red kettles
We're getting bunches of fluffy snow here in Chicago (after a night of freezing sleet0, on Dec 1! First snow on Dec 1!

Also, I thought the Salvation Army was generally non-violent? Supporting violent troops in WWII but being non-violent. . similar to the "contradiction" of supporting troops in Iraq but not supporting the war?
--The_Lex Fri Dec 1 10:57:52 2006
The Salvation Army isn't pro-violence, but they aren't out -and-out pacificst either. And, even apart from WW2 being a fight against some absolutely evil ideas and trends, I think there could definately be a "support the troops" feeling independent of the feelings about the conflict, as you suggest.
--Kirk Fri Dec 1 11:05:05 2006
Even though I follow that dichotomy of "supporting the troops but not the way," I still don't totally get it. . .other than it started as a horrible war and a horrible reason for putting our own citizens at risk and it's continually been a horrible war. We shouldn't be risking our citizens (no matter their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, social class, gender, religion, etc. etc.) as for a damn good reason with actual, solid solid evidence for the real good of the world and our nation.
--The_Lex Fri Dec 1 11:13:39 2006
Just ranting. . .if anything.
--The_Lex Fri Dec 1 11:13:48 2006
Brother Butch ... much thanks for the post. 

The Lex ... while I can't officially speak for The Salvation Army, we traditionally don't get involved with the political side of anything. We just try and "meet human needs (whatever they are) in His name (Christ's) without discrimination". Whatever the need, whether it be physical or spiritual. 

We just believe that it is difficult to preach the gospel if basic social service needs aren't taken care of. The Salvaiton Army has used the phrase "Soup, Soap and Salvation" (in that order). 
--Beau Fri Dec 1 11:15:47 2006
"Soup, Soap and Salvation (in that order)", now that's a warming thought. Charity without commitment or expectation.

--ericball Fri Dec 1 11:58:51 2006
Interesting. . .
--The_Lex Fri Dec 1 13:54:53 2006
Lex, man, it sounds like you have some anger about "support our troops" being used and abused as euphemism, or justification, for "support this war". (It's a little confusing, because I was mostly confining my observations to WW2.)

I also think that the Iraq war is a case of the cure being significantly worse than the disease for most parties involved. But then again, I thought the same thing about Afghanistan, and in retrospect it seems like a mission of overthrowing the Taliban and building a nation might have been a good idea, and one that's not receiving enough support because of the huge drain of Iraq.
--Kirk Fri Dec 1 14:16:02 2006
Some of the toughest times for The Salvation Army were the World Wars. As an international organization, we had memberships on all sides of the conflict. And our General had to be the General for the world wide Army. This led to a general approach of continuing support and service to all those in need.
--YELM Fri Dec 1 15:47:53 2006
I was wondering about that very issue! How to continue the war against sin and against human suffering when "total war" is being fought.

Then again, The Salvation Army wasn't unique in that kind of challenge, you hear story about, say, German Coca-Cola, or (more troublingly) Ford during WW2; often the "foreign" group becomes semi-autonomous for a time, and then there's a regrouping after.
--Kirk Fri Dec 1 15:55:49 2006
At least some organization (Salvation Army) realizes that God isn't on one nation's side. =)

Yeah, I'll admit, I have anger about it, but I think that's mainly because I'm pretty angry about the Iraq War, moreso than most American post-9/11 fear mongering type stuff.

I'm pretty ambivalent about the Afghanistan issue, mainly because that country seems to have very different dynamics than Iraq. Seems like Bush admin went, "Oh, this worked here. . .why not go there . .." which makes it even easier for outsiders to make all types of conspiracy theories. Actually, I threw the conspiracy theory part on as an afterthought.

These types of things really make my headache in a certain way, but for some reason, I'm more supportive on the attack on Afghanistan. Maybe because the actual connection to bin Laden and Al Qaeda was a lot more obvious, along with the Taliban's admitting to human rights violations without hesitation because of religion rather than Saddam's sneakier way of doing things that seems to create more issues, in general.

Guess it just seems easier to get behind the Afghanistan attack, but they kinda all the sudden appeared in the news while Iraq had been in the news for years and years and years, so I understood how much harm the US was doing in Iraq, anyway, with the sanctions (or was the oil-for-food corruption causing the problem).

But I've tangentially ruminated enough.
--The_Lex Fri Dec 1 16:12:21 2006
There seems to be little question that Iraq was on the administration's mind well before 9/11. Which, in and of itself isn't terrible, I mean it's bad to say that "this is the war against terror" but Iraq was a certain level of threat to the region. The question was then, how that threat should have been dealt with, and would the resulting situation look anything like the neocons were hoping for.

I mean, if Iraq had turned out the way the Neocons had said it would, I would still have some qualms about one nation or even an alliance moving into another soverign nation, but my objections would be much more muted. The thing is, a lot of us thought it was going to end up pretty much the way it has, a giant violent mess with no end in sight.
--Kirk Fri Dec 1 16:40:27 2006
My question is: was Saddam just a threat because of the corrupt oil-for-food deal? Because otherwise, I can't see the threat there unless he won over some other countries. . .which I guess he kind of did, possibly BECAUSE of the oil-for-food deal or possibly with France/Germany/Russia.

Otherwise, I really just saw Saddam as being very ineffectual, except in his own country. Most of what I saw as trouble coming from Iraq was the CIA or people with the US try to rouse Iraq into taking some kind of negative move. . .to give the US an excuse to strike back.
--The_Lex Fri Dec 1 17:26:38 2006
My grandmother was a "Sally" for 35 years. I also helped when I'd visit with her over long holidays and summers. She moved to Florida with a very ill son and the Salvation Army was the first to offer any help her direction with moral support as that son lived from 1911-1940. She didn't know anyone in Florida, but as a nurse believed that the warmer weather would make life a bit easier for her dying son. I later met some of the Salvation Army volunteers who had been so kind to her then. They were so kind that I enjoyed my time with other fundraising efforts that they did throughout like making quilts to sell. I never see one of those Red Kettles that I don't smile and think back to those years ......
--Rennie Sat Dec 2 09:31:03 2006
Do people forget what Iran's interests are? How about the interests of North Korea? Was Saddam not a dictator who refused to comply with weapons inspectors? Does not a person being stopped by an officer serching his car for drugs say, why? Was that not the same man who wants surrounding neighbors "eliminated?"
Are we not one country?
Then why wouldnt we support the war on terror? Didnt they not bomb us on American soil? Are we not on American soil? Why can I hear some of you saying, "but this, but that.........
When a teacher says this is how it is, there is always that one student who does not believe or understand.
Just because he didnt understand doesnt mean he's right. Does it?




--MDB Sat Apr 14 14:44:38 2007
What business do you have with Israel? Did Israel ever bother you or me? Then why judge them? Why tell our brother of our his mistakes when we dont bother with ours? That sound like denial to me.
What did you say to hurt that person?
How many people have we hurt with our toung?
Are we a good husband?
Did we listen to everything our mother and father told us to do?
What did you do bad when you were growing up?
Are you without blemish?
Have you lied before?
Have you stole before?
How many women have you looked at before?
--MB Sat Apr 14 14:50:40 2007
It's wodnerufl to have you on our side, haha!
--Kayli Tue Sep 6 00:53:21 2011
RYjycV comment2
--discount oem software Thu Jan 12 11:05:56 2012
KdzwYd comment6
--buy cheap oem software Fri Jan 13 06:17:45 2012
N63vxX Comrade kill yourself.
--buy oem software Sun Feb 12 01:28:37 2012
r2DNMP Comrade kill yourself.
--cheap oem software Sun Feb 12 04:55:59 2012
IykVol I think this is a real great blog post.Much thanks again. Really Cool.
--Discount OEM Software Thu Mar 8 05:04:02 2012
U7H9n2 I really enjoy the blog post. Want more.
--Buy Cheap OEM Software Thu Mar 8 06:09:18 2012

Comments Disabled... (Thanks Dirty Rotten Spammers)
Feel free to write kirkjerk at gmail dot com!