Monday, October 24, 2005

Sometimes War Is Worth It

In an earlier blog post, I mentioned that I wanted to share some of what was said in Dr. Muehlhoff's class at the GodBlog Conference regarding the War on Terror.

A question was raised about whether or not it can ever be deemed possible to dialogue with certain kinds of people when the differences of ideology result in murderous fanaticism.

When the tragedy of 9/11 happened, initially, there was unity between all Americans to get the perpetrators who did this terrible destruction and caused the deaths of so many innocent human beings.

However, as time went on and it was discovered that the culprits were identified as Muslim-Arab terrorists; known as followers of Osama Bin Hidin' s (sorry...couldn't resist) al Qaida terrorist group, some people in our country wanted to "understand" them.

This didn't happen overnight, but gradually, we found that anti-war sympathizers and teachers wanted to offer classes in understanding the Quran, Muslim life and why these people did what they did on 9/11. This may sound reasonable, sympathetic and compassionate to some who hold to pacifist ideals, however, we must remember that we aren't talking about Muslim believers who have not be radicalized. We are talking about ruthless murderers who are intent on killing ANYONE, even innocent civilians, because they are seen as "infidels."

Why were we targeted?

Simply because the majority believe in the Judeo-Christian God, and they live in America or Israel. These terrorists see our freedoms as a threat to their goal of global Islamic domination. They see our freedoms which, unfortunately, also allow for moral decadence and sin, as a threat to their way of life. But, the difference is that they are not willing to work out differences in a civil way. They don't allow a democratic-republic kind of government that allows people of differing beliefs to live side by side even though we disagree with each other. It's not perfect. No government is. But it is superior to anything that they would offer the Iraqi people if they had their way. They want tyranny and absolute rule over everyone. We vote for our leaders and for our rights in elections and have courts to settle disputes and disagreements. They indescriminately torture and kill people who don't toe the line of their anarchical mindset.

Added on to this is the fact that they are willing to kill themselves in the process of it all by crashing planes into building, strapping bombs onto their bodies to commit suicide/homicide bombing in order to kill as many members of any land that they perceive as associating with "The Great Satan." Those "infidels" that they name as their enemies are often targeted for their religious beliefs, namely, most are Jews and Christians. However, as 9/11 has taught us, ANYONE who does not bow the knee to "Allah" are considered a legitimate target, even their own Muslim brothers and sisters.

When Dr. Muehlhoff stated that there is even hope for dialogue with people like this, he lost me. IMO, I thought that the liberalism of his former place of employment had, unfortunately, gotten to him.

At the end of class, I went up to him and asked if such dialogue would have worked with the kamikaze Japanese pilots back in WWII. Before he could answer, another gentleman in the class said that isn't the Islamic fanaticism that is going on in the war on terror almost the same thing? The discussion turned towards the war in Iraq and whether or not we should have 'invaded' that country because no WMD's were found....yada yada yada.

I agree with Dr. Muehlhoff to a point. I think that he is right that we need to dialogue, but not with the terrorist fanatics. What is happening in Iraq is truly needed. Changing the minds of the Iraqi people who have not been poisoned by the Muslim terrorist fanaticism is the way to gain freedom and opportunity for a people who had been under the sadistic iron fist regime of Saddam Hussein for 30 years. However, in the case of those who are to far gone in their fanaticism, it comes to a decision of 'kill or be killed'. Terrorists that brutally saw off innocent people's heads and broadcast such atrocities on the internet in an effort to get their demands aren't about to be willing to dialogue with anyone about anything.

Just like the kamikazees of the past, these people must be stopped dead in their tracks. The choice has to be imprisonment for life or elimination in order to halt their murderous rampage. That is reality. That is the cold hard truth.

I didn't get to share much of these thoughts and opinions with Dr. Muehlhoff. As the only woman standing within a group of about 6 men, I was lucky to get in a few brief comments at the beginning of this after class discussion. Besides, it was lunch time and this brief exchange wasn't about to solve such disagreements in so small a time frame.

Since attending this class, I thought about what had happened on the news concerning Cindy Sheehan and her "Camp Casey" campaign outside of President Bush's residence. I thought about the counter demonstration that formed in support of our troops and President Bush. I thought about the media and how what they report will correctly or incorrectly influence the minds of people regarding what is actually going on in Iraq.

Often, the good news gets little press or recognition, but whenever a bomb goes off and there are casualties to report, the incident gets headline news. I'm not saying that such things should go unreported. I, like any other American grieves with each and every death of every brave soldier or marine fighting for our freedom in Iraq. But along with such exposure, the media tilts the message so that it will fare negatively upon our President and his administration.

If you have been reading my blog for some time now, you know that I am not afraid to address controversial issues. This is a big one that has been raging in our news reports on almost a daily basis. I do not claim to have all of the facts about the war, but I will attempt to share my views on it and why I believe as I do that it was the right thing to do.

Ultimately, history will show whether Bush was right or not. The same thing happened with President Reagan and his efforts to end the Cold War. He was ridiculed and opposed no end by those on the other side of the aisle, but history has now shown he was right to do what he did. If you haven't seen the DVD "In the Face of Evil," I highly recommend it. It was quite a history lesson for me. The kind that (unfortunately) isn't being taught in our liberal-led public schools and universities.

I'd like to start by drawing your attention to a recent article written by Mark Steyn in the Chicago Sun Times called Bush Was Right: Sometimes War Is Worth It. This is an honest article. It shows how the media can take even a good thing happening in Iraq and use words to twist it into seeming like it is something bad. Need examples?


Quote from article:

"Needless to say, for the media moaners, the approval of the new constitution was just the latest disaster. ''For the Bush administration, the apparent approval of Iraq's constitution is less of a victory than yet another chance to possibly fashion a political solution that does not result in the bloody division of Iraq,'' wrote Glenn Kessler in the Washington Post, sufficiently rattled by happy scenes of millions voting at least to hedge his bets. Not so Australia's beloved comic doom-monger Paul McGeough, whose post-referendum Sydney Morning Herald dispatch was apocalyptically headlined: 'Iraqi Experiment Splitting Apart At The Seams.' "

Next, I want to share an article that was written by Craig R. Smith and posted at WorldNetDaily in 2004. I call it The Military Brilliance of the Iraq War. The article discusses the reality that the war in Iraq will be seen, historically, as either a) one of the most brilliant military strategies in the war on terror, or b) experiencing yet another example of the "Law of Unintended Consequences."

What the war in Iraq ultimately comes down to is this, "The terrorists don't want to negotiate. They want America and Israel to cease to exist."

I'd like to end this post with a poignant quote from Mark Steyn's article:

"Whatever the Bush administration got wrong, it got one big thing right: that, if you persevered, Iraq had the potential to function as a free society in a part of the world where no such thing has ever existed. That was a long shot, and much sneered at. But Washington judged correctly: Given the radicalization of the Arab world, and the Arabification of the Islamic world, and the Islamification of much of the rest of the world, in the end you have to fix the problem at the source.

Sometimes war is worth it."


Anna said...

Hi Christine -

My biggest gripe with the media is not what they do report. It's what they DON'T report.

We have several friends and neighbors, who have either been in Iraq or have sons there now. One young man sent us pictures of children with the soldiers, as well as adults. He told stories of people coming up to them thanking them for helping. Saddam Hussein was a murderous tyrant, of which stories abound. The people of Iraq cried out for years for the U.S. to rescue them from this monster. We have heard similar reports from other soldiers.

I'm glad we have a President who is not afraid to take decisive action. His handling of 9/11 and the subsequent war on terror has saved many lives.

Failure to act is perceived as weakness on the part of terrorists. The only thing they understand is force. If we want to continue to live in a free society, we will have to fight the enemies of freedom as previous generations have done at great personal sacrifice.

All those who protest the war on terror - would you prefer to live under Shariah law?

War is awful. Yet if our forefathers had not gone to war, we would be living under the iron fist of some foreign power.

May God bless our dedicated troops, their families and our President, who is willing to make the tough decisions.


Christinewjc said...

Hi Anna,

Great points in your entire comment! I'm glad you shared some first hand accounts about the good experiences that are happening in Iraq.

Of course the mainstream media will not report such things. It would destroy the fake image they wish to project regarding their silly perceived 'quagmire' in Iraq. What a crock of....well, you know what.

I thank God for the courage and faithfulness of our military and I second your comment re:

"May God bless our dedicated troops, their families and our President, who is willing to make the tough decisions."


jpe said...

some people in our country wanted to "understand" them.

This is a time in which your partisanship leads to foolish statements. People didn't want to "understand them" so that we could treat them better; we wanted to understand them so that we could prevent more 9/11s.

In fact, not understanding what we were doing is what led to 9/11 in the first place. Everyone agrees with that (typical NRO-ish comment: Clinton didn't retaliate, and thus the terrorists...blahblahblah. What did Clinton fail to do? Understand the mindset of the terrorists. So don't try to paint this as lefty schtick.)

You fail to ever attribute good intentions to your political opponents, and I hope you find it troubling. I'm not sure you do, though, and it's worth noting that this is why politics is so rancorous: it's the failure of people to think that others are trying their best to do good.

Perhaps you get a perverse enjoyment out of being the Michael Moore of the right, always suspecting sinister motives. I don't know. And I don't think it's worth my time to find out.

Christinewjc said...

Boy jpe, what bug suddenly just flew up your

This is a blog where I get to voice my opinions and views. Others can come along and voice theirs. I generally don't delete anything unless the words being shared are foul and/or derogatory about Jesus Christ. Had to do that in the past a few times.

My little 'voice' here is read by how many you think? 50? 100? if that? Yet, the voices and images of Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan get national news coverage. And, just why do I need to give them any credit for what they do if I think they are wrong?

I didn't agree with Al Gore's politics so I didn't vote for him. I didn't agree with John Kerry's politics and definitely didn't agree with his wishy washy views on the war on terror, so I didn't vote for him. Clinton is old news. So, who is it you wish me to compliment? Howard Dean? The red-faced screamer of the liberal left? Why? Because he fashions himself as a cool metro-sexual?

OK. I will share with you some Democrats that I like and respect.

First is former Senator Zell Miller. He gave a wallop of a speech at the RNC national convention. Loved the comment he made about the weapons that he perceived that the Dems would approve of in the War on Terror...spitballs anyone? (Now don't get your knickers in a twist jpe...just a little humor there).

I respect some of the views of former Senator John Breaux, in fact, I had hoped he would have taken President Bush's offer for a possible Cabinet position. I really like Governor Bill Richardson (and his ideas regarding the halting of illegal immigration) of New Mexico. Whenever he appears on any of the news shows he articulates his good ideas quite well and I admire the way he conducts himself in public...even if he disagrees with his colleagues from the other political party.

There. Happy now?

Susan Smith said...


You should be a comedian... I am laughing out loud reading your last two paragraphs!

I wear knickers here in the Holy Land... I like knickers! Have a great day on the West Coast. (ss)