oldsalt

Consider what the argument that since we found no WMD's in Iraq we should not be fighting there really means: Putting aside the fact that WMD's or no, Saddam posed a threat, and putting aside the argument that Iraq is a legitimate theater in the overall war (which it is), the facts are these: Every intelligence entity in the world thought that Saddam had an active WMD program, and even the UN inspectors could not account for material we knew that he possessed at one time. Given this fact we had no other choice to go in when Saddam refused to live up to the conditions concerning these programs specified the cease-fire agreement -- which he signed. We haven't found these materials. Does that mean that we ought to simply leave Iraq now? With the consequences that we know without a doubt would follow? Ought we to just allow someone like bin Laden to waltz into the chaos we created and take up Saddam's mantle? Is this the situation we want sitting on the border of Iran when take them on? Or on the border of Afghanistan? How is it in our best interest in allowing either Saddam, or the chaos we've created -- the two options we were left with -- to remain in play while we fight elsewhere? The fact is that the war we are waging right now began in ernest with Gulf War I, we just didn't know it at the time. We need to stop attempting to separate the various theaters of this war. We have not fought "The Afghan War" and "The Iraq War". It is all the Global War on Terror (excepting without comment the general name given). We aren't fighting a conventional war where one state declares war against another and all the lines are neatly drawn in the sand. We are fighting the culture of Islam. Saddam and bin Laden are birds of a feather. They both dream of restoring the Caliphate and Arab greatness. This war is the continuation of a very ancient war which began with the bloody rise of Islam 1500 years ago. These guys are just the latest power-lusters to use Islam to seek world domination. We are in a fight for Western Civilization. To know what that means, you must look to history and understand just who our enemy is. The enemy isn't bin Laden or Saddam. They personify the enemy, but the enemy is the philosophy and culture of Islam.

I knew we read some of the same things! I planned to mention this tonight; you beat me to it. Chester's pretty good, isn't he?

Yes, this is just a part of the Iranian government's propaganda war. If you want to know what most people in Iran really think, check out this article. (Caveat: The site of this article is a highly partisan site. I usually take what they say with a grain of salt. However, I read several Iranian English-language blogs, as well as the site mentioned in the article, and I know that the article is true.)

David, this topic, and the quote you give, is already being discussed in "Bush's Moral Mandate".

From what I understand of the thinking of many Christians on this matter, it is their naive belief that religious institutions could be trusted to handle charitable "entitlements" on a neighborhood level, without all the bureaucracy and waste that the government represents. Christians do believe in altruism, of course, but most of them believe that it is a test of virtue for the individual. When my bible-thumping, evangelical cousin was praising the faith-based initiative, I pointed out to her the corruption that came with handling so much unearned money. I reminded her of what happened to the early church once they allied themselves with Rome, and all that flowed from that alliance. I convinced her that the initiative was dangerous to the members of her own church. After many discussions of this sort, about the initiative and the importance of the separation of church and state, I've convinced her that these are not proposals that she ought to be backing. She has convinced others in her congregation using the same arguments. Before anyone accuses me of sanctioning Christianity with my arguments from Christianity, I will tell you that my cousin knows well what my position is. I made it plain to her that not only did my philosophy eschew these positions, but even her own belief in the Judeo-Christian foundation of this country (reminding her why the religious came here in the first place) made her position untenable and put her own worship in danger. I used the arguments that I learned in Sunday School and what I learned of American history to affect the kind of change I want, without scaring her with my dreaded secularism. So, this has become my ad hoc argument in this matter. I'll argue philosophy when it is appropriate. At the moment, my aim is to put the kibosh on this overt melding of church and state. Do that, and we'll have time to spread the philosophy.

HA! That murdering bastard better have prayed that there's a god to "bless his soul," because I sure as hell won't. I have a feeling that Bush feels the same, for all his "good Christian virtue." Bush gave him one chance, remember? He entered into the fray in good faith, said he backed a state for the Palestinians, sent Powell himself to chat, etc. Then they found that munition's ship. That was all she wrote for W; he pulled the plug and Arafat has spent the last years of his life unable to leave his miserable little hole, and scared to death that they would come for him at any moment. I would have preferred that Bush had given the Israelis the green light to obliterate the Father of Terrorism, of course. He ought never to have been allowed to breathe another order for the murder of innocents. At least, to give credit where it is due, Bush never allowed Arafat to play him for a fool twice -- unlike everyone (<cough> Clinton <cough>) who went before, and the Euros have continued to do. Eran: Is there (nervous) dancing in the streets there? In passing, I saw one Israeli on the news say something to the affect that burial on the Temple Mount wasn't for "murdering terrorists", or some such. I heard another weeping hand-wringer say, "But it is his last wish!", as though such a thing ought to be considered. I'm usually the last person who would have anything to say about even an evil piece of flotsum dying, it is satisfaction enought to know that evil has died, but I've been outraged about Arafat ever since Reagan helped him return to power. Allowing the murder of our Marines in Lebanon, not only without being avenged, but by turning tail and running, was bad enough. When Reagan brought Arafat back from the brink, I knew that he was a lightweight. It was the first real indication to our enemies that Viet Nam wasn't a fluke and Iran was to be the model. It was Clinton's treatment of Arafat -- and the very idea that he was sleeping in the White House -- that made me unable to even look at Clinton during his terms in office, much less listen to anything he had to say. I was thoroughly disgusted by the fact that we impeached Clinton over sex, but put up with-- and praised! -- his fraternization with a known mass murderer. I know I'm ranting. It's the years of pent up frustration.

Here is the question, and the answer Bush gave, that AisA spoke about above (Sorry, no link. I got this from the Fox News.): "Q: Mr. President, your victory at the polls came about in part because of strong support from people of faith, in particular Christian evangelicals and Pentecostals and others. And Senator Kerry drew some of his strongest support from those who do not attend religious services. What do you make of this religious divide it seems becoming a political divide in this country? And what do you say to those who are concerned about the role of a faith they do not share in public life and in your policies? "PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah. My answer to people is I will be your president regardless of your faith, and I don't expect you to agree with me, necessarily, on religion. As a matter of fact, no president should ever try to impose religion on our society. The great--the great tradition of America is one where people can worship the way they want to worship. And if they choose not to worship, you're just as patriotic as your neighbor. That is an essential part of why we are a great nation. "And I am glad people of faith voted in this election. I'm glad--I appreciate all people who voted. And I don't think you ought to read anything into the politics, the moment, about whether or not this nation will become a divided nation over religion. I think the great thing that unites us is the fact you can worship freely if you choose, and if you--you don't have to worship. And if you're a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim, you're equally American. That is--that is such a wonderful aspect of our society, and it is strong today and it will be strong tomorrow."

Two things Bush needs to do right away, and both involve some serious house-cleaning. The needs to clean out Foggy Bottom and the CIA, both entities which have activily worked against him. Powell definitely needs to go. I never jumped on his particular bandwagon. I didn't like him when he worked for Bush Sr. and, while I understood W's "need" of him when he was running the first time, I've always thought he was a huge mistake. It was Powell who convinced President Bush to waltz with the UN over Iraq.

It would give me a world of satisfaction to know that that sorry SOB didn't die of natural causes.

You haven't missed much. I don't know much about the place, except that it smells to high cow heaven! That's enough to turn me off, no matter that it's "the smell of money," as I had it explained to me.

To Yes and MisterSwig: If you have not recognized Kerry's explicit program of appeasment, I don't know what would help you. What do you think his talk of "diplomacy" and UN involvment was all about? What do you think he meant when he talked about bringing the troops home, beginning 6 months after his election -- explicitly telling the enemy that he is going to leave Iraq to them? What do you think he meant when he said that troops dying for the UN was legitimate, but dying for America's defense was not? Kerry has always been consistent in these matters since his earliest days at Yale, no matter what his election rhetoric attempted to portray. His "flip-flops" and "nuances" bespeak a mind which operates on relativist "principles", and can find no purchase in reality; they say nothing about his core beliefs. I don't mean to be confrontational, but I suggest that you both study transnationalism a bit more. One cannot understand Kerry without understanding the nature of transnationalism. As someone said above, the point is moot. Bush won. It is time to roll up our sleeves and focus on the work to be done. Objectivism! Hooaa! (I'm feeling very good today. )

Thales: Thanks for the giggle. The MSM lost bigger than the Dems (assuming that we don't lump them together). The vote has shown them that the days of their monopoly on what the people of this country hears has been broken. I think that Fox, and the blogs, both of which allowed the Swift Boat Vets to be heard, made a huge difference, more than has been acknowledged. For those who feel depressed: Remember the power of reason. I remember how Miss Rand was vilified in the most vicious language imaginable, how her philosophy was denigrated as a "religious cult", how Objectivism was not allowed to be considered in any philosophy class in the country, and her books were not promoted. None of these things stopped the unstoppable truth of her philosophy. Do not dispair. Continue to work for the world that we all want, because that is as much in your self-interest as the work you choose to do. There is much to do and we need the optimism that comes from a benevolent view of the universe. Remember one of the most important points about Howard Roark: the pain never went deep enough to spoil his essential enjoyment of life, nor did the difficulty of his battles ever diminish his optimism about his future.

Good luck learning Japanese! It is a difficult language. I learned mine at my mommasan's knee, and have forgotten most of it from a lack of usage. I don't think there is a better way of understanding the inscrutable Japanese than by learning their language. I don't envy your living in Houston. I lived in and around Dallas -- the other Texas!

Don't worry about the English. It's certainly better than my Greek, which is non-existent! I had no idea that Ayn Rand had this kind of toe-hold in Greece. That an "Objectivist" party (however much it is Objectivist) would get even 1% of any vote in Greece is remarkable and bodes well for us. Thanks for sharing this information.

I have not been on line here for the last ten days. I've been busy with my military "family", with emails flying through the ether between the US, Afghanistan, and Iraq. There have been a lot of very nervous young people within the military, fear that with Kerry they would be "supported" by being brought home in defeat. Those who have read my posts know that my focus has been on the military. Coming from a military background, I worried most of all about the war and the men and women who are fighting to protect us. I will always do so because I love these people in a general sense and admire them for their character and fortitude. They put up with crap most of us wouldn't. It isn't just the fighting, but the unrelenting boredom, the days and weeks that melt into each other as they work 14 and 16 hour days, 7 days a week. It is being away from their parents, wives, husbands, and children and the acute loneliness that brings. One of the things that has hurt them the most, however, has been the perception that the American public does not support them. For all of that, they have remained steadfast about their mission. Now, perhaps, some of the burden has been lifted from their young shoulders. For that, I am grateful. It is a nice bonus that America managed to flip off bin Laden and the anti-Americans of the world. Now we Objectivists really have our work cut out for us. There is nothing new in this, though. We've made tremendous strides due to the hard work and foresight of those at ARI, and the efforts of individual Objectivists. I, for one, am happy with the challenge. I can't think of anything more worthwhile to spend my time doing than helping to build a world where reason rules and people don't waste their precious time on this earth being unnecessarily miserable. Happiness and prosperity for us all!

There's a German kid here on the dock that read the original article. He said that the translation was accruate in what the article said, even though he wasn't impressed with the translation. He also told me that what we've seen in Germany is the result of a left turn in politics taken after the Berlin Wall fell. He said that the anti-American sentiment, thought it is there, isn't all that it appears to be, and certainly not equal to France's. This is the same impression formed by many of the military folks I know who are stationed there. For what it's worth.

Ah, another troop for the contortionist branch of objectivism! (Note the small "o".)

Who the hell is Jack Crawford? This is pathetic.

You are picking out one, and only one, aspect of the way this war is being fought. It is all of a piece. For instance, when we first attacked Fallujah last spring, it was a classic seige. We changed our tactics by backing off and concentrating on the smaller villiages in the surrounding area. Because the people saw that we weren't going to use our power to flatten Fallujah, they trusted us more and began to give us the intelligence needed to attack with more finesse, using the technology and special forces with better accuracy. The effect of this action has been a greater trust from the Iraqi people and fewer casualties for the forces fighting there. We are now pounding specific targets, targets we know about because of the kind of intelligence you mention. The tactics changed because of the volital political situation. The Marines weren't happy about pulling out. They were geared up and ready to go (and Marines never like to back down from a fight ). But even those I've talked to who were there and actually participated in that battle told me that they see the wisdom of what we have done. They saw an immediate change in attitude of those Iraqis who lived within the area surrounding Fallujah. American forces don't throw bodies at a problem anymore. They fight with their brains, as well as their brawn. This is what our technological superiority, computers, bandwidth and all, allows us to do and it is why that bunch of atavists will never defeat us. Mistakes are always made during war. That is why we must look at the whole picture, over a period of time. You cannot judge the whole war by one battle and you certainly cannot do so by picking one tactical particular, lifting it completely out of the context that gives it validity, and pitting it against all other particulars.

I'm sorry, but your position has been, as they say in the military, overtaken by events. US military structure and training were revamped after the fall of the Soviet Union. They now train to fight precisely the kind of war they are fighting. A large part of the military fighting forces (as distinct from those who provide logistical support) today are made up of specialized operatives with expertise in their particular job. The training required after basic training depends on the job. For instance, the rescue forces of the Air Force train for two years before they are allowed to be deployed in that capacity. Since we are in a shooting war, those who are in basic training right now are taught the tactics that have been learned, or honed in the field. They have been taught specifically to fight in the Middle East since the Gulf War (where they learned that the kind of overwhelming force they used was wasteful of men and material). They are given lessons in the cultural and religious background on a continuing basis, even in theater. (A fact that irks my nephew no end. ) If you think about it for a moment you will see that if what you are saying were true, there is no way that we would have tossed the Taliban out of power in only a few weeks, using a handful of troops, our air forces, and the very people of whom, as has been implied, we have no understanding? How could they have accomplished that unprecedented feat, something the British with their vaunted skills in colonialism couldn't manage, if they had no understanding of the Afghans, their culture and religion. Are you forgetting the experience we gained from working with the muhajadeen during the Soviet-Afghan war? Do you think that that experience and the knowledge gleaned from it weren't incorporated into the thinking of our military planers? You are implying that our military is a bunch of incompetent bumblers living in the past, whether you mean to or not. This is said in the face of the fact that we have fought and won in two theaters of this war with a success that is almost unequaled in the history of warfare. That you could say so suggests a dangerous ignorance of both the history of warfare and the way your own military functions. I say that it is a dangerous ignorance because you cannot adequately judge what is happening without more up-to-date informantion. Since the support of the citizens during wartime is as important as the fighting force, it is incumbent upon the population to have a basic understanding of what those forces are doing and how they are doing it. There will always be mistakes in tactics. The great virtue of our military is that they are trained to use their heads and improvise in the field. The tactics we went in with have been changed and adjusted constantly, and the lessons learned passed along to those who are rotating in. The Marines, for example, who have already been in theater are the Marines who are training the next units to be deployed. For those who are interested in getting a handle on what is happening in Iraq militarily, and I mean the kind of tactical thinking that goes on, you can get a feel for what I'm talking about by reading the analyses that Wretchard gives on his blog, The Belmont Club. The entry I've linked to is specific to the tactical situation in Fallujah right now. I don't always agree with him, but he's good.) Read the milblogs, such as the Mudville Gazette (who's owner was just deployed) to get a feel for what is actually happening on the ground. For God's sake, don't rely on the media to give you information. You'll never have an accurate picture of what is good, bad, or indifferent if all you hear about is the latest roadside bomb and a casualty count.

I would suggest that the situation may no longer be a matter of either/or. Read this article fom Jeff Jacoby: John Kerry, Preacher-Man. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jeffjac...j20041027.shtml There are two points I think the article illustrates: 1. That the Religious Right holds power such that John Kerry feels compelled to pander to them; and, 2. John Kerry is no bulwark against that power. The article also gives us a sense of the danger that the wedding of Marx and Christianity poses. It is a mistake to think that Kerry will do anything to slow down the assault of the religionists. Kerry is showing us that he has no compunction in arguing his platform from religion. He also has no difficulty doing so, since he is arguing from altruism. The article is interesting philosophically as well. Though it exhibits the perils involved in using the Bible to refute Marxism, there's a certain comedic aspect in the attempt to use one biblical verse to refute another. In doing so, each cedes to the premise of the other and the whole exercise proves the futility of a debate between Kantians. Both positions will lead to the same result for America -- totalitarianism. If the leftests ever recognizes Kerry's cynical tactic of blending the altruist ethic of religion into the altruist ethic of Marxism as anything more than a election year ploy, the disentegration will accellerate beyond anything imagined now. All that will be left of us will be a rotted corpse for Islam to feed on. I opt for the Christian who believes in Americanism, no matter how faulty that position is, over a Marxist with the same ethic as the Christian, but none of the Americanism. (In previewing this post, I see that the address for the article isn't exactly as I have written it. If you can't link through that address, try this.)

Charles: That you would come onto this forum and expose the depth of your ignorance is stunning. You need to do more than listen or read the mainstream media for information. You have no excuse; you obviously have a computer and are on the internet. You obviously have never chosen to serve your country, and therefore do not know anything of about things military You know nothing of their accomplishments in this war. You do not have even a understanding of the situation on the ground in Iraq -- and specifically the political situation, what drives the various religious sects and where they are located, or even the nature of the terrorists. If you think that what is happening in the Sunni Triangle has anything to do with "peacekeeping", then you haven't been paying attention. If you think that what our forces are doing in MOST areas in Iraq isn't peacekeeping, then you are willfully blind. If you think our military forces are nothing but "killing machines", then you don't have the most basic knowledge, not only of the military, and of what it means to wage war, in general, but of the nature of your own fellow citizens. You slander them with that statement and commit a great injustice. The British have an outstanding military, the only force that approaches our own in skill and dedication (with a brief demure to the Ozzies). They are not capable of fighting a single theater in this war on their own, however. E.g., they required American logistical support to fight the Falkland War. Their skills in fighting terrorism were honed over 40 YEARS of fighting in Northern Ireland. That was a completely different situation than what we face in Iraq. (None of this means that they haven't pulled their weight in this war. They have been an important part of the war, but they are only a small part of a huge enterprise.) Because I actually know something about this war and the way our military functions, I know that our people have already availed themselves of British expertise, as well as that of the Israelis. Such tactics as are relevent have long been incorporated into the tactics being used in Iraq. I suggest that you use the computer you're sitting in front of, and the internet you are plugged into, to learn something about what is actually happening, so that you do not expose the depth of your ignorance in public. If you are one of those people for whom slamming what you hate or don't understand is a sport, then I suggest you express yourself elsewhere -- such as on the DemocraticUnderground, or the many other anti-American forums like it. Please don't bring that crap here.

I don't know how I've missed this! Thank you for the information. This is a needed first step and I'm not surprised that they are taking it. You are right to point out the precedent this law represents. Each party thought that McCain-Feingold would give them a particular edge over the other. They hadn't counted on the creativity of the American people, or on the democratizing power of the Internet. The whole thimg smells of comtempt for the voters. If it had not backfired, showing in spectacular fashion that their grab for power actually caused them to lose what control they did have over the election process, they would not be motivated to appeal it now. The same incentive that induced them to enact the law in the first place is still in play, and they have seen that the media and the American people will put up with having this most explicit right abrogated without much squawking.

I was introduced to philosohy in a Great Books class when I was sixteen years old. In succession, we read The Communist Manifesto and The Gospel of St. John. My first question in the discussion of John was, "If we are Christians, why are we against Communism?" (That one question lowered my grade from an A to a D. Shades of things to come.) It seems that now they aren't.

Perhaps it's time that a few facts are considered. 1. Bush has had four years to implement his Faith Based Initiative. It hasn't made it out of committee. 2. The Senate has stalled on every major judicial appointment. The judges I've researched appear to be constitutionalists, as opposed to liberal activist judges who make law from the bench. 4. Bush did not outlaw all stem-cell research. He didn't even outlaw all embryonic stem-cell research. He outlawed government funding of NEW embryonic stem-cell research. 3. As bad as it's gotten since the rise of the New Left, they still haven't been able to completely take over -- the Right has still been able to put up a fight. This is because of our system of government; ragged and torn as it is, the constitution still protects us. What makes anyone think that the Religious Right can simply waltz in during the next four years and declare a theocracy? Both systems of thought are dangerous. Both are entrenched. The ideological Left has burned out (thus the rising violence from that quarter). The Religious Right is on the rise, but they do not yet own the Republican party and there is little agreement among them even on abortion. The things they do agree on are frivolous gestures, such as the Ten Commandmants, prayer in school, the Pledge, etc. (I grew up with all of these things and it hasn't stopped me from becoming an Objectivist.) While these are dangerous precursors, they are not dangerous the way other ideas coming from that bunch are. They aren't even as dangerous as the ten thousand commandmants coming from the liberals. 4. A president who can't get the backing of Congress is powerless to do a damn thing. He may advocate certain policies, but if the public screams loudly enough, Congress won't budge. A president is also limited where war is concerned: he must have the "advice and consent" of Congress to go to war in a big way, even when he stops short of declaring a formal war. He has the power to conduct the war as he sees fit, but even here, as we have seen, Congress retains the power to fund the war. From what I've read in all the various threads discussing the upcoming election, I get the idea that some of you have forgotten what the powers of the presidency actually are. What I haven't seen in these threads is any real discussion of the most important internal danger to our liberty -- the blatant attack on political speech. All three branches of the government, both political parties, and the mainstream media have been complicit in the fundamental abrogation of this most important political right. If we do nothing about the overt attack on free speech, we can forget arguing about who is more dangerous -- except secretly in back rooms, or in criminalized protests that will send us to jail.