Politicians and pundits have been debating how to respond to the Egyptian crisis. Who should we throw our support behind?
In the words of one protester, "We believe America is against us."
It seems to me that there's a simple formula we can apply in foreign policy: We're for you if you're for us.
We shouldn't give any particular faction carte blanche. It's a two-way street. Whether or not we're against them depends on whether or not they're against us.
Good word.
ReplyDeleteEven if they are for us, we can't afford to give them $2,000,000,000 a year any longer.
What a mess over there. Some workers make only $2 a day in Egypt. That's incredible.
May the Gospel go go forth in Egypt.
What if someone unsavory, say an Idi Amin", or a Stalin is 'for us'; how do we filter out those 'for us', from those we'd like not to be 'for us'?
ReplyDeleteActually, we did form a military alliance with Stalin in WWII.
ReplyDeleteSteve said: "Actually, we did form a military alliance with Stalin in WWII."
ReplyDeleteYes, unfortunately (hence the example).
Still your suggestion for this type of foreign-relations litmus test strikes me as practical, but is there some equally practical way of dealing with the apparent fly in the ointment, or is there a fly in the ointment?
At the same time, if some unexpected graciousness is shown towards them, maybe they will reconsider their attitude towards the US?
ReplyDeleteI do not have in mind precisely what that would look like in practice but the opening post is also at the same level of generality.
"At the same time, if some unexpected graciousness is shown towards them, maybe they will reconsider their attitude towards the US?"
ReplyDeleteWe could preach Christ to them, and give them copies of the NT: Or perhaps just the book of Mark; for a start.
I have a feeling they might reject this "graciousness", for the most part.
They do say that the Word is spreading in Iran however, in a great way.
ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑ SAID:
ReplyDelete"What if someone unsavory, say an Idi Amin", or a Stalin is 'for us'; how do we filter out those 'for us', from those we'd like not to be 'for us'?"
Keep in mind that my principle isn't limited to a head-of-state, over against the populace.
Steve said: "Keep in mind that my principle isn't limited to a head-of-state, over against the populace."
ReplyDeleteOk, fair enough.
But lets say (without naming the country) that some undesirable democratic country wants to be 'for us', and it is clear their values are not Christian values (or perhaps even moral); is it legitimate to disallow a country to be 'for us' though they wish to be?