If you want to gain a better understanding of why we are losing ground in the war you don’t need to read the report issued by the Iraq Study Group. Instead, watch a game of baseball, the movie Apollo 13, or read the Wizard of Oz. After all, the primary goal of the slugger, the astronauts, and Dorothy Gale is the same as America's objective in Iraq: get back home.
Whether they bunt or swing for the bleachers, baseball players achieve their goal by reaching home. Ron Howard’s movie differed from most tales about the space program because it was not about going to space but about returning home. And Dorothy is one of popular culture’s most treasured icons not because of her strange adventures but because she shares a longing that resonates strongly with Americans -- “There’s no place like home."
“Home is a tremendously powerful archetype in America culture,” claims Clotaire Rapaille in his new book The Culture Code. Our feelings about “home”, Rapaille notes, even affects our view of war:
When our troops go off to war, we offer them support and encouragement, but from the very beginning of the engagement, our goal is to “bring our boys home.” Some of our most enduring and powerful images are of soldiers returning to our shores and into the arms of their loved ones. In fact (as has been reinforced by the recent war in Iraq), our sense is that, regardless of what is accomplished along the way, a war is not truly won until our soldiers come home. [emphasis added]
Rapaille has stumbled upon what I believe to be one of the keenest and most profound insights into our current situation. For those who disagree, believing the Rapaille’s claim is overstated, I would recommend considering the alternative options. Under what conditions would the American public consider the Iraq war a victory if the troops were required to remain indefinitely? The answer is there is none.
Others might contend that it is impossible to consider a war to be “won” unless the troops can be brought back home. This is a peculiarly American ideal that has rarely been shared by any nation on earth, much less one with our superior military power. In fact, just the opposite has been the norm. The ability of the military to establish and remain an overwhelming military presence within a country has often been a signifier of “victory.”
On the whole, this is an admirable quality of our culture. Our overwhelming desire to “bring our boys home” is one of the reasons America is the only military superpower in history that has not attempted to establish an empire. Countries which possess indomitable military ability invariably succumb to the siren call of conquest. Not so with the U.S. Despite the claims of silly and unserious people, America has never been in danger of following the example of the Sumerians, Romans, Prussians, British, or Soviets, in establishing global domination by military force. (When America attempts to conquer other cultures we do so by sending Coca-Cola, Baywatch and Madonna videos, rather than troops.)
King George III of England considered George Washington “the greatest character of his age” because the President refused to use his power and prestige to establish an American monarchy. Likewise, America’s self-restraint is one of the reasons we live in the greatest nation on earth. But our virtue can also lead to our downfall. By defining victory in such a way that a war cannot be won until our soldiers come home, we give our enemies a considerable strategic advantage.
In order to achieve victory against the American military, the enemy no longer needs to beat us on the battlefield (a goal they could never attain); they need only create a “quagmire.” Ironically, the length of the war often matters more in establishing this quagmire than does the number of troops killed. (More than 50,000 Americans died before we surrendered in Vietnam; fewer than 5,000 will have died by the time we surrender in Iraq.) Osama Bin Laden realized this fact after observing our engagements in Vietnam and Somalia. The insurgents in Iraq learned this lesson too, recognizing that it is easier to destroy the resolve of the American voter than it is to destroy the determination of the American soldier.
The American public has two conflicting and irreconcilable goals in Iraq: to achieve stability and to bring our soldiers home. Achieving stability requires maintaining a significant military presence for years, perhaps even a decade or longer. Politically, this is untenable which is why the only question that remains is how quickly we will withdraw from Iraq. The Iraq Study Group may not have included it in their report but the only real choice left is the Ruby Slipper option: tap our heels together three times, repeat "There's no place like home”, and bring our troops back home.
1
Joe, your recapitulation of Mr. Rapaille's point about battle-fatigue among Amercians is fresh and insightful.
Thank you for giving me another hook to use in thinking about the situation in Iraq.
Of course, another big problem is that the ambiguous results of our reconstruction of Iraq have allowed the media and some Democrats to spin things negatively in order to boost their own prospects. The battle in Iraq isn't over yet, though, and I think the American people will end up sticking with it for a long while.
posted on 12.11.2006 4:36 AM2
Joe,
What an incredible observation that you have identified by Rapaille!
And for once it appears to be a correct observation! (I don't mean this about you, I am commenting about people in general that comment about Iraq).
Bush made a terrible mistake. Despite the lefties complete lack of judgement on his motives, Bush wanted to establish democracy in Iraq. Arguably, much of the rationale for that is sound. Possibly, getting rid of Saddam has saved many more lives by his hand than may have been caused during the current situation? Even if that is not true, he needed to go.
The lefties are also wrong about their bigotry that a democracy couldn't exist in Iraq. The Middle East has a rich history of democratic ideals under the Ottaman Empire as well as after WW1. http://tinyurl.com/y97shq
One little problem, Osama could probably win any free election in any Middle Eastern country that had one, including Saudi Arabia.
We should have never gone into Iraq. This fact makes to goal of getting our troops home safely a moral (or morale?) victory, if nothing else.
posted on 12.11.2006 4:42 AM3
Allow me to let you all in on a little secret...the reason why the war cant be won is simply because its not supposed to be won. Its supposed to go on...and on....and on and the reason for that is because as long as it continues,the bastards who are the architects of this whole criminal venture will go on making monney off the death of US servicemen and iraqis alike. Oh its gonna end eventually,no doubt about that...on that point Joe is correct...the american people will one day become completely fed up with the whole mess and and elect someone on the promise of brigning the troops back home on the double...at which point i imagine there will be a victory...for the people who wanted this invasion because most of them will be richer for it...which was the point all along...and all they had to do was to decide to do away with our credibility on the world stage...i certainly hope they got a good price for it.
posted on 12.11.2006 5:15 AM4
The "war" part of the war was over and won when the military infrastructure was crippled, Baghdad fell, the Republican Guard deserted their posts and hid, and Saddam and his family cleaned out the petty cash coffers and went on the lam. That's when the baseball team goes to the airport and goes home.
At that point, the US government had three choices. First, complete to utter destruction degradation of the military infrastructure from the air, "bring the boys home" and let the natives sort the thing out. Second,set up a colonial government and sort the thing out at the muzzle of Mao's gun barrel. Third, dither. When one dithers on the international scene, the perfect will always be the enemy of the good, and everybody who lusts after your job will observe the imperfections with great and loquacious perspicacity.
They actually chose the third choice. They're still choosing it.
posted on 12.11.2006 7:04 AM5
Why is it our goal to achieve stability, exactly? This doesn't seem like a very reasonable goal. The terrorists and insurgents can easily create instability anytime they want by blowing themselves up and few can stop them. Besides which, stability is really easy to obtain if you behave like Saddam Hussien. Yet we obviously don't want stability at such a high cost, so why try to achieve stability at all?
Rather, we should work for something else. We should work to teach the current democraticaly elected Iraqi government to handle the instability. Give them the training, weapons, support, and back up they need to be able to manage the instability. Or as a great President once said, "We will stand down when the Iraqi's stand up." (Paraphrased).
I don't get this whole stability thing. Seems way overrated to me. Let's work towards "instability management" instead of the perfect goal of stability. Saddam Hussien could achieve that. Big whoop.
posted on 12.11.2006 7:19 AM6
The problem with "achieving stability" as the criterion for American victory, is that it is not achievable by Americans. Only Iraqis can achieve stability within Iraq. The US military can help (or hinder) the creation of a situation in which stability is possible, but it cannot accomplish that on its own.
Baggi:
Rather, we should work for something else. We should work to teach the current democraticaly elected Iraqi government to handle the instability.
Problem is, the current democratically elected Iraqi government is one of the sources of instability. When we talk about "the insurgency," we obscure the fact that U.S. soldiers are not fighting a single enemy. They're fighting many different groups of insurgents, militias, and death squads (including some elements of the government we support) who are also fighting each other. How can the government handle the instability when it is generating it?
posted on 12.11.2006 9:48 AM7
"The ability of the military to establish and remain an overwhelming military presence within a country has often been a signifier of “victory.”
-----
History has left great number of shattered military presences that sought to stay and be successful an ingrained determined home guerilla fighting force.
1. The patriots and the British
2. Vietnam and the French and then the Americans
3. Afghanistan and the Soviets
4. Maximillian in Mexico
8
Question for Joe and any other evangelicals on this blog:
How would a christian president guided by the philosopy of Jesus Christ approach the current situation in Iraq. "What Would Jesus Do" in Iraq. How would he fix this pre-emptive war that has gone bad and bring victory to the United States of America.
I'd like to know.
JohnW.
posted on 12.11.2006 10:18 AM9
I think you're jumping to a few easy conclusions.
It's certainly possible to imagine "victory" in Iraq with a continued military presence: if the pipe-dream delusions of the people who got us into this mess had miraculously come true, and Iraq had quickly settled into a peaceful and cohesive society, nobody would mind a continued garrison presence, either as a deterrent to Iran or to quell a low level of insurgent activity. That was the situation in Germany for years after WWII, and it was accepted. And if Iraq turned into a stable democratic ally and we chose to maintain bases there, as we do in Germany and Japan today, or as we do (minus the "stable democracy" part) in Saudi Arabia, again I think it would surely be accepted. The problem is not that policy toward Iraq requires US troops in-country, it's that that policy condemns them to war without end under almost-unmanageable conditions in which more and more of them continue to die while raining more and more destruction on innocent Iraqis for no good reason. That policy is stupid and counter-productive, and is rightly rejected - because it is stupid and counter-productive, not simply because it involves troops overseas.
Regarding the US's lack of empire, it's hard to hear that with a straight face. Considering the number of countries the US has invaded out of pure political expediency (in one case literally at the request of a US-based banana company), or the fraction of our current states and territories that were obtained by force, it's hard to call it anything else.
As for "quagmire", that's a feature, not a bug. As you point out, it is one of the glories of American character that we would rather stay home than fight. (This is a character trait in part learned from the unfortunate history of some of our excesses in the opposite direction, especially Vietnam, but those were useful lessons.) A war becomes a "quagmire", I think, when several conditions obtain: the military situation seems unmanageable, not merely harsh, due to the inability to eliminate opposition even by the successful application of force; the ostensible end goal or purpose of the war comes to appear unreachable or receding because of the war effort itself - fighting the war makes achieving the goals of the war less likely; and withdrawing poses the risk of greater disruption than remaining. When you're stuck in the mud and can't go forward or go back, you're in a quagmire. But not every war - even unpopular or unsuccessful ones - is like that.
Iraq is a quagmire because it fits the definition of one: we are now opposed not just by partisans but large swaths of the entire population, who have also been inflamed against each other by the breakdown of order that we created, and who are not going to calm down even if we leave. The public rightly wants no part of that disaster, but also feels a responsibility not to dump our mess on the Iraqis and leave them in the lurch. Every US death is further testimony to the impossible position Bush has put us in, and he rightly bears the blame for that - not because the public can't evaluate wars realistically, but because they can.
posted on 12.11.2006 11:41 AM10
All the wrong lessons are being learned from this war, as evidenced by the Iraq Surrender Group report. The worst lesson learned is that the best course of action at this point is to acquiesce to a nuclear Iran and throw Israel under the bus in hopes of appeasing Syria. The fact that these ideas have any currency at all is frightening to contemplate.
posted on 12.11.2006 12:04 PM11
What's this "victory" business Joe's talking about?
Far as I can tell, it means throwing everything we've got into purging the Taliban, repairing Afghanistan's infrastructure, helping to move the farmers away from opium production, curbing the warlords, pacifying the border with Pakistan and dragging Osama bin Laden out of whatever hole he's currently occupying. That's victory.
Joe, like so many people, has completely forgotten about the reason we went after the Taliban and Al Qaeda. But I haven't forgotten. Shortly after we invaded the country - with the world's approval and best wishes - Bush came out yammering about Saddam Hussein. And everybody said, "Wha - ?" It seemed incredibly stupid and unnecessary at the time. Nobody could figure out why, halfway through the effort in Afghanistan, we should suddenly shock and awe Iraq. It didn't make sense.
So they started this massive dog and pony show, enlisting Colin Powell with his faked photos and phony vials of anthrax, bringing in the Fox News people, the talking heads, the Dennis Pragers, and, not unlike the way you'd sell some kind of bogus floor cleaning system by convincing people that it's something they need, through a miasma of lies and falsehoods they whipped up support for Operation Iraqi something or other.
Once that happened, we lost. The ISG finally, with the Pentagon in full panic mode, handed Bush a plan for extricating us from the mess he's made of the Middle East and true to form our little Boy King has stamped his foot and declared the plan "unsatisfactory." He really is as stupid as we feared.
posted on 12.11.2006 1:11 PM13
Since this is an evangelical blog, here is another question.
How as the evangelical outreach to Muslims in the middle east benefited from our activities in Iraq? I know this wasn't a stated purpose of Operation Iraqi Freedom, but seeing that our president is a born-again evangelical, it would seem to be a legimate topic of discussion on this blog?
Any ideas?
posted on 12.11.2006 1:42 PM14
Raven, That's a magnificent summation!
But perhaps a little wordy. "Bush is a poopy head" would have saved a lot of keystrokes, accurately reflected the Birdman's feelings about our "Boy King", and moved the conversation about as far along as what he actually typed.
posted on 12.11.2006 2:09 PM15
Wish we'd sent Madonna videos the first time. Maybe even Madonna herself. That's just about worse than anything troops can dish out..
I think everyone, including myself, underestimated the deep psychosis present in large groups of people that wish to remain in the dark ages. The mindset of blowing up oneself, and innocents (please don't send any mail, this means ON PURPOSE) for the sake of avoiding democracy, the modern world, or any other ideological threat seems entirely alien. Couple that with a never-ending time frame (in an instant gratification culture), and you've just about disappointed everyone; the least of which are the knee jerk libs who would oppose just about anything.
I suppose victory now can only be realized in getting the troops home, because any other kind of victory has been marred by indecisive politicians, violent meddling neighbors, a hyper-negative media, and a public that's left scratching its head wondering how it all went wrong. Even folks who felt Saddam and WMD were a serious threat (almost everyone) must be baffled by the seeming irrationality of not only the enemy, but the outlook of the average 'joe' in that region. Some of them have opened a conference today on whether the Holocaust happened at all...they'll soon have the a-bomb.
posted on 12.11.2006 2:22 PM17
Kevin and Raven,
You guys are a couple of morons.
posted on 12.11.2006 2:59 PM18
What a fresh viewpoint on the Iraq war and the American vision of victory! I agree with you on how the focus is on "get the troops home" which is a validate claim for those who have family members in the war (and to those whose family members have died).
posted on 12.11.2006 3:08 PM19
uc,
The majority of the grown up world agrees with the above post you malign.
20
The majority of the grown up world agrees with the above post you malign.
Just what I need, another reminder that I'm getting old.
21
raven, kevin, lugvanb, johnw, Russell, heckle, jeckle, etc.
Please let me explain something to you:
Shut up!!
posted on 12.11.2006 3:43 PM22
Oops!! sorry all. That last post slipped through by accident. What I meant to say was that the above posters are entitled to whatever opinion or question they wish. Just don't ask any of us evangelicals how much we have all made on Halliburton stock.
posted on 12.11.2006 3:57 PM23
The majority of the grown up world agrees with the above post you malign.
I can't help it if a "majority of the grown up world" are delusional idiots.
posted on 12.11.2006 4:00 PM24
Matt--I think Russell is lobbying to join the club. Maybe he feels slighted that you didn't mention him.
posted on 12.11.2006 4:03 PM25
A parallel:
Dems complain about Iraq being like VietNam.
(they should know)
But, they'll at the same time praise the policy of containment as the successful tool for stopping the spread of communism. Of which the proxy wars of 'Nam and Korea were a part.
It appears they want to have it both ways -- containment is good if a Dem does it and bad if a Rep does it.
26
Hey, JD. This is an evangelical blog, so I think a discussion of how a evangelical president would ideally handle the current situation in Iraq is legimate. Also, it reasonable to ask how is the Iraq war and the "war on terror" prosecuted by an evangelical president all influencing the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the muslim peoples of the world?
I never mentioned Haliburton, made any insulting comments, or called anyone names.
I'd like to know your thoughts about these matters from an evangelical perspective.
Is this blog a place for open honest discussion and exchanges of views or is it just a place to insult people that don't agree with you?
JohnW.
27
"I can't help it if a "majority of the grown up world" are delusional idiots."
Doesnt the "majority of the grown up world" believe in a god-daddy-figure of some kind? maybe you re onto something.
28
Doesnt the "majority of the grown up world" believe in a god-daddy-figure of some kind? maybe you re onto something.
I don't suspect Russell would include those poor deluded souls in the group "the majority of the grown up world."
29
John,
He's not an evangelical President, he's a secular President. His job is not to spread Christianity throughout the world as President of the United States.
I think you're starting to buy too much into the "America is a Theocracy" canard spread by folks like Andrew Sullivan.
posted on 12.11.2006 6:03 PM30
uc, Your "suspicions" are off today. Are you going to say anything constructive today, or spend it demeaning people.
posted on 12.11.2006 6:20 PM31
Baggi,
I did not mention anything about "America is a Theocracy".
I know Mr. Bush is a secular president and we are not a theocracy (I never said anything about theocracy).
However, it is well known that President Bush presents himself as being a born-again evangelical who's favorite philosopher is Jesus Christ ("because he changed my heart" according to Bush). Indeed many people voted for Bush because they percieved him as being a christian. Even though Bush's position is secular, certainly if a man has a faith that profoundly affects his life, it would touch all areas of his life, his character, and influence him when he contemplates very important decisions that effect millions of lives.
Christian faith, ideally, does have an effect on a person's behavior in the secular realm, even if a person does not quote scripture or talk about christianity. Does being a christian just mean saying and believing the right things or does it also consist of behavior and attitudes that try to be like Christ's?
Once again, I ask if a president was a christian ideally, how would he deal with the situation in Iraq and terrorism in general?
I truly want to hear what evangelicals on this blog think about this matter.
JohnW
posted on 12.11.2006 7:44 PM32
john W:
it is almost impossible for me to take you guys seriously. You wrote:
"This is an evangelical blog, so I think a discussion of how a evangelical president would ideally handle the current situation in Iraq is legimate. Also, it reasonable to ask how is the Iraq war and the "war on terror" prosecuted by an evangelical president all influencing the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the muslim peoples of the world?"
Is there a serious question there in that bunch of typos?
I'm getting the feeling that there is a question just waiting to burst out, but you really want to wait for just the right moment to spring it on us and show us to be the hypocrites that we are. It's the question that all non-hypocrites use whenever evangelicals need to be shown just how hypocritical they are. And what is that question? Let's say it all together:
"WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?"
There, now. I said it for you. Don't you feel better? In fact, don't you feel better than evangelicals?
And you know what? It almost always works because, of course, Jesus would lay his life down for the Muslims of the world--He would turn the other head, so to speak (the one that wasn't cut off). Most of us evangelicals wouldn't do that. We would probably fight back. But most non-evangelicals, AKA non-hypocrites, would just lay down and die, so, of course, they would be more Christ-like. They would be dead, but they would be more Christ-like.
By the way, weren't you John Wyatt in a previous incarnation? I think so. I think I had a discussion here a while back with a John Wyatt and you remind me of him. Have you changed your name to protect yourself?
posted on 12.11.2006 7:59 PM34
> Once again, I ask if a president was a Christian ideally, how would he deal with the situation in Iraq and terrorism in general?
I dunno, jd, I think that's a great question that deserves an answer. First we must identify the difference between an "ideal President" and an "ideal Christian President"?
In general, a Christian president would understand and respect the goal God ordains for human government: achieve peace and stability by punishing evil and praising good (Rom 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-14). The ideal Christian president would not shy away from using appropriate force to achieve such ends.
An ideal Christian president would not think the goals and methods that Christ prescribed to save men's souls were the same goals and methods appropriate to administering a state justly.
posted on 12.11.2006 8:54 PM35
Are you going to say anything constructive today, or spend it demeaning people.
Russel--The "Bush as stupid, petulant child" meme is really not worth seriously responding to. It doesn't advance the discussion and it certainly doesn't offer any serious options for winning the Battle for Iraq. Snark is about the best I can do.
posted on 12.11.2006 9:06 PM36
"The ideal Christian president would not shy away from using appropriate force to achieve such ends."
I m curious...what evil did those 600k murdered iraqi commit that required punishement through that vaunted "appropriate force"?
There have been lots and lots of ideal christian presidents,princes,kings and emperors throughout history and usually the only good they wind up doing for the world is by leaving it.
posted on 12.11.2006 9:08 PM37
If you want my serious thought on the ISG report, it is a recipe for slow-motion surrender. We know that Iran and Syria are supporting the terrorists, and the reality is that we have shown no inclination to make them pay any price for that. Any discussions with them at this stage would be less negotiations and more our sueing for honorable surrender terms.
I also fail to understand the inclusion of Israeli-Palestinian problems in the ISG report. I can't imagine that being within the scope of their charter. I really don't see the connection with Israel giving the Golan Heights to Syria with stopping Sunnis and Shia in Iraq from killing each other. It would be a little like Venezuela demanding we return Texas to Mexico, or for that matter New York to the Indians in return for the solving Columbia's problems with their drug lords.
posted on 12.11.2006 9:23 PM38
I m curious...what evil did those 600k murdered iraqi commit that required punishement through that vaunted "appropriate force"?
That 600k figure is, like so, 2005, man. Dude, you have adjust for inflation; the number should be, like 50 million now. Get with the program, bro. Fight the Power!!
posted on 12.11.2006 9:40 PM39
Kevin, Raven, Ucfengr, and everyone else,
Please excuse my last post, comment 17, in which I asserted an alleged severe lack of brain-power on the part of Kevin and the Raven.
The truth is, Kevin and Raven are both very bright and articulate people. I don't think they (or anyone else here) are morons.
The point of my comment was to lie and slander them as a piece of performance art. I wanted to highlight their casual use of ad hominem rhetoric against the president and his advisors: "pipe dreams", "stupid" and "unnecessary" policy.
It's possible to disagree over weighty matters without casting the other team as a force of darkness. Two sides can disagree without one side having to be incompetent, stupid, corrupt, evil, or what have you. I think a little humility is justified when critiquing the president and his generals and everyone else involved with the liberation and reconstruction of Iraq.
And maybe even an acknowledgement of the long list of good things that are a result of our invasion and occupation of Iraq is something you might want to consider.
Remember, even if you know for a fact that Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld is some kind of axis of wrong, their policies have consistently enjoyed the support of between 30 to 60% of Americans -- about 90 to 180 million people. Show some respect for the millions of folks who disagree with you.
posted on 12.11.2006 10:26 PM40
Talks with Syria could have good effects in Iraq. If Syria, in exchange for economic benefits, were to stop the movement of fighters into Iraq and arms into Lebanon by closing their borders. Military force as advised by neocons hasn't been that helpful. What would a military strike do against Iran? It might fail to destroy all the facilities, and have Tehran reconstitute its program more secretly. Iran would also retaliate by attacking our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would also radicalize the Muslim world and generate more terrorism. Lastly it would sent the price of oil to new heights increasing the chance of global recession. (R. Haass, Foreign Affairs)
posted on 12.11.2006 10:29 PM41
ucfengr:
don't forget that we're dealing with one of the "reality-based" in lugvanb. He was simply being conservative in his estimates of the dead Iraqis. He didn't want to seem outrageous or anything. He knows he couldn't get away with a number as outrageous as 50 million dead Iraqis. No, 50 million is now the operative figure for the number of uninsured in America. However, Major Owens, that illustrious Democrat senator, broke the nine figure barrier when he declared on the house floor that 200 million Africans were lost while crossing the Atlantic during the slave trade. In fact, sharks still patrol those routes hoping for human scraps. You see, UC, when you're in the "reality-based" community, numbers aren't real until they get really big--or until someone can say them without really laughing.
I heard a liberal talk show host today say that China holds 1 trillion dollars in US debt. There's a really big number. And when China calls that debt, we're SCREWED, because it's not just millions or billions, it's trillions. That's really big.
Conservatives can learn how to do it, too. I don't think it's outrageous to suppose there are 100 to 200 million moonbats hanging upside down in caves in Oregon and Mexico. Yes, I think that number can be plausible--and if repeated enough can become operative.
posted on 12.11.2006 11:08 PM42
ucfengr,jd
600 000 dead iraqi is the estimate reached by the team from John Hopkin and published in the medical journal The lancet a few months ago. I didnt make it up i m just reporting.
43
Something changed between World War II and Vietnam to induce in the public a lack of patience and resolve. Maybe in World War II the threat seemed so ominous that allowing thousands to die in Europe and the Pacific was tolerated. Odd that a nation that loves bringing its troops home they don't really mind them being stationed in Japan and Europe since the war. In the cases of Vietnam and Iraq being small wars many of us don't feel the pressing dread of losing. They think the nation will survive.
Some of the plan has to be laid upon our leaders. Maybe President Bush didn't ask enough of the public after the Sep. 11 attacks to get them to buy into the Long War.
posted on 12.12.2006 3:00 AM44
Russell--The problem with Mr. Haass' assessment is that it makes two assumptions that show no evidence of being valid. The first is that we are dealing with rational actors in Iran and Syria; the second is that either would negotiate in good faith. If these two assumptions are wrong, as I think they are, then negotiations are merely an excuse for a bunch of diplomats to spend a lot of time and (US taxpayer) money in one of the more cosmopolitian European capitals. Looking at the specifics I see a lot of problems:
1. If Syria, in exchange for economic benefits, were to stop the movement of fighters into Iraq and arms into Lebanon by closing their borders.
Stable democracies in Iraq and Lebanon would also provide a lot of economic benefits to Syria, as would peace with Israel. The fact that they decline to pursue these ends leads me to believe that economic benefits would not be a significant inducement.
2. Military force as advised by neocons hasn't been that helpful.
Well it did get rid of Saddam and the Taliban, which I think were precusors to peace and stability in the region. If we had used military force to overthrow the mullahs in Iran, perhaps we wouldn't be having all the problems we are having in Iraq. The Iranians are largely supplying the insurgency, absent that source of supply, the insurgency would be much less effective and quite possibly might be forced to abandon their efforts to obtain power through force of arms and join the legitimate political process.
3. What would a military strike do against Iran? It might fail to destroy all the facilities,
Or it might not fail. I am pretty confident of our miltary's ability to destroy all or most of Iran's nuclear facilities. For that matter, we could put a pretty good hurtin' on the Command & Control centers, making a Iranian response much less likely.
4. and have Tehran reconstitute its program more secretly.
A nuclear program is pretty difficult to hide. They weren't exactly open about their current program. The reality is that we really don't have a good handle on how far along they are with their present nuclear program. I have heard estimates that they could have a nuclear bomb in several months or that they are a decade or more away. I don't see how more secrecy in Iran is that much worse than the current status.
5. Iran would also retaliate by attacking our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq
At the very least, buy supplying training, arms, and equipment to the insurgency, they are indirectly attacking our soldiers. So that horse as already left the barn. The question to ask is what would happen if we did attack their nuclear site? Would they declare war on us? Not likely, they wouldn't fair to much better than Saddam did in that respect. Would they increase their efforts in helping the Iraqi insurgency? Maybe, but they are walking a very fine line here. If their support becomes too blatant or if they hit us too hard, they are likely to invite an overwhelming military attack that they would not survive.
6. It would also radicalize the Muslim world and generate more terrorism.
Or it might convince the Muslim world of the futility of attacking the USA and reduce terrorism. Part of the reason the bad guys are attracting recruits is because there is a perception that they are winning. If you take away that perception recruits start drying up.
7. Lastly it would sent the price of oil to new heights increasing the chance of global recession.
Maybe, maybe not. Iran can't afford to turn off their oil exports, nor could the rest of the Middle East. Their economies would crash a lot sooner than ours would. It also ignores the fact that very high oil prices are not sustainable over an extended period of time. There is a lot of oil in the world, just not a lot that can be extracted as cheaply as it can be in the Middle East. As oil prices rise, a lot of that oil becomes economically viable to extract, which will increase the supply and bring the price down.
posted on 12.12.2006 8:30 AM45
ludvanb:
I certainly did not think, nor did I accuse you of making that 600,000 number up. We've seen that number thrown around for many months now. It's taken as fact by the left, just like many other questionable facts. That Lancet study has been debunked. Please don't ask me where, I don't know. However, common sense would say that the number just isn't possible. Just last month (maybe it was October) we had the "bloodiest" month of the war (or maybe since some date earlier in the war). The numbers killed were in the 3,000 area. Multiply that by 12 you get 36,000 for one year. Multiply that by 3 and a half years and you get 126,000. I even doubt that figure. Why would you trust Lancet, the BBC, or most any other European media? They have surely chosen sides and it ain't us.
posted on 12.12.2006 8:46 AM46
ludvanb and all you other reality-based folks:
Just in case you wanted to read about debunking that 600,000 number. Here (http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/
How many Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war? - By Fred Kaplan) is one article from Slate magazine, that radical right-wing rag. What's sad is that I expect you'll still throw that 600,000 number around as fact.
47
Matthew: That was a rather nice thing to say. Thank you.
posted on 12.12.2006 9:36 AM48
The truth is, Kevin and Raven are both very bright and articulate people. I don't think they (or anyone else here) are morons.
Articulate, probably; bright, maybe, but that certainly doesn't, in itself exclude them from the ranks of "morons". I appreciate you not wanting to be confrontational, but the tone and content of their respective posts didn't invite serious discussion.
posted on 12.12.2006 9:49 AM49
Thanks Kaffinator for your comments. No one else is interested in discussing an evangelical perspective here. What you say is reasonable. however, I do not believe President Bush is guided by christian faith and his policies are decidely unchristian.
JD, yes, my real name is John Wyatt, but I decided since no one else uses there real name here and frankly, there seems to be so wackos posting here, I though I would use JohnW instead (I live in Illinois in a suburb of Chicago-sorry, I'm not going to give anymore details).
JD, FYI, in my previous comments, I did specifically ask "What Would Jesus Do" in regards to the Iraq War and the "war on terrror". It's a serious question and people who take their faith seriously think about such things. You did nothing but insult me and never addressed the issue.
posted on 12.12.2006 10:20 AM50
"Why would you trust Lancet, the BBC, or most any other European media? They have surely chosen sides and it ain't us."
Well for one thing the Lancet is a medical journal and the method used by the John Hopkin team is the exact same that is used to evaluate the number of killed or disapeared following natural disasters or wars in under developed countries and they usually arent subjected to this level of attack by nay sayers. But in this case,there is a very real political reason to do so....if the numbers are true,we topped Saddam husseim in sheer victom body count...and we re not supposed to do that,since we re the "good guys"....and as for your "us and them" comment,thats just idiot speak.
51
John W, please define or describe what "being guided by christian faith" in terms of the present situation would look like, in your opinion. Also please describe why you believe President Bush's policies are "decidely unchristian."
Then to really give us something to discuss, do you believe there is any course of action the United States should undertake to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?
Do you believe the United States should use whatever influence it has with Israel to give the Golan Heights to Syria? Judea/Samaria to Hamas?
If you want to address these questions in a constructive manner I think you will find many evangelicals here who will be happy to debate what the evangelical response ought to be.
posted on 12.12.2006 11:37 AM52
LudVanB, people that take the time to look into things and get the facts, will know that the Lancet Study is reasonable. It used the same methodology the government used to estimate the deaths in Kosvo and Afghanistan. The Lancet estimates of deaths resulting from our invasion and occuptation of Iraq are good estimates.
People that get their news from FOX News and the conservative media will never be convinced though.
Our country has killed more than a half million Iraqis for no good reason and these are the facts. As a christian, I am compelled to speak out against this atrocity and the adminstration responsible for it.
JohnW
53
I do not believe President Bush is guided by christian faith and his policies are decidely unchristian.
What policies would a "Christian President" enact? The Bible is strangely silent on the minimum wage, doesn't condemn the military or military action, and doesn't spend a lot of time extolling the virtues of a progressive tax system. What authority do you use to determine what specific policies are Christian or unChristian?
posted on 12.12.2006 11:39 AM54
ucfengr,
I use the bible as my authority in determining whether a leader's policies are christian or un-christian.
The bible is silent on many issues, yet we still can use it as a guide in our daily lives. Also, it is clear from numerous passages that a godly leader has concern for the poor, seeks wise council when going to war, and is careful about shedding blood. The bible specifically states that Jesus came to free the poor and oppressed. If all the passages in the bible that discuss concern for human life, poverty, and oppression were removed from the bible there would be very little left.
I recommend reading the sermon on the mount, Isaiah chapters 58 and 59, and Jeremiah chapter 22.
55
JohnW--You come and and try to act all nice and reasonable, and then you say something to give the game away.
people that take the time to look into things and get the facts, will know that the Lancet Study is reasonable
Lots of smart folks have looked at the Lancet study and profoundly disagree with its conclusions. For the moment, let's forget that the 600K number is really just the midpoint of a much wider range, and assume that 600K is accurate. We have been in Iraq for 45 months (3/2003 to present), 600K deaths/45 months = 13333 deaths/month. Now it is important to remember that the 600K number is additional deaths, so essentially Lancet is claiming 13,333 additional deaths each month. Now, here's the question, where are the bodies? At the Battle of Gettysburg, there were 10,000 deaths. The Lancet is claiming 1.33 Gettysburgs per month in Iraq, again where are the bodies? I doubt even Haliburton could dispose of 13,333 additional bodies every month with no one catching on.
posted on 12.12.2006 12:14 PM56
ucfengr, what's your estimate of the Iraqi deaths we caused? And how did you arrive at your number?
posted on 12.12.2006 12:28 PM57
Also, it is clear from numerous passages that a godly leader has concern for the poor,
According to Philanthropy.com (http://www.philanthropy.com/free/update/2006/04/2006041402.htm), the Bushes donated 12% of their taxable income to several churches and charitable organizations in 2005. Did you donate 12% of your taxable income to charity last year? I am pretty sure I didn't hit 12% last year and I consider myself a fairly generous giver. Unless you want to make the case that a President shows concern for the poor by being generous with other people's money, it's hard to make the case that Bush has no concern for the poor.
seeks wise council when going to war,
I am really not sure what this means; Bush sought the council of Vice President Cheney, Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld, then National Security Advisor Rice, Generals Franks, Abizaid, and Casey, and many others. If by wise council you mean that which agrees with you, then you may have a point, but otherwise it's hard to argue that those folks were unable to give the President wise council.
and is careful about shedding blood.
Maybe you should read the Old Testament starting with Joshua and then working your way through First and Second Samuel before you talk about the Bible exhorting leaders to be careful about shedding blood. King David was particularly generous with the shedding of the blood of Israel's enemies.
The bible specifically states that Jesus came to free the poor and oppressed.
I wasn't aware the Bush proposed enslaving them.
posted on 12.12.2006 12:44 PM58
Hey,ucfengr, Please let me explain something to you: Shut up!!
Just curious, how old are you?
JohnW
59
ucfengr, what's your estimate of the Iraqi deaths we caused? And how did you arrive at your number?
I don't have an estimate, but I don't see why that should imply I need to accept any old SWAG from a group of America hating doctors. Even the Iraqi government disagrees with the assessment. The Brookings Institute (a left leaning thinktank) estimates 62,000 (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/10/12/MNGUTLNP6C1.DTL), which is closer to most other estimates.
Of course, even one innocent death is a tragedy, but if you are going to let the fear of innocent death control your foreign policy then you may as well disband the military and surrender to the bad guys. Let's be honest, our soldiers go out of their way to minimize civilian deaths, even at the expense of the mission; our enemies go out of their way to maximize civilian deaths confident in the knowledge that "useful idiots" on the left will blame Bush, rather than them.
posted on 12.12.2006 1:04 PM60
Just curious, how old are you?
Old enough that I don't want to discuss my age. Just as a baseline, I am older than disco, but younger than rock and roll.
posted on 12.12.2006 1:10 PM61
Hey,ucfengr, Please let me explain something to you: Shut up!!
How very Christian of you.
posted on 12.12.2006 1:12 PM62
I think it's JD who likes to do the "shut up" thing. It sounds funny, I couldn't resist saying it too.
Seriously though, apparently we read a different bible and live in a world with different realities, so I don't know what good all these comments are making.
posted on 12.12.2006 1:23 PM63
Seriously though, apparently we read a different bible
You don't have the Books of Joshua and Samuel in your Bible? I guess you are right. It should have tipped me off the way you don't capatilize "Bible". Where I come from we capitalize the "B" when we are talking about the "Holy Bible"; we use the lower case when talking about "The Beer Drinker's Bible" or "Hunter's Bible".
and live in a world with different realities,
There is only one "real" reality, you just choose not to recognize it.
Just out of curosity, how old are you?
posted on 12.12.2006 1:31 PM64
Hey John W, you keep throwing down the gauntlet and saying that evangelicals don't want to have a discussion with you about these issues, but apparently what you mean by meaningful dialogue is dialogue that happens according to your terms and using your presuppositions. Otherwise it is curious that you are avoiding my straightforward questions posed to you in post 51. You have, after all, posted five times since then.
posted on 12.12.2006 1:38 PM65
so I don't know what good all these comments are making.
It does tend to expose the shallowness of your thinking. Take the "Bush doesn't care about poor people" thing. You say Bush doesn't care about the poor; I show that Bush donates a significant portion of his income to the charity, and you just ignore it because it doesn't fit with your preconceived notions. Maybe it's even worse, perhaps Bush is more generous with his money than you are with yours. That would be a real "reality slap".
66
I am 43 years old.
I'm old enough to remember a time when republicans and democrats could work together and being a christian didn't mean you had to be pro-war, pro-big business, and not care about the environment.
I am hoping that one day, I'll be able to vote republican again, but it doesn't look like I'll be able to do it anytime soon.
The article you mentioned earlier is a fair and balanced report. It does not discredit the methodology of the Lancet estimate of Iraqi deaths following our invasion and occupation. Also, it said that if the 650,000 was correct, it undermines our whole mission there and people should rethink it.
posted on 12.12.2006 1:45 PM67
Hey Cheesehead, in response to your comment 51, which I didn't notice until just now:
we should protect our country from nuclear threats. I don't think a military strike or invasion of Iran would be a good idea. We might start by actually talking to them.
As for "being guided by christian faith", a president should be honest and care about the needs of the poor and oppressed (as opposed to always catering to big business at the expense of the working man). Also, he would not rush into war. He could try using "soft power" instead of resorting to military actions. The war in Iraq was optional and a mistake and morally wrong.
With regards to the Palestine / Israel situation: both parties should be treated fairly. We currently are not considered an Honest Broker in the region. I know Israel is god's chosen nation and figures prominently in the LEFT BEHIND end times scenarios, but that doesn't mean that they are always right.
I recommend reading the sermon on the mount, Isaiah chapters 58 and 59, and Jeremiah chapter 22 to shed some light on my views about a good christian leader.
posted on 12.12.2006 2:01 PM68
I'm old enough to remember a time when republicans and democrats could work together and being a christian didn't mean you had to be pro-war, pro-big business, and not care about the environment.
Oh please. This is the kind of stuff that makes it hard to take you seriously.
1. Pro-war--What the heck does that mean? Does that mean that anybody who's ever supported any war at any time? Are you a Quaker, or some other pasifist sect? Or does that mean only people who support the current war against Islamic Fascists? I support the current war, but that doesn't mean I support all wars. For example, I wasn't crazy about the Bosnian conflict and I wouldn't have supported WW1, but I have no problem with WW2, The US Civil War, or the Korean and Vietnam Wars.
2. Pro-big business--Well I am pro-business (note, not just big) in that I think the government should try to create an environment that allows businesses to succeed (or fail) on their own merits. I am not sure why this is unChristian, without businesses there are no jobs, and with no jobs it is very hard to be charitable.
3. Pro-environment--Again, this is just silly. I breathe the same air and drink the same water you do, and so do my kids. Why would you presume that I would support policies that I thought would destroy the environment or make it unsafe for myself and my children?
posted on 12.12.2006 2:08 PM69
we should protect our country from nuclear threats. I don't think a military strike or invasion of Iran would be a good idea. We might start by actually talking to them.
What should we talk to them about? Maybe we could point out that they are training and supplying terrorists, who are killing our soldiers as well as innocent Iraqi civilians. Perhaps they haven't thought through the ramifications of their actions and we just need to explain it to them and they'll stop. Or maybe we could explain to them that all this talk about nuking Israel is just bad form and they should stop it. Perhaps they don't understand how damaging this type of rhetoric is. If only we explained it to them, I am sure they'd stop.
Johnny-baby, reality is knocking on the door; you need to answer.
70
JohnW--Earlier today a suicide bomber drove up in a minibus, pretended to hire day laborers, then set off his explosives as they got into his vehicle, killing 71 and wounding 151 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235958,00.html), no doubt with explosives supplied from Iran. They didn't attack a US military base, they attacked a bunch of poor slubs just trying to put food on the table for the day. Assuming everything you say about Bush is right, how would letting these people win make it any better?
posted on 12.12.2006 2:34 PM71
You people scare me. Turn off Fox News and the 700 Club.
posted on 12.12.2006 2:58 PM72
Turn off Fox News and the 700 Club.
Of course, if Fox reported it, it didn't really happen. Maybe if you had checked the link you would have found that it was an AP story, not a Fox News story. Now stop being a jerk and read the story, then tell me why turning Iraq over to these a-holes is your preferred option.
73
uncfengr,
Whatever, you just keep trusting your lord and savior George W. Bush. Ok.
posted on 12.12.2006 4:13 PM74
I gotta drop in and stick up for my man uncfengr. What are you doing JohnW? You must know that evangelical outpost is a center right blog, and most of its readers share that persuasion. So instead of coming here' putting yourself in God's place, and judging our hearts and motives, maybe you could attempt to understand why we think the way we do about certain issues.
I get tired of Christians like yourself accusing those Christians on the right as acting from a purely partisan standpoint, while ignoring the fact that you are just as partisan in the opposite direction.
75
Boy,
This is interesting. First the article, then the comments.
It is amazing how few seem to really read the article and let their personal vendetta's get in the way.
Here is my 2 cents worth.
We did have a little empire for a while-but those countries are now independent (Philippines for instance. And one conquered country we occupied for many years became one of our allies (Germany). Yes we are an odd country. We hate war but manage it very well. We screw up the peace (and the victory) too easily and i think it is because as a culture we collectively are ADD and can't stay focused.
Maybe Iraq is a quagmire and one of our own making at that, and maybe not. Maybe we just set our foot into the middle of a hornets nest. Maybe the Middle East likes oppression and zero personal freedom. Who knows?
All I know is that we are there and we better "bring the boys home" correctly or we will be right back there within the decade and this time we will not have the choice of to go or not to go.
76
Boy,
This is interesting. First the article, then the comments.
It is amazing how few seem to really read the article and let their personal vendetta's get in the way.
Here is my 2 cents worth.
We did have a little empire for a while-but those countries are now independent (Philippines for instance. And one conquered country we occupied for many years became one of our allies (Germany). Yes we are an odd country. We hate war but manage it very well. We screw up the peace (and the victory) too easily and i think it is because as a culture we collectively are ADD and can't stay focused.
Maybe Iraq is a quagmire and one of our own making at that, and maybe not. Maybe we just set our foot into the middle of a hornets nest. Maybe the Middle East likes oppression and zero personal freedom. Who knows?
All I know is that we are there and we better "bring the boys home" correctly or we will be right back there within the decade and this time we will not have the choice of to go or not to go.
77
Finlay, I hear what you're saying and I should restrain myself.
The comment about trusting lord and savior George W. Bush was inappropriate and wrong. Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior and I dishonored his name and what he did for us, when I made my last comment. I ask that you,Uncnfgr, and anyone else I have offended, please forgive me.
Can I be perfectly honest with you and try to explain myself? This blog does not seem at all center/right-to me it seems far right extremist. Some of the things I read on this blog, just make me think, "wow, are these people for real". Really, they do, I wonder how people could think like this (about the Iraq war, war on terror, and "liberals"). Some of the viewpoints expressed here seem very extreme to me.
Also, I wonder if they believe that I am not a christian because I don't support the Bush administration and speak out against his policies. I wonder if they express the same attitudes when witnessing or sharing their faith with others as they do when defending their viewpoints on this blog. I saw something on youtube.com the other day that relates to this(search for "right to life" from mailjulie). Someone interviewed a group of christians out on the street witnessing. The interviewer asked them about politics and why they supported George W. Bush. The response was something like: "we don't want a baby killer in the white house". The interviewer then asked "what about iraqi babies?...".
I don't know what else to say.
JohnW.
78
uc,
This is getting back rather late but I had a busy day. You are right on about Iran and the things they are doing and they are going to be an on going threat no doubt. We need, I think, to let diplomacy have a good go at it. With international support and creating adverse Iranian public opinion one may have a chance. Why not try? These governments are radical but they haven't always been. Wasn't Syria our ally in the Persian Gulf War? The consequences of such a war, as you discussed earlier, could be o.k or they could be extremely disastrous. Remember, the rest of the world doesn't like these radical regimes anymore than we do.
79
"Of course, even one innocent death is a tragedy, but if you are going to let the fear of innocent death control your foreign policy then you may as well disband the military and surrender to the bad guys."
Now thats a very unreasonable comment. The military exists to PROTECT the US people,not to serve as doormats for a commercial venture overseas to service the financial aims of a ruling corporate elite. There was no elements of the Iraq invasion that had ANYTHING to do with protecting the people of the US...not a single one. The military in this case was criminaly misused,which makes every single so called "unintended death" which occured as a result of that misuse a crime...the people who engineered the invasion of Iraq ARE bad guys and i have no intention of surendering to them.
80
JohnW--You seem to have a problem with hating Bush more than you love God. It's a form of idolatry and something you need to get a handle on. Bush isn't perfect, but for you to question his faith because he disagrees with you on matters of policy is wrong and not very Christian.
Re: the 600,000 "dead Iraqis"
Keep in mind that when you try to implicate Bush, et al. in these "deaths", what you are really doing is implicating our troops, who I assume you support. I suppose you could argue that they are just following orders, and therefore aren't responsible, but I wouldn't accept that, nor would the troops. I work with in the defense industry; as such have daily dealings with our troops and to a man (or woman), they are proud of the mission in Iraq and what they are accomplishing. While they all want to go home, none of them want to leave until the Iraqis are capable of taking of themselves.
posted on 12.13.2006 6:23 AM81
You are right on about Iran and the things they are doing and they are going to be an on going threat no doubt. We need, I think, to let diplomacy have a good go at it.
There is an air of unreality in this statement. The problem is that Iran is shooting at us and developing their arsenal, while we do nothing. I am sure Iran would be very agreeable to situation where they shoot at us, while we talk to them, but I don't see how it would be very productive for us. We have been in a war with Iran for nearly 30 years. It is a war in which they train and equip terrorists to attack us (and Israel) and we pretend they aren't. For any negotiations with Iran to be productive, we need to change that template. We need to show them that there is a price to be paid for their attacks against us. One course of action might be to bomb their nuclear facilities or air defense network, another might be to set up a government in exile and start supporting internal resistance groups, but absent a change to the current template of Iranian/American relations, any discussions will be less negotiations and more our asking for surrender terms.
With international support and creating adverse Iranian public opinion one may have a chance. Why not try?
The international community has shown no real interest in stopping Iran from supporting terrorists or acquiring nuclear weapons. In fact, China and Russia are probably facilitating their nuclear program. Let's be honest, the international community knows what Iran is about, they just don't care. What are we going to do to change that?
Wasn't Syria our ally in the Persian Gulf War?
Well, I don't remember any Syrian troops during Desert Storm, but I could be mistaken. At best, you could say they didn't actively oppose our operations against Saddam in Kuwait, but that is a far cry from being an ally. But so what, they are supporting the terrorists in Iraq that are attacking our troops and killing innocent Iraqis, certainly not the actions of an ally.
Remember, the rest of the world doesn't like these radical regimes anymore than we do.
I haven't seen a lot of evidence that they are willing to do anything about it though.
posted on 12.13.2006 7:57 AM82
JohnW,
Did you ever consider that if you think Joe and this site represent the extreme right, it might be an indication of where you are along the spectrum?
posted on 12.13.2006 10:04 AM
83
ucfengr,
I'm restraining myself. Also, I'm going to try to stop commenting so much.
I don't actually hate Bush, it just I believe his policies/actions are unchristian. Also, I believe some christian's close affliation with the republican party and blind support of Bush is a form of Idolatry.
Nevertheless, I agree somewhat with what you and Finlay said and most importantly, I must remove the plank from my own eyes before pointing to the speck in my brother's eyes. Putting trust in a democratic or republican administration is equally wrong for christians.
So, how about cut me a little slack here?
posted on 12.13.2006 10:15 AM84
JohnW,
Thanks for showing a bit of humility, it helps. I can do better in that regard myself.
85
John W, I won't respond point for point to your reply to me, partly because ucfenger said exactly what I would have said about some of the points (only better), and partly because the points uc didn't address would all be along the same lines of what he said.
Besides the discussion seems to have moved into a new and more constructive vein anyway. I do hope that your move to repentence and refraining from mocking the religious beliefs of those you disagree with politically are both genuine and will be lasting. I'm sure that you will find going forward people will be more than happy to cut you some slack if you stop framing your ideas in terms of judging both their politics and by extension their relationship with God.
posted on 12.13.2006 11:02 AM86
JohnW:
It might also help if you would distance yourself from people like lugvanb, russell, Mumon and others who believe crap like 600,000 dead Iraqis. It's nearly impossible to take anyone seriously who believes that kind of garbage.
Along those lines, do you also believe that the World Trade Center came down a little suspiciously?
Do you believe, like Boonton, that Bill Clinton was, after all, just a little too honest?
posted on 12.13.2006 11:45 AM87
Finlay, Cheesehead, Uncenfgr, and everyone else:
My politics have not always been what they are today. I don’t consider myself to be far left/extreme liberal, in fact, my friends say I am moderate. That’s beside the point though.
My political viewpoints have changed over the last few years as I recommitted my life to Christ after watching the Passion of the Christ movie. I grew up in a fundamentalist family and always supported conservative republican viewpoints. After watching the Passion movie, which vividly reminded me of God’s love for us that he would send his Son to live with us and die for us, I started reading my bible again and this changed some of my thinking about politics and other things too.
Anyways, I will try to tone down my rhetoric.
I think I’ve found something we could all agree with wholeheartedly:
We are all just human beings and do not have all the answers. Also, we should trust God and be open to learning from others. And we should strive to be like Christ.
JohnW
jwyatt1963@yahoo.com
88
"It might also help if you would distance yourself from people like lugvanb, russell, Mumon and others who believe crap like 600,000 dead Iraqis. It's nearly impossible to take anyone seriously who believes that kind of garbage."
I find it quite amusing that we are being ridiculed for our beliefs regarding casualities that came as a result of a "war" (criminal commercial venture in this case)on a site where the creed of faith is about some dude who supposadly walked on water,cured the blind and came back from the dead way back when.
89
I don't actually hate Bush, it just I believe his policies/actions are unchristian.
Wouldn't it be easier to just say you disagree with some of his policies. When you say they are "unChristian", you are not only impugning Bush, you are impugning the millions of Christians here and abroad that support his policies.
Also, I believe some christian's close affliation with the republican party and blind support of Bush is a form of Idolatry.
Conservative Christians get accused of that all the time, but I just don't see it. I have been very critical of many of Bush's policies, as have many of the more conservative posters here. On this very thread I have been critical of the way Bush is fighting this war, especially with respect to Iran and Syria. This idea that Conservative Christians have set Bush up as some sort of Christ figure is just absurd.
Putting trust in a democratic or republican administration is equally wrong for christians.
I think we have to have some level of trust in our government and institutions, whoever is in power, but that trust shouldn't come before our trust in God.
So, how about cut me a little slack here?
It is almost Christmas, so maybe.
posted on 12.13.2006 11:59 AM90
lugvanb:
Why would you expect anything rational from someone who believes something so extraordinary such as a risen Christ?
Do you have a serious answer to my serious question?
posted on 12.13.2006 12:04 PM91
I find it quite amusing that we are being ridiculed for our beliefs regarding casualities that came as a result of a "war" (criminal commercial venture in this case)on a site where the creed of faith is about some dude who supposadly walked on water,cured the blind and came back from the dead way back when.
I find it sad that you that you have such a low opinion of the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines that put their lives on the line every day to defend you right to spout such drivel.
posted on 12.13.2006 12:09 PM92
JohnW,
I admire your integrity and hope you don't take Jd's advise and distance yourself from the likes of me.
uc,
Being critical about the war and the architects of the war isn't a slap in the face towards the troops, who I admire.
A new Zogby poll came out today. What is getting coverage in a New York Times article is that 72% of U.S. soldiers in Iraq believe we should substantially withdraw sooner rather than later.
Also, Most Iraqis think we should leave.
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
"Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149
May 7, 1918
93
LudVanB,
Well the spirit of reconciliation didn't last long around here did it? If you hate our beliefs, no one is keeping you here.
posted on 12.13.2006 12:13 PM94
ucfengr:
you are so right about conservatives' supposed "blind support" of Bush and Republicans. There is a natural tension between Christians and anyone in a position of power. As Christians, we believe that all have sinned and fall short; to that extent we don't "trust" anyone. We are also called to serve only one God; politicians don't fit the bill.
Apparently, johnw and others ignore the criticism that us conservatives at this website have had for Bush on myriad policy decisions. (His spending should make liberals happy, but it doesn't for some strange reason.)
That being said, I think that evangelicals have a certain level of trust in our elected leaders; a trust that they will be decent and behave decently. It is, after all, the only government we have. We put them there. If they can't be trusted AT ALL, then we have a different problem.
It's liberals who tend to put their trust in politics and politicians. If they have a religion it's politics, or secularism or some such thing.
What was amazing to me was the support that Bill Clinton got after his absolutely outrageous behavior. He was not a decent, honourable man, yet his approval ratings were at their highest during the impeachment. When it came down to it, the liberals could not abandon their "god." If Clinton had been a Republican, he would have been trashed by the media, rejected by his conservative base and frankly, would have never been the Republican candidate for President. We would have been so ashamed of our support for him, he wouldn't have survived.
Bush has probably made many mistakes in this war (what, John Kerry wouldn't have?). I think it's way too early to make any serious judgments about what will ultimately happen as a result of this foray into Iraq. I'm glad I'm not making the decisions about this stuff. I'm willing to let Bush go where no one else had the guts to go, (Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton). No one has had any reasonable solution to the problem--all we've basically heard is: "Bush is a poopy-head," to quote a famous poster.
posted on 12.13.2006 12:34 PM95
Being critical about the war and the architects of the war isn't a slap in the face towards the troops, who I admire.
Of course it isn't (I am critical of our conduct in the war), but if you believe that our troops are responsible for the death of 600,000 innocent Iraqis than don't come to me and say you support the troops, because you don't. You can say you blame Bush, but you know what, Bush ain't running around Iraq with a gun. If our actions in Iraq are responsible for 600,000 civilian deaths, then the troops are just as responsible as Bush. Just following orders is not a legal defense for war atrocities.
96
I think it's way too early to make any serious judgments about what will ultimately happen as a result of this foray into Iraq. I'm glad I'm not making the decisions about this stuff.
Amen brother. I'm glad I don't have to make these decisions as well. I imagine the toughest part is knowing that no matter what you decide, innocent people are going to suffer.
No one has had any reasonable solution to the problem--all we've basically heard is: "Bush is a poopy-head," to quote a famous poster.
Now that's funny.
97
I'm toning down my rhetoric and limiting my comments. I'm searching for a way to express my views in an appropriate way while at the same time not compromising on what I believe is true in regards to the Bush administration, Iraq war, and "war on terror".
Will make one comment:
I support, respect, and appreciate our fine men and women serving in the military. They are following orders from the commander in chief and exposed to a lot of dangers. Our troops have suffered through quite a bit in the Iraq war with all the extended tours of duty and so forth.
JohnW
posted on 12.13.2006 1:25 PM98
"Well the spirit of reconciliation didn't last long around here did it? If you hate our beliefs, no one is keeping you here."
Never said i hated them but i dont share them obviously and it was not the point anyway so why are you changing the subject?
99
"Of course it isn't (I am critical of our conduct in the war), but if you believe that our troops are responsible for the death of 600,000 innocent Iraqis than don't come to me and say you support the troops, because you don't. You can say you blame Bush, but you know what, Bush ain't running around Iraq with a gun. If our actions in Iraq are responsible for 600,000 civilian deaths, then the troops are just as responsible as Bush. Just following orders is not a legal defense for war atrocities."
No one tried to peg the high civilian death tool on the troops...most died as a result of the invasion,not necessarely by the troops themselves...the instability created by the invasion is mostly to blame for this...i imagine that quite a few people died in the crossfire of inter faction conflicts in iraq but those conflict could not have taken place without the chaos that our beloved leaders brought in Iraq. The military is a blunt instrument,not a scalpel...its meant to batter threats into oblivion but a threat Iraq most certainly was not and the resulting death toll,whatever it may be in the end,was absolutely UNNECESSARY to protect the US. Those people all died a meaningless death just so that a few rich criminals could get a bit richer...and it is that fact which i find sickening beyond the pale.
100
LudVanB,
Perhaps you are correct and the civilian casualties in Iraq have done nothing to make us safer. But that view is only plausible with hindsight.
However, you are being deliberatley ignorant of the state of the world in late 2001 and 2002. At the time the president was being raked over the coals for being so stupid as to have not seen 9/11 coming.
After 9/11 the threat of state sponsored terrorists was real and had to be dealt with. Given the tragedy on 9/11, no US president with the access to the intelligence that Mr. Bush had, could have ignored the threat that despotic regimes possessing WMD and supporting terrorists posed.
At the time invading Iraq was seen as the next logical step to preserve the safety of America against terrorist supporting dictators with WMD's. Now if you want to say that Iran was a bigger threat, I'll entertain the argument. If so you'd be arguing about the necessity of the deaths of 600,000 Iranians and how Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear program.
Bottom line: the Iraq invasion may turn out to fail, but there wasn't much choice at the time.
101
I've been good and haven't commented much today. Will make one comment regarding the build up to the Iraqi war before I leave work though.
There is readily available public information that many members of the Bush administration were advocating military overthrow of Saddam as early as 1998 (see the project for the new american century website). Regarding the pre-war intelligence it could be reasonably argued that intelligence was manipulated to support the pre-determined decision to invade Iraq.
Sadly, I do not think the Bush administration can be trusted at all. I believe evangelicals have been used by this administration. I know it's hard to believe the New York Times,Washington Post, and the many books out there that are critical of Bush. Afterall, these are liberals (who don't believe in God), but when source after source says the same things over and over again, there has to be something to it.
No, I simply do not trust the word of the Bush administration. I am tired of waking up everyday hearing about the death and destruction in Iraq everyday and realizing all the millions of enemies we are making.
JohnW.
posted on 12.13.2006 5:55 PM102
JohnW,
Who wasn't advocating the overthrow of Saddam in 1998? Bill Clinton was President, and he almost went to war with Iraq over the WMD issue. Do you remember operation Desert Fox?
Do you think the German, British and French intelligence services were colluding with the Americans to cook the intelligence?
And finally, do you honestly believe the level of venality, corruption and dishonesty you ascribe to members of the Bush administration?
Dick Cheney was a moderate Western conservative hailed for his management of the first Gulf War as Secretary of Defense, and now he's nothing but Hitler to the left.
posted on 12.13.2006 6:23 PM103
Russell: "We need, I think, to let diplomacy have a good go at it. With international support and creating adverse Iranian public opinion one may have a chance. Why not try?" OK, let's give diplomats jawing at each other a chance. What will be our signal that diplomacy has failed and it's time to try something else? When Tel Aviv is a smoking crater?!? Ahmadinijad said the other day they will be going nuclear in March. That seems like a pretty small window of opportunity for diplomacy to work.
Anyway, even if the US is not viewed as an honest broker between the Israelis and the Palestinians, an Iranian nuke would be an equal opportunity destroyer. Something needs to happen with Iran, and soon.
posted on 12.13.2006 7:11 PM104
Are you telling me that Iran would launch an atomic bomb at Israel knowing it would receive the full nuclear might of the US and Israel. There would be nothing left. They are radical but not utterly crazy.
posted on 12.13.2006 7:22 PM105
There is readily available public information that many members of the Bush administration were advocating military overthrow of Saddam as early as 1998 (see the project for the new american century website).
In 1998, Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, which made the official policy of the US, an Iraq without Saddam. So for you to assert that this is something that originated with the Bush administration is just wrong.
Regarding the pre-war intelligence it could be reasonably argued that intelligence was manipulated to support the pre-determined decision to invade Iraq.
So what you are suggesting is that Bush took intelligence information that he knew to be wrong and used it to justify the Iraq invasion? But you don't hate Bush, right? If Bush was that devious, why didn't he stage another terrorist attack to coincide with the election and use that as a pretense to seize power? Certainly someone as evil as Bush wouldn't be opposed to even nuking some blue city to acheive his dreams of absolute power.
I know it's hard to believe the New York Times,Washington Post, and the many books out there that are critical of Bush.
I know, if it comes from Fox News it is nothing but lies, but if it comes from the Washington Post, Michael Moore, or Norman Mailer it is holy script, but you don't hate Bush, right?
106
Yes, Finlay, I do believe the Bush administration is guilty of the corruption, dishonesty, and evil, I have been ascribing to it. And that is precisely why I have been getting so worked up in some of my comments. I voted for Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush (only in 2000 though). I wish things were different. I don't want to go on and on about it though because I don't know how productive it really is.
I just encourage everyone to get news from a variety of sources and weigh the evidence. I recommend 3 books: "Worse than Watergate" and "Conservatives without a Conscience" by John Dean and "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward.
JohnW
posted on 12.13.2006 7:45 PM107
Russell: When someone repeatedly expresses the desire to annihilate you, it is best to take those threats seriously. Let me turn your question back on you. Are you aware that Iran holds annual "World Without Zionism" conferences? Or that Amadinijad has repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped off the map? (This is an odd statement coming from him, really. Moslem countries don't put Israel on their maps anyway.) Are you aware that Iran is right now holding a Holocaust Deniers conference and that Mahmoud once again today reiterated his belief that Israel will shortly be nuked? Are you are aware that Moslem clerics have welcomed the possibility of Iranian nuclear strikes, reasoning that even if Israel could kill 40 million Iranians in retaliation for the one successful strike that obliterates Israel, that would be an acceptable outcome?
I am saying that your calculus that the Iranian regime is "radical but not utterly crazy" is likely to be wide of the mark. You assume that the deterence of MAD will be effective against them. I say that deterence is utterly ineffective against someone who believes that dying while fighting infidels will hasten the reappearance of the 12th Imam. Amadinijad is mad. He has said that he believes Iran will be able to launch nuclear missiles at Israel by next March. It is 1939 all over again.
John W: Please integrate into your statement,"I do believe the Bush administration is guilty of the corruption, dishonesty, and evil, I have been ascribing to it;" the facts presented by ucfenger and Finlay about foreign intelligence services and Clinton's assessment of the situation in Iraq.
Before I spend one thin dime lining the pockets of the likes of John Dean I would like to see you, as the one recommending these books, present a coherent picture of how this whole thing was engineered by BushCo including the manipulation of foreign intelligence, and totally taking in all of the different leaders of the Democrats and of foreign states, to say that there were WMDs in Iraq when he knew all along that there weren't.
One more thing to include in that assessment. If Bush is both so corrupt and so powerful as you obviously believe him to be, why did he not merely plant evidence of WMD's in Iraq during the invasion? That would have saved him a lot of PR trouble and been just the sort of thing we could expect from Karl Rove.
posted on 12.13.2006 9:06 PM108
Cheesehead,
I respect your views but I don't agree. Yes, I know about the Iranian's view on Israel. Did you hear that they had David Duke there at the anti-holocost thing? What an ass. Iran does have a history of more moderate times. I have read that the young Iranians are crazy, no pun intended, about American culture. Also, did you know that Saudi Arabia, our friend, also supported suicide bombers in Israel? Bold talk is not a new things, remember Krusheve's "we will bury you."