The Gamble of War

In Canadian politics there are usually three sides: Conservative, Liberal, and NDP. Each one has a different view on how the country should be run. They also have a different view on protecting this world. The Conservative is aggressive while the other two wait for trouble to come to us. There is no difference in the United States. I guess there are two types of people: one looks outside the box and the other is comfortable in it and that is a gamble for both.

            Let’s look at both sides of this war debate. Should we be proactive or reactive? The USA has traditionally been reactive in history. Look at Pearl Harbor, 9/11, and even the currant Isis trouble in Iraq. I know it’s not their fault but in every case they were asked to help way before the trouble got bad. It’s funny that some people think the USA sticks it’s nose into all world affairs because traditionally they would rather not.

            In Canada we are the same way. We pride ourselves on keeping the peace but we are called to so much more every time. Again, it’s not our fault, but trouble in world affairs needs a referee: that is Canada. The real trouble for North American governments is the war of popularity at home. We don’t experience war here on our own soil. People think we are fairly safe. Again that’s funny considering Pearl Harbor and 9/11. I believe these two governments are called on by the world to gamble with war.

            What would the world look like if 40 countries told the terrorists “enough is enough.” What would happen if we did exactly what the Romans did in the Movie Ben Hur. They crucified a thousand rebels and lined their crosses down the road to Rome to deter new uprisings. What if we beheaded a thousand terrorists and lined there rotting corpses outside of Baghdad?  It seems cruel and I can hear the humanitarians cry of “love first”, but let’s face it: evil doesn't give a dam about love. Talk to the beheaded guys, raped girls, and abused children from the Isis terrorist group.

            What does God have to say about this topic of passive/aggressive? Two things, one is that God gets a bad rap in the Old Testament. He ordered the killing of a whole race to protect the people. Is it cruel, un-moralistic, and rather uncaring for woman and children to be wiped out? Yes it is, and in a perfect world sure, but I can guarantee you that the Isis terrorist group was children of former terrorists. Monkey see monkey do. Jesus also said the world hated me first before it hated believers. That means there is evil in this world that does not give a dam about idealistic love.

            So where does that leave us? War is a gamble. We protect what we have by being proactive in love towards others. We don’t have to kill the woman and children of terrorists. That’s not what I am saying. I am saying that it will take more time and money to reeducate a generation in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan for starts. It takes a village to raise a child and to create a healthy village would take a generation. The gamble is that popularity to do that is low. Popularity to lose lives and money for the cause of another country is low. The gamble with popularity is that how can we protect ourselves from another Pearl Harbor, save money, and save lives all at the same time? History shows us that we can’t because evil does not give a dam if it’s popular.