We are Flesh-and-Spirit on a journey to Integral Unity with God.
5 July 2007 - 20 תמוז 5767 by Huw
Whoa! The Australian Prime Minister and his Defense Minister both admit Australia is in Iraq for oil’ but they did it outside the American news cycle.
No no no no! We didn’t mean to be understood to say what you think you’ve just heard. Australian PM denies what he himself, and his own Defense Minister has said.
» Swiss Approve Legal Heroin Program: Reject decriminalised pot. ???
- #» History Now — Finnish Orthodox Church Welcomes and Affirms Gay "Orthodox Rainbow Society" (The Holy Spirit Goes Wherever and Moves as God Wills). Interesting news from Finland.
- #» Obama economic plan aimed at boosting jobs: a new WPA? SIGN ME UP!
- #» Obama shifting gears on Iraq
- #
Roots of Christian Mysticism: Texts from Patristic Era with Commentary by Oliver Clement
Music by Heart: Paperless Songs for Evening Worship by Church Publishing
A People\’s History of the United States: 1492 to Present (P.S.) by Howard Zinn
Powered by Twitter Tools.
Yes, welcome to our crazy world Down Under.
God willing, this is one more nail in the coffin of this appalling Government.
And maybe ours?
All countries pick and choose what fights to become involved in. Even the United Nations was willing to send troops to Yugoslavia and Lebanon, but not to the Sudan. Mind you, that may be an incredible moral blot on the UN, as some argue. However, I suspect that part of the decision is based on the world strategic importance of the Balkans and the Middle East, vs the relative unimportance of the Sudan.
In moral terms, a human being is a human being. But do you really want it to be all or nothing, either the UN gets involved with no country or the UN invades a good 1/2 of the world? And which half would invade which half?
Does the UN send peacekeepers to India, to keep peace between Tamil and Indians and between Pakistanis and Indians? Do they send troops to the Phillipines to mediate between Muslim islands and Christian islands? Does the UN invade North Korea to stop their nuclear weapons or Iran for that matter? Do troops go to Indonesia to protect the Christian minority?
When to use diplomacy and when to use force is not an easy matter. Unless one is a pacifist, one ends up using criteria. And, like it or not, one of the criteria even the UN uses does have to do with resources, and possible repercussions.
Gulf War II needs to reach a resolution. But to say that because resources and possible repercussions were one of the items which entered into the Australian decision that it means that the Australian decision is somehow morally wrong is naive in the least. There are many much better reasons to believe that Gulf War II was a mistaken decision, but the consideration of resources and repercussions is not one of them.
I think the problem actually is that we were told, in fact resources had nothing to do with it.
1) Resources have nothing to do with this.
2) Sadam has (now, currently) weapons of mass destruction.
3) Iraq has (now, currently) ties with terror.
4) Sadam is unjust.
1, 2 and 3 were proved untrue. 3 only came into being after we invaded. 4 Was only true because we put him in power…
That someone should come along and say, no matter how briefly, resources were a consideration only supports the arguments of the anti-war activists.