| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"johac" |
| Date: |
16 Mar 2007 01:10:08 AM |
| Object: |
Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear |
So is this why Bush wants to invade? "Armageddon Accomplished!"
--
Published on Thursday, March 15, 2007 by the Inter Press Service
Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear
by Bill Berkowitz
Last Sunday, Pastor John Hagee, the founder of Christians United for
Israel, received a rousing reception at the opening dinner plenary of
the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference.
Hagee warned the crowd that "Iran poses a nuclear threat to the state of
Israel that promises nothing less than a nuclear Holocaust." Hagee
claimed that the situation is like 1938, only "Iran is Germany and
[President Mahmoud] Ahmedinejad is the new Hitler."
Hagee added: "We must stop Iran's nuclear threat and stop it now and
stand boldly [with] Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East."
A few weeks earlier, Hagee had met with Senator John McCain, a leading
contender for the Republican Party's 2008 presidential nomination. Hagee
has been leading the charge of conservative Christian evangelicals
urging President George W. Bush to deal more forcefully with Iran.
"Hagee's appearance at AIPAC indicates the growing organizational
strength of the Christian Zionist lobby for apocalyptic war and the rise
of corresponding Jewish factions both within AIPAC and within Israeli
politics that are pushing for dramatically expanded war in the Mideast,"
Bruce Wilson, the co-founder of Talk To Action, a website specializing
on religion and politics, told IPS.
As the launching of the Iraq War approaches its fourth anniversary, it
is worth remembering that during the lead-up to the invasion, a number
of conservative evangelicals voiced their support for the war.
Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
for the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant
denomination, maintained that Bush's action met criteria for a just war.
The National Association of Evangelicals, which represents several dozen
denominations encompassing more than 30 million U.S. evangelical
Christians, openly supported the war. And Mike Evans, who heads the
aggressively pro-Israeli Jerusalem Prayer Team, pointed out that war
with Iraq could be a "dress rehearsal for Armageddon," the fulfillment
of Biblical prophecy.
These days, while the Bush administration and beltway neoconservatives
doggedly crank up the volume against Iran, they are again being joined
by a number of significant conservative Christian evangelicals.
Hagee, pastor of the 18,000-member San Antonio, Texas-based Cornerstone
Church and head of a multi-million-dollar evangelical enterprise, "seems
to believe such a conflict is both inevitable and necessary," The Jewish
Week noted in early March.
Founder of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), a Christian Zionist
lobbying group created last year, Hagee is also the author of a number
of Christian-themed novels, as well as the recent "Jerusalem Countdown:
A Warning to the World," which maintains that biblical prophecy is
currently playing itself out in the Middle East.
"The end of the world as we know it is rapidly approaching," Hagee wrote
in "Jerusalem Countdown." "Just before us is a nuclear countdown with
Iran followed by Ezekiel's war (as described in Ezekiel, chapters 38 and
39), and then the final battle -- the battle of Armageddon."
In a recent series of articles focused on Hagee, Talk to Action's Bruce
Wilson described him as someone that "has built a career on aggressive
support for hard right to fringe right Israeli politics and is now
making inroads towards convincing the mainstream American Jewish
community that he and CUFI are the best tactical allies Jews and Israel
can expect to find."
"Pastor John Hagee's warmly received AIPAC speech illustrates the extent
to which political leaders who espouse ideology that in the 1960s was
considered to be scandalously close the extreme end of the political
spectrum can now expect to broadcast their views from a national stage,"
Wilson told IPS.
Joel Rosenberg is another conservative Christian evangelical advocating
some type of military action against Iran. In late February, Rosenberg,
who was raised in an Orthodox Jewish family, reported on his website
that a number of conservative Christian evangelical leaders were
beginning to show an interest in Iran, particularly as the situation in
the Middle East relates to passages in the Bible.
Rosenberg's latest novel, "The Ezekiel Option," is "about the threat of
a Russian-Iranian alliance to destroy Israel based on the Biblical
prophecies found in the Book of Ezekiel, chapters 38 and 39." These
prophecies "describe what Bible scholars call the war of Gog and Magog.
Russia and Iran form a military alliance with Lebanon, Syria and a group
of other Middle East countries to destroy Israel in what Ezekiel
described as the last days."
In January, during a trip to the Middle East, Rosenberg said that he
"brief[ed] several hundred Arab and Iranian pastors and evangelical
leaders on the latest geopolitical developments in the region," and that
he taught "on Ezekiel 38 and 39... prophecies that most Christian
leaders in the region are unfamiliar with."
Back home, Rosenberg has discovered a growing interest in developments
in Iran amongst prominent evangelical Christian leaders. While flying to
New Mexico, he "happened to sit next to" Focus on the Family founder Dr.
James Dobson, one of the most politically powerful conservative
evangelical leaders in the U.S.
Dobson, who "had been in Washington for meetings with high-level
administration officials to discuss Iran, Iraq and the latest
developments in the Middle East," told Rosenberg that he was becoming
more "concerned about the Iranian nuclear threat, and has been studying
Ezekiel's prophecies."
"Will there be a war in the region this year or next?" While
acknowledging that "it's too early to say," Rosenberg claimed that 2007
is "the Year of Decision." President Bush and Congressional leaders
"will need to decide soon just how they're going to handle the Iranian
nuclear threat, [and] Church leaders also need to decide just how they
are going to handle the Iranian threat, as well ... after all, time is
short, and the stakes are high."
Last July, at Christian United for Israel's coming out party in
Washington, Hagee stated that "The United States must join Israel in a
pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both
Israel and the West... a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation
with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation [...] and [the]
Second Coming of Christ."
In a statement given to IPS by Jane Hunter and Rabbi Haim Dov Beliak,
co-founders of the website JewsOnFirst.org, they said that "Hagee's call
in his speech for victory for Israel and America (which appears to refer
to Iran) is not necessarily the call for military victory which his
audience might have heard (a chilling prospect nonetheless). Hagee's
'victory' is coded language for Armageddon, which Christian Zionists see
as the end-times battles set in Israel, when Christians are raptured to
heaven and Jews lose -- unless they're happy to convert."
If President Bush unleashes a pre-emptive military strike against Iran,
there is little doubt that Pastor Hagee will be by his side.
Bill Berkowitz is a longtime observer of the conservative movement. His
column "Conservative Watch" documents the strategies, players,
institutions, victories and defeats of the U.S. Right.
---
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0315-07.htm
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear |
16 Mar 2007 05:42:47 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:10:08 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> in news message
<jhachmann-3FC1BF.23100815032007@news.giganews.com> wrote:
So is this why Bush wants to invade? "Armageddon Accomplished!"
--
Published on Thursday, March 15, 2007 by the Inter Press Service
Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear
by Bill Berkowitz
Last Sunday, Pastor John Hagee, the founder of Christians United for
Israel, received a rousing reception at the opening dinner plenary of
the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference.
Hagee warned the crowd that "Iran poses a nuclear threat to the state of
Israel that promises nothing less than a nuclear Holocaust." Hagee
claimed that the situation is like 1938, only "Iran is Germany and
[President Mahmoud] Ahmedinejad is the new Hitler."
Hagee added: "We must stop Iran's nuclear threat and stop it now and
stand boldly [with] Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East."
I'm perfectly willing to let Pastor Hagee boldly go to Iran himself to
"stop it now". He can pray that God® will smite Ahmedinejad if that
is God®'s will.
[----]
Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
for the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant
denomination, maintained that Bush's action met criteria for a just war.
What would be the criteria for an unjust war?
The National Association of Evangelicals, which represents several dozen
denominations encompassing more than 30 million U.S. evangelical
Christians, openly supported the war. And Mike Evans, who heads the
aggressively pro-Israeli Jerusalem Prayer Team, pointed out that war
with Iraq could be a "dress rehearsal for Armageddon," the fulfillment
of Biblical prophecy.
They can dress rehearse all they want, but there is no reason to drag
thinking people along with them.
"The end of the world as we know it is rapidly approaching," Hagee wrote
in "Jerusalem Countdown." "Just before us is a nuclear countdown with
Iran followed by Ezekiel's war (as described in Ezekiel, chapters 38 and
39), and then the final battle -- the battle of Armageddon."
If they want The End of the World as We Know It©, why don't they just
go off to Guyana and drink KoolAid® rather than trying to cheer on
nuclear war. Is the fulfillment of their prophecy so important to
them that they would sacrifice most living human beings to precipitate
it? I guess that was a rhetorical question. The answer, of course,
is yes and damn everyone to hell if they don't agree.
[---]
"Pastor John Hagee's warmly received AIPAC speech illustrates the extent
to which political leaders who espouse ideology that in the 1960s was
considered to be scandalously close the extreme end of the political
spectrum can now expect to broadcast their views from a national stage,"
Wilson told IPS.
Of course they are extreme. It is unfortunate that anyone believes
that their fanaticism should be regarded as public policy.
[---]
Last July, at Christian United for Israel's coming out party in
Washington, Hagee stated that "The United States must join Israel in a
pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both
Israel and the West... a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation
with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation [...] and [the]
Second Coming of Christ."
There it is. He is certifiably mad.
[----]
If President Bush unleashes a pre-emptive military strike against Iran,
there is little doubt that Pastor Hagee will be by his side.
Onward Christian Soldiers marching as to war
With the Cross of Jesus® going on before.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Religion may in most of its forms be defined as the
belief that the gods are on the side of the government.
-- Bertrand Russell
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear |
16 Mar 2007 06:58:01 PM |
|
|
In article <r6skv29of63ctsf74jj1mevalcijklgv47@4ax.com>,
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:10:08 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> in news message
<jhachmann-3FC1BF.23100815032007@news.giganews.com> wrote:
So is this why Bush wants to invade? "Armageddon Accomplished!"
--
Published on Thursday, March 15, 2007 by the Inter Press Service
Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear
by Bill Berkowitz
Last Sunday, Pastor John Hagee, the founder of Christians United for
Israel, received a rousing reception at the opening dinner plenary of
the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference.
Hagee warned the crowd that "Iran poses a nuclear threat to the state of
Israel that promises nothing less than a nuclear Holocaust." Hagee
claimed that the situation is like 1938, only "Iran is Germany and
[President Mahmoud] Ahmedinejad is the new Hitler."
Hagee added: "We must stop Iran's nuclear threat and stop it now and
stand boldly [with] Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East."
I'm perfectly willing to let Pastor Hagee boldly go to Iran himself to
"stop it now". He can pray that God® will smite Ahmedinejad if that
is God®'s will.
Why is it these days that the people who want to start wars are never
the people who actually fight in the wars?
[----]
Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
for the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant
denomination, maintained that Bush's action met criteria for a just war.
What would be the criteria for an unjust war?
Whenever we attack another country for any reason it is 'just'. Whenever
another country attacks us for any reason it's 'unjust'.
The National Association of Evangelicals, which represents several dozen
denominations encompassing more than 30 million U.S. evangelical
Christians, openly supported the war. And Mike Evans, who heads the
aggressively pro-Israeli Jerusalem Prayer Team, pointed out that war
with Iraq could be a "dress rehearsal for Armageddon," the fulfillment
of Biblical prophecy.
They can dress rehearse all they want, but there is no reason to drag
thinking people along with them.
Send them all off to some lonely island with all of the fanatics from
the other side and let them go to it.
"The end of the world as we know it is rapidly approaching," Hagee wrote
in "Jerusalem Countdown." "Just before us is a nuclear countdown with
Iran followed by Ezekiel's war (as described in Ezekiel, chapters 38 and
39), and then the final battle -- the battle of Armageddon."
If they want The End of the World as We Know It©, why don't they just
go off to Guyana and drink KoolAid® rather than trying to cheer on
nuclear war. Is the fulfillment of their prophecy so important to
them that they would sacrifice most living human beings to precipitate
it? I guess that was a rhetorical question. The answer, of course,
is yes and damn everyone to hell if they don't agree.
Why should they care? If they're right their GAWD will give them a nice
big fat reward. If they're wrong they're just dead and can't be blamed
for anything. Sort of a reverse Pascal's wager.
[---]
"Pastor John Hagee's warmly received AIPAC speech illustrates the extent
to which political leaders who espouse ideology that in the 1960s was
considered to be scandalously close the extreme end of the political
spectrum can now expect to broadcast their views from a national stage,"
Wilson told IPS.
Of course they are extreme. It is unfortunate that anyone believes
that their fanaticism should be regarded as public policy.
They are loons. Sadly there are a lot more of them now.
[---]
Last July, at Christian United for Israel's coming out party in
Washington, Hagee stated that "The United States must join Israel in a
pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both
Israel and the West... a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation
with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation [...] and [the]
Second Coming of Christ."
There it is. He is certifiably mad.
Lock him up in the rubber room!
[----]
If President Bush unleashes a pre-emptive military strike against Iran,
there is little doubt that Pastor Hagee will be by his side.
Onward Christian Soldiers marching as to war
With the Cross of Jesus® going on before.
"God wills it." (Battle cry of the Crusaders)
Liz #658 BAAWA
Religion may in most of its forms be defined as the
belief that the gods are on the side of the government.
-- Bertrand Russell
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear |
16 Mar 2007 11:33:28 AM |
|
|
Liz wrote in message ...
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:10:08 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> in news message
<jhachmann-3FC1BF.23100815032007@news.giganews.com> wrote:
So is this why Bush wants to invade? "Armageddon Accomplished!"
--
Published on Thursday, March 15, 2007 by the Inter Press Service
Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear
by Bill Berkowitz
Last Sunday, Pastor John Hagee, the founder of Christians United for
Israel, received a rousing reception at the opening dinner plenary of
the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference.
Hagee warned the crowd that "Iran poses a nuclear threat to the state of
Israel that promises nothing less than a nuclear Holocaust." Hagee
claimed that the situation is like 1938, only "Iran is Germany and
[President Mahmoud] Ahmedinejad is the new Hitler."
Hagee added: "We must stop Iran's nuclear threat and stop it now and
stand boldly [with] Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East."
Well, that would pretty much prevent this Armageddon Thingie everyone says
Hagee is salivating over.
[snip]
"The end of the world as we know it is rapidly approaching," Hagee wrote
in "Jerusalem Countdown." "Just before us is a nuclear countdown with
Iran followed by Ezekiel's war (as described in Ezekiel, chapters 38 and
39), and then the final battle -- the battle of Armageddon."
If they want The End of the World as We Know It©, why don't they just
go off to Guyana and drink KoolAid®
Uhhh, did Jim Jones end the world as we know it?
BTW, it's "Flavor Aid", not KoolAid.
rather than trying to cheer on
nuclear war. Is the fulfillment of their prophecy so important to
them that they would sacrifice most living human beings
Where do you see they are sacrificing anyone? They simply believe it's going
to happen, right or wrong.
to precipitate
it? I guess that was a rhetorical question. The answer, of course,
is yes and damn everyone to hell if they don't agree.
[snip]
- Rick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear |
16 Mar 2007 05:27:20 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:33:28 -0500, "Rick"
<pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com> in news message
<OtudnR3r1-NCW2fYnZ2dnUVZ_sapnZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Liz wrote in message ...
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:10:08 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> in news message
<jhachmann-3FC1BF.23100815032007@news.giganews.com> wrote:
So is this why Bush wants to invade? "Armageddon Accomplished!"
--
Published on Thursday, March 15, 2007 by the Inter Press Service
Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear
by Bill Berkowitz
Last Sunday, Pastor John Hagee, the founder of Christians United for
Israel, received a rousing reception at the opening dinner plenary of
the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference.
Hagee warned the crowd that "Iran poses a nuclear threat to the state of
Israel that promises nothing less than a nuclear Holocaust." Hagee
claimed that the situation is like 1938, only "Iran is Germany and
[President Mahmoud] Ahmedinejad is the new Hitler."
Hagee added: "We must stop Iran's nuclear threat and stop it now and
stand boldly [with] Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East."
Well, that would pretty much prevent this Armageddon Thingie everyone says
Hagee is salivating over.
As I said:
I'm perfectly willing to let Pastor Hagee boldly go to Iran himself to
"stop it now". He can pray that God® will smite Ahmedinejad if that
is God®'s will.
[snip]
"The end of the world as we know it is rapidly approaching," Hagee wrote
in "Jerusalem Countdown." "Just before us is a nuclear countdown with
Iran followed by Ezekiel's war (as described in Ezekiel, chapters 38 and
39), and then the final battle -- the battle of Armageddon."
If they want The End of the World as We Know It©, why don't they just
go off to Guyana and drink KoolAid®
Uhhh, did Jim Jones end the world as we know it?
It certainly Ended the World as They knew it. I'm for reducing the
End of the World® to those who are keen for it to end so that the rest
of us can keep on keeping on.
BTW, it's "Flavor Aid", not KoolAid.
You know, I bet after the first hour it didn't make much of a
difference to the members of the People's Temple which artificially
fruit flavored drink was added to the cyanide.
rather than trying to cheer on
nuclear war. Is the fulfillment of their prophecy so important to
them that they would sacrifice most living human beings
Where do you see they are sacrificing anyone? They simply believe it's going
to happen, right or wrong.
They are promoting it happening. They are promoting a preemptive
strike against Iran in order to fulfill the prophecy. Maybe you
missed it the first time. I'll reinsert Haggee's quote about what the
US *must do:
~
Hagee stated that "The United States must join Israel in a
pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for
both Israel and the West... a biblically prophesied end-time
confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation
[...] and [the] Second Coming of Christ."
to precipitate
it? I guess that was a rhetorical question. The answer, of course,
is yes and damn everyone to hell if they don't agree.
[snip]
Liz #658 BAAWA
Liz, you like most people do not want to have faith in
things which have no basis in reality. -- josalt
.
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear |
20 Mar 2007 06:40:20 PM |
|
|
On Mar 16, 3:27 pm, Liz <ehu...@donotspam.com> wrote:
I'm perfectly willing to let Pastor Hagee boldly go to Iran himself to
"stop it now". He can pray that God=AE will smite Ahmedinejad if that
is God=AE's will.
Hell, I'll chip in to help buy his ticket. >=3D<
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nosterill" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear |
16 Mar 2007 06:41:05 AM |
|
|
On Mar 16, 10:42 am, Liz <ehu...@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:10:08 -0700, johac
<jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> in news message
<jhachmann-3FC1BF.23100815032...@news.giganews.com> wrote:
So is this why Bush wants to invade? "Armageddon Accomplished!"
This really is very scary. It gets somewhat topical in the UK as well
since the upgrade and renewal of the Trident nuclear submarine fleet
is very much in the news. The whole strategic point of that weapon is
the deterrant principle of mutually assured destruction. Back in the
cold war days this actually held good because, however diametrically
opposed they might be in most regards, the USA and USSR were both
essentially sane and weren't about to start something that would
inevitably result in major destruction in their own country.
That's all changed. There are religious maniacs on both sides now who
would positively welcome mass slaughter of their own people!
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear |
16 Mar 2007 06:59:31 PM |
|
|
In article <1174045265.130544.262130@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
"Nosterill" <fladgate@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 16, 10:42 am, Liz <ehu...@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:10:08 -0700, johac
<jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> in news message
<jhachmann-3FC1BF.23100815032...@news.giganews.com> wrote:
So is this why Bush wants to invade? "Armageddon Accomplished!"
This really is very scary. It gets somewhat topical in the UK as well
since the upgrade and renewal of the Trident nuclear submarine fleet
is very much in the news. The whole strategic point of that weapon is
the deterrant principle of mutually assured destruction. Back in the
cold war days this actually held good because, however diametrically
opposed they might be in most regards, the USA and USSR were both
essentially sane and weren't about to start something that would
inevitably result in major destruction in their own country.
That's all changed. There are religious maniacs on both sides now who
would positively welcome mass slaughter of their own people!
And Bush wants to develop a new family of thermonuclear weapons. Welcome
back to the '50s and '60s.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear |
20 Mar 2007 06:37:28 PM |
|
|
On Mar 16, 3:42 am, Liz <ehu...@donotspam.com> wrote:
If they want The End of the World as We Know It=A9, why don't they just
go off to Guyana and drink KoolAid=AE rather than trying to cheer on
nuclear war. Is the fulfillment of their prophecy so important to
them that they would sacrifice most living human beings to precipitate
it? =20
I grew up among these people. You bet your bippy it's that important
to them.
I guess that was a rhetorical question. The answer, of course,
is yes and damn everyone to hell if they don't agree.
Yup, that pretty much describes how they feel about it.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear |
20 Mar 2007 07:29:00 PM |
|
|
On 20 Mar 2007 16:37:28 -0700, "skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> in
news message <1174433848.208754.310960@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
On Mar 16, 3:42 am, Liz <ehu...@donotspam.com> wrote:
If they want The End of the World as We Know It©, why don't they just
go off to Guyana and drink KoolAid® rather than trying to cheer on
nuclear war. Is the fulfillment of their prophecy so important to
them that they would sacrifice most living human beings to precipitate
it?
I grew up among these people. You bet your bippy it's that important
to them.
This still astounds me. I can comprehend their zeal and motivation on
an intellectual level, but it makes absolutely no sense to me. My
mother was religious but my father was a mitigating presence so I was
never immersed in the culture. He went to church and sang in the
choir, but I'm unsure if he actually believed or did it to make Mom
happy. OTOH, he loved to sing and besides church, he was in a men's
choral and a barbershop quartet. When I asked him questions, he never
gave me a pat answer but instead encouraged me to think about
different possibilities. Mom, otoh, told me I did too believe despite
my protestations.
I guess that was a rhetorical question. The answer, of course,
is yes and damn everyone to hell if they don't agree.
Yup, that pretty much describes how they feel about it.
I will never understand that perspective.
Überwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted Ath.D BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear |
16 Mar 2007 06:30:45 AM |
|
|
johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear
Just to set the record <ahem> "Straight"....
It was the Left's Bugbear not too long ago.
That would include me, former Senator Bob Graham
(who was a Senator at the time) and a lot of people
here.
While Bush was whipping up his war against Iraq, a
lot of us pointed to real enemies, true dangers
in the world, countries with genuine WMD programs:
Iran & north Korea.
Yup, with Iran working fevorishly to build a
nuclear arsenal & north Korea claiming they
already did, why would we waste a moments thought
on Iraq?
With Iran backing known terrorist groups -- always
eager to export its Islamic revolution -- and north
Korea a rogue state which has employed terrorist
tactics in the past, why blow our wad on Saddam?
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear |
16 Mar 2007 06:47:45 PM |
|
|
In article <1174044645.337130.38970@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear
Just to set the record <ahem> "Straight"....
It was the Left's Bugbear not too long ago.
That would include me, former Senator Bob Graham
(who was a Senator at the time) and a lot of people
here.
While Bush was whipping up his war against Iraq, a
lot of us pointed to real enemies, true dangers
in the world, countries with genuine WMD programs:
Iran & north Korea.
Yup, with Iran working fevorishly to build a
nuclear arsenal & north Korea claiming they
already did, why would we waste a moments thought
on Iraq?
With Iran backing known terrorist groups -- always
eager to export its Islamic revolution -- and north
Korea a rogue state which has employed terrorist
tactics in the past, why blow our wad on Saddam?
I know. It turns out that Iran was less of a threat than NK, but
certainly capable of doing more damage than Iraq. And of course, the
people who attacked us on 9-11 had their home bases in Afghanistan and
Pakistan. Why we didn't finish the job there is beyaond me.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nosterill" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear |
18 Mar 2007 09:24:05 AM |
|
|
On 16 Mar, 23:47, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <1174044645.337130.38...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear
Just to set the record <ahem> "Straight"....
It was the Left's Bugbear not too long ago.
That would include me, former Senator Bob Graham
(who was a Senator at the time) and a lot of people
here.
While Bush was whipping up his war against Iraq, a
lot of us pointed to real enemies, true dangers
in the world, countries with genuine WMD programs:
Iran & north Korea.
Yup, with Iran working fevorishly to build a
nuclear arsenal & north Korea claiming they
already did, why would we waste a moments thought
on Iraq?
With Iran backing known terrorist groups -- always
eager to export its Islamic revolution -- and north
Korea a rogue state which has employed terrorist
tactics in the past, why blow our wad on Saddam?
I know. It turns out that Iran was less of a threat than NK, but
certainly capable of doing more damage than Iraq. And of course, the
people who attacked us on 9-11 had their home bases in Afghanistan and
Pakistan. Why we didn't finish the job there is beyaond me.
Which of those countries have oil? Coincidence?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear |
18 Mar 2007 10:14:14 AM |
|
|
"Nosterill" <fladgate@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1174227845.656148.167530@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On 16 Mar, 23:47, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <1174044645.337130.38...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear
Just to set the record <ahem> "Straight"....
It was the Left's Bugbear not too long ago.
That would include me, former Senator Bob Graham
(who was a Senator at the time) and a lot of people
here.
While Bush was whipping up his war against Iraq, a
lot of us pointed to real enemies, true dangers
in the world, countries with genuine WMD programs:
Iran & north Korea.
Yup, with Iran working fevorishly to build a
nuclear arsenal & north Korea claiming they
already did, why would we waste a moments thought
on Iraq?
With Iran backing known terrorist groups -- always
eager to export its Islamic revolution -- and north
Korea a rogue state which has employed terrorist
tactics in the past, why blow our wad on Saddam?
I know. It turns out that Iran was less of a threat than NK, but
certainly capable of doing more damage than Iraq. And of course, the
people who attacked us on 9-11 had their home bases in Afghanistan
and Pakistan. Why we didn't finish the job there is beyaond me.
Which of those countries have oil? Coincidence?
So a terrorist-supporting nation which is seeking nuclear-weapons
capability and has a record of using WMD against its own people and its
neighbors is off-limits because it has oil?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The one thing we must not do is to confuse the real country of Iraq,
where there is a real war, a real population, and a real obligation to
protect them, with the parallel-universe "quagmire Iraq" of popular
imagination."
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear |
18 Mar 2007 09:08:45 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
So a terrorist-supporting nation
Iran.
which is seeking nuclear-weapons capability
Again, Iran.
and has a record of using WMD against its own
people and its neighbors
Iraq.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nosterill" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear |
18 Mar 2007 07:07:35 PM |
|
|
On 18 Mar, 15:14, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Nosterill" <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1174227845.656148.167530@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On 16 Mar, 23:47, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <1174044645.337130.38...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear
Just to set the record <ahem> "Straight"....
It was the Left's Bugbear not too long ago.
That would include me, former Senator Bob Graham
(who was a Senator at the time) and a lot of people
here.
While Bush was whipping up his war against Iraq, a
lot of us pointed to real enemies, true dangers
in the world, countries with genuine WMD programs:
Iran & north Korea.
Yup, with Iran working fevorishly to build a
nuclear arsenal & north Korea claiming they
already did, why would we waste a moments thought
on Iraq?
With Iran backing known terrorist groups -- always
eager to export its Islamic revolution -- and north
Korea a rogue state which has employed terrorist
tactics in the past, why blow our wad on Saddam?
I know. It turns out that Iran was less of a threat than NK, but
certainly capable of doing more damage than Iraq. And of course, the
people who attacked us on 9-11 had their home bases in Afghanistan
and Pakistan. Why we didn't finish the job there is beyaond me.
Which of those countries have oil? Coincidence?
So a terrorist-supporting nation which is seeking nuclear-weapons
capability and has a record of using WMD against its own people and its
neighbors is off-limits because it has oil?
Where did I say it was off limits? My comment was meant to suggest
that the USA seems _less_ interested in countries that _don't_ have
oil, regardless of what they may be up to.
For what it's worth I still think, and always did, that Iraq was the
wrong target for the wrong reasons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear |
18 Mar 2007 08:57:53 PM |
|
|
"Nosterill" <fladgate@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1174262855.598611.294580@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On 18 Mar, 15:14, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Nosterill" <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1174227845.656148.167530@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On 16 Mar, 23:47, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <1174044645.337130.38...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear
Just to set the record <ahem> "Straight"....
It was the Left's Bugbear not too long ago.
That would include me, former Senator Bob Graham
(who was a Senator at the time) and a lot of people
here.
While Bush was whipping up his war against Iraq, a
lot of us pointed to real enemies, true dangers
in the world, countries with genuine WMD programs:
Iran & north Korea.
Yup, with Iran working fevorishly to build a
nuclear arsenal & north Korea claiming they
already did, why would we waste a moments thought
on Iraq?
With Iran backing known terrorist groups -- always
eager to export its Islamic revolution -- and north
Korea a rogue state which has employed terrorist
tactics in the past, why blow our wad on Saddam?
I know. It turns out that Iran was less of a threat than NK, but
certainly capable of doing more damage than Iraq. And of course,
the people who attacked us on 9-11 had their home bases in
Afghanistan and Pakistan. Why we didn't finish the job there is
beyaond me.
Which of those countries have oil? Coincidence?
So a terrorist-supporting nation which is seeking nuclear-weapons
capability and has a record of using WMD against its own people and
its neighbors is off-limits because it has oil?
Where did I say it was off limits? My comment was meant to suggest
that the USA seems _less_ interested in countries that _don't_ have
oil, regardless of what they may be up to.
Well, yes, our economy is extremely dependent upon it.
I've noticed the opposite among liberals: any country where the US has
legitimate interests is somehow "tainted" when it comes to intervention;
but those forsaken places where the US has no interests at all are
suitable targets for "humanitarian aid".
Like Darfur.
Now I would support the idea of active intervention in Darfur, but only
if there was real support from the Left *in general* for active
intervention on the part of the United States. The argument that
intervention in Darfur is somehow "more pure" because the US has no
conceivable national interests there just doesn't make any sense to me.
For what it's worth I still think, and always did, that Iraq was the
wrong target for the wrong reasons.
I think that there was plenty of debate on the reasons when it counted,
*BEFORE* the intervention, and that everybody had their chance to make
up their minds, and nobody was deceived who didn't have their heads up
their asses, and that all this talk from the Left about taking back
their votes is the sheerest hypocrisy.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The one thing we must not do is to confuse the real country of Iraq,
where there is a real war, a real population, and a real obligation to
protect them, with the parallel-universe "quagmire Iraq" of popular
imagination."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nosterill" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear |
19 Mar 2007 04:03:41 AM |
|
|
On Mar 19, 1:57 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Nosterill" <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1174262855.598611.294580@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On 18 Mar, 15:14, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Nosterill" <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1174227845.656148.167530@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On 16 Mar, 23:47, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <1174044645.337130.38...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear
Just to set the record <ahem> "Straight"....
It was the Left's Bugbear not too long ago.
That would include me, former Senator Bob Graham
(who was a Senator at the time) and a lot of people
here.
While Bush was whipping up his war against Iraq, a
lot of us pointed to real enemies, true dangers
in the world, countries with genuine WMD programs:
Iran & north Korea.
Yup, with Iran working fevorishly to build a
nuclear arsenal & north Korea claiming they
already did, why would we waste a moments thought
on Iraq?
With Iran backing known terrorist groups -- always
eager to export its Islamic revolution -- and north
Korea a rogue state which has employed terrorist
tactics in the past, why blow our wad on Saddam?
I know. It turns out that Iran was less of a threat than NK, but
certainly capable of doing more damage than Iraq. And of course,
the people who attacked us on 9-11 had their home bases in
Afghanistan and Pakistan. Why we didn't finish the job there is
beyaond me.
Which of those countries have oil? Coincidence?
So a terrorist-supporting nation which is seeking nuclear-weapons
capability and has a record of using WMD against its own people and
its neighbors is off-limits because it has oil?
Where did I say it was off limits? My comment was meant to suggest
that the USA seems _less_ interested in countries that _don't_ have
oil, regardless of what they may be up to.
Well, yes, our economy is extremely dependent upon it.
I've noticed the opposite among liberals: any country where the US has
legitimate interests is somehow "tainted" when it comes to intervention;
but those forsaken places where the US has no interests at all are
suitable targets for "humanitarian aid".
Like Darfur.
Now I would support the idea of active intervention in Darfur, but only
if there was real support from the Left *in general* for active
intervention on the part of the United States. The argument that
intervention in Darfur is somehow "more pure" because the US has no
conceivable national interests there just doesn't make any sense to me.
For what it's worth I still think, and always did, that Iraq was the
wrong target for the wrong reasons.
I think that there was plenty of debate on the reasons when it counted,
*BEFORE* the intervention, and that everybody had their chance to make
up their minds, and nobody was deceived who didn't have their heads up
their asses, and that all this talk from the Left about taking back
their votes is the sheerest hypocrisy.
I'm from the UK where the majority were always against the Iraq war -
even those without enough inside knowledge to realise that we were
being lied to from the outset. I still don't understand what Blair was
up to but I'm sure he was thinking of his personal, rather than the
national, interests. I really hope the evil ***** gets to pay for
what he's done.
Over here most of the left are taking back their votes because Blair's
patronage is no longer important - they never really supported the war
in the first place - and a lot of the Right are taking back their
votes as well. They claim they were deceived by Blair but I don't
believe that. Anyone with their ear to the ground knew we were being
lied to so I'm damned sure senior politicians on both sides of the
house knew all along. Only a handful e.g. the late Robin Cook and the
LibDems came out of that with any credit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear |
19 Mar 2007 07:36:31 AM |
|
|
"Nosterill" <fladgate@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1174295021.649335.49140@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
On Mar 19, 1:57 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Nosterill" <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1174262855.598611.294580@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On 18 Mar, 15:14, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Nosterill" <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1174227845.656148.167530@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On 16 Mar, 23:47, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article
<1174044645.337130.38...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear
Just to set the record <ahem> "Straight"....
It was the Left's Bugbear not too long ago.
That would include me, former Senator Bob Graham
(who was a Senator at the time) and a lot of people
here.
While Bush was whipping up his war against Iraq, a
lot of us pointed to real enemies, true dangers
in the world, countries with genuine WMD programs:
Iran & north Korea.
Yup, with Iran working fevorishly to build a
nuclear arsenal & north Korea claiming they
already did, why would we waste a moments thought
on Iraq?
With Iran backing known terrorist groups -- always
eager to export its Islamic revolution -- and north
Korea a rogue state which has employed terrorist
tactics in the past, why blow our wad on Saddam?
I know. It turns out that Iran was less of a threat than NK,
but certainly capable of doing more damage than Iraq. And of
course, the people who attacked us on 9-11 had their home bases
in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Why we didn't finish the job there
is beyaond me.
Which of those countries have oil? Coincidence?
So a terrorist-supporting nation which is seeking nuclear-weapons
capability and has a record of using WMD against its own people
and its neighbors is off-limits because it has oil?
Where did I say it was off limits? My comment was meant to suggest
that the USA seems _less_ interested in countries that _don't_ have
oil, regardless of what they may be up to.
Well, yes, our economy is extremely dependent upon it.
I've noticed the opposite among liberals: any country where the US
has legitimate interests is somehow "tainted" when it comes to
intervention; but those forsaken places where the US has no interests
at all are suitable targets for "humanitarian aid".
Like Darfur.
Now I would support the idea of active intervention in Darfur, but
only if there was real support from the Left *in general* for active
intervention on the part of the United States. The argument that
intervention in Darfur is somehow "more pure" because the US has no
conceivable national interests there just doesn't make any sense to
me.
For what it's worth I still think, and always did, that Iraq was
the wrong target for the wrong reasons.
I think that there was plenty of debate on the reasons when it
counted, *BEFORE* the intervention, and that everybody had their
chance to make up their minds, and nobody was deceived who didn't
have their heads up their asses, and that all this talk from the Left
about taking back their votes is the sheerest hypocrisy.
I'm from the UK where the majority were always against the Iraq war -
even those without enough inside knowledge to realise that we were
being lied to from the outset. I still don't understand what Blair was
up to but I'm sure he was thinking of his personal, rather than the
national, interests. I really hope the evil ***** gets to pay for
what he's done.
Over here most of the left are taking back their votes because Blair's
patronage is no longer important - they never really supported the war
in the first place - and a lot of the Right are taking back their
votes as well. They claim they were deceived by Blair but I don't
believe that. Anyone with their ear to the ground knew we were being
lied to so I'm damned sure senior politicians on both sides of the
house knew all along. Only a handful e.g. the late Robin Cook and the
LibDems came out of that with any credit.
They knew that Saddam was the real evil *****, not Tony Blair or George
Bush. He couldn't bribe enough UN inspectors and other diplomats to make
himself pure. He could only bribe enough of them to raise a fuss so that
gullible lefties would be fooled by the noise.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The one thing we must not do is to confuse the real country of Iraq, where
there is a real war, a real population, and a real obligation to protect
them, with the parallel-universe "quagmire Iraq" of popular imagination."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nosterill" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear |
19 Mar 2007 08:16:04 AM |
|
|
On Mar 19, 12:36 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Nosterill" <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1174295021.649335.49140@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
On Mar 19, 1:57 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Nosterill" <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1174262855.598611.294580@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On 18 Mar, 15:14, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Nosterill" <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1174227845.656148.167530@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On 16 Mar, 23:47, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article
<1174044645.337130.38...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear
Just to set the record <ahem> "Straight"....
It was the Left's Bugbear not too long ago.
That would include me, former Senator Bob Graham
(who was a Senator at the time) and a lot of people
here.
While Bush was whipping up his war against Iraq, a
lot of us pointed to real enemies, true dangers
in the world, countries with genuine WMD programs:
Iran & north Korea.
Yup, with Iran working fevorishly to build a
nuclear arsenal & north Korea claiming they
already did, why would we waste a moments thought
on Iraq?
With Iran backing known terrorist groups -- always
eager to export its Islamic revolution -- and north
Korea a rogue state which has employed terrorist
tactics in the past, why blow our wad on Saddam?
I know. It turns out that Iran was less of a threat than NK,
but certainly capable of doing more damage than Iraq. And of
course, the people who attacked us on 9-11 had their home bases
in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Why we didn't finish the job there
is beyaond me.
Which of those countries have oil? Coincidence?
So a terrorist-supporting nation which is seeking nuclear-weapons
capability and has a record of using WMD against its own people
and its neighbors is off-limits because it has oil?
Where did I say it was off limits? My comment was meant to suggest
that the USA seems _less_ interested in countries that _don't_ have
oil, regardless of what they may be up to.
Well, yes, our economy is extremely dependent upon it.
I've noticed the opposite among liberals: any country where the US
has legitimate interests is somehow "tainted" when it comes to
intervention; but those forsaken places where the US has no interests
at all are suitable targets for "humanitarian aid".
Like Darfur.
Now I would support the idea of active intervention in Darfur, but
only if there was real support from the Left *in general* for active
intervention on the part of the United States. The argument that
intervention in Darfur is somehow "more pure" because the US has no
conceivable national interests there just doesn't make any sense to
me.
For what it's worth I still think, and always did, that Iraq was
the wrong target for the wrong reasons.
I think that there was plenty of debate on the reasons when it
counted, *BEFORE* the intervention, and that everybody had their
chance to make up their minds, and nobody was deceived who didn't
have their heads up their asses, and that all this talk from the Left
about taking back their votes is the sheerest hypocrisy.
I'm from the UK where the majority were always against the Iraq war -
even those without enough inside knowledge to realise that we were
being lied to from the outset. I still don't understand what Blair was
up to but I'm sure he was thinking of his personal, rather than the
national, interests. I really hope the evil ***** gets to pay for
what he's done.
Over here most of the left are taking back their votes because Blair's
patronage is no longer important - they never really supported the war
in the first place - and a lot of the Right are taking back their
votes as well. They claim they were deceived by Blair but I don't
believe that. Anyone with their ear to the ground knew we were being
lied to so I'm damned sure senior politicians on both sides of the
house knew all along. Only a handful e.g. the late Robin Cook and the
LibDems came out of that with any credit.
They knew that Saddam was the real evil *****, not Tony Blair or George
Bush. He couldn't bribe enough UN inspectors and other diplomats to make
himself pure. He could only bribe enough of them to raise a fuss so that
gullible lefties would be fooled by the noise.
I won't disagree with you about Saddam, but that doesn't make saints
of Blair and Bush. The world would have been a far better place
without any of them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear |
19 Mar 2007 11:47:29 AM |
|
|
"Nosterill" <fladgate@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1174310164.053570.66390@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
On Mar 19, 12:36 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Nosterill" <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1174295021.649335.49140@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
On Mar 19, 1:57 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Nosterill" <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1174262855.598611.294580@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On 18 Mar, 15:14, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Nosterill" <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1174227845.656148.167530@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On 16 Mar, 23:47, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
In article
<1174044645.337130.38...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear
Just to set the record <ahem> "Straight"....
It was the Left's Bugbear not too long ago.
That would include me, former Senator Bob Graham
(who was a Senator at the time) and a lot of people
here.
While Bush was whipping up his war against Iraq, a
lot of us pointed to real enemies, true dangers
in the world, countries with genuine WMD programs:
Iran & north Korea.
Yup, with Iran working fevorishly to build a
nuclear arsenal & north Korea claiming they
already did, why would we waste a moments thought
on Iraq?
With Iran backing known terrorist groups -- always
eager to export its Islamic revolution -- and north
Korea a rogue state which has employed terrorist
tactics in the past, why blow our wad on Saddam?
I know. It turns out that Iran was less of a threat than NK,
but certainly capable of doing more damage than Iraq. And of
course, the people who attacked us on 9-11 had their home
bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Why we didn't finish the
job there is beyaond me.
Which of those countries have oil? Coincidence?
So a terrorist-supporting nation which is seeking
nuclear-weapons capability and has a record of using WMD
against its own people and its neighbors is off-limits because
it has oil?
Where did I say it was off limits? My comment was meant to
suggest that the USA seems _less_ interested in countries that
_don't_ have oil, regardless of what they may be up to.
Well, yes, our economy is extremely dependent upon it.
I've noticed the opposite among liberals: any country where the US
has legitimate interests is somehow "tainted" when it comes to
intervention; but those forsaken places where the US has no
interests at all are suitable targets for "humanitarian aid".
Like Darfur.
Now I would support the idea of active intervention in Darfur, but
only if there was real support from the Left *in general* for
active intervention on the part of the United States. The argument
that intervention in Darfur is somehow "more pure" because the US
has no conceivable national interests there just doesn't make any
sense to me.
For what it's worth I still think, and always did, that Iraq was
the wrong target for the wrong reasons.
I think that there was plenty of debate on the reasons when it
counted, *BEFORE* the intervention, and that everybody had their
chance to make up their minds, and nobody was deceived who didn't
have their heads up their asses, and that all this talk from the
Left about taking back their votes is the sheerest hypocrisy.
I'm from the UK where the majority were always against the Iraq war
- even those without enough inside knowledge to realise that we
were being lied to from the outset. I still don't understand what
Blair was up to but I'm sure he was thinking of his personal,
rather than the national, interests. I really hope the evil *****
gets to pay for what he's done.
Over here most of the left are taking back their votes because
Blair's patronage is no longer important - they never really
supported the war in the first place - and a lot of the Right are
taking back their votes as well. They claim they were deceived by
Blair but I don't believe that. Anyone with their ear to the ground
knew we were being lied to so I'm damned sure senior politicians on
both sides of the house knew all along. Only a handful e.g. the
late Robin Cook and the LibDems came out of that with any credit.
They knew that Saddam was the real evil *****, not Tony Blair or
George Bush. He couldn't bribe enough UN inspectors and other
diplomats to make himself pure. He could only bribe enough of them to
raise a fuss so that gullible lefties would be fooled by the noise.
I won't disagree with you about Saddam, but that doesn't make saints
of Blair and Bush. The world would have been a far better place
without any of them.
It doesn't make them devils. Six years of leftist moaning and groaning
hasn't done that either. There are a whole lot of people who are much
higher on the "better of without them" list than Bush and Blair.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"There is something profoundly wrong when opposition to the war in Iraq
seems to inspire greater passion than opposition to Islamist
extremism." - J. L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear |
20 Mar 2007 01:39:45 PM |
|
|
On 19 mrt, 17:47, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Nosterill" <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1174310164.053570.66390@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
On Mar 19, 12:36 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Nosterill" <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1174295021.649335.49140@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
On Mar 19, 1:57 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Nosterill" <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1174262855.598611.294580@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On 18 Mar, 15:14, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Nosterill" <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1174227845.656148.167530@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On 16 Mar, 23:47, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
In article
<1174044645.337130.38...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear
Just to set the record <ahem> "Straight"....
It was the Left's Bugbear not too long ago.
That would include me, former Senator Bob Graham
(who was a Senator at the time) and a lot of people
here.
While Bush was whipping up his war against Iraq, a
lot of us pointed to real enemies, true dangers
in the world, countries with genuine WMD programs:
Iran & north Korea.
Yup, with Iran working fevorishly to build a
nuclear arsenal & north Korea claiming they
already did, why would we waste a moments thought
on Iraq?
With Iran backing known terrorist groups -- always
eager to export its Islamic revolution -- and north
Korea a rogue state which has employed terrorist
tactics in the past, why blow our wad on Saddam?
I know. It turns out that Iran was less of a threat than NK,
but certainly capable of doing more damage than Iraq. And of
course, the people who attacked us on 9-11 had their home
bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Why we didn't finish the
job there is beyaond me.
Which of those countries have oil? Coincidence?
So a terrorist-supporting nation which is seeking
nuclear-weapons capability and has a record of using WMD
against its own people and its neighbors is off-limits because
it has oil?
Where did I say it was off limits? My comment was meant to
suggest that the USA seems _less_ interested in countries that
_don't_ have oil, regardless of what they may be up to.
Well, yes, our economy is extremely dependent upon it.
I've noticed the opposite among liberals: any country where the US
has legitimate interests is somehow "tainted" when it comes to
intervention; but those forsaken places where the US has no
interests at all are suitable targets for "humanitarian aid".
Like Darfur.
Now I would support the idea of active intervention in Darfur, but
only if there was real support from the Left *in general* for
active intervention on the part of the United States. The argument
that intervention in Darfur is somehow "more pure" because the US
has no conceivable national interests there just doesn't make any
sense to me.
For what it's worth I still think, and always did, that Iraq was
the wrong target for the wrong reasons.
I think that there was plenty of debate on the reasons when it
counted, *BEFORE* the intervention, and that everybody had their
chance to make up their minds, and nobody was deceived who didn't
have their heads up their asses, and that all this talk from the
Left about taking back their votes is the sheerest hypocrisy.
I'm from the UK where the majority were always against the Iraq war
- even those without enough inside knowledge to realise that we
were being lied to from the outset. I still don't understand what
Blair was up to but I'm sure he was thinking of his personal,
rather than the national, interests. I really hope the evil *****
gets to pay for what he's done.
Over here most of the left are taking back their votes because
Blair's patronage is no longer important - they never really
supported the war in the first place - and a lot of the Right are
taking back their votes as well. They claim they were deceived by
Blair but I don't believe that. Anyone with their ear to the ground
knew we were being lied to so I'm damned sure senior politicians on
both sides of the house knew all along. Only a handful e.g. the
late Robin Cook and the LibDems came out of that with any credit.
They knew that Saddam was the real evil *****, not Tony Blair or
George Bush. He couldn't bribe enough UN inspectors and other
diplomats to make himself pure. He could only bribe enough of them to
raise a fuss so that gullible lefties would be fooled by the noise.
I won't disagree with you about Saddam, but that doesn't make saints
of Blair and Bush. The world would have been a far better place
without any of them.
It doesn't make them devils. Six years of leftist moaning and groaning
hasn't done that either. There are a whole lot of people who are much
higher on the "better of without them" list than Bush and Blair.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"There is something profoundly wrong when opposition to the war in Iraq
seems to inspire greater passion than opposition to Islamist
extremism." - J. L.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Remember Nosterill is from the UK
Tony Blair represents the left over there!
(which is a lot more leftish then the USA Liberals)
Peter van Velzen
March 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
(more to the left still)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear |
18 Mar 2007 10:31:27 AM |
|
|
On 18 mrt, 16:14, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Nosterill" <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1174227845.656148.167530@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On 16 Mar, 23:47, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <1174044645.337130.38...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear
Just to set the record <ahem> "Straight"....
It was the Left's Bugbear not too long ago.
That would include me, former Senator Bob Graham
(who was a Senator at the time) and a lot of people
here.
While Bush was whipping up his war against Iraq, a
lot of us pointed to real enemies, true dangers
in the world, countries with genuine WMD programs:
Iran & north Korea.
Yup, with Iran working fevorishly to build a
nuclear arsenal & north Korea claiming they
already did, why would we waste a moments thought
on Iraq?
With Iran backing known terrorist groups -- always
eager to export its Islamic revolution -- and north
Korea a rogue state which has employed terrorist
tactics in the past, why blow our wad on Saddam?
I know. It turns out that Iran was less of a threat than NK, but
certainly capable of doing more damage than Iraq. And of course, the
people who attacked us on 9-11 had their home bases in Afghanistan
and Pakistan. Why we didn't finish the job there is beyaond me.
Which of those countries have oil? Coincidence?
So a terrorist-supporting nation which is seeking nuclear-weapons
capability and has a record of using WMD against its own people and its
neighbors is off-limits because it has oil?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Off-limits?
Did you miss the news the last 4 years?
Appearantly Nosterill supposes Iraq was attacked for it's oil.
I am not sure whether he is right or wrong.
certainly the first Golf war was about (Quwaity) oil
When he was using WND's against its won people.
Saddam was still getting support from the USA,
so that was appearantly not a reason to consifer him an enemy.
Whe it had a nuclear program,
it was attacked by Israel, not (officially) by the USA.
Peter van Velzen
March 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
