Iraq: WSWD? What Should have George W. Done?

[seventil]

As I typed the description of the topic, I realized how crazy it sounded even saying it. To compare the decisions of Bush to Jesus is comical to most, serious to some and not a laughing matter to a few.

Over a bottle of wine (or three) recently I discussed this topic with a fellow Christian friend of mine. It was our conclusion that:

In regards to the Iraq War:

After the 9/11 attack, if George W. would have practiced real Christianity (turning the other cheek, loving your enemy as yourself) he would have made more of an impression on the world.

Think of it: a heartfelt telecast where George says: "Obama, please stop killing Americans. We're angry right now- but we're hating the sin, not you. We aren't going to try and kill you. We are praying for you, and we ask that you stop trying to terrorize us."

The response in America probably would have been terrible. He might have got shot, even. Emotion was so high in American then that people wanted VENGEANCE. (This is a flaw in our society character, but is to be expected). Yeah, people would be mad. Maybe rioting. However, 5 years in the future (like now) people would probably be much, much happier with the war and everything that's been done.

So, questions for debate:

What would have been the world or US reaction to a pacifist solution to the current Iraq War?

Could this ever happen? Would America allow a pacifist solution to a scenario like this?

Is it Biblically justified to do what we're doing in Iraq currently?

[McCulloch]

Here's another flash for you: Hillary (Mama and Obama) will not win the White House in 2008. America has wised up to the radical left's nonsense.

Is that a prophetic utterance or is that just your opinion? After putting W in the White house 1 times, I seriously doubt the collective wisdom of the American electorate.

1 1/2 times? Was there ever a recount in Florida you people won?

Regardless of the counting, judicial process or recounting, the record states that GWB only had the confidence of very close to 50% of the American voters in 2000. This highlights one of the weaknesses of the winner takes all type of representative democracy. The rest of the world looks upon your rhetoric with some amusement. The American political scene does not have a radical left. The policies of what you call the radical left, if placed in the context of any other world democracy would seem quite moderate and middle of the road.

[opus49]

...the record states that GWB only had the confidence of very close to 50% of the American voters in 2000.

You do realize Clinton never had a plurality? So what's your point?

[McCulloch]

...the record states that GWB only had the confidence of very close to 50% of the American voters in 2000.

You do realize Clinton never had a plurality? So what's your point?

Yes, a significant number of the Presidents did not adequately represent the voters. That is the point. The presidential system does not serve democracy well.

[opus49]

Yes, a significant number of the Presidents did not adequately represent the voters. That is the point. The presidential system does not serve democracy well.

Crap, I missed the leaf. Just goes to show how xenocentric your neighbors to the south are. I'm happy that you Canadians can sit there amused by our style of government.

By the way, how's Quebec?

[McCulloch]

By the way, how's Quebec?

As soon as they decide that they want to separate, they can. We give the separatists legitimate representation and a forum to speak. We're not going to fight a war to keep them from deciding their own destiny. It would also make my job easier, not having to make French versions of every web site.