Wednesday, November 10, 2004
I didn't think that last post should be the one that sat on BlogFeed.
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
You know what Jimmy? I was prepared to have a rational debate with you. I think debate and discussion is a great thing - we get to hear each others' views and we get to learn from each other. You share your political opinion on your blog all the time and I love it. That's why I'm surprised that you've reacted so strongly to people disagreeing with you. I've told you before your blog is one of my favourites to read and I'm disapointed that you've decided to stop.
It is possible that people will have different opinions to you - it happens to everyone all the time. As Tom said, he and I disagree on heaps of stuff and I really value the relationship I have with him. I've learnt heaps. It's your decision if you want to make a debate personal. I don't want to bite into that. What you write on your blog is your business.
We're not hiding under rocks here Jimmy. We read the same newspapers as you, listen to the same political propoganda and read the same Bible. It's our opinions that are different and that's the brilliant thing about God creating 6 billion individuals instead of 6 billion clones.
But, for the record I DID NOT edit anything on that post below and I REALLY object to your claim that I did. I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from blatantly lying about me.
I'm sad that you're ditching blogging over this because there is no reason that this couldn't have been an intelligent debate we all could have benifitted from.
It is possible that people will have different opinions to you - it happens to everyone all the time. As Tom said, he and I disagree on heaps of stuff and I really value the relationship I have with him. I've learnt heaps. It's your decision if you want to make a debate personal. I don't want to bite into that. What you write on your blog is your business.
We're not hiding under rocks here Jimmy. We read the same newspapers as you, listen to the same political propoganda and read the same Bible. It's our opinions that are different and that's the brilliant thing about God creating 6 billion individuals instead of 6 billion clones.
But, for the record I DID NOT edit anything on that post below and I REALLY object to your claim that I did. I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from blatantly lying about me.
I'm sad that you're ditching blogging over this because there is no reason that this couldn't have been an intelligent debate we all could have benifitted from.
Monday, November 08, 2004
Just to clear something up first, this is not me making a return to blogging, but I've been drawn into Jimmy and B's debate over Iraq, politics etc. and seeing as it's a little passion of mine I thought I should document my thoughts as opposed to trying to vent them on either of those two guys' comments. Perhaps it's not my place to put my views there, but I'm always up for a bit of hearty debate and then I realised... that's right! I've got my own blog. (It also means we can wrap up the little comments tally - of which Haloscan kindly deserted me anyway)
I'm glad this post is dated because then I have a record of when I documented these thoughts which will no doubt change as we all get more information. My views have definately changed since the Iraq invasion last year. You don't have to read this (obviously), but please feel free to comment - expecially if you disagree. It's highly possible that I'm wrong and I'd love to hear what other people are thinking. But anyway, these are my thoughts now and the beauty of it being my blog is that you don't have to read them if you don't want to :)
I'd like to jump in at B's defence (never met you, don't know who you are, but "hello"). I don't think you're a hypocrite and I don't think you're stupid.
Just to get it out of the way: I voted for John Howard in the Lower House, CDP in the Senate and I would have voted for Kerry in the US election if I was a US citizen.
My main issue with the invasion of Iraq is that it was an illegal war. Under international law, which surely we must all determine is a higher authority than any single countries' government, "regime change" is not a reason for war. If it was I'm sure Cuba would have been invaded a long time ago. One country cannot invade a country because it believes it needs a change of leader. But that is what happened. We declared war because there was a fear of WMDs. There was no evidence of WMDs. There were plenty of people saying there weren't at the time, we just didn't hear it. We know now that both George Bush and John Howard had reports that there was no evidence of nuclear/biological/chemical weapons and yet we went in anyway. Therefore we need to ask ourselves why?
If Bush was getting reports that there were weapons but also reports that there weren't then he needed another reason to go to war. B's already listed a few them, although I'd like to add that George Bush needed to take the focus of Afghanistan because he couldn't find Bin Laden. I believe there were many factors that lead to the invasion - we were fed weapons of Mass Destruction because fear motivates us more than anything else.
If Bush was motivated by the need to help people in countries riddled by violence then perhaps he could have started in Sudan.
I'd also like to point out that Saddam wasn't actually doing anything wrong at the time of invasion. Iraq was not breaking any laws. Yes, he has a history of some terrible atrocities but the country was more peaceful in 2002 than it is now. The UN peacekeepers and inspectors were in the country (they had to be evacuated before the invasion) and international law (albeit riddled with problems) was in control.
But we invaded - Bush "got him" (the bin Laden he couldn't find but that all American's recognised as the token US enemy) and over 1000 US troops have been killed (obviously nothing compared to civilian casualties). There were no WMDs so of course we say "but isn't it great Saddam's gone - surely you can't want him back in power!", but that is an illegal reason for going to war. That's why it was never used as a justification prior to invasion.
George Bush scares me. I don't care whether he says he's a Christian or not. Hitler (and I'm not comparing the two but bare with me) used "Christian" justification for killing the Jews. The Crusades killed thousands in the name of "God". Israel kills Palestinians and destroys their homes in the name of God. You CANNOT accept everything a leader does simply because they say they are a Christian. If someone puts themselves in a position of leadership, if they ask for our vote then they ask us to judge them. That's what democracy is.
Jimmy's blog: "B, and those who don't believe our leaders actions are Christian, if someone was to pull the scriptures out, they could point out a pile of things about your life that make you a total hypocrites." Personally, I think that argument is crap. As a Christian I do not proport to be perfect, I only attempt to live like Christ and I stuff that up everyday. But when it comes to who I vote for, then I vote by what that person stands by. Bush does not regret Iraq, he stands by it. In my opinion, I don't believe Jesus would have invaded Iraq therefore I don't vote for him. Please explain to me how you choose who to vote for without judging the candidates? Unless of course you blindly vote along party lines regardless.
Jimmy you said, and I agree with you, that you cannot judge whether a person is a Christian or not (and who are we to) because only God knows their heart. But I'm not voting for whether or not a particular person is a Christian, I'm voting for them as a leader. Irrespective of that, doesn't that defeat your argument that you should vote from Bush and Howard because they claim to be Christians? I think you may have disagreed with yourself there Jimmy.
Because the US is so obviously a dominant power in the world I think they have a responsibility to ensure that their foreign policy (the most important foreign policy in the world) is one motivated by compassion. They, above all other countries, need to have the integrity to abide by international law. I don't think Bush is a leader who respects the responsibility that comes with such a powerful position.
Jimmy is right: Kerry stands for some things that as a Christian I do not agree with. However, I need to prioritise when I vote. I need to decide which things are more important to me. Call me a defeatist, but I think it's only a matter of time before homosexual marriages are legal and abortion is an accepted medical practice. I disagree with both of those things but we live in a society that rejects Jesus and we will live in that society until we die. Things will get worse. Frankly, for me, it is more important that the power and authority that we have in this world we use to help the unfortunate and show love. Abortions will happen whether they are legal in every state or not. Homosexual relationships will happen whether we allow them to get married or not. It purely a matter of government endorsement or not, which to me seems trivial next to a death toll into the thousands. We put a gun into the hands of our leaders when we elect them and we say we trust you to shoot who and when it is neccessary. That's the most important issue for me when it comes to thinking who should be the leader of the United States.
But I voted for John Howard. Australia is a very different country to the US. As much as we may not like to admit it we are much smaller, much less effective and much less respected/feared in the world. I think Howard's role is to be a part of the "war on terror" because I think we need to make a stand against it and we need to fight for what is right. We need to do our bit and send our soldiers to disarm and disable terrorist groups. To do that we need to trust the information that comes to us - from the bigger countries which are much more capable (the US). Sometimes that information will be wrong (or manipulated) but for the most part Australia needs to be there making a moral stand. The alternative would be to disengage from world affairs and to become a little lone island that does not earn it's place in the world. Latham was going to pull our troops out of the mess we had a hand in making. I think Australia is a strong country and one that needs to stand up and be counted. Sometime we will make mistakes, sometimes we will be misled, but the alternative renders us useless.
I think the latest US election result is sad. But it's the result all the same and we live with it. I just hope that Bush thinks about what he wants to be remembered for and that perhaps he will continue his mission for "world peace" to the parts of the world where the US does not have vested interests.
I'm glad this post is dated because then I have a record of when I documented these thoughts which will no doubt change as we all get more information. My views have definately changed since the Iraq invasion last year. You don't have to read this (obviously), but please feel free to comment - expecially if you disagree. It's highly possible that I'm wrong and I'd love to hear what other people are thinking. But anyway, these are my thoughts now and the beauty of it being my blog is that you don't have to read them if you don't want to :)
I'd like to jump in at B's defence (never met you, don't know who you are, but "hello"). I don't think you're a hypocrite and I don't think you're stupid.
Just to get it out of the way: I voted for John Howard in the Lower House, CDP in the Senate and I would have voted for Kerry in the US election if I was a US citizen.
My main issue with the invasion of Iraq is that it was an illegal war. Under international law, which surely we must all determine is a higher authority than any single countries' government, "regime change" is not a reason for war. If it was I'm sure Cuba would have been invaded a long time ago. One country cannot invade a country because it believes it needs a change of leader. But that is what happened. We declared war because there was a fear of WMDs. There was no evidence of WMDs. There were plenty of people saying there weren't at the time, we just didn't hear it. We know now that both George Bush and John Howard had reports that there was no evidence of nuclear/biological/chemical weapons and yet we went in anyway. Therefore we need to ask ourselves why?
If Bush was getting reports that there were weapons but also reports that there weren't then he needed another reason to go to war. B's already listed a few them, although I'd like to add that George Bush needed to take the focus of Afghanistan because he couldn't find Bin Laden. I believe there were many factors that lead to the invasion - we were fed weapons of Mass Destruction because fear motivates us more than anything else.
If Bush was motivated by the need to help people in countries riddled by violence then perhaps he could have started in Sudan.
I'd also like to point out that Saddam wasn't actually doing anything wrong at the time of invasion. Iraq was not breaking any laws. Yes, he has a history of some terrible atrocities but the country was more peaceful in 2002 than it is now. The UN peacekeepers and inspectors were in the country (they had to be evacuated before the invasion) and international law (albeit riddled with problems) was in control.
But we invaded - Bush "got him" (the bin Laden he couldn't find but that all American's recognised as the token US enemy) and over 1000 US troops have been killed (obviously nothing compared to civilian casualties). There were no WMDs so of course we say "but isn't it great Saddam's gone - surely you can't want him back in power!", but that is an illegal reason for going to war. That's why it was never used as a justification prior to invasion.
George Bush scares me. I don't care whether he says he's a Christian or not. Hitler (and I'm not comparing the two but bare with me) used "Christian" justification for killing the Jews. The Crusades killed thousands in the name of "God". Israel kills Palestinians and destroys their homes in the name of God. You CANNOT accept everything a leader does simply because they say they are a Christian. If someone puts themselves in a position of leadership, if they ask for our vote then they ask us to judge them. That's what democracy is.
Jimmy's blog: "B, and those who don't believe our leaders actions are Christian, if someone was to pull the scriptures out, they could point out a pile of things about your life that make you a total hypocrites." Personally, I think that argument is crap. As a Christian I do not proport to be perfect, I only attempt to live like Christ and I stuff that up everyday. But when it comes to who I vote for, then I vote by what that person stands by. Bush does not regret Iraq, he stands by it. In my opinion, I don't believe Jesus would have invaded Iraq therefore I don't vote for him. Please explain to me how you choose who to vote for without judging the candidates? Unless of course you blindly vote along party lines regardless.
Jimmy you said, and I agree with you, that you cannot judge whether a person is a Christian or not (and who are we to) because only God knows their heart. But I'm not voting for whether or not a particular person is a Christian, I'm voting for them as a leader. Irrespective of that, doesn't that defeat your argument that you should vote from Bush and Howard because they claim to be Christians? I think you may have disagreed with yourself there Jimmy.
Because the US is so obviously a dominant power in the world I think they have a responsibility to ensure that their foreign policy (the most important foreign policy in the world) is one motivated by compassion. They, above all other countries, need to have the integrity to abide by international law. I don't think Bush is a leader who respects the responsibility that comes with such a powerful position.
Jimmy is right: Kerry stands for some things that as a Christian I do not agree with. However, I need to prioritise when I vote. I need to decide which things are more important to me. Call me a defeatist, but I think it's only a matter of time before homosexual marriages are legal and abortion is an accepted medical practice. I disagree with both of those things but we live in a society that rejects Jesus and we will live in that society until we die. Things will get worse. Frankly, for me, it is more important that the power and authority that we have in this world we use to help the unfortunate and show love. Abortions will happen whether they are legal in every state or not. Homosexual relationships will happen whether we allow them to get married or not. It purely a matter of government endorsement or not, which to me seems trivial next to a death toll into the thousands. We put a gun into the hands of our leaders when we elect them and we say we trust you to shoot who and when it is neccessary. That's the most important issue for me when it comes to thinking who should be the leader of the United States.
But I voted for John Howard. Australia is a very different country to the US. As much as we may not like to admit it we are much smaller, much less effective and much less respected/feared in the world. I think Howard's role is to be a part of the "war on terror" because I think we need to make a stand against it and we need to fight for what is right. We need to do our bit and send our soldiers to disarm and disable terrorist groups. To do that we need to trust the information that comes to us - from the bigger countries which are much more capable (the US). Sometimes that information will be wrong (or manipulated) but for the most part Australia needs to be there making a moral stand. The alternative would be to disengage from world affairs and to become a little lone island that does not earn it's place in the world. Latham was going to pull our troops out of the mess we had a hand in making. I think Australia is a strong country and one that needs to stand up and be counted. Sometime we will make mistakes, sometimes we will be misled, but the alternative renders us useless.
I think the latest US election result is sad. But it's the result all the same and we live with it. I just hope that Bush thinks about what he wants to be remembered for and that perhaps he will continue his mission for "world peace" to the parts of the world where the US does not have vested interests.
