joyfulchristian |
|
|
My own personal musings, wonderings, thoughts, and results of personal studies. Also, occasional comments on world events. Counter
Links Christian Resources Christian Blogs Political/News Blogs Totally Cool Sites Greatest Hits
Archives 
|
Monday, March 31, 2003
Sorry everybody, but between the side effects from my new medication and the end of tax season, I'm afraid posting will be limited to non-existent for the next two weeks. See you later. Thursday, March 27, 2003
I'm sure that many people will gladly jump on French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin's (who is, as Scott Ott likes to say, a man) inability to choose sides in a war pitting several liberal democracies against one of the cruelest tyrants in the world. Consequently, I won't dogpile.
I do want to point out that he was in England for the purported purpose of patching things up with the U.S. and Britain. Clearly, he doesn't have this diplomacy thing worked out.
The reason I bring the whole thing up at all though, was this quote:
Given that what happens when you do have a close and trusting relationship with France is that they stab you in the back at the earliest opportune time, I want to take this time to state that it is my sincere hope that my nation never again "enjoys" a close and trusting relationship with France. That's not to say that I want them to be our enemies, but attempting to have a trusting relationship with the French is the diplomatic version of insanity. (Repeating the same action over and over while expecting different results.) The French perfidy on the subject of Iraq is just the last in a long string of events in which that country proved it is not worthy of our trust. The French government has given us no more reason to trust them then have the Russians or the Chinese. We should treat them in kind.
Also, read this post by Den Beste who has a more reasoned, more nuanced, and of course, much longer piece on this issue. Wednesday, March 26, 2003
I posted a story at the Command Post about Canadian aid to Iraq. Some of the comments from Canadians have been ... amusing. For instance, there's Mark who writes:
We lost a great one You may well know by now that former Senator Patrick Moynihan died today. To say the least, I didn't always agree with the man. Nevertheless, he was truly a great statesman and his death diminishes us as a nation. Sorry, my irony meter is broken Al-Jazeera calls on US to ensure freedom of the press. Maybe they should start a little closer to home. Maybe Qatar or Saudi Arabia? Tuesday, March 25, 2003
Today's been really hectic for me. Sorry I haven't gotten a chance to post any. For war news, head over to The Command Post. I should have some posting here tomorrow. Monday, March 24, 2003
Heh. Saddam praises commander who surrendered. Well, so do I.
I don't want to belabor the point, but the best thing President Bush, or anyone else, can do for her son is to win the war as soon as possilbe. Sunday, March 23, 2003
Walk away That's the message from former Romanian general Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa to the commanders of the Republican Guard. I've heard unconfirmed reports that the incident in which the British Tornado was shot down involved some sort of flaw in the IFF system.
I had lunch today with a friend who works as a software engineer for a defense contractor. He said, "Wow!" and then explained that his company is currently working on a new system that paints IFF codes directly onto radar. He told me, "It doesn't work very well yet." He thought for a second and I could tell the gears were grinding in his mind. I'm sure he's always known that people's lives depend on his work, but it seemed to hit him in a new way. "That's pretty humbling," he told me.
I told him the only thing I could think to say, "Do better." Earth to Hans Can you say "violation"?
Great work Hans. Ignorance really is Blix. Saturday, March 22, 2003
In case there was any doubt, if a U.S. soldier was responsible for the grenade attack at the 101st Airborne's headquarters, that is treason. If he's guilty and we get another 20 year sentence like John Walker got, I'm going to be real pissed. He's right I keep thinking of this story and I get more sad every time.
He's right. We were late. We were years late. It was not until we became convinced that our national security was dependant on toppling Hussein. The same was true in Afghanistan. We knew the people there were living under tyranny. We could see the signs that it was getting worse. We did nothing. This war is just. It would hve been just years ago. We need to fundamentally change our view of the use of force. (Or at least consider doing so.) I remember the words of Sean Connery as King Arthur in First Knight.
The words may not be quite right, but that was the sentiment of the statement. Is force only justified to protect your own country? I say no. Containing tyrants is a fundamentally immoral policy. When we know that the people in other nations are being brutalized and we have the ability to free them, we should seriously consider doing so. Even if it costs us lives and treasure, it is still the right thing to do. You know ... I was reading this story in the Asia Times and was struck by the analysis. If this story is correct, our major concerns in this war are the weather, what our confused and confusing allies the Turks might do to screw things up, and what's going to happen after the war. The thing is, those are, at the moment, our major concerns. Notice that the enemy doesn't even make the list. That's pretty good as wars go. Joe, at the Command Post ) if you haven't been reading it, you should be, makes an excellent point.
Spot on. Friday, March 21, 2003
Michele posts an MSNBC video of Iraqis dancing in the streets. Lots of peaceniks swore this wouldn't happen. Time to eat some crow. The U.N. wants to assume control of the Oil for Food program in Iraq. The Iraqi ambassador is not amused.
But not for long buddy. Sorry about the lack of posting on a busy news day. I've been at the doctor getting a spinal tap. The only good thing about a spinal tap is that you can't see what's happening. I'll be posting some later as I recover from from the procedure. Thursday, March 20, 2003
I'm sorry for the lack of commentary and rants today. You'd have thought I'd have a lot of comment about the war. Oh well, if I think of something, I'll be sure to rant. Meanwhile, keep checking the Command Post. Alan Dowd says this isn't a new war. It's just Act II of the last one. He also says there will be no Act III. Over the top A South Carolina House member is attempting to pass a resolution calling on The Dixie Chicks to perform a free concert for S.C. troops to make up for insulting President Bush.
I'm ready to establish The Collins Principle: The stupidity with which a public official will respond is geometrically proportional to the private sector stupidity to which they are responding. For the forseeable future, commentary about the war will be posted here. Any news updates about the war will be posted at the Command Post. The Senate is preparing to pass a resolution supporting our troops. The House is debating tax cuts. Huh? Guys, a war just started! Can we hold off on the tax cut for a few days, ok? Since when does peace, justice and democracy mean shutting down city streets and keeping your fellow citizens from going to work. Just heard a report on NBC that ricin was found in a rail depot in Paris. You see guys, they don't care whether you fight the U.S. or not. As far as the terrorists are concerned, we're all just infidels. The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the raid in Afghanistan was aimed at capturing Osama and his sons. NBC is reporting that the previously mentioned Apache made a hard landing, but was able to take off again. Ugghh! I just heard Jennings ask Frist if we could pay for the war and have tax cuts. What is wrong with these people? And what's wrong with the Senators who keep answering? Christopher Caldwell doesn't think that the French have any idea the damage they've done to U.S. relations. Unbelievable Dan Rather asks Senator McCain on to talk about the war. What's his last question? Can we afford the war and tax cuts? Excuse me! Why on earth are you talking about tax cuts right now Dan? Politica believes the Drudge Report's usefulness has been surpassed for things like war coverage. Considering how well the Command Post is doing, that may be true. Want to get the scoop on fast breaking news on the war? Check out the Command Post. Link via Susanna. Steven Den Beste says it's crowded at the top:
Looks like it will be a while before I can watch "The Patriot" without feeling sick to my stomach Australian actor calls PM a coward Because, of course, we were all waiting with baited breath to hear what he had to say. After all, he's been in a war movie; that makes him an expert. (Those actors who haven't been in war movies, are, of course, experts on avoiding war.)
At the launch of Ned Kelly, a film about on the 19th century Australian bandit turned folk hero, Ledger branded Australia's involvement in the Iraq war as "ridiculous." Australia has deployed 2,000 troops to the Middle East. He's got something in common with this character. Most actors do. They are, after all, living off the public, doing nothing productive, and being adored for it. Go figure.
Ooh, he made a snarky word play. He must be right!
Listen you little twit, whether you like the decision to deploy troops or not, the decision to send troops into harms way is not a cowardly act. Any leader with a shred of decency agonizes over a decision like that because he knows that every soldier that dies does so as a direct result of following your orders. It's a terrible burden to bear. Ingrates like you who denigrate that decision are beneath contempt.
You clearly have no respect for your country's military as well. You don't see what difference 2,000 troops can make? Has it occurred to you that they're really good at their job? As I understand it, most of the Australian troops are in Special Services and the Australian Special Services troops are some of the finest in the world.
The reporter isn't very smart either.
Look, I realize this story war written by an Australian, but if you're going to mention an American war, you could at least use the right name. The Patriot was about the Revolutionary War. The Civil War was something totally different. Far bloodier and far nastier than the Revolutionary War.
I' rant on, but I'm too mad to think of anything else. In conclusion, let me just say that I think John Howard is one of the best and the finest when it comes to world leaders. That, and while Heath Ledger may not appreciate what the Australian soldiers are doing, I most certainly do. Wednesday, March 19, 2003
Someone has seriously misread America politics
Um ... Guys, that's not a long shot. That's a virtual impossibility.
And did he really mean to say this:
I wonder if David Warren really meant to call the CBC a propaganda machine for a tyrannical government. I mean, I don't much care for Chretien's foreign policy stance, but I certainly wouldn't call him a tyrant (not even close) or the CBC a propaganda machine. I don't think that's what he meant, but when he equates the CBC to al-Shahab that's what he's doing. There are preliminary reports that some fighting has already begun in Iraq.
And so it begins. I pray it ends quickly. There are reports that thousands of Iraqi troops and commanders are preparing to surrender. I certainly hope that's true. And the winner for best gratuitous use of sneer quotes is .... Ireland online, who, in a story about the war, felt the need to put sneer quotes around the word coalition. Not once, but actually twice. Once in the body of the story and again in the headline. Tuesday, March 18, 2003
I just heard Christopher Hitchens say on C-Span that we would be insane to let Saddam Hussein, once again, choose the time and place of the next confrontation. He's right of course.
He also noted that Iraq and Iran are preparing to chair the UN Committee on disarmament. Apparently not everyone in the crowd had heard that as he got a few laughs. He also noted that we have Hans Blix to thank for North Korea being a nuclear power. Monday, March 17, 2003
Is anyone else surprised that tonight's address wasn't from the Oval Office?
Also, any clue why the Fox transcript left out the condemnation of France, Germany, and the U.N.? Well, we're going to war. There can be very little doubt of that now. I hate it. There are very few things in the world worse than war. Unfortunately, war is upon us.
Lord God, I come to you tonight with a heavy heart. It has become clear that war cannot be avoided. I ask that you provide wisdom and guidance to President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, and the other world leaders involved in the coming conflict. I pray that you help them to see your will and help them to know what and when to do. I ask also that you give guidance to General Franks. He is about to assume the horrible duty of deciding who lives and who dies. It must be a horrible burden and I pray that you give him the strength to carry on. I ask that you be with our troops and grant them protection. I pray that you be with the Iraqi people. Most of them are innocent and have done nothing to bring this fate down upon them. Unfortunately, they will bear much of the brunt of this war. I ask also that you help that my nation and my church remember to help these people to cope with the destruction to come.
Lord, may this war end quickly, may the casualties be low, and may the world be safer at the end of this conflict.
In all things Lord, may your will be done.
In your Son's Name,
Amen. I just got the Nigerian scam mail for like the 4th time in the last week. Different version than the others, but still, it seems like they're really cranking it out lately. I'm sure there's more to this story. It is, as Drudge says, developing, still, I'm perplexed by this.
I would certainly hope that there's more to this than American troops being put under the command of foreign officers. It's not supposed to work that way.
Update - Tacitus says, no big deal. But he's focusing on the practical effect. The issue in this regard has always been what many believe to be the principle that American troops should not serve under foreign commanders. Tacitus says that it happened in WWII, but, of course, if you believe that this is a principle, than the fact that it happened before doesn't mean it should happen again. Still, he's probably right that it isn't a big issue. I may have overreacted originally. I guess it's official
According to the report, UN officials are also pulling out of the demilatarized zone. We are very near to the end game here. Sunday, March 16, 2003
Christopher Johnson wants to tell the anti-war crowd that they're going to have to keep ignoring the facts to argue their position. Eugene Volokh has a post on polling problems. Scroll up to see another post on polling problems and Orrin Kerr making hash of Clinton-Dole. CNN.com - Opposition wins Finnish poll Um.... Wouldn't that mean they should no longer be called the "Opposition"?
Just asking is all. Via Sparkey at the Daily Briefing I found this song by Clint Black, "Iraq and I Roll." You also should probably check out the 2003 version of "Bomb Iraq."
Update - The sound effects on that last one work great with headphones. John Stryker asks, "Where were you?" in a great post about the value of the lives of servicemen and women. I'm a little late on this, but Matt Welch has an excellent post in which he tries to inject a little balance into the discussions of the French and other problematic European countries. It is, as usual, well written and provides a much needed, to me at least, splash of cold water across the face. I don't agree with the whole piece, but he's got some well thought out points.
One thing though, he makes reference to a Michael Ledeen post about the possibility of a Franco-German alliance with Islamists. If he's talking about the article I think he is, my recollection is that Ledeen was only making a case for the worst case scenario of what could be happening, not what he believes actually is happening. Martin Roth leaps to the defense of Dean at Blogs 4 God. I've got to admit that I haven't been following what's going on at Blogs 4 God, but I haven't had any problems with the way the site is run. Josh Chafetz says that "peace protestors" attempting to sabotage operations on an Air Force base would clearly be treason. He's right. Susanna, speaking of nude protests, has my favorite sentence this month:
"Self-referential morality play operating in a rationality vacuum." Just roll off the tongue, doesn't it? Saturday, March 15, 2003
Riddle me this Batman ... Three of my last 15 search engine hits have been for some variation of "Shock and Awe" combined with the word "Hebrew". Now I know that Shock and Awe is supposed to be the name of US strategy in Iraq. But what on earth does this have to do with anything Hebrew? Somebody help! I'm perplexed. Jonathan Alter has a totally bizarre plan to avert war in Iraq. Personally I think it's crazy and Alter himself says it will never happen. However, as he points out, it is, at least, a plan. That is more than the silly naked for peace protestors have come up with. Okay, so I've always been a sucker for patriotic poetry. If you are, you should check out Our Country Blessings. If Den Beste is right, the war will start in just a few hours. I don't know if it will be today, but it seems pretty obvious that we will be at war within the week. Regardless of the timing, a lot of people are about to die. I pray that this war ends soon. I pray that Iraqi casualties are kept to a minimum. I pray that our troops be kept safe. Just when I thought The Old Swimmer couldn't get any more partisan and pathetic, I see this:
(Link via the Orin Kerr and SCOTUSblog) Now let's be perfectly clear; according to this report, Kennedy is preparing to block Bush's nominations before he even knows who they are. Maybe I'm wrong, but this sounds like he's taking partisanship in judicial nominations to a whole new level. BTW, why does he have to rearrange his whole staff for this endeavor? I hope I never get this bad. Of course, I'm single, so maybe I am this bad and just don't have anyone to tell me. Friday, March 14, 2003
John Hawkins explains why he's in favor of sanctions against France.
I've got to agree with John on this one. Every nation has the right to do whatever (within limits) they believe to be necessary to secure the interest of their own nation. However, every country, and the citizens thereof, must understand that if they find it necessary to cross the U.S. to secure their interests, that there will be consequences to crossing us. Furthermore, they must get that message in a manner they're not likely to forget. That's what we have to do to secure our interests. Thursday, March 13, 2003
Captain Mandrake on France.
Voice of the heartland I saw a sign haning from the back of a mini-van today. It read, "Ignorance Is Blix". Tuesday, March 11, 2003
I just wanted to say that I have Not Forgotten. (Link via Martin Devon.) This song makes it all a little more clear. Give it a listen. Sorry about the lack of posting today. It will probably be pretty sparse here through next monday. I've got a tax deadline coming up and it will probably intefere with blogging. Monday, March 10, 2003
Susanna Cornett argues that for people of different religions to truly get along together, they must first be honest about what they believe. She's arguing from a perspective of cultural utilitarianism. There is another reason for people not to hide their beliefs: It's dishonest and dishonesty is, well, wrong. Joshua Claybourn points out that the concept of preemption is not so new-fangled as people would lead you to believe. Christopher Johnson is comparing the anti-war movement to the 1984 Democratic Convention. Yeah, that's one comparison any political movement ought to cringe at. Sunday, March 09, 2003
Well, this could certainly raise some eyebrows.
Foetuses may develop consciousness long before the legal age limit for abortions, one of Britain's leading brain scientists has said. If doctors do start to follow this trend, it could redefine the debate. Remember, a huge part of the argument in favor of abortion is that the fetus is supposedly an "unviable tissue mass" that has no separate being. If it is decided that they are, in fact, conscience, that could change how people think about the issue. Just exactly whose side is Hans Blix on? When you figure it out, you might tell him. He seems confused. The personal side of the war. Today during the closing prayer, one of my congregation's elders prayed for every member of our congregation, family member, or friend of members who the eldership knows of that has been deployed to take part in the upcoming war with Iraq. One of our members is the nephew of Gen. Tommy Franks. It was interesting to hear the supreme commander of U.S. forces listed right in the middle of the names of many of the troops under his command with absolutely no attention given to who and what he is. In a way, I guess that's fitting. That part of the prayer was devoted solely to asking God to protect these people's lives. Supreme commander or not, his life is no more valuable to God's than anyone else. Still, it was a little strange to the ear.
One of those prayed for today is a reservist whose unit was recently called up and given their orders. We're not great friends, but I do know him. I've played on at least one softball team with him. He's a great guy. Two weeks ago, I sat in service and looked across the aisle. I saw him sitting there with his wife and kids and new baby. His kids looked so happy. They're pretty young, although the oldest is, I think, nine. Old enough to know that Daddy is going to war, but not really old enough to know what that means. I'm old enough though. I couldn't help but think about what could happen to him. I couldn't help but think of the effect on his children if he never came home. I couldn't help but cry.
It's vitally important that we keep track of the human side of the war. I don't just mean what could happen to soldiers we know, but of the Iraqi people whom we've never met. I pray for our soldiers daily. I pray for the Iraqi people daily. The thought of all the Iraqi civilians that might die tears up my heart. The thought that people I know might die in this war inevitably moves me to tears. None of that does anything to change my conviction that the coming war is both just an necessary. All of it serves to remind me how much I hate that it is necessary. I hate war. I believe war is sometimes necessary. I pray to God often that I never forget just how horrible war is. Health update It's been a couple of months since I've given an update on my headaches. I know at least a few people are interested in my health so I'll try to update you a little. Those that aren't interested just read on.
In January I mentioned that I was on some medication that had really messed up my mental processes. Thankfully the doctor switched medications. The next medicine worked alright, but had some bizarre side effects so he switched me again. The newest medication doesn't work quite as well, but doesn't seem to have any serious negative side effects besides making me very sleepy. I've been taking lots of naps lately, but all things considered, that's not so bad.
The last few weeks I've been up and down a lot. Friday morning I barely hurt and had plenty of energy. Today my head feels like someone is hitting me over the head with a meat cleaver repeatedly. That's the reason I haven't posted much today; I've been in bed. We'll see if I feel like posting more later. Saturday, March 08, 2003
Sorry about the lack of posting today. I've been out of town. I'll probably be busy tonight. More later. Friday, March 07, 2003
Periodically I hear someone try to use the cost of a possible war in Iraq as a reason to not go. Let me make something perfectly clear. When it comes to war, cost is not an issue. If a war is just, it should be fought no matter the cost. If a war is not just, it should not be fought even it fighting the war was free. Here is the full text of the revised Security Council resolution that the U.S. and Britain will attempt to have passed. I wouldn't call this a fisking, but I will make occasional remarks.
It occurs to me that in March of 1991, the U.N. had been around a little over 50 years and it was issuing its 687th Security Council resolution. In November 2002 the Council issued 1441. That means that the Security Council managed to more than double its output of the previous 50 years in under 12. However, in that same time, countries have been showing much less respect for what the resolutions actually say. (Including the nations that voted for the resolutions.) Is it possible that by issuing so many resolutions, the Security Council has managed to water down its own significance to the point that no one will listen to them anymore?
Please note that "serious consequences" is diplo-speak for, "serious can of whoop-ass," other wise known as ,"war."
Note that "material breach" is diplo-speak for "justification for war." The resolution has already reminded everyone that justification for war already existed. Now it says that Saddam was given a last chance to remove said justification. He has not done so.
Remember, 1441 can be fulfilled two ways. Either Iraq gets rid of its weapons or it faces "serious consequences." Either they fulfill the resolution, or we do it for them.
Now here is the really important part. The resolution has already reminded everyone that "serious consequences" were promised by 1441 if Iraq did not take this final opportunity. It now says that the final opportunity ends on March 17. I bring this up because, assuming that this resolution was passed, I can just see the screaming in a couple of weeks that we actually need a third resolution. Actually, that's true. If this resolution was passed, the Security Council would have to pass another resolution to prevent war.
4. DECIDES to remain seized of the matter. You know, that one statement just explains so much.
I've been wasting my time Periodically on this site I have sounded off about the idiotic idea that celebrities have greater knowledge and greater authority to speak out on politics, foreign affairs, and war. I'm not saying that they have no right to speak, just that their opinions don't matter any more than your average Joe-off-the-street. Today I realized that the entire argument can be boiled down to one question.
The number one reason why celebrity opinions deserve no special attention is: HAS ANYONE EVER WATCHED CELEBRITY JEOPARDY? I have; it made me fear for the survival of the species. Juan Gato does a fisking on an article about Castro from the AP. The sad thing is that I think said article was supposed to be a news piece. If there's something I detest, it's "news" stories that require fiskings. I've done it myself, but it's a sad commentary on the modern media. Thursday, March 06, 2003
Prosperity and life or pain and death. You'd think it would be an easy choice, but Den Beste points out that the Palestinians keep choosing pain and death.
Of course, maybe the choice isn't as easy as it sounds. After all, Moses felt the need to tell the infant nation of Israel which was the right choice. Juan Gato is disappointed:
And those are the ones capable of speaking in complete sentences. President Bush once said that he wanted Osama bin Laden, "Dead or Alive" ... Who knew that we could have our cake and eat it too?
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Detained al Qaeda chief Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has given conflicting information about Osama bin Laden, CNN has learned. I see a couple of ways to read this. Either KSM was intentionally giving conflicting information in an attempt to cast doubt on both Osama's condition and on anything he might say in the future, or he was defiant and trying to act from a position of strrength when first caught and then broke down and told the truth later. If it's the former, we know nothing about Osama's condition and it will be sometime before we know whether anything he tells us is true. If it's the latter, then Osama is, indeed, toast. (As I was typing this, I caught myself saying "Saddam" instead of Osama in the last sentence. Clairvoyance?) Excuse Me? You Needed a Study to Find This Out? Check out this NYT headline
Two Studies Find the Palestinian People Impoverished and the Economy in a Shambles Of course they're in poverty. Their economy isn't in shambles; they don't have an economy. Most Palestinians work for Israeli companies. Unsurprisingly, since the only Palestinian export is mass murder, the Israeli government is hesitant to let Palestinians enter Israeli controlled territory and Israeli companies are hesitant to hire those that are let in. Under those circumstances, it's hard to make a living.
The Palestinian people have no one to blame for this except their own "leaders" and the terrorist groups that keep blowing up everyone and everything in sight. The NYT story keeps talking about how a "diplomatic solution" is the only way to solve the problem. I don't see any diplomatic solution can work. Diplomacy involves compromise. The problem is that the unstated, or in some cases actually stated, goal of most Palestinian groups is the complete obliteration of Israel. They've been singularly unwilling to compromise on that point.
Until such a time as the Palestinians admit that Israel has a right to exist, there is only one compromise possible. The Palestinian terrorists' position is that they want to "martyr" themselves gloriously while killing as many Jews as possible. The Israeli government doesn't want them killing all the Jews. The only compromise I see here is that the IDF arrange for the Palestinian "martyrs" to die before they kill lots of Jews. A congresscritter compares bin Laden to the Founding Fathers. How is it possible to be this mind-boggling stupid while still being able to tie your shoes in the morning? Looks like tonight is the night.
The time has apparently come to make a final decision. We should all pray for our President, our troops, and last, but certainly not least, the people of Iraq. Wednesday, March 05, 2003
John O'Sullivan looks at how rule of post-war Iraq should be run. In the short term he seems to favor "government by ventriloquism." He's got some ideas about the long-term as well. I will say that he's got this part right.
I would suggest that Australia should probably be permitted to be on this council Probably Qatar as well. Qatar has been very helpful in our efforts to contain terrorism, it has supported liberation of Iraq from an early date, and from what I understand is making progress towards opening up a free society of its own. From that aspect, Qatar deserves some recognition. Politically though, it will be necessary for any council set up to administer Iraq to have at least one Arabian country to help stifle complaints that the council is just a conspiracy of westerners. Qatar is certainly one of the safer choices for an Arab country to be on such a council.
There will be some pressure to give Kuwait and "Saudi" Arabia on such a council. That pressure should be resisted. Kuwait is a fair weather friend. They will turn on us as soon as it seems politically useful to do so. The Saudis, despite the repeated statements of President Bush and the State Department, are not our friends at all. They are downright hostile. I don't care what anyone says, there is a reason why 15 of 19 9/11 hijackers were from the Saudi entity.
There are some other countries that should definitely be out. Namely any country that openly opposed the liberation of Iraq. Specifically, the Russians, Germans, Belgians, and especially an particularly, the French should have no say whatsoever. Sorry boys, you didn't want to play ball, you don't get to come to the victory party either. Only team members are allowed in the locker room.
Turkey should also be out. We've done everything we could, including going to bat for them with NATO, to make sure that Turkey would be protected from Saddam when the war starts. Yet, when we sought permission to station active troops for the war in Turkey, they said no. Even if they reverse that decision, they should be excluded from having a voice in Iraq. They must learn that actions have consequences. Besides, Turkish cooperation has always hinged on letting them have way too much say over what would happen to the Kurds in northern Iraq. While Turkey has made definite progress in recent years, they still have a long way to go when it comes to their record on treatment of their own Kurdish minority. I was never to keen on letting them have a say about what happened to the Kurdish minority in Iraq. Now, we just don't have to worry about what they say.
And on the subject of the Kurds, we should not discount the possibility of breaking Iraq up into 2 or maybe even 3 countries along ethnic and religious lines. I'm not saying that I necessarily support doing so, just that the idea should not be discounted. The goal here is to have the entire area where Iraq now is as a functioning and free society. If the strain of having Kurds and Arabs, Sunni and Shi'a living together in a single nation is too much to to allow a free and functioning society, then we should break the area up into 2 or 3 nations. At the very least, we should seriously consider breaking the nation up into semi-independent states operating under a Federal system.
I'd never really set down and hashed out my thoughts on a post-war Iraq before, so if anyone has any ideas on how this could be improved, I'd appreciate hearing them. Hah! I had perused the new TLB ecosystem. The first time through, I didn't find myself listed. I must admit to being slightly down about that. Then I checked my referrer logs and saw that someone had come here from the ecosystem page. I looked again and discovered the reason I didn't see myself the first time; I was much higher up than I expected. I'm number 402! Okay, it's not much, but I wasn't listed in the last ecosystem at all. Granted, the new one is greatly expanded and there are a lot of people who have never been on it before. Still, I had no idea I'd be ranked that high. I also found some blogs that were linking to me that I wasn't previously aware of. Hey, it's the little things in life you've got to treasure. Mark, Mark, Mark ... Don't you think at least some of our Canadian friends might object to our sending them our idiotarians? Tuesday, March 04, 2003
What makes the people who oppose liberation of Iraq think that they get to decide what post-liberation Iraq will look like? The sad thing is, we'll probably let them. As you've probably heard by now, terrorists attacked the airport in Davao in the Philipines. (Link via Tim Blair.)
I just received the following e-mail from my congregation's online prayer list.
I thought I'd post this, both to add a personal side to the news and to ask for prayers for the Sellers family. But, but, but, I thought the peace activists told us there was no way Islamic terrorists would cooperate with Iraq. David Frum asks if the North Koreans are insane. Well, actually, that's not the real question. Personally, I think they are insane. The real question is why are they now apparently so insane as to want to provoke a war with the U.S. Here I was all happy about the prospect of American troops being able to leave "Saudi" Arabia after the Iraqi war. Umm. Gerald Steinberg has gone and shown me a definite downside. Does anyone else remember that Dave Barry once advocated assassinating Saddam Hussein with an exploding toilet? Saddam was right about something! Saddam Hussein announced that "Tyranny will be defeated." Even when he's wrong, he's right. If Saddam believes he can defeat the U.S., then his mental state is questionable at best. He is right though; we have every intention of throwing down the tyrant and restoring to the Iraqi people the rights they were born with. Monday, March 03, 2003
What on earth?
Maybe they really are trying to start a war. Robert Bartley asks for a little understanding.
For anyone from outside the States who doesn't understand our current position on terrorism and Iraq, this article may not explain our position to you, but it will tell you why the U.S. is acting as it is. There's nothing like having 3,000 people just like you murdered in one fell swoop to put things in perspective. American foreign policy since 9/11 has been motivated by two words: NEVER AGAIN! I wouldn't have it any other way. Hmm. Interesting. And Martin is Canadian so he's got a better chance of judging the truthfulness of the statement than I do. Some days it seems as if North Korea is literally begging to be invaded.
Now as I read it, Pyongyang just threatened to give nuclear devices to terrorists. That is, after all, the only way they could accomplish "'nuclear disasters' around the world". I say that because everything I've heard indicates that they have missiles that could hit Japan and, maybe, the western coast of the U.S., but they simply don't have the equipment to hit targets "around the world."
This is part of an ongoing pattern by Pyongyang of accusing the U.S. of wanting to invade North Korea and then making incredible threats that would seem to make invading them more necessary than ever. I frankly don't understand what these people are thinking. That's both good and bad. It's bad because it makes me worry that nobody can understand their thinking, which would make our government incapable of predicting their actions. It's good because the political leadership over there is cracked and I'd have to be cracked to understand them. So, at least my inability to understand these wackos is prima facia evidence that I'm still (mostly) sane. Sunday, March 02, 2003
Red Letter Edition
It's interesting to see why Matthew says that Jesus healed these men. He says Christ pitied them. From a certain point of view, this is also why Jesus sacrificed Himself. He took pity on the entire human race. Not one of us did anything to deserve his sacrifice, but he gave it all the same. He took pity on us and our miserable condition, so he offered Himself to rectify our situation. So I'm watching X-Men and thinking, "Would their be anything cooler than having your own personal XR-71 Blackbird with VTOL capability?" If there was, it would probably involve controlling the weather. Sony has introduced a plan to single-handedly destroy the world economy.
What I'm imagining is millions of techs and engineers who never get any more work done. Trust me, some of these people would die of starvation if the system didn't crash occasionally. I need help. Last night I was being badgered with questions about a subject I don't know the answer to. The question was why so many men find it attractive for women to wear their hair in a ponytail sticking out the back of a baseball cap? The best I could do was, "I don't know. It just is." Can anyone help me settle this very perplexing and vital question? (This could be a life threatening problem!) The Brookings Institute says that the economic cost of not going to war in Iraq may be higher than the cost of going. And that's leaving aside details like, oh, all the people Saddam has massacred in the past and will almost certainly massacre in the future. Christopher Johnson has found some disturbing "Evangelists". Anybody else worried about people who call themselves missionaries, but say things like this, ""We need a mission to Muslims, not to bring people to Christ but to proclaim Christ, Jesus the peacemaker, Jesus who came with justice and Jesus the reconciler"? Cause personally, "missionaries" who say their job is not to bring people to Christ scare the daylights out of me. Dominique de Villepin insists that there is no anti-Americanism in France. [sarcasm] Hmm, that must also mean that there is no grass roots movement to boycott French products in response the the nonexistent anti-Americanism in France. I'm glad we cleared that up.[/sarcasm] Saturday, March 01, 2003
Bryan Preston is wondering about the possibility that the French have knowledge that they're not sharing. Knowledge that might make them think things will go badly in Iraq. The idea behind the speculation being that France knows things are going to go badly and therefore is positioning themselves to say "I told you so" and thereby push Britain and the U.S. down a few notches and take their place.
I think this is the game the French are playing, but not because they know something will go wrong. They just hope something will go wrong. It seems to me that the French are so desperate to regain power that they've stopped looking at the downside of their actions. They're going for broke because they don't think things can go any worse in the diplomatic power struggle then they already are. (They're wrong, but that's what it looks like from here.) If you ignore the downside to all possible actions, the French position makes sense. Think about it. If the French go along with us, and we're right, they gain nothing. If they oppose us and we turn out to be wrong, then the greater the vitriol directed at us now, the better they look later. Of course, if they oppose us and we're right, then things really can get much worse for France. They just aren't thinking very clearly about the negatives. (Or, possibly, they're simply ignoring them.) Anyway, that's how it looks to me.
I do want to look at one question Bryan raises.
Yeah, I can imagine the reaction. If French weaponry led directly to the death of a million Americans, the French knew it was coming, and didn't bother to warn us, I can most definitely think of some possible reactions. None of them would be pretty. The worst of them would make Hiroshima look like a footnote in history. Not a pretty picture. I'm going to be filthy rich ... Or not. Just got the Nigerian e-mail again. Just once can't these people have real money? Jason Steffens thinks that the division between "reproductive" cloning and "therapeutic" cloning is purely arbitrary.
I completely agree that so-called therapeutic cloning produces a human being. It is, however, for that reason that I see a very real difference between "reproductive' and "therapeutic" cloning. I just see the difference inversely from most people. I have no problem, ethically speaking, with creating a clone as a means of reproduction. I don't think it makes a lot of sense, but I don't have any moral problems with it. In fact, I've never actually even seen a good argument against it. I have no problem with the idea because the intent is to allow the child to live.
That being said, I have some practical issues with "reproductive" cloning as it now stands. We simply don't have enough information to be able to do it correctly. (The Raelians are quacks.) Even a lot of the "successful" animal clones have come up with some problems. Because of that, I have some qualms about attempting to clone humans with the probability being so high that something will go wrong. You could so that I have ethical concerns with the process, but not the concept.
Now what I do believe to be immoral is the idea of "therapeutic" cloning. As Jason points out, all cloning creates life. Killing that life, when it's human, is murder. Bringing a human life into this world with the express intent of killing it is morally repugnant. I can never support this type of cloning. Just thinking about makes me ill.
I don't know how coherent this was, but there it is. I do find the division Jason discounts to be very useful, just not for the reasons most people seem to find so compelling. Now here is a brave man. Tony Blair says he knows that war with Saddam is unpopular. He also knows appeasing Hitler was popular. Blair says he won't be swayed from what he knows is right by popular opinion. Instead, he says he's ready to be judged by history.
Bravo Mr. Blair. I disagree with Blair on a huge slew of political questions, but he's been a stand-up guy on terrorism and Iraq. He's one of the few world leaders who seems to have a moral compass on the issue.
Mr. Blair, I salute you for your brave words. |
