(no subject)

[violachic]

Most of you know, or at least have gleaned, what my political positions are, and what my view is on the war in Iraq. Oh yes, a big hug and some thankfulness for those of you who disagree with me and like me anyway. But anyway....

Okay, so I know and like people who are Bush supporters. I know and like people who agreed wholeheartedly with the military action in Iraq. But I'm wondering how many people really and truly swallow what is presented in this article, and if reading something like this affects your views in any way.

The general leading the hunt for Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein has publicly declared that the Christian God is "bigger" than Allah, who is a false "idol", and believes the war on terrorism is a fight with Satan, it emerged yesterday....

...He told one gathering: "Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this."

Yes, he even (IMHO) bastardized my Queen Esther quote (okay, not like I didn't use it to serve my purposes, but hey....)...

Dunno.

Let me know what you think.


(Article courtesty of bloodredrosev and whodieswhopayswhoprofits.com- Thanks!)

Comments

And we wonder why the world hates us.

[thewayoftheid.livejournal.com]

Well, that piece left a horrible taste in my mouth.

Re: And we wonder why the world hates us.

[violachic.livejournal.com]

yes

[belmikey.livejournal.com]

OK. I think Bush is a monkey; and I think the quoted General above needs to be buried in peat head first.

I also believe that Saddam Hussein needed killing and that the war in Iraq has numerous good, solid strategic justifications, none of which have actually been made to the American public. Instead, a lot of bad reasons have been trumped up, none of which the administration itself actually believes, or ever has believed.

My reasons for accepting those good, strategic reasons stem from the fact that I am, at heart, an imperialist pigdog :-) It has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with being to cynical to believe in a harmonious, live-and-let-live world.

[name-omitted.livejournal.com]

There are good reasons for us going into Iraq, but they are more tactical than strategic. Ultimately, I share some of your imperist tendencies, but as far as STRATIGY goes, taking over Iraq helped us very little, unless the strategy is to force another crisis sometime before the next election.

I will give you tactical reasons for going to Iraq, but not strategic.

(btw, if we agree with the good reasons for going into Iraq, we should have started in Afghanistan, and rolled west until we got to the Red Sea.)

[belmikey.livejournal.com]

The strategic importantce of Iraq is actually already becoming apparent: it gives us a guaranteed military base right in the middle of the Arab world. In the last week, we've been able to make Syria's life very unpleasant (we're in Iraq, Turkey and Israel hate them and side with us...in short, they're surrounded), for example. It's all about field position.

Rolling west from Afghanistan would have meant rolling through Iran, and for a great many reasons, we seem to be very reluctant to stomp Iran any time soon. We're not happy with their militant Islamist government, but at the moment their the lesser of several available evils. Every indication is that we're actually trying to work *with* them, rather than against them, in many ways. It's complicated by their nuclear ambitions, however...

[name-omitted.livejournal.com]

Rolling west from Afghanistan was not meant as a completely serious argument, as much as an outgrowth of my current frustration.

Strategically, we may be trading Saudi Arabia for Iraq. Tactically, it des help us with Syria, but strategically, I am not so sure.

[name-omitted.livejournal.com]

A better way to explain my problem is that the political capitol we spent getting into Iraq makes me think we have moved our queen into a forward, very tactical position, but forgot that we were using her in the backfield to protect our other pieces in the overall strategy.

[belmikey.livejournal.com]

There have been a number of ways the administration has fumbled their pet conflict.

For one thing, the Rumsfeld Defense Department completely failed to take into account the first rule of warfare planning: no plan survives contact with the enemy. The guerilla insurgency is really nothing more than an irritant int he grand scheme of things, but it's an irritant that Rumsfeld et alia didn't expect, and left them paralysed for the last six months, unable to crush the insurgency and unwilling to move forward with other initiatves while it was going on. This is getting fixed, now, but it merely adds to the idea that the current administration is not particularly competent.

It's my belief that a more adept administration could have done the exact same things the Bush administration has done, with less danger of either screwing up or pissing people off.

[off_coloratura]

Keep in mind that when he said these things, he was giving a sermon in a church, in a personal, rather than a professional, capacity. I think it's entirely credible that he can keep his religious beliefs and his professionalism separate.

And he's promised to stop giving talks like that, anyway.

[name-omitted.livejournal.com]

Public officials have given up much of their private life. Whatever a General says reflects with regards to military actions reflects back on the Pentagon. The courts have ruled that the government can limit such speech.

Considering how hard our State department has worked to distance us from the comment about a crusade, having a general preaching in uniform is bad enough, but what he said damages our tenuous credibility with the war on terror, and should not be aloud by the State Dept. When he is delivering a message while in uniform, he is not keeping his political and religious beliefs separate, he is using the authority of his office to directly give his beliefs more credibility, and that is not right.

Promising to stop giving such talks is only a part of the issue. When it comes down to it, he already damaged the credibility of what we are trying to do. It is kind of like a lawyer saying “Is it true you have sexual relations with hamsters- sorry, I withdraw the question.” The statement is out. Promising to stop is an important first step, but as long as he is in his position, the specter of Bush’s “crusade” will be haunting the Pentagon. I am not necessarily advocating firing him, just trying to emphasize what the position of Pentagon brass is.

Keep in mind; I have a hard time getting too excited, considering how much the rest of the State Dept. has messed up the publicity around this issue.

F. N. Whako

[piddyx.livejournal.com]

They conter the claim that Boykin should not have said the things he did, that he said them in a "private capacity." I think they are missing the point. It isn't where he spoke but what he said! This guy is a complete whacko who absolutely should not be put in charge of a Muslum Nation. This should be immediately apparent to everyone.

These are very extreme comments that should disqualify this man from leading an army in Iraq. A muslum who called all christians Kafir unbelievers would certainly be disqualified from office. What is wrong with hiring someone moderate?
_________________________________________________________________________
"I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real god and his was an idol,"

*Thats funny. I happen to be Muslum and I don't remember owning an Idol. Now that I think about it, we tend to hate idolitry very much. Also, I seem to remember that it is CLEARLY WRITTEN in the Koran not only, no idols, but also that we are the only religion that thinks that good Christians and Jews can enter heaven.

"the principalities of darkness. . . a demonic presence in that city that God revealed to me as the enemy".

*Thats also funny, because as a Muslum, I think that is the most absolutely insane thing I have ever heard about. It's disturbing that Boykin is allowed to drive a car, much less an army.

"Our religion came from Judaism and therefore [Islamic] radicals will hate us forever."

* Muslums believe that they have a lot in common with jews and that "Christians are your best friends".

Is the U.S. really a nation of believers. Why does Boykin think Clinton won the last 2 elections? Did his "nation of believers" vote for him?

(Although I don't believe that the "Conservative" Christian is truley a christian. All their beliefs have developed in the last hundred years and were unique to America. They tend to overemphasise the innovations talked about in the apostles' letters and to forget about the gospels all together.)

"Our enemy is a spiritual enemy because we are a nation of believers. . . His name is Satan."

*Oh, have I been worshiping Satin all this time? Oops! I sure am glad they are going to put you, Mr. Boykin, who thinks he is a modern day crusader, in charge of an army in a country of Muslums that you think worship Satin. Things really should calm down.

I think that we could say the same comment about Bush and be much more justified.