hegemonic capitalism with various scattered resistance movements. socialism is discredited and mostly dead. we need some new visions to challenge the capitalist monopoly on ideas.

Many free-market capitalist conservatives tend to see the anti-capitalism of Europe and "The Left" as rooted in socialism. Maybe this is not accurate, but I think that’s how they see it.

And although I’ve never considered myself a realist in any shape or form, I believe we have to be confessional about our own limitations, which is the starting point for worshipful action in the areas God has called us to. But I think my comments also reflect a struggle with what my responsibility toward world events is as an individual. Does anyone else feel very weird (wearied?), even unnatural being asked to have an opinion about global events when you can barely figure out how to pay the bills, keep relationships going, read all the books that must be read, perform killer vocals for your next big rock album etc. etc.? I know living in an Enlightened age requires us to question everything and be critical of all and to doubt anything my supposed leaders say but I get kind of tired of such profound responsibilities. It’s a heavy load for one person to carry. Our leaders are in an office of service where they have access to better information than I do and they still flub it up. So what do I have to offer? Though it be my duty to maintain an enlightened skepticism of any decision they make, I find myself less and less willing to form my own opinions on some of these matters. I know that sounds very medieval of me, but that’s my confession.

Dan, your apocalypse comment is completely irrelevant to this conversation because you’re still using a definition of apocalypse that I refuse to acknowledge as true. The biblical notion of apocalypse as revelation is a beginning, not ending. It’s actually the leader of Iran who is hoping to further the apocalypse as an end. He sees the apocalypse as an event that is still coming. I see it as an event that has been ongoing since Christ set the coming of His Kingdom in motion. Whatever happens, even if it’s a Third World War with catastrophic nuclear devastation and the end of the United States of America as we know it (HORROR OF HORRORS!) :wink: , His kingdom still comes. This seems like a more hopeful stance than trusting human beings to find the final solution to all our problems.