Friday, March 17, 2006

Do Unto Others Before They Can Do It Unto You

I haven't had much time to blog this week, but I heard this and had to say something.

From our president:

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction -- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

This is like me saying that if I think someone who doesn't like me is planning to do me some harm--even if it's just a rumor, I can go over to his house and take him out before he can hurt me.

Yesterday afternoon I heard part of an interview on NPR in which a Catholic priest, a person who calls himself a Christian, advocated this doctrine. I was sickened by what I heard. You can listen to the entire interview here.

How long will it be before the government uses this doctrine against its own citizens?


Tony Arnold said...

JMG, your assuming the government hasn't done this to its own citizens?

OK that was a sarcastic question slapping the Bush admin and not meant for JMG. Around the "water cooler", I have heard many suggest that Bush's recent rhetoric and the reports out of Iran are part of the Admin's prepping the public for an Iran invasion. I am not saying this but it clearly shows what many think Bush is willing to do. The statement in your post just adds credibility to those perceptions.

I just had a scary thought--what if this doctrine had been applied duing the Cold War? What if Bush had been President during the Cold War?

I bet global warming wouldn't be much of an issue. Nuclear winter on the other hand...


jettybetty said...

I had just been thinking about this--in fact--I was going to write something on this.

This thought process has become pervasive in our society--I am afraid it has become accepted as Christian or something. People live their lives (not just politicians) with the goal of getting someone else before that person can get them. I even read a blog post (this one is political) last week that suggested "turning the other cheek" was wrong! (BTW--I am not trying to make fun of anyone--I probably could have said the same thing not too long ago--it just looks crazy to me now--and I am sure my theology is messed up somewhere--so I don't want to suggest I am even close to figuring out everything.)

I've also heard the same water cooler rumors--it seems lots of people are beginning to think that another war would raise popularity numbers--popularity is obviously more important than doing the right thing. *sigh*

JMG said...

Yeah, Tony, I'm probably making too big an assumption there.

And I don't think an Iran invasion is what will happen. We'll probably nuke them instead.

Ayatollah Mugsy said...

If our wise leader does decide to invade Iran, we must all support him. To do anything else would be unpatriotic. And besides, look at the peace and prosperity that have blossomed in Iraq as a result of our preemptive invasion there. Not to mention all the weapons of mass destruction that we took off the streets.

JMG said...

You always say the right things to make me feel better, Mugsy.

jettybetty said...

Well if we nuke Iran--we would do it because we have to nuke them or they will nuke us! Right???

JMG said...

I guess that's the theory, JB.

Purgatory Penman said...

What I don't understand is how so many Christians are still supporting his administration. There are good, Christian people in my family who think "Our Great Leader" is a man of God. Statements such as the one quoted should disprove that belief.

It is really scary.