Honor Thy Neighbor

As the Bush Administration deflates its expectations in Iraq, Iran is raising them.

"US Lowers Sights on What Can Be Achieved in Iraq: Administration is Shedding 'Unreality' That Dominated Invasion, Official Says," read a Sunday Washington Post headline.

Physical Security? Thirty-eight US troops died between August 3 and August 10, the fourth-worst week of the invasion. August has been the worst month for the over-stretched Army National Guard and Reserves. Attacks on the new Iraqi security force have tripled since January. Four thousand civilians have died since the interim government assumed power April 28. Parents refuse to let their children play outside. "Do not expect us to defeat this insurgency," Bush Administration officials reportedly told National Review's Byron York.

Economic opportunity? Unemployment ranges from 50 percent to 65 percent nationwide. Lines for cheap gas stretch for miles. Enduring 120 degree heat, Baghdad residents often lack electricity for days.

A self-sufficient oil industry? Paul Wolfowitz's promises aside, Iraqi oil production lags significantly below pre-war levels. "Very little, if any, of that money will actually be used in the country's stalled reconstruction," the Christian Science Monitor reports.

A model democracy? Iraqi leaders delayed approving a proposed constitution by a week after missing their Monday deadline. Whatever document emerges will likely enshrine the role of Islam, curtail women's rights and grant major concessions to Shiites and Kurds. "We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," a US official told the Post.

How convenient. Amidst the chaos, Iran's clerical regime is steadily gaining influence next door. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is sponsoring a network of insurgents targeting US and coalition troops, comprised of 280 members divided into 17 bomb-making teams and death squads, Time magazine reports. With the assistance of the Lebanese-based Hezbollah, Iranian-supported insurgents have assassinated Iraqi officers, targeted Sunnis and detonated dozens of bombs inside Baghdad.

"The Iranian regime has deepened its imprint on the political and social fabric of Iraq," Time writes, "buying influence in the new Iraqi government, running intelligence-gathering networks and funneling money and guns to Shiite militant groups--all with the aim of fostering a Shiite-run state friendly to Iran." The once-peaceful South has quickly been radicalized, with armed militias banning the sale of alcohol and preventing couples from holding hands. A few weeks ago there were press reports that Iran was helping to train the new Iraqi army.

The Iranian plotting began in September 2002, in response to US war planning. After the war, Iranian intelligence officers and 12,000 Iranian-trained Badr militants crossed the border into Iraq. "In their scope and ambition, Iran's activities rival those of the US and its allies, especially in the south," Time reports.

Thus far, Iran's assistance has been mitigated by the far greater amount of weapons and money funneled to Sunni insurgents by Iraq's Arab neighbors, including Syria and Saudi Arabia. But it would be more than a little ironic, and tragic, if the US decided to invade Iran because of its activities in Iraq.

Comments (68)

1. "But it would be more than a little ironic, and tragic, if the US decided to invade Iran because of its activities in Iraq."

   There is no irony here. Based on what I'm hearing the Emperor say in the news the last couple of days, I'm beginning to think the ultimate goal is to attack Iran. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan were so that we can invade Iran from both sides.

   Posted by BlueTexan at 08/16/2005 @ 11:37am

2. When things aren't going your way, lower expectations. A proud tradition of George W. Bush.

   Posted by proudlib at 08/16/2005 @ 11:40am

3. If the Bush administration invades Iran, it will only hasten the demise of neoconservatism. Sadly, many people will pay for that with their lives.

   But I am not going to rush to judgement. I am not yet convinced BLUE TEXAN is right.

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/16/2005 @ 11:43am

4. Yes, let's not jump on the Iran bandwagon here.

   Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/16/2005 @ 11:45am

5. Ya, after reading Ari's editorial here and the statistics, you guys are right, we should have just let Saddam continue gassing his own people and taken our ball and went home...

   Todd

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/16/2005 @ 11:48am

6. OKSPORTSGUY--

   If tryanny is truly the cause of the neo-con, then why haven't we invaded half the nations of Africa to de-throne their despots? Until I hear a call from neo-cons to send all our troops to Africa, I won't buy their extremely weak and annoying "we had to stop Saddam from gassing his people" line.

   As for my Iran war theory, I hope that I am wrong. I hope that the neo-con train can be derailed before the Emperor makes another huge mistake. But unless the American people don't see NOW that invading Iran is a very real possiblilty from this current administrtion, it will be to late to stop them later on down the road when everyone's been bribed (media, both sides of the political isle, gulible evangelicals, etc.)

   Posted by BlueTexan at 08/16/2005 @ 11:57am

7. OKSPORTSGUY,

   What we should have done is not give Saddam chemical weapons technology in the first place.

   Yeah, you didn't know he got it from the Reagan administration, did you? That is the neocon's dirty little secret. That administration included Rumsfeld, Cheney, and George W's father. So Cheney and Rummy are just retreads from the cabal that did the dirty deed in the first place.

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/16/2005 @ 11:58am

8. Correction, Cheney wasn't Sect. of Defense until 2 months AFTER Reagan left office. I apologize for the mistake.

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/16/2005 @ 12:02pm

9. BLUETEXAN,

   I won't believe that tyranny is the true cause until we invade Saudi Arabia (not that I condone such an act) & install a puppet democracy there.

   ILP,

   I agree that the invasion of Iran would probably hasten the demise of neo-conservatism, although there may be some disagreement among administration officials. I mean there's this [msnbc.msn.com], then there's Melanie Morgan fresh off of her "Voices of Soldiers Truth Tour" pounding home the "the invasion is in its last throws" mantra here [mediamatters.org]. So it would seem (to me, at least) that avoiding speculation would be the best thing to do.

   Posted by thejman at 08/16/2005 @ 12:15pm

10. Thank you, ILP. I was going to counter with the same thing. It's amazing how people like Todd conveniently forget what the Iran-contra Reagan administration was responsible for. And during Clinton's administration, I sure didn't hear or read a whole lot from Republicans about the dire plight of the Iraqi people; only after flip-flopping Bush's WMD case evaporated and he switched to "spreading freedom" did you hear this supposed oh-the-Iraqi-people-have-suffered stuff. And it fools no one.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/16/2005 @ 12:16pm

11. Pardon the minor interruption, but I would like to suggest "Patriotism, Democracy and Common Sense: Restoring America's Promise at Home and Abroad," published by the bipartisan Eisenhower Violence Commission. It is edited by Alan Curtis, and offers an extremely thorough examination of current U.S. foreign, national security, Middle East, economic, and domestic policies.

    I have not been through the entire book, and am not prepared to defend each essay within, but it offers a comprehensive examination of current U.S. policies, critiques, and suggested alternatives.

    If anyone is interested in scratching beyond the surface of the topics we discuss on this board, this is good reading.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/16/2005 @ 1:36pm

12. "If tryanny is truly the cause of the neo-con, then why haven't we invaded half the nations of Africa to de-throne their despots? "

    I don't know, I wish we would...

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/16/2005 @ 2:09pm

13. "What we should have done is not give Saddam chemical weapons technology in the first place."

    I absolutely agree, but since we made that mistake, now we must fix the mistake and kill him, his regime and the rest of the terrorists that might have access to any of his left over weapons.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/16/2005 @ 2:10pm

14. "Yeah, you didn't know he got it from the Reagan administration, did you?"

    I'm very familiar with who armed him and the reasoning behind the arming to defend against Iran. Are you trying to pull the usual "we progressives are smarter than you neocons crap"?

    Get off your high horse Ilovephysics, I'm educated myself.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/16/2005 @ 2:12pm

15. Blue T:

    There is no way that Bush decides to invade Iran right now. His current war effort is disastrously unpopular with the American people, and he has lost much of his "political capital" when it comes to beginning new foreign interventions. There is no way that current Congressional Republicans who are up for re-election would authorize another war when the current war is failing in the battle for public opinion. Why do you think it is that speculation is rampant that America will draw down troop levels in Iraq? It is because Republicans want to be able to declare a victory and come home so that they can salvage their effort to get themselves re-elected. Invading Iran soon would cement current disapproval of Bush's handling of foreign policy in the public consciousness; therefore, it seems an unlikely foreign policy step for the administration to embark upon. While the administration has been clever and unpredictable, any short-term benefit reaped by engaging Iran in a war would likely melt away when the all-volunteer American military proves incapable of fighting simultaneously on three fronts.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 08/16/2005 @ 2:18pm

16. and of course punish those responsible for those who knowingly gave a tyrant chemical weapons...

    Posted by wereverywhere at 08/16/2005 @ 2:23pm

17. "and of course punish those responsible for those who knowingly gave a tyrant chemical weapons..."

    You can certainly try, I doubt you would get anywhere...

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/16/2005 @ 2:25pm

18. If we invade or attack Iran, expect a DRAFT, which could be the nail in the GOP's coffin. The US military is presently stretched too thin, and our international political capital was mostly used up in this Iraq misadventure. Using Israel as a proxy also won't work, because the US would have to intervene in the resulting conflict set off by Iranian retaliation to an Israeli attack.

    Posted by wgilwood at 08/16/2005 @ 2:29pm

19. OKSPORTSGUY,

    To answer your question, my experience with debating conservatives has been that they are usually a lot less informed about what their government does and has done in the past than I am. So I assume their ignorance until proven otherwise.

    While there seems to be a correlation between how well informed a person is and how intelligent a person is, I don't assume that an uninformed person is not intelligent. I make that assessment based on a person's reasoning and critical-thinking skills.

    As for killing Saddam Hussein, don't you think he should be tried for his crimes first? As a believer in the Bill of Rights I would like to see the trial occur before the sentence is carried out, not after.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/16/2005 @ 3:18pm

20. KC, You are right on the money as usual. I never heard much from the administration about "Iraqi freedom and democracy" until after the WMD magically disappeared. I think the term for that is "bait and switch" and is employed by used car salesmen, among others.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/16/2005 @ 3:21pm

21. OKSPORTSGUY,

    I respect your consistency, though. If the administration would demonstrate the same consistency I wouldn't have such a low opinion of them. I think the Charles Taylor situation in Liberia a couple years back demonstrated the double standard perfectly. One of the administration's stipulations was that we wouldn't send any troops unless Taylor stepped down first. Such a policy towards Saddam Hussein of course never entered anyone's mind.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/16/2005 @ 3:26pm

22. ILOVEPHYSICS:

    are you kidding? first of all most people are ignorant, because it takes a lot of time to really understand an issue. but i have lived in the california bay area and went to UCLA and there are far more ignorant liberals there than conservatives, probably because like people at the nation, they have nevr actually challenged their views and in turn do not really understand them.

    Posted by cmbennett23 at 08/16/2005 @ 3:28pm

23. Before the Bush invasion, there were many learned voices with much knowledge of the Middle East who warned that the result of removing the Saddam regime would be a Shiite Islamic government closely aligned with Iran. The promoters of this war dismissed that grim analysis. But now it is coming true. And the U.S. will have expended 2000 U.S. lives, countless limbs, and 200 billion dollars to create an Islamic theocracy, where women are without equal rights, and Islamic law rules over all. But still, desperate for a P.R. victory, Bush will declare the war a success. Gone are the stirring words of a secular democracy with equal rights for all. Reality has caught up to Bush and his fanatical supporters. But I'm not sure they realize it yet.

    Posted by philbq at 08/16/2005 @ 3:37pm

24. AND I MUST SAY the Nation was one of those learned voices warning of the consequences of invading Iraq.

    Posted by philbq at 08/16/2005 @ 3:39pm

25. Physics,

    I took the same critical thinking and ethics courses in school you did. And your version of critical thinking and mine will be very different.

    Among other things, critical thinking teaches that to base moral decisions on local social norms and taboos or religions is "unethical" due to the fact that social norms and religions are certainly different all over the world. Of course you know this as well as I do.

    That being the case, I'm extremely proud of my "enethicalness" in that I voted in our recent state elections to amend our state constitution to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Just to give you an example of my version of ethics and yours.

    Good "worldly" ethics teaches that to profess to know the "truth" based on one religion is a bad thing, and ultimately looked on as unethical. Again, I proudly stand upon my "unethicalness" and proclaim Jesus is the way the truth and the life, no one gets to God but through him.

    My point? I'm unethical and DAMN proud of it!

    The left then makes an incorrect assumption (in general) that the more educated a person is, the more progressive he/she will become, and the more that the person will accept "good" worldly ethics and denounce religion.

    Well I'm here to tell you that not all educated people get "baptized" into liberalism, and I'm one of them.

    I have taken the ethics classes and the critical thinking classes and chose my ethics over the worlds' ALL DAY LONG.

    No I don't think we should kill Saddam before the trial, try him first (beat him some while in prison however) and then hang him.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/16/2005 @ 3:41pm

26. CMBENNETT23, Undoubtedly you are right. But I was speaking for myself and the conservatives I talk to; I said nothing about other liberals. I think if you recheck my post you will see that is the case.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/16/2005 @ 3:41pm

27. How convenient. Amidst the chaos, Iran's clerical regime is steadily gaining influence next door. Ari Berman

    If Iran is becoming the big winner in the Iraq debacle, and that is bound to come true should we "stay-the-course" according to G.W. Bush's plans; then other than the United States guess who the other big loser is going to be. Great Britain doesn't count - they are now the 52nd state - just behind Iraq.

    Could the other big loser be Israel? It may become the 53rd state.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/16/2005 @ 3:44pm

28. OKSPORTSGUY,

    Referring to your last sentence: "...beat him some while in prison..."

    Is that what Jesus would do?

    It appears that when it comes down to it, you abandon your ethics after all... I have no doubt that you are intelligent enough to see that.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/16/2005 @ 3:45pm

29. Killing Saddam, even after a fair trial, will neither correct the mistake nor get you very far. Correcting the mistake would mean putting an end to handing over US weapons and training to known criminals and tyrants. The mistake is the current (and last several) administrations foreign policy that coddles anyone who agrees to do the dirty work for whatever the fashionable "US Interest" is. This won't happen unless those responsible for such acts are run down and punished. Until it does, we can expect to have to hunt down Frankenhusseins.

    Posted by wereverywhere at 08/16/2005 @ 3:45pm

30. And guess who foots the bill in $ and blood...

    Posted by wereverywhere at 08/16/2005 @ 3:50pm

31. "Is that what Jesus would do?"

    Nope, I'm not Jesus.

    I'm a human, faliable and imperfect.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/16/2005 @ 3:50pm

32. OKSPORTSGUY,

    Just so everything is clear, I agree with you that not all educated, intelligent people become liberals or progressives. William F. Buckley, Jr. and George Will being two notable examples.

    An additional factor that makes one more likely to become a liberal is empathy. I am sure some conservatives and neocons also have empathy, but I haven't seen any of it in your postings, no offense intended.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/16/2005 @ 3:52pm

33. Todd

    "I'm human, fallible, and imperfect" and that gives me permission to forsake God's commandments and advocate for violence against my neighbors, while denouncing the sins of others.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 08/16/2005 @ 4:00pm

34. Again, no offense intended, but one of the repulsive things about Christianity is how some of its followers use the excuse of being imperfect and fallible to justify odious deeds.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/16/2005 @ 4:02pm

35. Ari Berman's piece about the Democrat warhawks in the current Nation ,"The Strategic Class", is brilliant. Way to go!

    Posted by philbq at 08/16/2005 @ 4:08pm

36. "The left then makes an incorrect assumption (in general) that the more educated a person is, the more progressive he/she will become, and the more that the person will accept "good" worldly ethics and denounce religion."

    it's true that there is a tendency to believe this. h.l menken wrote: "i did not intend to suggest that all conservative people are stupid, however i did intend to suggest that all stupid people are conservative."

    right or wrong, i thnk it's more about narcissism and sef-indulgence than brains. conservatives are concerned about rights--so long as they are rights that they deem important. i posted this old joke before, but i love it so: q = how do you find a republican civil libertarian?

    a: look for one who is under indictment...

    Posted by dabar at 08/16/2005 @ 4:13pm

37. "one of the repulsive things about Christianity"

    Wow! Some people's kids.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/16/2005 @ 4:13pm

38. ""I'm human, fallible, and imperfect" and that gives me permission to forsake God's commandments"

    Point me to the commandment that says "Thou shalt not go to war" I must have missed that one, although that would seem very difficult to miss being that there is only 10 of them.

    You aren't refering to the one that says "Thou shal not murder" are you?

    There's a huge difference between killing in war and murdering someone my friend.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/16/2005 @ 4:16pm

39. The subject is Iraq turning out like Iran. The last 12 posts were off subject. I want to hear one of the cheerleaders of this war tell me if they are pleased with where it is going.

    Posted by philbq at 08/16/2005 @ 4:36pm

40. DABAR: what the heck are you talking about? for most of US history, conservatives have been the ones that fear government power, while liberals try to expand it. another old joke, " a liberal is one who will not take his own side in an argument". The difference between the two is based on how they value the tradeoffs to their decisions. The problem is that liberals are so caught up in political correctness, bogus moral equivalency and dangerous relativism that their policies are all but bankrupt. Liberals advocate policy that sounds nice and equitable but iare inefficinet, while conservatives are more worried about what is most efficeint. Liberal economic policies sound nice, but have failed and continue to fail because they are inconsistent with basic economic principles and the way incentives work (min wage, rent control, affirmative action, gun control, excessive economic regulation, funding inefficient welfare systems, etc, etc) Anyone who is too far on either side (liberal or conservative) just doesn't get it. The difference has nothing to do with intelligence or education it has to do with differences of basic principles and the value they place on the tradeoffs. since i tend to think economic policy is the most important i tend to lean towards conservatives becasue history has shown their policies to be more effective.

    Posted by cmbennett23 at 08/16/2005 @ 4:50pm

41. USAPRIDE,

    There is no need to comment about people's family members, be they parents or other relations.

    I am an adult and speak for myself, and I have the experience of being a born-again fundamentalist christian for 13 years, from November of 1987 until December of 2000. So I know the issue from both sides. Do you?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/16/2005 @ 4:51pm

42. you can go through any one of the wars in our nation's history and hear the same ney-sayers and pessimists claim that the war is over and that we are losing (the weekly standard and national review have done this by mocking "we're losing" arguments that were heard during the revolutionary and second world wars.) only to be proved wrong by history. the fact is that the war is going on and only after its over can we make any judgement to its success. I love the arrogance of some who are ready to say the war is lost becasue of an increase in fatalities. We have lost far less lives then any other major war in our history, there have been losses and their have been triumphs, the problem is that most would rather hear about the losses in order to satisfy their own partisanship than to hear about the triumphs. It is actually kind of sad.

    Posted by cmbennett23 at 08/16/2005 @ 4:58pm

43. "I am an adult and speak for myself, and I have the experience of being a born-again fundamentalist christian for 13 years, from November of 1987 until December of 2000. So I know the issue from both sides. Do you?"

    I was not saved until 1987 and therefor do see both sides of the issues.

    And one could easily argue you were never really saved in terms of accepting Christ into your heart in November of 1987, as people who are truly saved don't suddenly reject Christ.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/16/2005 @ 5:00pm

44. ILOVEPHYSICS: I wasn't talking about your family members. I was addressing the "kid" (child).

    Nor will I question your faith or belief system. I just thought that your wording was harsh and out of line.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/16/2005 @ 5:05pm

45. pbq, to be on topic (sorry i stray sometimes..) ..it's not that iraq is turning out like iran..iran is licking it's fundamentalist chops at the development/s. it's going to be iran : iraq :: russia : ukraine (under communism) --just a satellite state.

    bush has allowed a fundamentalist iran to become the dominant force in the region. yeah! good work. would have been one thing if there were real efforts to foster a moderate iranian political base prior to the destruction and destabilization of iraq ...but alas, that was not in the "plan".

    cm, it's off topic so briefly: the jargon used about small/ big govt is just propaganda. the so-called conservatives have never been thrifty across the board. they take care of their friends and expand govt in the areas like the military, corporate subsidies, and allowing tax cheats... and then they trash kindergardens in the name of "small govt". way to go.

    Posted by dabar at 08/16/2005 @ 5:08pm

46. Once again, Ari, I'm impressed by the scope and relevant insights in your writing...it would make Earl (think Geneva) proud :)

    Posted by dclaw at 08/16/2005 @ 5:20pm

47. Actually, Todd, I rejected the Christian church, not Jesus. I have a great deal of respect for him, I just no longer think of him as a living deity. I kept the Christian philosophy (at least the golden rule part), but discarded the Christian theology.

    USAPRIDE, I used the word repulsive in the literal sense, describing a facet of Christianity that repels many people. I was not trying to be harsh or inflamatory, I was just trying to communicate accurately.

    From m-w.com: "1 : tending to repel or reject : COLD, FORBIDDING.

    2 : serving or able to repulse.

    3 : arousing aversion or disgust"

    Use definition 1 or 2, not 3.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/16/2005 @ 5:43pm

48. CMBennet23:

    I think your definitions of conservatism and liberalism are dated. "Conservatives have been the ones that fear government power?" The neo-cons in the Bush administration have certainly turned this notion on its head. In foreign policy, the executive branch advocates unilateralism, imperialism, and the doctrine of preventative/pre-emptive war - all with little or no oversight from the legisltaive branch. Domestically, we have record spending and deficits, and such governmental intervention as the Patriot Act, massive subsidies for energy companies, and pushes on wedge issues such as flag burning amendments, anti gay marriage laws, stem-cell research restrictions, the Schiavo travesty, and the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, to name a few.

    What power the federal government should have is in the eye of who controls that power, its not as black and white as conservatives want less government, liberals more. Bush is all for government power, so long as that power is confined to the executive branch and he can use it to push his agenda.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/16/2005 @ 5:44pm

49. As a brief note, DABAR - anybody who's still out there pounding away at the now-entirely -debunked notion of "conservatives" as the party of big government is only revealing just how little he/she knows about the facts. I.e., it's unequivocally, empirically, demonstrably true - proven over and over again; to deny it is to be in Flat Earth territory - that this last five years of GOP-dominated government has pushed federal spending and pork distribution to unheard-of levels. Clinton-era fiscal responsibility, featuring such now-scorned notions as "pay as you go," which the GOP has dumped entirely - is a a thing of the past. So if there are any rabid Bushies out there still trying to lob the old chestnut of "tax-and-spend liberals," you might want to sit down. You're embarrassing yourself.

    As to the post, and being on topic. Bravo, Berman. An absolutely great job of summing up the situation. Only a Flat Earther, in fact, would or could go to the trouble to defend this mess any longer, of refusing to see what's right in front of everyone's face. The jig's up. And I'd laugh if it wasn't so tragic. God knows what kind of a mess the Bush cabal is leaving to be cleaned up over there. The scope of it has yet to be fully revealed to us all.

    Posted by mewsician at 08/16/2005 @ 5:49pm

50. Sorry - meant "....'conservatives as the party of SMALL government....."

    Posted by mewsician at 08/16/2005 @ 5:49pm

51. HMAN23, Your posts are consistently excelent. Keep up the good work.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/16/2005 @ 5:51pm

52. AND COULD WE ALL P-U-H-LEEEEEZE LEAVE THE STUPID RELIGIOUS DOGMA OUT OF THESE POSTS???????? Don't religious zealots EVER come to grasp the reality that the reason so many of us find them so ridiculous and objectionable is their insistence on mindless proselytizing? Criminy WHY is that so hard for you people to understand. Nobody wants to have your religious views shoved on them at every turn!!!!!!!!!!!! Give it up. Here, anyway. If you want to talk about your religious experiences, go somewhere where people freaking want to hear it. GAWD.

    Posted by mewsician at 08/16/2005 @ 5:55pm

53. DCLaw, who are you?

    Posted by Ari Berman at 08/16/2005 @ 6:30pm

54. Mewsician

    "AND COULD WE ALL P-U-H-LEEEEEZE LEAVE THE STUPID RELIGIOUS DOGMA OUT OF THESE POSTS????????"

    No, remember that tolerance and diversity class that they send all progressives to Mewsician.

    I'll bring what ever religious dogma that I want to into the posts thank you very much. Or would you prefer censorship? You know that other evil that you progressives hate so much?

    Let's not be hypocritical Mewsician and preach tolerance and diversity as long as the way the tolerance is supposed to go is conservatives being tolerant of those that are offended by religious dogma you hypocrite.

    I'm a God fearing, Jesus loving, conservative, NOW TOLERATE ME DAMMIT!

    Todd = )

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/16/2005 @ 9:51pm

55. From the "Bush's Blind Spont on Iran" article currently featured on the first page of thenation.com..."Perhaps this isn't as exciting to the neocon chicken-hawks in the Bush Administration who love treating the world like a big game of "Risk," but it is certainly the most prudent approach if the goal is a more peaceful world." Referring to negotiations with Iran.

    As I said in the first post on this blog...Iran is the next badge of "honor" to Bush. Since his legacy is already shot, he figures he might as well do what he and his neocon handlers have been lusting after over the past 20+ years...control of the oil, oh I mean democracy in the middle east. Yeah, that's what I meant to say, did I slip up and say oil. Oops. After all, Cheney's got to have a job again when he finishes up his turn of being VP. Maybe they'll let Georgie try to finally turn a profit with some oil ventures, he never was very good at that the first go around.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 08/16/2005 @ 10:17pm

56. Physics,

    "I respect your consistency, though. If the administration would demonstrate the same consistency I wouldn't have such a low opinion of them."

    Thank you for the compliment, usually I just get called "Narrow mined, bigoted Christian, chicken hawk, CONSERVATIVE!"

    With the emphasis on the evil "conservative" word.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/16/2005 @ 10:17pm

57. Kind of interesting.

    several threads, which to choose....

    Posted by jonb at 08/16/2005 @ 10:59pm

58. Seriously, Iran knows we won't invade because we cannot risk the oil shock and we would need a draft to supply manpower needs. They will continue to mess around in Iraq and build nukes. We just don't have much room left to threaten and manuever. That said I don't put anything past the lunatics in the Whitehouse who have gotten us to this unenviable position.

    Posted by Salunga at 08/16/2005 @ 11:12pm

59. I would love to discuss the theological thread.

    It is most interesting.

    I don't have all the answers, but I do have some opinions.

    I do think OKSPORTSGUY should repent for wanting Saddam to be beaten on in prison. As one who has received mercy, he is in no place to ask for justice for others.

    And he will be obliged to agree with the scripture that says Vengance is MINE says the Lord. I will repay.

    I don't mean that as a stinging rebuke. Just an observation.

    (The rest of you guys don't have to agree, obviously)

    I agree with OKPHYSICS that one of the most repulsive things about Christians is our obvious imperfection, and moreover, our pathetic attempts to excuse it. I find it repulsive. Even though I am guilty of it myself, often.

    A good friend once said to me, to not place my trust in men, no matter how spiritual or devout. Or in religious institutions, no matter how righteous. Because they would fail me. To only place my trust in Jesus, who would never fail me.

    Then, he failed me. And the wonderful church that he was the leader of, it failed me too.

    He was right.

    Posted by jonb at 08/16/2005 @ 11:12pm

60. OKPHYSICS???

    WHO'S HE?

    (never was good with names. Sorry.)

    Posted by jonb at 08/16/2005 @ 11:17pm

61. Mr. Berman:

    That was quite an interesting article. I would like to ask you one question. I realize this is from Time, but how credible do you believe this statement is?

    "The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is sponsoring a network of insurgents targeting US and coalition troops, comprised of 280 members divided into 17 bomb-making teams and death squads, Time magazine reports."

    God forbid we decide to attack Iran. They will unite into a very powerful force, and I'm afraid the United States isn't ready! Five million Iranians reservists could be called into service within a month.

    Bush and his mendacious crowd had better soon learn the meaning of diplomacy! And let us pray the Neocon's Axis of Evil tour is somehow cancelled.

    Posted by Munich at 08/16/2005 @ 11:26pm

62. OK ok,

    I'm sorry, please forgive me, I don't really want Saddam beaten in prison. That was wrong of me to say or insinuate. I simply have a lot of anger against the guy, but you are absolutely right Jonb, "Vengeance is mine says the Lord".

    I will support a death sentence for him however IF he is found guilty in the criminal proceedings involving his killing his own people as well as the war crimes charges.

    I'm familiar with Christians, I know they are taught forgiveness, not sure about non-Christians, particularly those that happen to be progressives, are you guys taught forgiveness as well? Or will you forever hate me for my statement about beating Saddam?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/16/2005 @ 11:45pm

63. Hey, SPORTSGUY

    They probably don't care about Saddam one way or another.

    It has been my experience that non-christians have a better sense of how christians should act than Christians do, sometimes.

    I think that to some extent, it give them some rational basis for not accepting what they really know to be true. (Not speaking about any specific person, this is a general observation)

    About forgiveness, it seems to me that it is like most things.

    We don't posess much of it in our natural selves. But if we have experienced it, if it has been given to us, we can give it to others. Same for love, kindness, etc. This is true often of people who have experienced these things from their parents, especially. It is not the entire story, but it is a large part of it.

    Since all of these are available from the Father, if we are willing to receive them, Christians should give these away all the time. But it seems often we don't receive. Don't accept. And therefore, don't have to give away.

    (My apologies to the rest of you folks about this post, I was just talking to my brother)

    Posted by jonb at 08/17/2005 @ 12:13am

64. I am still waiting for one of the Republican supporters for this war to comment on the direction the new constitution. Will you be satisfied if Iraq is an Islamic theocracy closely aligned with Iran? I find it funny that you are all silent on this subject, since normally you are so loud with your opinions.

    Posted by philbq at 08/17/2005 @ 06:36am

65. I AM CALLING Redstateman, NACL, OKSPORTSGUY, Aludra:will you be calling the war a success if Iraq turns out to be a government ruled by Islamic law, without equal rights for women?

    Posted by philbq at 08/17/2005 @ 06:40am

66. And LOVE LIBERTY: I want to hear you too.

    Posted by philbq at 08/17/2005 @ 06:42am

67. Philbq, Settle down Phil! Some of us have a life outside of this fairy tale. I'm on my way to work but I'll grant you a boom before I go. Oh, and in regards to your last post(Corn Column). You know Phil, we try giving you facts but you libs either discount them as right wing propaganda, slander or just dismiss them as if they don't exist all. Then when you throw insults you have the nerve to blame us for your frustration. When we give you a taste of your own medicine you try to dismiss it as us being "weak minded" and all that other elitist intellectual bull crap! Your such a hypocrite. In your last post in the Corn column you referred to something about civil debate yet, you still use threating language. I think it was something like "handing me my head". Your like a little kid. Am I suppose to be scared now? I am not intimitated by you or anyone and the only thing you can hand anyone, is more crap. Grow up!

    Here's a little piece of info from Iraq in response to your last post but I'm sure you will just discount it as more right wing crappola. But, I told you I will grant you a boom so here it is anyway.

    The Ayatollah and a change in policy...

    When clerics stick their noses in politics does not only bring undesirable consequences upon the people only but upon the clerics themselves too. So when a cleric imposes his views on the people and it's later discovered that he was dead wrong, that would have a big negative effect on the attitude of the people toward that cleric and I think Sistani has begun to realize that the poor performance and mistakes of his blessed slate were not welcomed by the people.

    I think that those who used his name gave him some guarantees and promises that they would make a bright example for others but unfortunately that didn't happen and the south where the Sheat majority resides was the first place to get affected by the questionable policies of the government and its main partisan components and the south became a field for battles over influence and power between parties of the same block who forgot about the needs and demands of the people as well as about the promises they made to promote their electoral campaign.

    Sistani was not satisfied with what's been happening and he pointed that out more than once in previous occasions and probably it was the latest demonstrations and unrest that took place in some southern cities as well as the scandals coming out from the cities' councils that made Sistani feel the he'd better not support any particular party or slate again and the increasing complaints coming from various parties about his role in affecting the outcome of the January elections have contributed to the latest change in his attitude. Anyway, I think this is a positive step by Sistani as it would discourage smaller clerics from repeating what he did last January.

    So, today came the news that Sistani prohibited the use of his name or that of the clergy in electoral campaigns and he stressed that the clergy must not be used as a promotion tool for any particular party:

    The religious references will back all the candidates and will be standing with the 26 million Iraqis and not with those who want to mix their personal issues with those of the references… [..] The religious references are dedicated to religious issues and to issuing fatwas and advices that unite the sons of the same society…

    Quote appeared on Al-Mada paper.

    Sistani also (and according to several sources) called for protecting the rights of the Sunni population whom he described as a vital component of the new Iraq. The Ayatollah also spoke about the constitution and said that the people's opinion about the constitution must be respected and he limited the clergy's role to:

    Blessing the constitution that doesn't discriminate between the different sects and ethnic groups of the Iraqi people while other clauses of the constitution should be up to the people to approve or reject…

    Well…a welcomed change I guess.

    - posted by Omar @ 20:02

    Friday, August 12, 2005 http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/bl54.html

    Posted by redstateman at 08/17/2005 @ 10:17am

68. JONB and OKSPORTSGUY,

    All the atheists I know, and most of the non-Christians in my family, well, we try to treat people the way we like to be treated.

    Speaking for myself, I try to follow the golden rule when it comes to big stuff.

    Hope that answers the question that Todd wrote: "I'm familiar with Christians, I know they are taught forgiveness, not sure about non-Christians, particularly those that happen to be progressives, are you guys taught forgiveness as well? Or will you forever hate me for my statement about beating Saddam?"

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 12:43pm