Friends Don't Let Friends Blog Stupid

Unfortunately, Oliver Willis must have few friends, given his answers to these questions about the Iraq War from Qand O.

Q: let's dispense with silly arguments about whether we should've gone into Iraq in the first place. Shoulda, woulda, coulda. We are there. So what do we do now?

A: Well, the history of blah blah blah

Translation: I can't do that, or I wouldn't have anything much to say at all. But what I do offer up is just dandy.

Then, says Mr. Kryptonite to Stupid, after flying counterclockwise around the world real fast to turn back the hands of time:

There will be a bloody fight within Iraq for control of that nation. Whether that will be bloodier than the current civil war, I can't say. But it will be a bloody confrontation without the added carnage of American troops.

Ah, let's just rename Iraq Darfur 2 - or Rwanda, or post-US withdrawal Vietnam. Why is it liberals have such a fondness for genocide of people too far away to import and register to vote?

On the domestic front, it will be better to have our troops not playing - essentially - pattycake with Iraqi forces who would just as soon betray them. Instead we would be back on track hunting down Al Qaeda and their affiliates instead of nation building.

If Willis had a clue about al Qaeda, he'd realize that at its core, nation building is precisely what they are about. Whether it's Somalia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, anywhere they can find widespread instability and a large Muslim population they are going to attempt to take root. My point - take an unstable Middle eastern state and either we build it into something resembling a democracy, or they can and will establish a terrorist supporting regime.

The postwar plans, if you can call them that, thought we would prop up a guy like Chalabi and Iraq would have some kind of democracy (everybody remember Bush's second inaugural speech?). That isn't going to happen. They want Sharia law. They don't want a secular, progressive republic. They'll pick what they want.

They do? Gee, Ollie, so much for elections. And here I thought you were democratic and a Democrat, to boot. You can read the rest via links above, but I couldn't overlook this gem.

Q: What if Iraq turns into a Taliban-like cesspool, and becomes a base for terrorist operation against the US in the same way Afghanistan was?

A: It currently is a haven, and that's with thousands of American troops on the ground there. We can hunt terrorists, and that should be our armed forces primary mission until the Al Qaeda threat is eliminated. But it isn't the time to build brand new nations now, not at this cost.

According to Willis, it's a haven for terrorists and the solution? Withdrawal ..; so we can go fight terrorists? I see.

Maybe he isn't stupid, but drunk and requires military assistance to fight off those little purple monsters terrorists chasing around in his head. Poor guy.

Comments

[The Other Ken]

Willis is more like "lodestone to stupid."

[ET]

Charles, what kind of idiot strongly asserts that there are "four cultural preconditions for democracy" and then proceeds to cite three. Careful with the name calling, idiot.

[Cindi]

"democracy is the natural form of human government"
Posted by: Charles Warren | Thursday, May 24, 2007 at 11:26 PM

Democracy is the natural form of human nature, if it were not the US would not have become the country it is today. Doing the right thing can change hearts and minds. And so can kicking some ass for others to see.

But then again Charles, this is only about you isn't it? Idiot.

[seekeronos]

Charles Warren's harsh language aside, he has a point.

I don't think that Arab culture (extremely tribalistic, based upon an extremist Islam that tolerates no doctrine outside of of Sharia) is ready to be governed by any democratic rule, much less a republic after the fashion of the USA (the US is NOT a "democracy").

There may be enlightened Muslims/Arabs in Iraq who can think in terms of Western ideas of "democracy", but these are very rare and in due course, fall silent before the armed thuggery of either Shia or Sunni armed belligerents.

Our end goal, IMHO is to (a) secure a forward operating situation for rapid deployment of strength against aggressors from Syria and Iran, a counterweight and a buttress to Israeli strength in the theatre.... and (b) secure production capacity and access for delivery of Iraqi oil to the distribution network.

If we are to do this right, we need to discard the idea of trying to impose a democratic framework on these people in the short run, and rule with an iron rod.

Remove all non-essential forces from Japan, Korea, Germany, etc. and build up a million-man force in the area. Recall IRR (Individual Ready Reserve) and all other guard and reserve units. Invoke "Stop-Loss" if it isn't already inplace. Offer a special no-income tax for any soldier, sailor, marine, airman or other uniformed servicemember along with combat pay, for the duration of their tour in Iraq.

Destroy the mosques and gathering places for the insurgents. Execute insurgent clerics and leaders publically. Conduct random searches and seizures of contraband (Korans, guns, parts for explosives) and forbid the wearing of burqas and other distinctive forms of extremist dress and identity.

For hardened areas (Fallujah, Anbar, etc.) don't even waste time trying to occupy that mess. Give those people (insurgents) a reason to fear God Almighty, and the USA with Him: bomb it flat Dresden style.

If Bus had had the courage to do this right from the get-go, we would be so much closer to bringing stability to that accursed region.

[seekeronos]

EDIT: Bus = Bush.

[Cindi]

Give those people (insurgents) a reason to fear God Almighty, and the USA with Him: bomb it flat Dresden style.

Yes, democracy in action.

[ET]

-- Our end goal, IMHO is to (a) secure a forward operating situation for rapid deployment of strength against aggressors from Syria and Iran, a counterweight and a buttress to Israeli strength in the theatre.... and (b) secure production capacity and access for delivery of Iraqi oil to the distribution network. -- seekeronos

Thanks for the concise statement of our geopolitical strategy for the next 50 years. You and I can debate the means, but you have done a good job of describing our strategic ends. Well done.

Imagine the challenge faced by the Bush administration in the months after 9/11. They understood the strategic imperatives you identify -- but how to express them to a diverse electorate? They laid out a broad vision of the enemy (Axis of Evil), satisfied our widely-felt need for revenge in Afghanistan, and justified our invasion of Iraq based on a list of offenses, including WMD.

This was a tall order for the Bush White House, as it would be under any administration. The Bush team made a good faith effort to communicate our strategy to the public. But, based on my (rarely) sober analysis of the 'end' results in Iraq, we conservatives must begin to question the 'means' employed by the Bush team. Fact is, our story 'isn't holding up.' For all of Charles' vitriol, he makes the point that these people aren't like us, and won't be anytime soon. We failed to understand the implications of that, clearly. So, what do we do now? We can't convert 'em, but we can't let 'em kill us.

Answer: we stay in Iraq. We scale back over time (at a time of our choosing), but we stay and we influence. We need to go deeper than the idea of 'democracy' or 'secularism'. This is a longer term struggle for the notion of personal freedom...once people taste liberty, they will fight for democracy (in the form of republics, like ours, right seek?).

[LOL]

AQ is not and has never been about nation building. Are you seriously this delusional? Look at its history. It goes into either warzones or safe-zones. It does do the charitable work of organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. And AQ in Iran? Are you serious? I don't know if this has registered on your radar, but AQ is entirely Sunni.

The irony is that in your post, pretending to call Willis ignorant, you debunk him with imaginary bullshit points that belie your own lack of education on this subject.

You do it all the time though.

[LOL]

correction: It DOESN'T do the charitable work of organizations...

[LOL]

why not, instead of spouting of nonsense, as is your wont, read something. Do a little self-educating.

For you, on the subject of AQ -- I recommend:
http://www.amazon.com/Through-Our-Enemies-Eyes-Radical/dp/1574885537

This man actually says a bunch of things you'd agree with, such as Europeans being anti-American-to-the-core appeasers and maybe one or two other wingnut talking points. Not every assertion in the book is something I'd agree with, but overall it is a balanced analysis of AQ's history. Reading something like this would prevent you from looking like the blowhard moron you so often are.

[LOL]

sadly, dan's own ignorance is quickly dwarfed by the mushroom cloud of idiocy that is his wingnut commenters. An all star team of ignorant, fantasy-based talking points:

seek: "Our end goal, IMHO is to (a) secure a forward operating situation for rapid deployment of strength against aggressors from Syria and Iran, a counterweight and a buttress to Israeli strength in the theatre.... and (b) secure production capacity and access for delivery of Iraqi oil to the distribution network."

How do you convince a state, whose population is overwhelmingly anti-Israel and maybe even anti-Semitic to be a buttress for that state? Much more, how do you also convince such a state to ally with Israel against its fellow Arabs in Syria? Oh right, you give them democracy, and let the majority of the voters pick their leaders! Why, I imagine no Iraqi politician will run an anti-Israel platform, and even if one does, we can be assured he would never receive popular support!

Sweet Jesus, do you even check your fantasies against the basic truths in Iraq?

Cindi: "ive those people (insurgents) a reason to fear God Almighty, and the USA with Him: bomb it flat Dresden style."

Ah the keyboard-commando's most imaginative solution to anything: Just bomb it. You really think leveling Baghdad won't have consequences? You think zero innocent people will die? But they're not really people. Just Arabs in the wingnut video game. You are repulsive. And your solution is freaking moronic. How do you expect the Iraqi people to stop killing US soldiers and support a government if you destroy their very infrastructure. Is "Just bomb it" seriously the only kind of thought you are capable of? What's most alarming is the smugness with which you deliver your recommendation, as if you actually think yourself clever. But really you're just a sadist.

ET: "Answer: we stay in Iraq. We scale back over time (at a time of our choosing), but we stay and we influence. We need to go deeper than the idea of 'democracy' or 'secularism'. This is a longer term struggle for the notion of personal freedom...once people taste liberty, they will fight for democracy (in the form of republics, like ours, right seek?)."

What does this even mean? "Once they taste liberty"? Maybe if you could move beyond jingoism, and into actual thoughts we'd have something going here. Look at the commenters above. Some people such as Cindi want to basically commit atrocities against the Iraqis, despite having buffeted on liberty. Maybe you should take a lesson from all the wingnut sadism that's on this board. Take a really close look at it. Now, imagine that these wingnuts had someone they know kill their own brother. How do you think they'd respond?

[Fred Beloit]

Al Qaeda is about nation destroying before anything else. There are two key targets for them. Two nations they would like to destroy. One, Israel, two, the U.S. How do we know this? There leadership has most obligingly told us so. Why stay in Iraq? Every day there are more AQ there. What better location could there be to destroy them? Would you prefer Arizona or Pennsylvania? As we work on destroying them there, the Iraq population is slowly being turned to our side in places like Anbar. Do Iraqis have other goals? Yes, but our presence at least limits the acting out of their ancient rages. Some of the commenters here are suffering from VBS (Vietnam Brain Syndrome) and are unable to grasp we now have an all volunteer military. Those who are fighting are volunteers, not conscripts. They don't want what you want for them, to sit around in garrison for all time. They recognize the importance of destroying our enemies whether you do or not, and they are willing and able to do this work our society needs them to do. Now what are your plans to deal with this enemy? Do you think we should attack them in Pakistan? And if you used less insulting language, you might get less emotional responses, you dumb poo poo heads.

[nowingker]

Didn't a majority of the Iraqi parliament vote that they wanted the US to leave the country? Sadr is back with a vengeance, still controls his army and his cabinet members. Where is the evidence that Iraqis are turning toward our side? This is more wishful thinking.

We should have attacked Al Quaeda in Pakistan 6 years ago. Yes. We should have kept up the pressure in Afganistan. We should have stayed focused on Al Quaeda instead of going on a mind bending nation-building war binge in Iraq. Coulda shoulda woulda. Too bad its real people who have paid for Bush's mistakes with their lives and futures.

[Fred Beloit]

There is no way you would have supported our going into Pakistan six years ago. Do you favor going in now?

[Fred Beloit]

For read on progress in Anbar go to http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/05/harnessing-desert-wind.html.

[nowingker]

I would say yes but I'm not sure given that they're trying to overthrow Mushareff what would happen if American troops went into Pakistan NOW, could blow up another country.

I have always supported every effort to track down and destroy Al Quaeda. Al Queda is our enemy. Not Islam. Not the Arab World. Not Hezbollah or Hamas, their enemy is Israel. You wingers can't keep that straight.

If Bin Laden had been killed six years ago, maybe Al Queada would have fallen apart, gotten disorganzied. He's the freaking evil genius, maybe none of his lt. would have been able to step up. As it is he's had half a freaking decade to get his people reorganized while we've spent billions bogged down in Iraq, another military humiliation that makes Vietnam look like a mediocre showing.

You wingers always fail to understand that wanting Al Queada suspects to be treated humanely and given due process is not the same as not wanting them caught.

[charles]

Where is the evidence that Iraqis are turning toward our side? This is more wishful thinking.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/04/16/report_iraqi_militants_hunting_alqaida/

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=32727

http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenciesPublicSite/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=1722613&Language=en

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/15/wirq15.xml

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/09/international/i125404D55.DTL

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L05319511.htm

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/YAT153309.htm

http://www.nysun.com/article/54368

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1624697,00.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0503/p01s04-wome.html

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/01/iraq.insurgent.rift/index.html

http://newsblaze.com/story/20060712095107tsop.nb/topstory.html

http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/may/25/progress-evident-western-iraq-unm-grad-says/

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11983&Itemid=128

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.417462806&par=0

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/22/AR2007052201600.html?hpid=topnews

[charles]

"We should have kept up the pressure in Afganistan. We should have stayed focused on Al Quaeda"

just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it isn't happening, as per previous example

[charles]

"If Bin Laden had been killed six years ago, maybe Al Queada would have fallen apart"

why only 6 yrs ago?

he's been a threat longer than that, yes?

bds maybe?

[nowingker]

The point was we took our eye off Bin Laden, put him on a back burner because of the Iraq invasion, not that he wasn't a threat before. Bush was going to find him dead or alive, and then, all of a sudden, we stopped hearing about him, and he became a non issue, Bin Laden had been declawed, until now, he's back front and center in the deciders speech. This is the guy who masterminded 9/11, shouldn't we have pulled out ALL THE STOPS to get him, instead of letting him turn into a fucking mythical figure, the great arab who dealt a crushing blow to satanic America, so great that he got away with it? WTF?! Instead, we invade Iraq and capure Hussein, who never attacked us. Dumb as dirt.

I'm also not at ALL sure that Iraqis wanting Al Quaeda out of their country means they are turning toward the U.S. It's a good sign, no doubt, but whether that will translate into moving them beyond their tribal affiliations, don't know. Don't think so.

[nowingker]

PS,

I think a reasonable person would understand that spending $400 billion in Iraq, commiting 130-140,000 troops in Iraq and being there for 4+ years would BY DEFINITION be money, efforts, brainpower and manpower that are not committed to finding Bin Laden or destroying Al Queada, and that if there was no Iraq invasion there would have been more money, more troops, more brainpower, more time spent on Al Quaeda.

[charles]

"The point was we took our eye off Bin Laden, put him on a back burner because of the Iraq invasion, not that he wasn't a threat before"

what year did bin laden flee tora bora - what year did we invade iraq?

"I'm also not at ALL sure that Iraqis wanting Al Quaeda out of their country means they are turning toward the U.S. It's a good sign, no doubt, but whether that will translate into moving them beyond their tribal affiliations, don't know. Don't think so."

quit moving the goalposts - i answered your query and that was easy stuff to find, want me to put in some effort? - you'd be reading for a week

"Bin Laden had been declawed, until now" - imo he's been dead since about the middle of 2004 - proof? no, just opinion, so as long as we're throwing opinions around,,,,,,,

aqs operational ability as a cohesive unit is constantly being downgraded, there are quite a number of special forces focused solely on one objective - most of their operations are not for public consumption - they work more efficiently that way

[charles]

haha

"I think a reasonable person would understand" - you already consider me unreasonable so what's the diff now?

no, you don't need to answer, rhetorical ? and all that

[nowingker]

As has already been discussed, Bush wanted a pretext to go to war from the beginning, before 9/11. Several of his own former cabinet secretaries have said this, not me, so don't tell him its Bush derangement syndrome. That is why he ignored the warnings about Al Quaeda that came from Clark.

I didn't move the goal posts, I said I didn't see evidence that Iraq is turning to our side, and I said I am not sure that Iraq turning against Al Quaeda was a sign of turning toward America, and I don't. I also said it was a good sign, but still don't think it means much in the long term about Sunni/Shia cooperation.

Bin Laden has been dead since 04 and nobody told Bush, interesting. I would think if this evidence existed we would have made it public. Maybe the idea that he has eluded America for 6 years somehow works in our favor?

[charles]

"The point was we took our eye off Bin Laden, put him on a back burner because of the Iraq invasion, not that he wasn't a threat before"

lame talking point alert,,,,,,

what year did bin laden flee tora bora? - dec 12 2001

what year did we invade iraq? - march 20 2003

[nowingker]

Non sequeter.

We were planning the Iraq invasion long before March 2003. Once the decision to go to war was made, that's where the resources went, not to finding Bin Laden. How does not having found him before the Iraq invasion mean the Iraq invasion didn't take resources away from hunting down Al Quada?

Another nonsensical non-parallel.

[charles]

As has already been discussed,yada yada yada,,,,,,,,,,This is more wishful thinking, blahblahblah

yes i will quit wasting time with you now, it's just not worth the effort, i'm free for the weekend - it's time to enjoy stepping out into the beautiful sunshine,,,,,

go read the articles or not, you obviously don't want to consider what information i have found for you - stick to your talking points, deny what you like, keep looking thru the same prism - it seems to comfort you

it's been real, it's been swell, but it ain't been real swell

[charles]

Non sequeter.

We were planning the Iraq invasion long before March 2003. Once the decision to go to war was made, that's where the resources went, not to finding Bin Laden. How does not having found him before the Iraq invasion mean the Iraq invasion didn't take resources away from hunting down Al Quada?

Another nonsensical non-parallel

oh geeze, let me answer this in the manner it deserves

hee heee hoo hoo hoo haw haw, nyuck nyuck nyuck, moe larry the cheese, bwaha bwaha

limboiger

later dood - i'm out for sure, just aint worth it

[seekeronos]

Breif answers for LOL:

"How do you convince a state, whose population is overwhelmingly anti-Israel and maybe even anti-Semitic to be a buttress for that state? Much more, how do you also convince such a state to ally with Israel against its fellow Arabs in Syria? Oh right, you give them democracy, and let the majority of the voters pick their leaders! Why, I imagine no Iraqi politician will run an anti-Israel platform, and even if one does, we can be assured he would never receive popular support!"

I never said to give them democracy. In fact, I made a case for the very opposite: a military occupation/dictatorship per the SCAP in Occupied Japan. I am in agreement with Charles Warren if only on the point that the Iraqis in particular, and Arab nations in general, are only capable of looking to the strongest man to lead them. Those nations that are even our would-be "allies" are oil-drenched potentates who run their nations as little more than police states, and most hang on to that by the most gossamer-thin threads, trying to tamp down the agitations of theocratic clerics who want to have the yoke over their people.

As for Dresden-style carpet bombing, I thought I qualified that as being reserved for particularly difficult and entrenched pockets of resistance... Anbar and Fallujah just happened to stand out at the time I posted; the generals on the ground would be obviously be better able to make that decision. Leave no stone standing, and completely remove any tactical value the area might have.

And the everyday tribesman or Iraqi "Yusuf al-Public"? He mostly doesn't really care so long as his belly is fed and he can slap his wife around if she is disobedient... and smoke the hookah at the local coffee shop with his buddies... these people simply have no appreciation for, or even a desire for personal and civil liberties as we know them. They know to keep their heads down, (and if women, covered) and to hopefully escape the notice of Big Brother (be it religious police or secret police).

There is a very, very small handful of Arabs who might cherish Western ideas of Republican (not the GOP) democracy. They would be the best choice as intermediaries.

Furthermore, the people would have absolutely no say in the occupation government. Ideally, they should have been kept nearly as frightened as they were under Saddam's tenure, until we could gradually lift away the restraints, onion-skin-thin layer by layer, by removing Islam and replacing it with a more docile form of the religion, or outright converting them to Christ (my favoured choice).

My remark about having Iraq buttressing Israel was more connected to the US presence there, and not any future Iraqi government. Anti-semitism, for some reason, takes a long time to root out, especially among a people who have an animus against it running some 25 centuries, with a particular locus since the time of the first Caliphate and one at the re-establishment of the Nation of Israel today.

[Phoenix]

Charles W.,

"...looking at human history one man rule, be it monarchy or dictatorship is the natural form of human government. It is the norm of human history."

You made your comments about why democracy is rare and why the above is not. But you didn't offer an alternative to your declarations. Does that mean you believe in stasis for all people who do not know liberty and its freedoms? Because history says so?

Would you have told the pilgrims sailing from the shores of England toward the land of freedom and no persecution to stay home and grin and bear it because a monarchy is the natural form of human government? And who dictates that 'truth'?

The gulf states, Kuwait, UAE, and Yemen certainly enjoy freedoms not known to other Arab states. How did that come about?

Democracy isn't perfect, but for the human animal it's as close as we can get to free will and choice - those things that make us human. The Bush Doctrine of spreading democracy is a good thing. It is a hard fight for some cultures, but declaring, as you seem to be doing, that it's not worth the fight...... well, so much for your love of mankind and the probability that our own country's security will depend on spreading democracy. If Iraq works, it will be a model. How threatening that is to those authoritarian theocracies surrounding it. No wonder the fight is so difficult.

What recondite inspiration formulates your plan for our stance on fighting radical Islam?

[Leatherneck]

I agree Phoenix, but only when you add Christianty as a moral fondation to Democracy does it work well. We have for the last 40 years allowed the passing of Christianty from one generation to another to almost stop.

A majority of Christianty has become OK with Homosexuality, the natural love for one another is slipping away, (abortion), the love of self is these last 40 years.

As long as the world worships false gods, (money, power), and Christianty misleads from the truth, then the love of many will grow cold.

Look at our world. Never before have humans murdered, given false witness, allowed unnatural behavior to be a norm.

Sure we have always had these things, but never on this scale. Why are we in Iraq? G-d has but into the hearts of men who worship false gods to do his bidding.

You do not have to believe me, I will not cut your head off, or make you pay a tax.

[Phoenix]

Leatherneck,

I think one of the finer aspects of Christianity is that it does evolve and grow with the natural progress that our high-tech world produces. It's like love - it can be shared endlessly and never diminish. I know that sounds odd considering the things you find distasteful about what Christianity 'has allowed'; but maybe if you think in terms of 'acceptance' instead of 'allowing' you may feel there is more controlled evolving going on than denigration of the principles of Christianity. There have been a lot of changes from the times of priests and screeds and not all of those changes have been bad.

I did read some place that people are returning to church in larger numbers now than in recent years. I also believe love for our fellowman is an inherent trait with or without religion. It's an element of our survival mechanism, and most people, religious or not, understand do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It's common sense if nothing else.

[Purple Avenger]

"I don't know if this has registered on your radar, but AQ is entirely Sunni."

So? The Iranians are entirely opportunistic. If AQ can do some dirty work for them and provide plausible deniability, they're going to be down with it.

There is very little ideological purity in the international arms trade.

[LOL]

You need to do some more research instead of just spouting off your ignorance PA. AQ has never dealt with Iran. In Osama's eyes the Ayatollahs are apostates. It may be true that Iran wouldn't mind dealing with AQ, but AQ is deeply religious more than anything. Remember this, it is what drives the organization. AQ will not deal with Iran. AQ is about ideological purity.

[seekeronos]

Leatherneck is EXACTLY right. And I would like to expound on a point he made:

"You do not have to believe me, I will not cut your head off, or make you pay a tax."

Nor will I lop off anyone's head or force their conversion, or coerce a humiliating tax.

(But... I would humbly advise anyone who does not know Jesus now to humbly seek Him out while He may be found, and to trust in Him: for He is not merely one who can destroy the body, but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Matthew 10:28)

I would have to say that Christianity may adapt and change as far as recognizing science that reveals God's handiwork (for example, I can even accept certain ideas as regarding micro-evolution - where God created different "kinds" or "families" of animals and plants, and He possibly created them with DNA templates which at the time of their creation, were perfect and without flaw, containing all the genetic code for variations that would allow the basic kinds to proliferate and branch out (each branch having less and less of that original, perfect and complete set of genetic codes) - while accepting also that God created Adam and Eve as special creatures "in His own image", apart from the rest of creation, but at the same time, using the same basic patterns of DNA. I stay away from the 6,000 y.o. earth "creation science" doctrine, as the preponderance of scientific evidence says that the earth is several billion years old. Of course, there is the off chance that all those geologists are off a few orders of magnitude, but I am not going to let that interfere with my salvation: whether or not God created the universe in six literal, twenty-four hour days or six billion years is not a core doctrine upon which being saved or not rests.

It is noteworthy however, that as more of the Bible is "pulled down" by skeptics who nit-pick the "scientific inconsistencies" of God's Word, one begins to question God's infallible and True words, much as the serpent (the devil) did to Eve in the garden of Eden so long ago, about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago according to my understanding of scripture.

"And he (the serpent) said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said"...? (Genesis 3:1) Indeed! Who has the greater mind, God Almighty, who did create the universe and all who dwell therein, or created Man, in his "science falsely so called"? (1 Tim 6:20)

Herein is our dilemma: It is not that Christianity - or may I be blunter - Jesus - has "allowed" acceptance of any sin ... be it sexual immorality of any stripe (hetero or homo) or disobedience to lawful authority (lawful governments, parents, pastors, elders or overseers in a local church) or any other sin when He has not previously. And where specific instances of the Law have been addressed (for example, eating shellfish vs. homosexuality in Leviticus 18), while we may not be required to observe the Levitical laws, the _spirit_ of those laws remain. The overarching point of the Levitical laws are summed up in this verse:

"Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God." (Leviticus 20:7)

God says in His word that He is the "same yesterday, today, and forever more".

Rather, it is men who claim to speak for God, and allow such abominations that are beloved of this wicked world, such as homosexuality (not the people who choose to be LGBT, but rather an attitude that embraces it and endorses it), abortion (murder, save for a few rare and exceptional cases), love of the world (most churches today have that rock-n-roll "praise and worship" band featured prominently on a special "worship altar" or stage. How easily do we sup with devils in the very House of God?.

God is not honoured by this, nor is He mocked: for the churches that embrace these abominable practices have quenched the Holy Spirit, angered God, made a mockery of the Cross of Christ, and watered down His Word with the doctrines of devils and men with a sense of self-inflated worth.

Otherwise, where is the fear of God that moves mortal men and women to repentance? Jesus does love us, and He did die on the cross a most painful and wretched death as a sacrifice for the remission and forgiveness of our sins. However, we must not forget that He is a HOLY God, who will not tolerate sin.

Let me re-iterate:

God does indeed love the sinner, the wretched men and women who are mired and trapped in sin, from the drunkard in the gutter, to the gay man who is convinced that he is forever trapped and enslaved to his lust for strange flesh, to the gamblers and loose women and thieves and all other people, myself, and you, the gentle reader, included.

All sin greives the Spirit of God, but especially when the Christian who claims Jesus as his Lord and Saviour indulges in sin willingly, and continues to practice these things with a willing heart, and all the more toward a church which rejects the true words of God and all sound doctrine for the earthly, natural, and demonic wisdom that drives modern, secular humanist thinking.

So in short:

It is perfectly fine and godly to invite LGBT folks to church, that they may hear the gospel of salvation. It is cause for rejoicing when they repent and turn to Jesus for the forgiveness of sin.

It is not alright, however, to let them think that as redeemed men and women, that they have a right to practice thier old sins and so also corrupt the church with it, nor should they be ordained as ministers or expect to continue practicing a sin God clearly regards as an abomination, no more than I have any right to expect to be a whoremonger or an adulterer or a murderer or a drunkard or _WILLFULLY_ practice sin as a member of the Body of Christ (His church).

I qualify that as "willfully sinning", as we all do stumble and fall into various sins as long as we are encased in these wretched bags of flesh until the Lord calls us home to glory with Him.

Lastly, concerning the operation of the "Golden Rule" in almost every culture... as it seems common to most humans, dontcha think that that might be the basic law of God written upon our hearts, a faint memory from a time when most humans dwelt on the Plain of Shinar prior to the destruction of the Tower of Babel, or perhaps going back before the Flood?

There are a few things that are "hardwired" into every person, I think... a desire to know God on some level, and a desire to get along with one's neighbor. Of course, adult experience and cultural perversions of these laws crept in over the millennia, which is why God raised up Israel in ancient times to be a beacon of His perfect Law, and then Christ, and His church, to live out the redeeemed life, powered by HIs Holy Spirit.

[Buzzy]

As much as I enjoy watching some make "cartoon channel" class statements about the Middle East, Islamofascism, OBL and AQ etc. there comes a time that I have to wade into this morass and add my own statement for better or worse. (Now that doesn't apply to you, just the people who don't agree with you... OK).

But where to start? How about Charles Warren is right about the Middle East and no, they are not ready for Democracy. They vote for tribe, revenge, power and religion even down to their particular sect of the same religion. Even worse Democracy gave Iraq to Iran and we cannot unring that bell now or maybe ever. Democracy also drove a huge wedge between our sorta alliance with the Saudis, Pakistan, and Kuwait who wake up in terror at the thought of a popular vote and their heads on a stake every day of their lives.

With that said invading Iraq was exactly the right thing to do and Saddam had to be taken down. We won the war and screwed up the peace worse than I ever could have imagined but before winger and LOL light up a doobie in celebration I'll add that you're fools to believe that Saddam didn't have WMD's, that al Qaeda was not already entrenched in Iraq and that we didn't have to intervene in Iraq. Even the Democrat politicians knew it (and know it today), they only fell out after the war when their masters in Saudi Arabia and the UAE grew unhappy with Democracy being transplanted into the ME. Don't blame them though, I'm not happy with it either but at least I'm honest about it.

Now on to OBL and AQ. OBL may indeed be dead, there hasn't been a whiff of him in a long long time and there is some decent intel that he died of wounds from Tora Bora. The point is that OBL dust napping doesn't make the world a safer place for the US or anyone else, it might have if Bill Clinton had killed him prior to 9/11 but I suspect that even that wouldn't have made AQ wither on the vine. If I had my way I'd rather have OBL alive and hiding than dead and a martyr though.

The threat that radical Islam presents to the US and the West at large is much bigger than OBL or AQ and honestly the worst thing any of us can do is to appear weak and unwilling to respond to that threat. Any retreat at this point or in the future will only make us less safe here at home and around the world.

I recently debated a person whose contention was that war in Iraq had created untold number of Jihadists who want to destroy America. I responded that I believed the WAR in Iraq and Afghanistan had actually made the US more safe but that mistakes made in the peace afterwards and the steady drip drip drip of an anti American media had certainly emboldened the jihadists if not created more. These people are told from birth that the US is the great Satan and nothing will make them like us... NOTHING! Our safety lies in being strong, being perceived as being strong and willing to respond violently at any assault on our culture or our lives. Radical Islam means to bring down the west by a thousand tiny cuts, a thousand tiny insults, a thousand tiny retreats and a thousand tiny enroads into our lives and culture. They are more than willing for this process to take a thousand years while we recoil at a nearly bloodless conflict only a few years old. We're much safer by rejecting the demands of CAIR and their fellow travelers than by bombing and combat troops on the ground though. We're losing that war too, probably more so than the ground war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What I would have done? Without a doubt in my mind I would have toppled Saddam and immediately put a benevolent secular Kurd leader in control with safeguards that revenge would not be metted out to either the Sunni Baathists or the Shi'a. US troops would have been redeployed to the Syrian and Iranian borders to give Iraq time to rebuild itself with a internal timeline of one and a half years for the pullout of combat troops in the country.

[Aussie]

Folks, stop saying 'Democracy has to be secular just like in USA'. Have any of you yet heard about the German Christian Democrats? Thought not.

Indian does not meet any of the conditions proposed by theorists. Indeed 'scholars' have been constantly saying 'fascism' has arrived there. Until the last election when there was a change of govt from the Hindu party to the 'secular' Congress - whose power arises from an uneasy coalition of Sikhs, Muslims (a large minority in India) and low castes, with a lot of leftist Brahmins.

Guess what? take away the Hindu caste system and there would be no democracy in India! There still is no true democracy in Pakistan, which is ruled by the same Army who created the country 50 years ago.

No one knows what makes a successful democracy like India's! It seems to be just a fluke! As such, it is always worth trying to recreate that fluke in other places like Iraq. There is nothing to lose - millions died in sectarian massacres on the path to democracy in India. Thousands are still dying! As recently as 5 years ago in Hindu Muslim violence.

But Indian democracy remains the single best thing to happen in the lives of Indians, in virtually all of their troubled history.

When you fully pacify Baghdad (and that will be extremely hard) you Americans should then leave the Iraqis to it. Secularism be damned, in most of the world it is just a utopian dream, in India it is just a cover for crypto-Brahminism (Brahmins who use Marx as scripture to carry on their ancient hegemony).

[Purple Avenger]

"AQ has never dealt with Iran."

Then you'll need to get the WaPo writers and 9/11 panel up to speed on this assertion since they seem to think there were/are dealings with Iran:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6581-2004Jun25.html

It really suck to be slam dunked doesn't it? Don't you revisionists ever Google anything before whipping out your "new history" assertions?

[Buzzy]

Nope PA they just rewrite the wikipedia threads to fit their views, sorta like big brother in 1984 (exactly like 1984 to be exact).

@Aussie, thanks for reminding us about India an important exception and possibly a model that can be emulated.

At this point it is vitally important for the US to walk away from Iraq at some point in the future with both the US and Iraq stronger and more resistant to both sectarian and Islamofascist terrorism. Anything less invites further terrorism both abroad and at home.

[Chemmori]

xrtest

[Chemmori]

http://alldatafree.info/222/index.html http://alldatafree.info/292/index.html http://alldatafree.info/356/index.html http://alldatafree.info/363/index.html http://alldatafree.info/227/index.html
Chemmori