In his masterpiece On War, the 19th century Prussian general Karl von Clausewitz's described war as a "continuation of politics by other means.” Some political pundits appear to take a similar view, treating war—particularly the war on terror—as merely a continuation of partisan politics by other means.
Consider, for example, a recent article in The New Republic by Cass Sunstein, a contributing editor and professor at the University of Chicago. Sunstein attempts to present a pared down social science argument that could be outlined as:
Premise 1: Talk of terrorism reminds people of their own mortality.
Premise 2: Being reminded of one’s own mortality affects decision making.
Premise 3: When people are reminded of their own morality they show stronger support for President Bush and his policies in Iraq.
Conclusion: Talk of terrorism will affect people’s decision making, leading them to favor Bush -- or Republican candidates in general.
Cass believes there are two explanations for why this issue favors Republicans. Either (a) the GOP has made a more convincing case that they are stronger on national security or (b) “visceral fear and outrage lead people to support the leader who seems firmer, stronger, and more aggressive.” The Democrats therefore have two choices for responding. According to Cass, if (a) then “…the Democrats' task is to convince people, through reasoned arguments, that they are likely to be safer with Democrats at the helm….” If (b) then the proper Democratic response is somewhat different. It is to show the same kind of firmness and resolve--and capacity for aggression--that people have associated with Bush.”
After pointing out that the Democrats either need better rhetoric or to become better poseurs, Sunstein concludes:
If the 2004 data predict behavior, many undecided, moderate, and even liberal voters will be moved in the Republican direction by any news about terrorism--whether it is good, bad, or indifferent. Democratic prospects in 2006 and 2008 will look much better if they can alter the underlying dynamics--or, short of that, try to keep terrorism out of the news.
Let’s first clear up a misunderstanding about Suntein's article. On reading that last line Hugh Hewitt said, “This is, I think, an incredible admission against interest. It is jarring to see a widely respected scholar bluntly counsel the Democratic party that it needs to turn the conversation away from terrorism because terrorism is a losing issue for the party.”
I have to disagree, and encourage Hugh to give that last paragraph with a more generous reading. Sunstein is obviously being facetious. Even the liberal media would have a difficult time keeping significant acts of terrorism “out of the news.”
But while I don’t think that Sunstein is arguing that Democrats should engage in subversive censorship, what he counsels is nearly as nefarious. The underlying theme is that terrorism is an issue that merely needs to be “reframed.” Like educational policy or welfare reform, terrorism is viewed as a matter which can be divided along partisan lines. Democrats just need to find a way to present the issue that is more palatable to the American people.
In a similar manner, Kevin Drum fears providing aid and comfort to the enemy – the enemy, of course, being President Bush. In a review of Peter Beinhart’s The Good Fight, Drum says:
I don't think the evidence is quite as damning as Beinart makes it out to be, but poll after poll makes it clear that at the very least the war on terror doesn't rank very high on the list of things liberals care about these days….On the one hand, I think Beinart is exactly right. For example, should I be more vocal in denouncing Iran? Sure. It's a repressive, misogynistic, theocratic, terrorist-sponsoring state that stands for everything I stand against. Of course I should speak out against them.
And yet, I know perfectly well that criticism of Iran is not just criticism of Iran. Whether I want it to or not, it also provides support for the Bush administration's determined and deliberate effort to whip up enthusiasm for a military strike. Only a naif would view criticism of Iran in a vacuum, without also seeing the way it will be used by an administration that has demonstrated time and again that it can't be trusted to act wisely.
So what to do? For the most part, I end up saying very little. And Beinart is right: there's a sense in which that betrays my own liberal ideals. But he's also wrong, because like it or not, my words — and those of other liberals — would end up being used to advance George Bush's distinctly illiberal ends. And I'm simply not willing to be a pawn in the Bush administration's latest marketing campaign.
Drum is so constrained by partisanship that he has become more concerned about “being a pawn in the Bush administration's latest marketing campaign” than he is in a despotic and dangerous regime acquiring nuclear weapons. Sadly, Drum—a generally moderate liberal—is representative of a larger movement.
Hatred for George W. Bush has become the defining theme of modern American liberalism, pushing aside all other issues. If Bush were to suddenly announce that he supported abortion, gay rights, flag-burning, and handgun confiscation, we would see a massive political shift. The entire American Left would suddenly become a cadre of pro-life, homophobic, flag-waving, NRA members.
Terrorism, though, is not just another domestic issue. No one dies if Congress opposes voucher programs or same-sex marriage. But thousands of Americans have died because of acts of terrorism. Whether they rely on rhetoric and reframing or simply recoil from responsibility, the Democrats have proven time and again that they are not serious about dealing with terrorism. They have made it abundantly clear that they cannot be trusted with the security of our nation. We cannot afford to give the reigns of power over to a party that is more concerned with hurting Bush than protecting our people, more concerned with partisanry than patriotism.
(HT: The Anchoress)
1
It seems so obvious to us, but add to it some response from C&L or Kos. It will add to your evidence that "reason" is not what the Lib/Left world is about today.
Collin
http://www.evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
2
I have a completely different take on the difference between the response of the left and right to the "war" on "terror". And reason is absolutely what the left is about. If fact, under certain statistical circumstances, theirs is the only reasonable approach.
The left, quite correctly, understands that the real, personal risk of terrorism in the US is extremely small. Even if one lives in, say, San Francisco - a city which I have no doubt the Islamic loons would love to strike, what with its in-your-face gay ambiance - the odds that one will happen to be crossing the GG Bridge at the very moment some Isloon decides to take it down is vanishingly small. And, after all, it is a symbol of Western homophobic patriarchial privileged white male hegemony, right? And there would be the opportunity to bash the Bush administration for not rebuilding it the day after tomorrow. Look at the traffic!! But it likely won't happen to me. Very reasonable and why we are all willing to hop in our cars and drive on the freeways for a quart of milk. The absolute risk is very low to us personally.
The right has a very different take on the absolute risk. Included in the sample are the innocent victims in Haifa and Beirut, as well as those people who may just happen to be on the GG Bridge at the wrong moment. It's not just important whether I'm likely to get killed but also whether anybody is likely to get killed. Not just me, but any innocent person. Now if one's worldview is more-or-less solipsistic, then one is likely to be highly critical of anything unpleasant to be endured whose positive effects will likely benefit only someone else. There are many examples of solipsistic indulgences on the left (e.g., having two of triplets aborted because one lives in a walk-up and loathes the idea of buying mayonnaise at Costco, or taking down a religious symbol comforting to many because it irritates me).
There are those who favor the Patriot Act, NSA wiretapping, killing terrorists on foreign soil instead of American streets, and keeping Isloons behind barbed wire in Cuba because they don't want them to kill anybody else, either. If Dick Cheney happens to hear me discussing the grocery needs of Auntie Maude, it's worth it if it helps save a life in Chicago, even though Auntie and I may live in Poughkeepsie. Obviously a completely different, other-directed take on the expected value equation.
But suppose whe alter the ststistical circumstances... Let's take airport profiling and do a thought experiment. Imagine (if necessary) you are a leftist. At the moment, you happen to be in O'Hare on a Monday morning. You have a flight to catch and financial losses to incur if you are significantly delayed. It is announced that the authorities have discovered, without a shadow of a doubt, that somewhere in O'Hare is a terrorist that plans to blow up a plane. But it isn't clear which flight. The authorities are going to lock the doors and everybody is going to be confined to the terminals until the guilty party is found. Individual interviews and interrogations are to begin immediately and continue as long as necessary. With whom should they begin?
posted on 08.24.2006 8:07 AM3
Joe:
I have but little interest per se in US follytricks -- having been totally ticked off by follytricks gone mad in JA back in the 70s-80's. But, when follytricks begins to mess up serious business and/or our minds, we do need to set a few points straight.
Here, we need to get the business of Jihadism straight. For that, let us consider, as I presented recently:
Surah 9:29 - 31:
“Fight those who believe not in God [i.e. Allah] nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle [i.e. Mohammed] , nor acknowledge the religion of truth [i.e. Islam], (even if they are) of the people of the Book [i.e. Jews and Christians], until they pay the jizya [tax on non-Muslims who submit to Muslim rule] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
--> This is of course among the last of the Surahs, maybe the very last.
--> The message is plain, and without limit, and easily explains the hisytorical pattern of hte past 1,400 years as both those who stopped the Western advances in France/Spain and Central Europe, and in India can testify: whenever Islam has been relatively strong and united, it has been expansionist.
--> In that context, we should understand that in Islamist eyes, after the Cold War, the Western power s in 628, exhausted itself in defeating the Eastern one. Within a decade in the 630's Islam surged.
--> Further tot his, on the example of the Prophet of Islam, and his teachings, treaties with Infifddels are pauses to regain strength to renew the advance. Any excuse that the infidels have broken the truce will do -- NB the Shaba Farms shabby excuse for Hizbollah recently.
--> Historically, it is only by Islam being demonstrably "the weak horse" that this pattern has paused for any lengthy interval, as since the last turkish seige of Vienna in 1683.
--> in that context, you Americans had better beware of making yourselves into the weak horse, as hte onward deleterious effects of the Vietnam syndeome work themselves out.
As the Greeks used to say, a word tot he wise is sufficient.
GEM
posted on 08.24.2006 8:41 AM
4
"Drum is so constrained by partisanship that he has become more concerned about 'being a pawn in the Bush administration's latest marketing campaign' than he is in a despotic and dangerous regime acquiring nuclear weapons."
- Because above all else, a liberal is a liberal FIRST.
posted on 08.24.2006 9:14 AM5
As somebody who's posting at Kos has been blowing away your traffic lately (when's the last time you had as many comments as I 've had here?) please allow me to respond.
First of all, if people dislike Bush it's for a reason: Bush hates us for our freedom. Bush has nothing but contempt for the law as witnessed by his "signing statements." The NSA case is a plain violation of the law, regardless of whether you thought the opinion was badly worded.
Next on to "terrorism." I have previously covered the topic, to a much wider audience than yours here.
Most Americans are coming around to this point of view: "Terrorism" isn't even the right word to use, and it's use for political manipulation is repugnant, and the evidence is there in spades that not only has the Bush regime been manipulating this issue to attempt to gain an advantage, but they have also made us less safe and secure in the process (witness recent complaints by the Brits that they didn't want to make the arrests when they did because they were still trying to make a case, but were forced to do so by "American pressure.").
And then there's the airport security nonsense. Republicans have made us less safe and secure. It was Republicans that failed to heed the Aug. 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing.
And then there's Iraq.
Your partisan nonsense aside, it is now objectively true that Republicans have compromised our security, made us less safe, and have committed and omitted acts that have directly led to the death of thousands of Americans.
For once in your life, sir, take responsibility.
The blood is on yours and all supporters of the Republicans.
Have you no decency?
posted on 08.24.2006 9:38 AM6
Everyone once in a while I attempt to put down my right-wing-extremist-koolaid and try to look at things from the left's perspective. But try as I might I can't make sense of their worldview.
7
The difference between Democrat and Republican is this: One scares folks into believing they need the protection of a huge welfare state, the other scares people into believing they need the protection of a huge warfare state.
The two parties need each other because both need a huge overweening state in order to have their power, control and position. It is the presupposition of all public "debate".
Murray Rothbard was the first I read that pointed out that the welfare/warfare state is one thing supported by one party (the party of big government, the Republicrats) with two wings, left and right.
When we get too much of one the other gains power, but in the process the people constantly lose liberty. Its a rigged game.
The sooner we understand that the sooner we will stop being surprised by how much both sides are the enemy of Constitutional, limited gov't, and of our liberties. Christians should have a more radical solution. The reduction of the state to stakly limited biblical responsibilites instead of being the messiah, and the preaching and living out the Gospel that sets men free.
posted on 08.24.2006 9:45 AM8
Amen, Joe. The democrats are way off base here. It is a war -- a global war -- against principles of darkness. It is not a police matter as the previous administration portrayed it. And that is exactly how future democratic administrations (perish the thought!) will portray it. We must do everything possible to insure that republicans remain in leadership in congress and that republicans retain the White House in 2008. Until democrats allow those with a Christian worldview the marjority voice in their party they cannot be trusted with control of our government.
posted on 08.24.2006 10:07 AM9
Terrorism, though, is not just another domestic issue. No one dies if Congress opposes voucher programs or same-sex marriage. But thousands of Americans have died because of acts of terrorism. Whether they rely on rhetoric and reframing or simply recoil from responsibility, the Democrats have proven time and again that they are not serious about dealing with terrorism.
Indeed, vote Republican or DIE.
Next wonder why liberals and an increasing portion of the public has this bizaar, irrational 'hate' of George Bush? I think the more important question is why people like Joe have an irrational love of George Bush. Any criticism of Bush, no matter how legitimate, is framed as though it was some type of mental illness (gee, why do you hate our President so much?) or just selfish politics.
Notice, for example, how Joe completly overlooked the fact that Drum was quite clear why he was silent on Iran. Because he thought a military strike would be a diasterous policy and this administration couldn't be trust to not do the stupid thing. (I take a different view, Bush has so overextended ourselves with this Iraq mess that he isn't going to engage in any more military adventures anywhere...instead his energy will be on explaining why it made sense to invade Iraq for 'freedom' but not everywhere else like Iran, Syria, N. Korea etc.).
posted on 08.24.2006 10:13 AM10
Liberals hated Bush in November, 2000, when Gore lost the election in Florida, about 10 months before 9/11 and almost 3 years before Iraq. Liberals disdained Bush as a candidate for his faith, and the fact that he is from Texas, and therefore southern, inbred, inarticulate, uneducated. The fact that he is none of these things, okay, maybe he could be more articulate.
Bush represents more than a departure from the policies of Democrats, he represents a departure from all previous presidents with regard to terrorism and the Arab nations. That includes his father and Reagan.
As far as military strikes are concerned, Iraq makes a lot of sense. It's geographically central to the Islamic nations, and it's close to Iran. In a pinch, the 150,000 or so troops in Iraq could be marched across the border into Iran, after sufficient shock and awe. The Shi'a in Iraq will be insignificant if Iran is bombed into the dark ages. Hezbollah becomes manageable without Iran.
Iraq's contribution to terrorism is at best overlooked by liberals, and at worst, represents an enduring lie of the liberal. Saddam exported terroism by supporting Palestinian terrorists, had contact with Al Quaeda with initial limited support that could possible expand. He also had a ongoing WMD program that was probably exported to Syria in the months that Bush wasted with UN resolutions at the insistence of liberal Democrats. And Joe Wilson's lie notwithstanding, Saddam was working on a nuclear program.
Which only makes sense. Iran's nuclear ambitions were known in the region, and Saddam had a lot of reason to counter Iran.
As far as being overextended and unable to invade Iran, Syria, N. Korea, et al., the forces in Iraq represent less than 10% of our armed forces. Any strike on N. Korea will not involve ground forces for at least a week, if we can even imagine that the U.S. would be so bold on China's border. Ain't gonna happen. Any suggestion made otherwise is either insanity or Democratic attempts to give Kim a reason not to negotiate.
Syria is a minor cockroach and would fall in less than a week. Iran, see the comments above on positioning to strike against Iran.
Iraq could be easily managed if we stopped trying to be nice. Isolate Baghdad from the Shi'a and vice versa, and sectarian violence disappears. Kill Sadr and his militia, and other militias start to scatter. Or bomb them if they don't. All of which would be justifiable if an invasion of Iran was necesssary.
Liberals have given terrorist the impression that Bush can be defeated at home. Liberals have given terrorist the impression that American support for Israel can be terminated, or at least diminished.
Thanks so much, Kerry, Dean, Lamont, et al.
posted on 08.24.2006 11:13 AM11
Joe,
Bush Jr., either through incompetence or malfeasance, has the blood of thousands of Americans and many more thousands of Iraqis on his hands. He has destabilized the Middle East, strengthened Iraq, weakened our alliances and over-extended our military.
The pertinent question is therefore - why do you focus your efforts onto understanding why people dislike this president, rather than onto the much more interesting question why some people continue to support him?
12
Being British, I regard US political divisions at a distance. I am quite bemused by the rabid hostility shown by the left towards the right; it is reminiscent, though, of the hostility shown by the British left towards Margaret Thatcher. I think the reason for both is that Bush and Thatcher both tried (successfully?) to move the political debate away from ground that the left had colonised and regarded as their own.
The British left didn't mind much when the Conservatives took over from Labour in 1951 (Churchill's last government); they minded a bit more in 1970 (Edward Heath); in both those cases, the Conservative Party did not wish to make a great upset in the arrangement of society. However, in 1979 (Margaret Thatcher) they spoke and behaved as if a police state had been proclaimed and the Gestapo would be calling on them the next morning. Mrs Thatcher's main crime in their eyes was her determination to break the power of the Trade Unions over the state. The Trade Unions were traditionally associated with and were the main funders (and founders) of the Labour Party.
There was not then, as there is now in the US, any religious component to British politics. The Church of England, was possibly Conservative in its membership but Labour or Liberal in its clergy; the non-conformist churches had traditionally been left-wing throughout. In Mrs Thatcher's case, the religious establishment was lined up against her -- with no apparent effect. No one thought that religious issues were at all significant in politics.
Is it then the case that the left-wing hostility to Bush in the US has a religious (or anti-religious) basis? or is it because he is cutting away the left's power-base?
The fact that President Bush claims to be a believer raises some further questions:
I wonder if it is possible to be faithful to Jesus and also a successful politician? Is it possible to be successful in politics without lying and cheating and doing down your rivals? If you do those things, of course, you cannot be obeying the Lord.
Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world. How far then should Christians get involved in politics, which is very definitely of this world?
I think it is notable that none of the New Testament letters make any suggestion that Christians should try to be involved in the institutions of society.
13
Scott:
Wow! How many falsehoods can you cram into one comment?
Liberals hated Bush in November, 2000, when Gore lost the election in Florida,
Gore didn't lose the election in Florida...
Liberals disdained Bush as a candidate for his faith...
Yeah, that's why we just hate the present governor of Virginia, Barack Obama, and a host of other people of faith...
...and the fact that he is from Texas, and therefore southern, inbred, inarticulate, uneducated...
Bush is from Connecticut originally. And we have nothing against folks like Jim Hightower and Nick Lampson. Or Molly Ivins, so stop the victim routine...
Bush represents more than a departure from the policies of Democrats, he represents a departure from all previous presidents with regard to terrorism and the Arab nations. That includes his father and Reagan.
Well, an inadvertant truth, wrapped in some nonsense: Yes Bush's policies are a deaprture from precedents. Precedents were based on reality. Bush's is based on ... PowerPoint
... Iraq makes a lot of sense...
Iraq is a civil war.
In a pinch, the 150,000 or so troops in Iraq could be marched across the border into Iran, after sufficient shock and awe...Iran is bombed into the dark ages.
Pro-genocide. That's the Bush policy. Wonderful.
...the forces in Iraq represent less than 10% of our armed forces...
Many of whom are committed in other areas. You'll be hard pressed to get the staff of carrier battle groups to suddenly become infantry, but don't let little things like facts change your mind...
Repugnant. Utterly repugnant.
posted on 08.24.2006 11:51 AM14
Mumon:
You imply that popularity (as measured in traffic and audience size) makes your opinion more valid, more accurate, more true. You may be disappointed to know that truth is not determined by popularity. It does not validate the rest of your statements, which you do not attempt support by any reasoned arguments.
Boonton:
It is not "Vote Republican or die." I think Democrats such as Joe Leiberman or Zell Miller, indeed any Democrats that follow in the tradition of Harry Truman and JFK, could gain a lot of Republican support.
Also, Drum did not say a military strike on Iran would be "disasterous" (sic) or stupid". He does say "it can't be trusted to act wisely", although he does not define what a wise policy toward Iran would consist of. But that seems secondary to his mail point, which is "like it or not, my words — and those of other liberals — would end up being used to advance George Bush's distinctly illiberal ends." In other words, he is unwilling to express publicly that "It's a repressive, misogynistic, theocratic, terrorist-sponsoring state that stands for everything I stand against" because Bush would make the same characterization.
What is one to think of a person or party that will not express it's convictions because their opponent shares some of the same convictions?
posted on 08.24.2006 12:02 PM15
Congrats on making the DKos "Recommended List" mumon. That was a major accomplishment. Very well done.
And Joe, citing a TNR writer as a source of credible opinion is like finding a potato shaped like Jesus and thinking you've seen the Second Coming.
Right now, the Democratic Party is offering a number of clear alternatives to "stay the course." Which is a good thing, since nobody in the administration appears able to define what the course is.
posted on 08.24.2006 12:07 PM16
Troy:
No, I don't have any such implication. I would submit though that what I say resonates with more people than with what Joe Carter says, because what I happen to say is based on facts, and Joe Carter's statements simply are not.
Raven:
Thanks. Folks like Carter and other Bush apologists will say, "Nobody could have predicted a water shortage" when water prices go through the roof.
As I noted over at Kos, the whole talk of "terrorism" is itself a misnomer: it's really conservative extremist religious criminal and insurgent activity. I don't get afraid of things like 9/11; some folks do, but they're the ones receptive to the FEAR FEAR FEAR conservative message.
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself, Roosevelt said, and rightly. Bush is no Roosevelt just as Blair is no Churchill. People are seeing through this nonsense. (The recent ban on liquids is absurd on its face, and people are, I think starting to get it.)
posted on 08.24.2006 12:16 PM17
Oh, and Troy?
Lieberman is no longer a Democrat, based on his recent ballot identification in CT. He's "Connecticut for Lieberman."
One other thing: Iran can be engaged, and engaged wisely ethically, and for the present wtithout violence, but Bush has not done that.
posted on 08.24.2006 12:21 PM18
Mumon,
1. Gore lost Florida. The Times, the Post, and the Wall Street Journal conducted a joint effor to recount the votes.. The Times and the Post didn't publish the results because Bush won. Close, yes, but Bush won. The lie that Bush lost Florida is more liberal nonsense and conspiracy theories. The Jews, with the Trilateral Commission and Knight Templar stole the election. See
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sep2001/nyt-s25.shtml
Bush was disdained for his conservative evangelical faith, kinda like you are doing now.
"Bush is from Connecticut..." Which is why I wrote "none of which is true." You might read that again.
"Precedent were based on reality." The reality is that the U.S. refused to confront terrorism until Bush. Beirut, the Cole, etc. Cut and run, kinda like the liberals are still advocating. And that can be a reality. Attacking our enemies is another reality.
"Iraq makes a lot of sense..." It may be a civil war now, but it was not at the time. Liberal opposition to the war has emboldened our enemies, and the conflict has become a sectarian issue. However, it is becoming a civil war because Al Queada decided that terrorism could be used to start the civil war, which might further erode American support, and fan the flames of cut and run. Which seems to be working for you liberals. You are equating cause and effect in Iraq because it helps your liberal cause. Sectarian violence is becoming the "effect", not the "cause." Difficult concept, there, so read slowly and move your lips a lot. It might help.
Pro-genocide. Not sure where that come from. Must be your new word of the day. Iran has identified themselves as an enemy of the US and our allies in the region. It appears that they are using their technology to control the region, with a state goal of destroying the U.S. and Israel (and England, Germany, all of Europe, controlling Saudi Arabia, and so on.) So assume that they really want to attack us, and maybe do so. Then we protect ourselves and allies by a military strike, see, and bomb the technology that threatened us. More difficult concepts here, so re-read the paragraph. The "dark ages" description may be a little harsh, but nowhere does it indicate a desire to eradicate Persians, or even Shi'a from the earth. As opposed to Iran's stated goal of eradicating Jews. So genocide is an aspect, but not from this side of the aisle.
Your post is pretty much proof of what Joe wrote"Hatred for George W. Bush has become the defining theme of modern American liberalism, pushing aside all other issues. You, for example, are willing to lie about those with whom you disagree to make your point.
posted on 08.24.2006 12:49 PM19
Mumon, forgot to deal with your last inanity. The commitment of our troops in other theaters is based on our perception of need in those areas vs. our needs in Iraq, or Iran, if needed. If our perception of need changes, then our commitment levels might change too, see. Then we might increase the number of troops in the Mid East.
If Iran drops the big one, our perceptions will change pretty much instantaneously.
posted on 08.24.2006 12:56 PM20
Scott :
Nope. By any measure of recounting Gore would have won Florida. Period.
Rather odd link you have there...
What "evangelical" faith does Bush have? The one that causes him to engage in wars that are condemned as immoral by Christian leaders 'round the world?
Re "terrorism": There is no such thing, except for those who, like Bush and bin Laden, want people to be afraid. Americans are made of sterner stuff than that.
It's conservative religious violence we fight against. And you're either with us or against us.
Which side are you on?
Liberal opposition to the war has emboldened our enemies...
No - and Bush's own generals say differently.
Get your head out of repugnant talking points and educate yourself.
Pro-genocide. Not sure where that come from.
If you going to "bomb Iran into the Dark Ages," you're going to kill a lot of innocent people. That's genocide.
...Iran's stated goal of eradicating Jews...
Reference?
Ahdimenijad denied the Holocaust, to be sure, but he could have been responded to precisely on that point (he had actually implied that if it did not take place that would invalidate Israel's right to exist, which would suggest a converse statement could have been coaxed out of him).
posted on 08.24.2006 1:10 PM21
Scott...forgot to deal with your last inanity.
The commitment of our troops in other theaters is based on our perception of need in those areas vs. our needs in Iraq, or Iran, if needed.
LOL! Let's see a plan from you- more detailed than the PowerPoint slides Rumsfeld's office has been using...to transition carrier battle groups into infantry...
posted on 08.24.2006 1:12 PM22
It may be a civil war now, but it was not at the time. Liberal opposition to the war has emboldened our enemies, and the conflict has become a sectarian issue.
Wow, there was less dissent on the Iraq war than there was for the first Gulf War. That's not enough. Like a 19th Century spiritualist who blames her inability to summon ghosts for the skeptic on 'a doubter in the room', we are now told that Bush's policies would have worked perfectly if only liberals had believed in them harder!
No controlling the White House and Congress was not enough. Being Commander of the entire military was insufficient. As long as one old hippie sitting in Seattle eating Ben & Jerry's ice cream doubts the Bush-god his super wise policies will not work as well as they should!
Keep sipping the Kool-aid, you're not convincing anyone of anything but you are showing us how foolish the right has become.
posted on 08.24.2006 1:23 PM23
Boonton:
Wow, there was less dissent on the Iraq war than there was for the first Gulf War.
Not strictly true; in the media, it was all gung-ho to a point that verged on absurdity, and made great fodder for Jon Stewart.
But hundreds of thousands of people were in the streets, including myself; I had predicted that this would evolve into the violence in Palestine but on a scale an order of magnitude larger. I have been proven correct.
posted on 08.24.2006 1:32 PM24
Mumon,
I still disagree. Yes there were street protests but there were also street protests against the first Gulf War and they seemed more vocal and more numerous. I'm just basing that by memory (I was in High School at the time) but overall I think there was less opposition to the Iraq war than the Gulf War...which is ironic since the Gulf War had many more 'selling points' for it IMO.
posted on 08.24.2006 1:40 PM25
Boonton:
Public support for Gulf War I was over 85%; for Iraq it was (intially) about 66-75%.
There was about 100K people protesting in NYC alone; and a similar number in Portland OR. Those are just 2 that I remember.
And all over the world, millions protested.
But the propaganda- it was nauseating.
26
Wow, if only 10% of people had switched from opposing to supporting the war Iraq would now be just like Florida or California! Maybe even MTV would be shooting the next Real World there!
Isn't it amazing how people marching in NYC can have no power in the US but project such power overseas?
posted on 08.24.2006 1:52 PM27
Mumon,
you keep changing definitions to suit your positions.
Yeah, the link is interesting. Got the wrong link. Try one more up your ally, the CCN article. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
Gore would maybe have won if all rules for counting votes with double entries were thrown out.
"Evangelical faith", which Joe writes about here on occasion, believes that the Christ was God Incarnate, and His death and resurrection are the means of salvation. War, believe it or not, really doesn't enter into the definition. Other than some snarky little comment to define religion more advantageously to a liberal definition that rules our national security.
Terrorism. What a convenient definition that you liberals have discovered? Bush isn't fighting terrorism, he is fighting "conservative religious violence". Or did you write that about Bush? I may have missed that. But if you are writing about Al Quaeda, Hezbollah, etc., then obvously Bush is wrong, since there are no terrorist, only conservative religious types who are using violence. Terrorists using terrorism.
Traditionally, like, you know, from precedent, terrorism is distinguished from military action, since it is violence that is not carried out by an army, which can be identified with uniforms, flags, and so on.
I agree basically that we have not properly identified the conflict. Bush did in fact recently mention that we are fighting Islamofascists, and folks got upset for bringing a religion into the equation. We are fighting a paramilitary force that uses violence against soldiers when possible and against civilians when convenient, introducing "terror" into the fight. Hence, terrorism. In this case, the paramilitary forces happen to be Muslims.
Repugnant talking points - they are only repugnant to you because they properly identify the contribution that you and yours make to the issue. Not so repugnant to a lot of us.
Genocide has a specific meaning, and it is not just killing a lot of people. We intended to kill a lot of people from Germany and Japan in WWII. We did not intend to practice genocide, nor did we.
Again, liberals change the meaning of words to fit their purposes. What a word meant under Clinton now magically tranforms under Bush.
I'm not sure what point you are making about "transition carrier battle groups into infantry." Are you saying that all of our infantry is committed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do your really believe that we have only about 200,000 infantry?
And how does that appply to the conversation? Are you suggesting that Bush invade N.Korea, and use the infantry to do it? Are you suggesting that after significant bombing strikes into Iran, we could not find sufficient infantry to subdue it?
We don't actually have to subdue Iran with infantry. We just have to destroy their capability of producing nuclear weapons. And that is a test of the will to punish an enemy. We have the capability, we may not have the resolve after folks like you continue to tear us down.
And congratulations on your success over there at Kos. Way to go, big guy! You da man!! Truly one of the more outstanding nutjobs to rise to the top of the heap at Kos!!!
posted on 08.24.2006 2:05 PM28
Scott:
Interesting you quote CNN, who featured Jefrey Toobin, who noted that if all the votes had been counted, by any measure Gore would have won. Period.
End of story.
War, believe it or not, really doesn't enter into the definition...
Traditionally, it does: you know, the 10 C's and all that stuff. Pope John Paul II himself, no flaming liberal, condemned the war in Iraq as immoral.
Bush isn't fighting terrorism, he is fighting "conservative religious violence".
Bush is doing neither, and that's why we're less safe than before: Bush is encouraging religious extremism and the violence it engenders.
Bush did in fact recently mention that we are fighting Islamofascists...
It is rather odd that Bush, like Lieberman is using this approach.
Very Orwellian.
Repugnant talking points - they are only repugnant to you because they properly identify the contribution that you and yours make to the issue. Not so repugnant to a lot of us.
Repugnant to most Americans.
I'm not sure what point you are making about "transition carrier battle groups into infantry." Are you saying that all of our infantry is committed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do your really believe that we have only about 200,000 infantry?
We don't have 200,000 infantry in Iraq; we have 130K.
The troops in Germany, Italy, and the UK are obviously doing something, among other things, providing logistical support to the troops stationed in Iraq. That's why the Marines are calling up reservists, and even impressing people up to 60 years old.
You just have no idea what you're talking about.
And the folks at Kos are raging moderates, whose views generally reflect those of Americans, with some notable exceptions.
It's you folks who are way out of the mainstream.
29
A note to all the lib posters here. When next a person with a D next to their name becomes president, I will look forward to reading your rants against government sponsored violence when that person feels military action is required. I know they will be well reasoned and level headed criticisms of that person's leadership, because I remember all of your angst when Clinton carried on his military exploits. We'll be watching. Then again, somehow the memories of Clinton criticisms from the lefties are very dim in my memory. (sigh)
posted on 08.24.2006 2:49 PM30
RB:
The tu quoque fallacy. And false indeed it is, as this but one example illustrates. (Remember NAFTA?)
Oh, were you thinking Bosnia? As I recall that's not a quagmire. Nothing suceeds like success you know. But actually lots of us were not happy at some of the aspects of the way Bosnia was carried out, e.g., the inept bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.
It's not a question of reflexive pacifism (which is why we have Paul Hackett and Jim Webb, and your side has...Dick Cheney, Mr. 5 Deferments himself.)
No, its about rational use of military forces versus idiotic use of military forces.
posted on 08.24.2006 3:03 PM31
"Republicans seem to blindly and unconditionally support military action, so long as this action is suggested by another Republican."
The fact that you believe this about Rs and not Ds simply illustrates the reality of your own blinding bias.
What exactly is STFU? I'll just assume that's one of your own high class beverages I can't afford..
posted on 08.24.2006 3:20 PM32
"If Bush were to suddenly announce that he supported abortion, gay rights, flag-burning, and handgun confiscation, we would see a massive political shift. The entire American Left would suddenly become a cadre of pro-life, homophobic, flag-waving, NRA members."
Perhaps you are attempting to exaggerate for effect. Hyperble, though, requires at least some basis in truth; otherwise, it is just calumny. At tgirsch pointed out, Bush's unpopularity has mostly to do with his stands on the issues important to liberals.
"The right has a very different take on the absolute risk."
Who else laughed out loud when they read George's attempt to cast the right as altruistic? It's truly priceless. One normally has to go to the "No Spin Zone" to find such remarkable, improbable spin.
" In a pinch, the 150,000 or so troops in Iraq could be marched across the border into Iran, after sufficient shock and awe. The Shi'a in Iraq will be insignificant if Iran is bombed into the dark ages. Hezbollah becomes manageable without Iran."
Oh boy! Saddle up, stout fellows, we're going into Iran! You scare me, Scott.
"Liberals have given terrorist the impression that American support for Israel can be terminated, or at least diminished."
Maybe that is exactly what should happen. At any rate, I will express my opinion regardless of whether or not terrorists find it encouraging. Are you going to stop voting for republicans just because racists and bigots vote the same way? Of course not! You make your decisions based on your opinions, and you express them regardless of whether or not some very bad people agree with them.
posted on 08.24.2006 4:27 PM33
Joe Carter:
I'd be curious to what a liberal foreign policy response would be in regards to Iran.
LOL! Why not hop on over to Daily Kos and find out! Even the GOP is doing that (tell Karl Rove thanks for the publicity!)
Just go to http://www.dailykos.com, go to the lower right hand corner, sort diaries by tag, input "Iran," and voila! (That's French, you know. Markos thinks the French are right about terrorists, the GOP tells me.)
Lots and lots of liberal thought on Iran...
Next...
posted on 08.24.2006 5:02 PM34
Terrorism, though, is not just another domestic issue. No one dies if Congress opposes voucher programs or same-sex marriage. But thousands of Americans have died because of acts of terrorism. Whether they rely on rhetoric and reframing or simply recoil from responsibility, the Democrats have proven time and again that they are not serious about dealing with terrorism. They have made it abundantly clear that they cannot be trusted with the security of our nation. We cannot afford to give the reigns of power over to a party that is more concerned with hurting Bush than protecting our people, more concerned with partisanry than patriotism
Why is it Joe that you are willing to let the GOP off the hook for using terrorism as a campaign tool, but condemn the democrats for doing exactly the same thing? Shouldn't you be condemning both?
And I don't buy your "GOP is the best on terrorism" line of reasoning. The current GOP leadership has been much more worried about gay marriage than terrorism. And the President's Administration, for all its tough talk, doesn't seem to be very interested in winning against terrorism in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Or maybe its just that they are miserably incompetent instead.
posted on 08.24.2006 5:19 PM35
H'mm:
Meanwhile the real opinion poll that counts begins to really tilt the deadly way -- the one in the ME and wider Muslim world.
For, as more and more muslims begin to see the West as broken-willed adn divided and self-condemning [look on how naively the fauxtographs were taken in by the media . . .], thus the "weak horse," the power of Q 9:29 31 will begin to tell as much more than the infamous 10% will see things Usama's way.
Only when dar ul Islam is divided and relatively weak can the world avert Islamist expansionism -- the lesson of the past 1400 years, with a whole lot of cases in point.
THAT is what is at stake, and will remain at stake for the foreseeable future.
And BTW, Mumon et al, depite your pretence to the contrary, credibly within several years, maybe WELL within several years, Iraq would have plainly gone nuke, and the missiles to deliver at IRBM range were being developed.
[And, once there is access to the key materials -- and a UN seal on 500 tons of yellowcake counts for zip, on plain track record now -- from the late 1960's it was proved that a credible nuke design could be done in a few years by physics majors witrh access to open literature. SH had access to Khan's SUCCESSFUL and advanced designs!]
BOTH ME members fo the axis of evil were dangerous, and trhe remaining one is ever moreso.
Okay
$ 0.02
GEM
PS to B: Really now! I would point to the last post I did to show just how your responses in the last thread show the fallacy of the closed mind at work, as JH also pointed out but it is of course now closed off. No sense cross-threading either. And, in case you didn't know, Newtonian dynamics is only a small part of the puzzle of explaining solar system origins, which is of course a tentative piece of reconstruction of the past. Operations science and origins science are VERY different.
posted on 08.24.2006 5:32 PM36
And BTW, Mumon et al, depite your pretence to the contrary, credibly within several years, maybe WELL within several years, Iraq would have plainly gone nuke, and the missiles to deliver at IRBM range were being developed.
[And, once there is access to the key materials -- and a UN seal on 500 tons of yellowcake counts for zip, on plain track record now -- from the late 1960's it was proved that a credible nuke design could be done in a few years by physics majors witrh access to open literature. SH had access to Khan's SUCCESSFUL and advanced designs!]
Gordon:
A nuke design is trivial. Anybody with 6 credits of physics could design one.
The trick is getting the uranium & enriching it. We won WWII because we succeeded at enriching enough uranium before Japan and Germany did.
Which Saddam could not have done, and there was no evidence that he was.
Even the Bush regime has dropped that pretense for invading Iraq.
posted on 08.24.2006 5:37 PM37
I think it is notable that none of the New Testament letters make any suggestion that Christians should try to be involved in the institutions of society.
There are innumerable things not suggested in the New Testament. I think it is notable that you didn't note that it doesn't say that Christians should not be involved in the institutions of society.
posted on 08.24.2006 6:51 PM38
Mumon, your ability to speak on subjects about which you know nothing is amazing. Now it's not just religion, but the state of nuclear weapons research by our enemies during WW2.
The Germans gave up on the idea of a fission bomb shortly after Barbarossa. They needed weapons fast, and rightly saw that a fission bomb was not a project that would return quick results. They only made it to the point of making a rudimentary fission pile and that was at the war's end. Japan had a rudimentary program that never made it past the small scale manufactur of UF6.
Glad the folks at Kos think you're a genius!
39
Only when dar ul Islam is divided and relatively weak can the world avert Islamist expansionism -- the lesson of the past 1400 years, with a whole lot of cases in point.
What exactly is this supposed to mean? If we need to keep Islam divided then this administration has become a horrible failure. In the Muslim world Muslims can be counted on to kill each other and get themselves killed before they kill Westerners or even Israelies. Despite this inability to get along, though, they seem to have pretty much united around anti-Americanism...even in Iraq where Michael Moore's apparently magical powers (according to Scott) have made Iraqis forget life under Saddam.
So what are we supposed to do? Haphazzardly invade Islamic countries almost at random? Keep bluffing Iran and Syria that we 'mean business' when it is obvious we are bogged down in Iraq?
1400 years ago Islam expanded dramatically for a very simple reason, it was the best civilization in the neighborhood. It had preserved learning, science, literature, art and more while Europe allowed itself to descend into the Dark Ages after the fall of the Roman Empire.
Times have changed and today Islamic culture is not only weak but extremly weak. They cannot get their economies to work, even countries with oil wealth like Iran are pretty screwed up economically. They cannot organize their societies sensibly and as a result the only expansion they are doing is sending thousands of immigrants to Europe and America to make a living.
The best response is to do what we do right. Keep our societies free and open. Do not try to go on a nation building spree accross the Arabian world. Institute sensible securities measures against the very, very few terrorist nutcases and make serious long run plans to find ways to replace oil as our fuel.
PS to B: Really now! I would point to the last post I did to show just how your responses in the last thread show the fallacy of the closed mind at work, as JH also pointed out but it is of course now closed off.
As much as I would like to continue on evolution Joe closed the thread up and I think it is best to try to stick to the topic on a thread. If Joe opens up another evolution thread then I'd be happy to go at it again but perhaps after a 4-part series and hundreds of commentary posts a breather is called for.
posted on 08.24.2006 8:06 PM40
"I have previously covered the topic, to a much wider audience than yours here [DailyKos]." -Mumon
A much wider audience, eh? So you mean... ideologically? Interesting brag...
posted on 08.24.2006 8:25 PM41
"Your partisan nonsense aside, it is now objectively true that Republicans have compromised our security, made us less safe, and have committed and omitted acts that have directly led to the death of thousands of Americans.
For once in your life, sir, take responsibility.
The blood is on yours and all supporters of the Republicans.
Have you no decency?" -Mumon
1) This isn't the DailyKos; you're actually going to have to explain yourself to people who don't automatically agree with you because you hate Bush.
2) More to the point, I wonder if Democrats could do any better. Answer? (Remember, this isn't the DailyKo's...)
42
"Notice, for example, how Joe completly overlooked the fact that Drum was quite clear why he was silent on Iran. Because he thought a military strike would be a diasterous policy and this administration couldn't be trust to not do the stupid thing." - Boonton
So... uh. Why doesn't Drum just say that and what the administration should do instead rather than saying nothing? That way, he might actually be of some use rather than letting his [legitimate/illegitimate] fears shut him up.
posted on 08.24.2006 8:34 PM43
GM:Only when dar ul Islam is divided and relatively weak can the world avert Islamist expansionism -- the lesson of the past 1400 years, with a whole lot of cases in point.
B:What exactly is this supposed to mean?...
Gordon is simply making a historical observation. And I agree that the administration has done a poor job in understanding what we are dealing with. First it was the inane title of Global War on Terror which didn't define the enemy. Next, it was the ignorant Democracy program which has just resulted in jihadist organizations coming to power.
That being said, what do the Democrats offer? Cowering in the corner, blaming America and Israel for all of the ME's woes, trying to understand root causes, jumping at every little demand. So, we have two parties that don't want to face what the problem is. The result is one party swinging blindly and stupidly. The other party will do nothing but blame America, talk at the UN, and become a nice doormat for every complaint.
Islam is the problem. It does not mesh with Western values. It places non-believers in a dhimmi status. It calls for subjugation, slaughter, or conversion of infidels.
Boonton is partially correct in his anaylsis. However, we can't remain a free and open society with large numbers of Muslims living among us. Look at Britain where 25% of Muslims said that the train bombings there were justified. That is a huge pool of people to shelter jihadists. We can either discriminate against Muslims to keep ourselves safe, suffer lessened liberties by assuming everyone is a threat, or reduce the number of Muslims to a insignificant number. Take your pick.
posted on 08.24.2006 10:01 PM44
We can either discriminate against Muslims to keep ourselves safe, suffer lessened liberties by assuming everyone is a threat, or reduce the number of Muslims to a insignificant number. Take your pick.
Ja wohl! Seig!
Seig!
Heil!
Chris, there's a group on the Net called Stormfront that would like to welcome you as a member. Head on over, 'kay? Bitte.
45
Gary: There are innumerable things not suggested in the New Testament. I think it is notable that you didn't note that it doesn't say that Christians should not be involved in the institutions of society.
I think triple negatives are rather confusing.
There is not the slightest hint in the NT that believers will be involved in politics or government. Paul tries to convert Festus and Herod Agrippa, but he works on the same personal level as with anyone else. He does not seem to be interested in them as rulers but only as individuals.
In addition, Jesus said to Pilate,
My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight, that I wouldn’t be delivered to the Jews. But now my kingdom is not from here.” (John 19)The consequences of being in a kingdom of this world is that you operate according to this world's procedures; but we are not in such a kingdom, therefore we don't (at least, we shouldn't) use this world's procedures.
We are to be in the world, but not of it.
Paul says, "...make no provision for the flesh, for its lusts." Now the word "flesh" encompasses far more than what we tend to think of - sex and gluttony and so on. It includes anything that operates according to the principles of the world system rather than of God. That certainly includes politics.
As a consequence, I don't feel that there is any biblical authority for Christians to be in politics as God's representatives on earth, because that is to bolster up the kingdom of this world in which Jesus was not interested. On the other hand I would not go so far as to say that Christians shouldn't be involved in politics at all. I think it has to be a matter of personal guidance.
We do supposedly have some influence on our local system through representative democracy. To that extent our situation differs from the NT. At that time there was no such right except, for some people, on a very local level and to an extent that varied from place to place. This influence is very limited, though. In Britain, where everything is very centralised, for all practical purposes I have no influence at all. I have almost never managed to vote for a winning candidate, and I'm sure the government doesn't care a hoot for my opinion. I will vote for the candidate whose values appear to be closest to my own, provided his party's values (which will effectively override his own in our system) are not too offensive.
I believe that what the government does will earn judgment or reward from God. For example, our government reneged on the Balfour Declaration (that allotted part of Palestine as a home for the Jewish people) and within 40 years the British Empire had almost completely gone. However, I do not think that it is profitable to attempt to impose Christian values on Britain, because the people do not support them. It works the other way around. When God brings revival, he changes the hearts of people. As a result their values change and they vote for people with whom they are in sympathy, who are not likely to be the sorry lot we have now!
So I think Christians would be better employed praying and preaching the gospel and crying out to God for revival than involving themselves in politics. Otherwise they are putting the cart before the horse.
The next question is whether we should campaign for laws banning conduct that the bible describes as evil? What if it's only evil in the eyes of God, but not in the eyes of men, such as abortion, blasphemy, homosexuality, and adultery?
We should have such laws; but it is counterproductive to try to impose them on a majority that do not accept them. Law has ultimately to be made with the consent of the people, otherwise it will be ineffective. (You only have to look at the drugs laws to see that! In the current state of society I can't think of anything that would reduce criminality more than legalising drugs.)
It seems to me that a great difference between America and Europe is that there are far more people who think of themselves as Christians (ignoring for the moment whether the Lord agrees with them). As a result, American society is polarised about that issue, in a way that is not true of any part of Europe.
Another question: if we Christians do participate in government, should the righteousness of God -- manifested in us his children -- affect our social policies, or should they not do so? (In Britain, the general opinion seems to be that it is illegitimate to allow religious beliefs to influence your actions in politics.)
I think that, to the extent that we are involved in politics, we should seek to promote our own values, that we have from God. That will be modified by two things: one is whether we can persuade enough people to agree with us and the second is whether, in the wisdom God gives us, we judge that it is right to push a particular issue in a particular society.
I think it is important to put responsibilities in the correct order, because that will help us set priorites.
1: Worship and serve God
Loving God means obeying him. This will include standing fast in the truth, which has to be an individual responsibility before it is a church one (if the church goes wrong, an individual may have to decide to leave that church)
2: Look after one another, both in your blood family and in the church
Loving God requires us to love one another. Since we are baptised into Christ, we are identified both with him and also with everyone else who is baptised into him. Our church family will actually be closer than our blood family who are not in Christ; nevertheless we have a major responsibilty to blood family.
Priority 1 dictates that we try to keep the church in line with the pattern given in the scriptures; this will also help to keep us as a body in a fit state to carry out our remaining responsibilites. The church needs to be in a healthy state, both for the sake of its existing members and so that there is a family for new believers to be joined to. This demonstrates why this item has priority over the next one.
3: Proclaim the gospel to those outside the church
This is the great commission and is explicitly commanded of the church, so this item has priority over the next.
4: Strive for justice in the community
This is important, but ordering priorities like this shows why I am suggesting it is not what we should set as our main goal. Instead, it should govern our personal relations with people outside the church and inform our exercise of whatever public responsibilities we may have.
Things may not be as clear cut in real life.
46
Giggling,
You ask some rather pointed questions and make some really good points.
However, I must warn you. You're wasting your time with Mumon. He doesn't really care to engage you in civil conversation. The rest do, but Mumon is the exception. He really does believe that the DailyKosKidz are the mature, responsible, mainstream adults that he claims they are. Really. He believes it.
You'll figure that out soon enough.
posted on 08.25.2006 3:13 AM47
Joe:
It's really quite simple. If you want Iran to be handled the way the Bush 43 Administration handled Iraq, vote Republican. If you want Iran to be handled the way the Clinton Administration handled Iraq (or, for that matter, the way the Bush 41 administration handled it), vote Democrat.
Put in those terms, I don't see how the Republicans win. If Hussein's huge stockpiles of WMDs are any indication (and now even Bush himself has admitted they didn't exist), I'd say Clintonian containment was pretty damned effective.
Meanwhile, Bush's pet war hasn't exactly brought stability to the region, and it's not hard to argue that it's precisely because of those actions that Ahmadinejad was able to come to power in Iran.
So Joe-Carterland, where Iraq as new haven for al-Qaeda and quagmire of sectarian violence in a previously secular state, and Iran as emerging nuclear threat somehow both constitute evidence that we should continue down the current administration's path, I guess in that Bizarro-world it's not hard to see why you might fear what a Democrat might do.
As an aside, if Iraq is what "success" looks like, I'd sure as hell hate to see what failure looks like. (Unless, of course, "failure" looks like Clinton's second term, in which case I'll take it...)
posted on 08.25.2006 4:28 AM48
Chris Lutz:
Islam is the problem.
Yes, as evidenced by such well-known Muslims as Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, Eric Rudolph, the American Coalition of Life Activists, the Basque Party, and the Irish Republican Army.
It does not mesh with Western values.
Hate to break it to you, but in many ways, neither does Christianity. Of the American "big three" of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," only one of these can truly be said to be a Christian ethic.
Truth to tell, the problem is not "Islam," but religious fundamentalism of any kind. If you don't think there are Christians here who would happily stone adulteresses if they could get away with it, you've got another think coming. But in the West, we're fortunate in that things are pretty good, economically speaking, and this limits the influence of the fundies (in particular, the violent ones). But introduce a large class of people with nothing to lose and no hope, and religion -- virtually any religion -- can be abused as a call to violence. Now, just for extra seasoning, imagine that such despair is caused in large part by a foreign power's insistence on propping up oppressive regimes in such places, and now you've got a powder keg.
In short, you won't see me defending Islam, but you won't see me singling it out, either. Religious fanaticism of all kinds is bad, and it's made worse when short-sighted foreign policy decisions create entire classes of disgruntled, downtrodden, and disenfranchised people with nothing at all to lose.
posted on 08.25.2006 4:52 AM49
The Raven:
Chris, there's a group on the Net called Stormfront that would like to welcome you as a member. Head on over, 'kay? Bitte.
Wow, that was an impressive rebuttal. I give up.
tgirsch:
Yes, as evidenced by such well-known Muslims as Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, Eric Rudolph, the American Coalition of Life Activists, the Basque Party, and the Irish Republican Army.
What does Islam say? Moral equivalence arguments are worthless which is exactly what this is. Does it call for the submission of non-believers to Islam?
Hate to break it to you, but in many ways, neither does Christianity. Of the American "big three" of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," only one of these can truly be said to be a Christian ethic.
I don't know where you get that from, but I don't feel like arguing over it. Christianity doesn't say to only obey the government until you are strong enough to overthrow it and make it a Christian theocracy. You can believe that and I'll just believe you're wrong.
Now, just for extra seasoning, imagine that such despair is caused in large part by a foreign power's insistence on propping up oppressive regimes in such places, and now you've got a powder keg.
So, you support Bush's policy of democracy.
In short, you won't see me defending Islam, but you won't see me singling it out, either. Religious fanaticism of all kinds is bad, and it's made worse when short-sighted foreign policy decisions create entire classes of disgruntled, downtrodden, and disenfranchised people with nothing at all to lose.
You're blinded by your thinking that all religions are basically equivalent and all causes are economic.
1. Is a person a religious extremist if they are following what the religion says? In other words, what if the "radicals" are the ones who are obeying what their religion says? Doesn't that make the "moderates" actually the radicals?
2. Considering a lot of the jihadists actually come from middle-class backgrounds, there seems to be more than economics involved.
3. The non-religious have a serious blindspot to religion. They never seem to be unable to realize that religious people may choose actions based on non-material decisions. Your line of thinking displays that.
4. As stated above, moral equivalence arguments don't look at the problem. No one could sensibly argue that the governments of North Korea and are equivalent because they both have wrongly imprisoned people at times. Likewise, you can't argue that religions are equivalent because they all have committed violence in their past. What does Islam actually say? You do realize that the Golden Rule doesn't exist in Islam? It applies only to other believers.
posted on 08.25.2006 6:14 AM50
Yes, as evidenced by such well-known Muslims as Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, Eric Rudolph, the American Coalition of Life Activists, the Basque Party, and the Irish Republican Army.
t, your comparison falls orders of magnitude short. None of these individuals or groups have come any where close (with the possible exception of the IRA) to implementing their desires on any type of national basis, militant Islam has (see Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, or Sudan), none of them have the vast resources of the Islamic forces, and, finally, none of them (IRA included) have anything like popular support in their home countries, can the same be said for Al Queda, et. al.
Truth to tell, the problem is not "Islam," but religious fundamentalism of any kind. If you don't think there are Christians here who would happily stone adulteresses if they could get away with it, you've got another think coming.
If this is true, Christians keep it pretty well hidden, unlike Muslims who are quite open about stoning, beheading, burning, etc. of adultresses, etc. I have been a member of several "doctrinally conservative" churches and the worst anybody wanted to do to adulterers was keep them out of leadership posts, and sometimes even that was a struggle.
In short, you won't see me defending Islam, but you won't see me singling it out, either. Religious fanaticism of all kinds is bad,
Reading your post, it seems to me that your problem is that you want to imply moral equivalence between religious folks who strap bombs to their kids and blow up Jewish day schools and other religious folks who object to sexually explicit song lyrics or 13 year olds getting abortions without parental permission. Most sane people don't do that, and I must admit your posts are ususally sane (usually wrong;), but sane), so I have to wonder, WTF is your problem with evangelicals, did one put a fence to close to your property line or something?
51
All:
I see a few notes are in order:
1] M: A nuke design is trivial. Anybody with 6 credits of physics could design one. The trick is getting the uranium & enriching it.
--> First, as an engineer, you know that a system sketch diagram [within reach of anyone with 6 HS Physics Credits] is FAR from a DESIGN, proper. All that stuff about specifications and precision structures etc.
--> next, the core point was that SH had the ton-lots of yellowcake, i.e. Uranium oxide [and was negotiating for more on the black market, pace Joe Wilson and co], had the designs of Khan in hand, not to mention whatever had been brewed up internally, had the people, money and infrastructure to run the whole chain, complete with ballistic missiles.
2] Raven: You know full well as does anyone else that Iran is at least 5 years from a viable device, and that's assuming their centrifuge program continues and is successful at every stage.
--> This is called, properly, the fallacy of confident manner, folks. Typical, but sad.
--> First, Iran strictly does not need to produce HEU, so long as No Ko is there willing to sell to all comers and has the submarines to transfer it, and/or as long as a hungry ex-Sov Colonel has a network that reached into one of the former USSR's ill-guarded tac nuke depots. That is, they possibly/probably have a bomb or two or five or six already -- why the diplomatic dance is so delicate, probably. [Years ago, I recall serious questions on whether they were trying to crack the codes on black market ex-Sov tac nukes. BTW, that could well include Spetznaz pre-positioned devices in the US; the Belgians testified to the US congress, to my recall, to finding three 60's- era thermonuke devices on their soil recently. Belgium of course was/is NATO's HQ.]
--> Second, Iran is known to have a lot of stuff hidden away from IAEA's prying eyes, so the estimates you rely on for comfort are worthless. They are publicly known to have passed the stage of enriching U235, and so are well on the way to owning the manufacturing chain, i.e. to being a full nuke power in their own right, like Pakistan just next door. [Don't forget that in Khan's eyes, his work was for all the Muslim states. BTW he seems to be coming down with the bomb-makers complaint – cancer.]
--> Besides, they don't strictly need HEU -- one of my old Physics profs used to run their "research" reactor 30 years ago. Take U-238 and hit it with neutrons in such a reactor, and you are rapidly on the way to Ploot, the fissile material of choice over the past 60 years.
--> Iran is a world-class danger NOW, and is rapidly getting worse, as their recent proxy war in Lebanon/Northern Israel with their Foreign Legion, Hez, shows. Note the cruise missiles that hit that Israeli ship, the evidence of tac ballistic missiles capable of reaching out from Leb to the Negev -- Dimona was under threat as the war was wound down, the evident effective Electronic war stuff etc.
--> Most of all, the folks who run Iran are labouring under the implications of Q 9:29 - 31, and see the Muslim apocalypse of global conquest as "at the door." Recall the key text, for them the very words of Allah, to be obeyed not questioned, on pain of hellfire [as is alluded to in this very text!]:
“Fight those who believe not in God [i.e. Allah] nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle [i.e. Mohammed] , nor acknowledge the religion of truth [i.e. Islam], (even if they are) of the people of the Book [i.e. Jews and Christians], until they pay the jizya [tax on non-Muslims who submit to Muslim rule] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
3] you're saying that Iraq could have developed the entire technology and implemented it more quickly? They didn't even have the beginnings of such a program - and as we ultimately discovered, they didn't have any WMD at all. All they had, as we have found, is a few rusting pieces of old bio ordnance rusting under the sand.
--> You really need to get out from the dungeons of Kos a little more often and go see the sunshine and smell the scent of nerve gas in the morning in Kurdistan. SH was USING WMDs routinely nearly 20 years ago. [As for bio-weapons, beer-making technology is enough to base a horribly effective programme, and I strongly suspect that the source of the 2001 Anthrax attacks is all too likely to be Iraq. Indeed, there was a report at the time that one of the 9/11 19 had been clinically diagnosed with cutaneous anthrax in FL.]
--> Way back to the beginnings of the initial campaign in 90/91, Senator Kennedy publicly estimated that the Iraqis then were as little as 6 months out from a bomb. You are plainly forgetting the scale of the Tuwaitha facility, where the 500 tons of yellowcake sat, and which the Israelis had hit in 1981/2 as the French-built reactor was about to go live, buying the precious time that saved our ungrateful necks in 1990/91 and since. I cannot but note too that Mr Chirac and Mr Hussein were close friends and partners in this venture all the way back to the 1970's; long after the murderous nature of the baathists was plain. French cooperation with a democratic state, Israel, in the 1950s, is not at all parallel.]
--> You are also forgetting the long list of pertinent documents – there is an ongoing public translation project -- and actual material on-the-ground findings that show that SH had a functioning WMD capacity on the eve of the last campaign. The former # 2 man from his own air force has testified to that effect, backing up every major intelligence agency in the world; much of it was trucked or flown over the border into Syria thence Bekaa valley in the conveniently prolonged diplomatic run-up. Enough has been recovered in-country to make the seriousness of the threat plain to all but those so hostile and closed-minded that they are blind to the obvious.
--> Further to this, it seems the Libyan nuke programme was simply the overseas facility for the Iraq programme. The Col in charge there got the message real fast and gave it up once he saw how hard Iraq was whacked, doubtless recalling a visit by the F111s in 1986.
--> Finally on this, kindly note that strictly, what happened in 2003 was the renewal of major military operations in the face of persistent and gross breach of armistice terms. [For the probable consequences of failure to nip such material breach in the bud, kindly consult the history of the origins of WWII as the French and British dallied and looked the other way. Britain learned the lesson taught by Churchill, but the French had no parallel figure to look up to and so have become permanently unable to see danger until it is upon them. I also think von Falkenhayn's Fall Gehricht [sp?] of 1916 at Verdun has bled France's will out.]
3] why is it necessary for evangelical Christians to hitch their faith to the GOP [vulgarity deleted -- R this is a Christian blog site and you should respect that] wagon? Why do Christians have to support Team Bush and carry water for Dick Cheney in order to be Godly, moral people? Maybe it's because Christian nationalism works best when it's under fire . . . Christians are all that stands between a pious, devout nation of True Believers and a chaotic neo-Soddom and Gommorah populated with raving drug users chanting in circles about a golden calf.
--> First, remember I ain't no “amurrican,” and I have no vested interest in team Bush etc. [My first public knowledge of the man was the poor handling of an execution in Texas, but I did see that he at least thought log and hard about the case. I was surprised to see him win the 2000 election, and even more surprised in some respects to see him win again in 2004 – that puts a postponement on my projections for the ongoing internally driven collapse of the American superpower. Maybe, God is being merciful to a nation that richly deserves to be destroyed – but, are you willing to heed the lesson of Jonah, as the Assyrians were? On the record of the obvious hard hardheartedness I see, in many quarters, plainly not. But then God is merciful and gives us many chances to repent before he puts the whack on to those who refuse to repent and under go reformation. Just maybe, the whack is a comin' just now . . . at the hands of Mr A-bomb and co over in the ME.]
--> But, I do have a knowledge of history [including the rise of modern liberty which jest don't fit the secularist myth] and a modicum of understanding of how civilisations die and of how geopolitics plays out. After all, my people are the FIRST victims of the geopolitics of the global era. [Columbus was looking to pioneer a trade route to finance a renewal of the crusades as a further counteroffensive to the Islamic world conquest agenda, a process that over the next 200 years would see the Turkish high water at Vienna fall back in defeat a second time in 1683.]
--> Third, it is quite evident that the West, especially since the turn of C20, reflecting largely the influence of the trends of the previous 50 years, has been in accelerating apostasy and internal disintegration as a result, just as Romans 1 warns:
RO 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.RO 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. [The image technologies and the stories have changed; the idolatry based on rejecting God in favour of images and myths has not]
RO 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
RO 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
RO 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
--> As onlookers can easily see from recent threads, e.g. here and here, there is a stubborn, rage-filled, hostile, closed minded resistance to exposing of the holes in the myths of today, and there is a refusal to repent and seek reformation in the teeth of the evident chaos and disintegration that flows from it as our civilisation reaps the consequences of its own-way-ism in the name of "freedom."
--> The air of unreality in this thread and the widespread vicious turning on and slandering of leaders who are trying to hold the line in the face of a terrible rising tide of horrors unimaginable, are an obvious result.
--> All I will say on that is, kindly explain the credible geopolitical consequences of the implicit alternative policies in question, with reference to the history of the 620s and 630s to 730s:
a] Talking the situation to death until SH announced that he had both the nukes and the means to deliver them at long range a la senior member of the Axis f Evil, No Ko currently.b] Or, abandoning the fledgling Iraqi democratic state to the tender mercies of Iran and Al Qaeda.
c] Or, failing to confront Iran seriously before it is in a position to make the same announcement, given especially its announced policy wish: a world without Israel, the US and other major Western powers. [I.e. cf Q 9:29 - 31 above]
d] Mr Bush et al, under pressure are already evidently beginning to abandon Israel, so that is not an "alternative" issue. That is called strategic withdrawal in the face of a rising threat.
4] I don't want to see Iran join Club Nuke . . . we ought to do those things that discourage their bellicose aims and encourage the popular elements within their society that are pressing for reform and modernization. The mullahs and imams are challenged to suppress their citizens' desire for Westernization. That's a plus for us . . . . A liberal approach is to consider that a last resort. Not the first one. First, we give carrots and sticks a shot. Incentives and sanctions.
--> First, an implied slander. Kindly show me a single Western leader of consequence who considers war a first and preferred option?
--> Second, recall how Mr A-bomb became "President" of Iran? There is a Council of Guardians who vetoed wholesale the election candidates who would have gone down what is indeed a more desirable path and the more attractive one for the majority of Iranians. Unfortunately, that majority has not got the clout to enforce its wishes. Plainly, the Mullahs do, and that is how we got to where we are.
--> In short we are facing global confrontation at some level because the real moderates in Iran are politically impotent, thanks to the tyrannical structures set up by the Muslim revolutionaries starting in 1979. AND THAT IS THE ACTUAL START-DATE FOR WORLD WAR 4, WHICH WE ARE CURRENTLY IN THE MIDDLE OF. (WW 3 wasn't even fully over before WW 4 was on, just as with WW2 to WW3; thanks to Stalin's A-bomb spies at Los Alamos etc.)
--> But because the style of world wars has changed in the aftermath of the arrival of nukes, it is possible to live in denial of the plain fact that we are facing a global geostrategic confrontation with an aggressive islamofascist foe aiming at global conquest [map]; also cf Muslim Brotherhood 1982 world plan recovered from a muslim financier in Switzerland after 9/11. [For that matter, there were any number of useful idiots -- Lenin's term -- who were in denial about the nature of the Cold War, so-called. So, the attitude of denial in this thread is nothing new.]
--> Notice, it was precisely because that "mad cowboy" stood up to Communism resolutely across the 1980's that the USSR folded its geopolitical hand bit by bit [then things went out of control and there was in internal collapse – AFTER the geostrategic offensive from 1975 on was decisively turned, not least in Jamaica in 1980, but most critically in Afghanistan in the 1980's and in Central America at the same time, as well as in Europe and in Space.] If you are hoping for Iran to collapse internally and transition to even so imperfect a successor state as Russia is proving to be, the best way to do so is to confront and defeat it geostrategically. That is the lesson of history.
--> BTW, that -- on the evidence of a lot of history including at least as far back as Napoleon's Spanish campaign and beyond -- includes staying the course and bleeding it white in places where it chooses military confrontations, such as Iraq and Lebanon. [In Sudan the Christians and Animists of the S were able to hang on long enough to get a treaty though at horrible cost. Somalia is looking like an Al Qaeda strategic success just now, and Al Q and Iran are co-belligerents at minimum.]
RX: Turn Iraq into the Iranian parallel to the Russian Afghanistan in the 1980's and the Mullahs will be decisively weakened at home, especially as the older and harder heads die off.
--> Doubtless this sounds hardly like "turn the other cheek." However, observe context: TTOC is a moral principle of meekness in the face of personal insult – and I see that Mr Bush routinely does just that (often with a wry self-deprecating comment) in response to the most spiteful rhetoric, slander and and misbehaviour on the part of his more venomous detractors – many of whom are in the highest circles of the other major US political party. But this is not a precept for the state as God's official agent of justice tasked to protect the innocent from those who in a fallen world full of demonised bullies, would prey on them:
RO 13:1 . . . The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
--> In short, there is a very good reason why the civil authority bears the sword as God's servant, and so justice is his principal duty and main qualification. That way, he is less likely to turn tyrant in turn and become a predator on the weak in his own state or others. [Cf the discussion in the online note on that, especially C and D in the context of the Christian contribtion to the rise of modern liberty.]
5] just as hardline fundamentalist [NB: now so distroted in the media etc tat his is little more than a smear-word] Christianity demands adherence to tenets of dogma and blind defense of those tenets against any argument, the same goes for support of the current administration's policies . . . Any opposition to Bush is thus support for Satan, and Democrats thus become aligned with the forces of evil and struggling to justify the Bush machine is tantamount to fighting for Christ . . . . I hate Bush because I love America. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are beautiful things, and they are worth defending. Bush has attacked them and destroyed them, relentlessly, since seizing power in '00.
--> This aptly captures and expresses the secularist distortions of plain truth, substitution of myths for reality, and plain out expresses the hostility and even hate that bubble underneath.
--> Simply excerpting it, for those who know the relevant facts, is enough to refute it. however, it is to be noted that Mr Bush did not carry out a coup in 2000 for the factually challenged. Similarly, Evangelical Christians, Catholics etc are hardly blindly lining up in support for him [a good part of the reason for his current slide in support]. And more, on the minor issues of US follytricks.
--> But the most important issue is the lurking spiritual slander: hardline fundamentalist Christianity demands adherence to tenets of dogma and blind defense of those tenets against any argument. But in fact, onlookers in the blog can clearly see:
1] On the core warranting argument for the Christian worldview, the proof God offers to all men, we have repeatedly invited comparative difficulties discourse on the historical facts to be accounted for on the competing explanations, only to be repeatedly met with a wave of closed-minded selective hyperskepticism. That, precisely because there is no credible non-supernatural explanation for the issues well-posed by Frank Morison:“now the peculiar thing . . . is that not only did [belief in Jesus’ resurrection as in part testified to by the empty tomb] spread to every member of the Party of Jesus of whom we have any trace, but they brought it to Jerusalem and carried it with inconceivable audacity into the most keenly intellectual centre of Judaea . . . and in the face of every impediment which a brilliant and highly organised camarilla could devise. And they won. Within twenty years the claim of these Galilean peasants had disrupted the Jewish Church and impressed itself upon every town on the Eastern littoral of the Mediterranean from Caesarea to Troas. In less than fifty years it had began to threaten the peace of the Roman Empire . . . . Why did it win? . . . . We have to account not only for the enthusiasm of its friends, but for the paralysis of its enemies and for the ever growing stream of new converts . . . When we remember what certain highly placed personages would almost certainly have given to have strangled this movement at its birth but could not – how one desperate expedient after another was adopted to silence the apostles, until that veritable bow of Ulysses, the Great Persecution, was tried and broke in pieces in their hands [the chief persecutor became the leading Missionary!] – we begin to realise that behind all these subterfuges and makeshifts there must have been a silent, unanswerable fact . . . “ [Who Moved the Stone, (Faber, 1971), pp. 114 – 115.]b] On the core warranting argument for the evolutionary materialist worldview, it is equally plain that there is a massive breakdown in the chain of required “chance + necessity - only” driven evolutions, most notably to explain the origin and diversity of life forms based on the sophisticated information systems and nanotechnology of the cell, and the finetuning of the cosmos, eg. in the recent threads linked above on Joe's series on the poor rhetoric of NDT advocates.
c] On the underlying issue, that all worldviews face difficulties and so there is a challenge to open-mindedly assess and compare live option worldviews on the merits of factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power, it is consistently the secularists who duck the challenge and complain about raising the underlying worldview issues -- notably icluding once certain anonymous commenter in the EO known by the alias “Raven.”
d] I should note that the link just above is to an updated form of a lecture in a compulsory-for-graduation course given by the undersigned to Seminary Students in the leading Evangelical seminary in the Anglophone Caribbean, with the enthusiastic support of its leadership.
e] So much for the myth of the closed-minded ignoramus, threat-to-liberty of thought fundy. [Indeed, note: the major bastion of Evangelical thought in today's universities just happens to be the philosophy departments, thanks to the likes of Alvin Plantinga and a great any others, since about the 1960's!]
f] I invite open-minded people to examine my notes on the Bible-based, Judaeo-Christian worldview-influenced material and indeed massive contribution to the rise of modern liberty, here. Then, note the pattern of stubborn resistance grudgingly yielded in the teeth of overwhelming facts, as can be seen most recently here. Bible believing Christians as a whole are NOT the "natural" enemies of true liberty.
g] We do openly plead guilty to being the sworn enemies of that counterfeit for liberty: LICENSE, i.e. OED, freedom to behave as one wishes, especially in a way which results in excessive or unacceptable behaviour
6] explain to me how the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth accord with the brutal treatment we deal out to those suspected of wrongdoing, such that you applaud stripping our captives nude, waterboarding them, intubating them, mistreating and abusing them. Explain to me how following the principles of Christianity accords with the wholesale destruction and despoilation of our environment, and lay out the case whereby those with little chance of passing through the eye of a needle are richly rewarded while the least of us are punished and humiliated for their lack of fortune.
--> Again, gross distortions of the material facts. For instance, no responsible Evangelical approved of or approves of abuse of prisoners, nor has the hierarchy of the US Armed forces in question.
--> Second, the environmental challenge is real but in fact has been better addressed in recent years than ever before in history. For my evangelical view on the matter see here -- I speak here as one who has worked in environment management and sustainable development. Nor am I the only Evangelical I know of in these fields in the Caribbean -- our name is Legion, to the despair of the secularists who would use this as a camouflage for their own hidden agendas.
--> And while there is a problem in some quarters of a so-called prosperity gospel, this is recognised and rebuked by leading responsible Christians, e.g. Chuck Colson in his The Body, and by a multitude of lesser known leaders. for the NT makes it plain that the love of money is one root of all manners of evil.
7] B: 1400 years ago Islam expanded dramatically for a very simple reason, it was the best civilization in the neighborhood. It had preserved learning, science, literature, art and more while Europe allowed itself to descend into the Dark Ages after the fall of the Roman Empire.
--> Please do not pontificate about what you do not know.
-> The successors to Mohammed surged out over the Persians and Byzantines for the same reason that the Goths, Visigoths etc swarmed over the Western Roman Empire: it had fatally weakened itself [cf Rom 1 above! It nearly fell in the 200s and barely recovered . . .] so the barbarian hordes could overwhelm it militarily even though it was intellectually and culturally far superior. [The Arabs then -- as a result of successful conquest in the face of weakened and divided foes -- acquired the cultural resources of the Persians and the Byzantine subject peoples.]
--> on geostrategy, the times when Islam has been most contained have been the times when there was no one dominant Muslim state able to marshal, support and send out overwhelming armies. THAT IS THE PRECISE REASON WHY UBL WISHES TO REINSTATE THE CALIPHATE, WHICH HAS BEEN IN ABEYANCE SINCE THE COLLAPSE OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE IN THE AFTERMATH OF WW I.
--> Chris, thanks for a well-put, concise remark.
8] Oliver: There is not the slightest hint in the NT that believers will be involved in politics or government.
--> Please, read Rom 13 and my online notes that reflect the grappling with such issues since OT times. Then maybe we could discuss?
+++++++++
Grace, open our eyes
Gordon
posted on 08.25.2006 6:33 AM52
Onlookers:
In light of further rage-driven nonsense above, I hereby challlenge the "[im]moral equivalency of religions" folks to come up with the way in which the following two Great Commissions" are materially equivalent:
1] AD 30, Jesus of Nazareth:
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
2] AD 632, Mohammed:
“Fight those who believe not in God [i.e. Allah] nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle [i.e. Mohammed] , nor acknowledge the religion of truth [i.e. Islam], (even if they are) of the people of the Book [i.e. Jews and Christians], until they pay the jizya [tax on non-Muslims who submit to Muslim rule] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
++++++++++
Hint: explain what is the material identity/difference between a world-witness religion and a religiously motivated, world-conquest ideology? {Ans: carefully ex