I'm one of the bloggers who supported the invasion of Iraq. I wrote that it was the right thing to do, and I criticized the negative media coverage at the time. I wrote about anti-Americanism, neo-pacifism, and feedback loops in the mainstream media. I defended George W. Bush, neo-conservative idealism and the fear of an Iraqi nuclear program. Later I changed my mind on some of this, but I haven't really looked back and reevaluated the war itself: Given what I know today, were we right?

If an answer to that question came to you as soon as you read it, and if it was prefixed by "of course ..", I'm not the only one who needs to rethink this. If reality is like a thousand interwoven threads, ideology pulls at these threads until they become a mass of hard knots, impossible to separate and impossible to understand. At the time, the debate over Iraq consisted of ideological armies whacking at each other with clubs, and one of the benefits of revisiting this three years later is that the armies have begun to leave the battlefield. Many dedicated warriors remain, but it's easier now than it was then to pull the knots apart and look closer at the individual threads, without getting clubbed to death.

The one thing that concerned pro-war bloggers more than anything else was the stupidity of the other side. So that is our first thread: stupid war opponents. Were they? Often, yes, but that's the wrong question to ask. Stupidity and ignorance is everywhere. The challenge is not to find stupid people who disagree with you, but to find relevant stupidity.

The attention pro-war bloggers gave to war opponents was often proportional to their stupidity and obscurity, not their relevance. The more stupid and the more obscure, the more we sought them out and gave them a thorough fisking. Pacifists, Chomskyist academics, conspiracy theorists, people who were clearly wrong, but just as clearly marginal. More relevant but less entertainingly wrong viewpoints were often ignored. This was a good way to boost ideological morale, but it was also irrelevant, a strawman that made us more certain and more dedicated to the cause, without having any relevance outside the marginal circles these views were popular in.

That's one large thread out, and over by the side. All those words, for nothing.

Another popular theme among bloggers was bias, incompetence and feedback loops in the media. This was more relevant, because it shaped how people thought about the conflict. If the media wasn't doing its job, then those who relied on the media wouldn't know what was happening. Many of the things we wrote were, I think, accurate. We identified ignorance and lazyness, journalists who really didn't know what they were talking about, or reported both sides of an issue as equally valid without bothering to check the facts. We pointed out that supposedly objective reporting was often ideologically motivated, and that journalists didn't realize this because in many ways they think alike. We pointed out how comforting myths would often enter the media reality and never leave, despite being easy to disprove.

All this was relevant because it explained why so many people shared beliefs that were clearly wrong. They hadn't heard the other side. To see, like I did, the American pro-war debate about Iraq almost from the inside, and then hearing that same debate explained to Norwegians, was pretty bizarre. The retelling was random and superficial. And this lead to people not understanding what was going on. As I wrote at the time, the world's largest military power went to war, and we Norwegians had no idea why.

But here's where we went wrong: We aimed all this media criticism at the mainstream media, and forgot ourselves. We obsessed over every flaw of the mainstream media, and assumed that we were better. We weren't. Pro-war bloggers were ignorant, lazy, and formed feedback loops as powerful as any in the mainstream media. Our supposedly "reality-based" blogging was often ideologically motivated, and we didn't realize this because in many ways we thought alike. Comforting myths would enter our media reality and never leave, despite being easy to disprove.

So the media criticism was relevant and important, but one-sided and self-serving. Also, it was relevant only to the debate about the debate, not the issue itself: Media incompetence did not make it right or wrong to invade Iraq.

The next thread we must look at will be like blood in the water for the sharks: George W. Bush. Idiot or genius, the next Hitler or proud defender of Western civilization? Most of what I wrote at the time was supportive of Bush, as a contrast to the anti-Bush hysteria I perceived around me. This is an example of how focusing on the stupidity of opponents can mislead you. If you spend your time rebutting dumb accusations like "Bush is a Christian fanatic who wants to conquer the Muslims and steal their oil", you'll pay less attention to moderate accusations like "the Bush administration is dishonest, arrogant, and doesn't know what it's doing". For all the terabytes of digital ink spent on big, exciting questions like "Bush - Hitler or savior?", the best insights on the issue were made by the quiet, non-ideological folks at Spinsanity.

I no longer believe Bush is generally honest, and I no longer believe he is competent. As with the incompetence of the media, Bush's dishonesty undermined the possibility of a thorough and informed debate. And his lack of competence undermined the stabilization of Iraq. We'll never know how this would have turned out if a competent, honest president with similar foreign policy views had been in charge after 9/11, but if I had believed in 2003 what I believe today I would have been more skeptical to the Bush administration's ability to introduce democracy in a Middle Eastern country.

Related to this is the use of torture in Iraq, and really all the abuse that has taken place under the cover of fighting terrorism and rebellion. This is not relevant to the right or wrong of invading Iraq, the Americans are very far behind the previous regime in terms of torture and sadism. It's more a question of moral corruption, important to the Americans themselves and the individual victims, without actually making the war itself wrong. It may, however, have undermined the stabilization of Iraq. The Americans are not anything like the Baath's, but their actions have served the propaganda of their opponents. That was dumb and counterproductive.

Now for a thread that is less relevant than it may seem, Iraq's illusory nuclear program. We thought we'd find it, and we didn't. This was a major intelligence error, embarassing for everyone involved, but its relevance to the invasion itself has been overstated. The fear of a nuclear program was the main justification for the war, but it was not the only motivation for the Bush administration, nor the only justification for those who supported it. Many - including I - also hoped for a democratic revival in the Middle East, which in the long term could undermine Islamism, and also believed it was just plain right to free the Iraqis of Saddam Hussein.

And bad as the intelligence was, there was good reason at the time to believe it was true, and many who were against the war did. And even though there was no nuclear program, there is good reason today to fear that there eventually would have been, that Hussein was waiting for the sanctions to end.

The irony of the Iraq war is that the US invaded a country that didn't have a nuclear program, while its neighbour Iran was busy acquiring its own. But that's nevertheless one less potential nuclear power in the Middle East. Even with hindsight, I believe the nuclear argument for war stands, but it has been severely wounded and needs crutches.

A thread everyone focused on at the time but I don't find relevant at all is the UN Security Council. Their being against the invasion did not make it wrong, no more than their support would have justified it. I see the need for a UN, but I also see its flaws, and those flaws would have to be recognized and addressed to give the UNSC moral authority.

We're now left with a final thread that I believe is very relevant, but in a different way than you might think: the chaotic aftermath of the invasion. Instead of a peaceful democracy that could undermine Islamism in the long term, Iraq is an unstable state that has become a terrorist training ground. This does not by itself show that the invasion was wrong. Chaos with the chance of stability is better than the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. And the fact that it didn't go well doesn't mean success was unlikely, or that there won't be success in the future. Perhaps the chances were in our favor, but we had bad luck.

But that's just it: Is it at all realistic to hope to introduce democracy by military force in an alien culture far away? Given 100 invasions of Iraq, how many would end up in a good way, and how many in a bad? And if the 100 invasions are carried out by a dishonest and uncompetent leadership, how many then? Is there any chance of eventual democratic stability, or will Iraq retain a minimum of stability only as long as the Americans stay, and then fall apart with civil war and then more tyranny? That is the question that bothers me, and makes me uncertain about the war. Because I don't know.

This is the question it comes down to for me. If the nuclear argument had been stronger, it could have stood alone, but it doesn't. Maybe the invasion prevented an eventual nuclear program in Iraq, but then maybe it has ensured indefinite chaos on the borders of a genuine nuclear power instead, which could be just as bad. So I really don't know.

What I do know is that many of the arguments we used to support the war were good but irrelevant, others were good, relevant but inconclusive, and yet more others relevant and conclusive but bad. And that the most important question of them all was the one we focused the least on, the one question we're unable to answer: Does this kind of intervention actually work?

This is an infuriating conclusion. All these ideological warriors clubbing each other with clever arguments, and when the dust has cleared, we don't know which side was right? But actually, we do know which side was right: neither. That is one lesson we can take out of this. To learn lessons from the Iraq war itself will be difficult, because events on the global scale are usually unique. Iraq did not become another Afghanistan, Vietnam, or Germany. It became itself, and at most it can serve as a vague and inconclusive warning against arrogance.

Ideological wars, however, are always the same. They're predictable in their stupidity and arrogance, in the way they make us behave like idiots. In the end, the only thing I really regret about my involvement in this is that I spent so much time being certain about things that didn't really matter, and not enough being uncertain about things that did.

I think there is an emerging case to be made that the Bush administration has been less than competent in prosecuting the Iraq war. I would be interested, though, in hearing your reasons for concluding that the Bush administration proceeded dishonestly.

Instead of a peaceful democracy that could undermine Islamism in the long term, Iraq is an unstable state that has become a terrorist training ground.

Has it? Iraq is certainly unstable, but the former regime and it's thousands of Baathists party members were wonderful terrorists themselves. And I have yet to see any evidence that people are returning from Iraq trained as terrorists to wreak havoc elsewhere.

I think your overall analysis is off, which is understandable when you are so far from the actual events on the ground or not a part of the culture itself. I think you can make a strong case that some aspects of the war have been pursued rather successfully, particularly the military component. In almost three years of combat, the US military has lost a rather small 2000 troops, and has a frighteningly high kill ratio. It's also done this with a conventionaly small force of 100,000 troops. A strong case can also be made that the Iraq invasion has set off a chain of events in the ME, such as Libya, the AQ Khan network, Syrian pullout of Lebanon, etc.

Donald Rumsfeld gave a speech at John Hopkins University and fielded questions from the attendees about Iraq and it's effects, and it was a very interesting session. Highly recommended listening.

http://mfile.akamai.com/7111/rm/www.sais-jhu.edu/media/dec05/rumsfeld_qa.rm

I think the overthrow of a dictator should always be supported, if not orchestrated, from the inside. Sure, the people will need help from the outside to fight against oppression, but the top-down arrogance of this liberation inflames opinion and makes people hostile to the idea of freedom - even if they would have chosen freedom themselves if given the choice.

Mark: I would be interested, though, in hearing your reasons for concluding that the Bush administration proceeded dishonestly.

See my summary of All the President's Spin. That book is about general dishonesty, not the Iraq war as such, but honesty sticks to the person not the issue, and they also document cases of dishonesty related to Iraq.

The Bush administration stretched the truth whenever possible: by overstating the evidence for a nuclear programme in Iraq, by implying a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, and by pretending not to have made claims that have later been proven wrong, carefully adjusting their rhetoric along the way ("nuclear weapons" to "nuclear weapons programme" to "weapons of mass destruction related program activities"). Again, the open debate democracy depends on was attempted sabotaged.

Rupert: And I have yet to see any evidence that people are returning from Iraq trained as terrorists to wreak havoc elsewhere.

So you are not concerned that the Islamists who are coming to Iraq will get years of valuable experience in a state that's unable to stamp them out, then leave and use that experience elsewhere whenever they feel like doing so?

I think your overall analysis is off, which is understandable when you are so far from the actual events on the ground or not a part of the culture itself.

I'm aware that I don't have the full picture, or even a large part of it. There are biases operating everywhere, filtering the news through ideology and incompetence. These apply to everyone who, as you say, are far from the actual events on the ground, but also to those who aren't, who see a part of the reality but not necessarily the whole.

Still, my impression is - and correct me if I'm wrong - that there are still kidnappings, assasinations, terrorist attacks and fighting going on in Iraq. This strikes me as a large factor of uncertainty in a newborn democracy. I'm not saying it will all fall apart the moment the Americans leave, but I'm surprised if you're claiming that the ability of the American forces to hold Iraq together is a sign of success. Only a major military power can force the Americans to leave, what's interesting is how Iraq holds together after the Americans are gone.

OEK: I think the overthrow of a dictator should always be supported, if not orchestrated, from the inside.

What if the dictator is a threat to other countries as well, and is so good at tyranny that there is no possibility of a democratic opposition, only a military coup by another dictator?

the top-down arrogance of this liberation inflames opinion and makes people hostile to the idea of freedom

How do you know that?

Bjørn Stærk:
"What if the dictator is a threat to other countries as well, and is so good at tyranny that there is no possibility of a democratic opposition, only a military coup by another dictator?"

I would probably support an invasion. But I think that the issue of threats to other countries may be considered a different issue than internal oppression.

"How do you know that?"

I'm merely putting forth a hypothesis, or talking out of my arse, depending on how you look at it. I see that my statement was somewhat unclear. By "top-down" I mean that the invasion made the populace think of instituting democracy as a US project - "you fix it, you break it". "Arrogance" I see in the "mission completed", "bring'em on!" posturing after the war, and in the lack of detailed plans for what was to come next. An "inflamed opinion" I saw through the (possibly slanted) media, and the idea that it "makes people hostile to the idea of freedom" is, in retrospect, a non sequitor in the way that it is worded.

What I meant was that it seems to me that the people of Iraq view democratization as a US project, and their anti-Americanism may stop them from embracing it more fully. On the other hand, I posit that the insurgency during the first gulf war, if supported to its conclusion by the US at the time, might have been viewed as more bottom-up, and the liberalization might be seen more as a movement belonging to the Iraqi people.

Bjorn,
Thank you for the refreshing post. Wouldn’t it be nice if we all had the courage to occasionally reassess our assumptions on politics and more importantly, in our personal lives.

Thread One: Yes, stupid opponents make easy targets and should probably be passed over in favor of more intellectually astute critics. However, I would argue that many stupid war opponents (Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Al Franken) have been given undue attention not only by pro-war bloggers but also by the anti-war bloggers and the MSM. It is the empty tin that rattles loudest, as the saying goes. If pro-war bloggers are guilty or paying too much attention to the mentally disabled then the anti-war bloggers are guilty of over promoting them.

The lack of objective reporting in the MSM and blogsphere could be another thread altogether. In any case, I think you are missing the whole point of having a blogsphere if you think the citizen-journalist has the same obligation to be non-partisan as does the MSM. The beauty of the blogsphere is that you can now find your news or editorial content in the exact flavor you want. Whatever your personal perspective, you can find a community of like minded individuals on the net ready to service you. What makes the blogsphere better than the MSM is that the bias is upfront and displayed proudly. The obvious bias in the MSM is hidden from view and it’s existence, while painfully obvious, is always and unforgivably, denied by its practitioners.

Great post Bjorn.

Franko

Franko: The beauty of the blogsphere is that you can now find your news or editorial content in the exact flavor you want.

You find that beautiful? I find it scary. I think amateur media has given a real boost to conspiracy theories and milder feedback loops. I'm not saying I regret that freedom, but now that we have it it's our responsibility to face the dark side of it.

What makes the blogsphere better than the MSM is that the bias is upfront and displayed proudly.

Yes, but this shouldn't make us think that bias is a good thing. Bias is a weakness we all have, the tendency to interpret facts to fit our own random or irrational preconceptions, and it's better to admit that weakness than to hide it, but only so we can better fight it. Objectivity is the goal - presenting the world as it is, not as we want it to be.

Bjørn,

When I find an objective, non biased, analysis of the background for the war, I will let you know if you don't find it first.

Am I the only one who rembers what it was like to live under the horrors of the nazi occupation in Norway? Since I was old enough to rember Norway during later partof the occupation, I was not hard to convince that removing Saddam was the right thing to do.

The Chamberlain University of Peace did not score any points with me.

We should perhaps also remember that Saddam started two wars against his neighbours, and that the second war still was a truce.

Further, he had used WMD, and history showed that evan nuclear capasity was (an probably still is) available on the market, under the wachful eyes of IAEA.

Also, like Norway under the nazis, there were at least 1/5 of the population who was in power, and they did not like to loose their position, and they were not the good guys.

That there were mistakes in a war conducted far away, in a foreign culture with an oppressed population, should not be a supprise. In the history of human conflicts, this is the rule rather than the deviation.

So, Bjørn, before you put your chips down, give it another year and let the people of Iraq be the judges.

Oh, we have not discussed the UNSC, nor the "Oil for Food" scandale, but it gave some hints why some of the mighty members of the SC behaved the way they did.

With hopes for a successful election on Thursday, and Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you all.

For an excellant counterpoint -- really well done see today's Wall St. Journal:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/

The Panic Over Iraq
What they're really afraid of is American success.

BY NORMAN PODHORETZ
Monday, December 12, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

I have seen people claim that the Iraq war was a bad idea because it supposedly turned a mostly secular dictatorship into an Islamic theocracy instead of a democracy. What are your views on that, Bjorn?

Bjorn,

So you are not concerned that the Islamists who are coming to Iraq will get years of valuable experience in a state that's unable to stamp them out, then leave and use that experience elsewhere whenever they feel like doing so?

The evidence that I have seen indicates that most of the people perpetrating attacks on American forces and Iraqi civilians are Iraqi's themselves. Foreigners make up a small amount of the overall terrorist forces. And most of them are used for suicide bombings. Driving a car full of explosives requires very little training and obviously they aren't going to return home. So in short, no I'm not all that worried. The bombers in the Madrid and London bombings weren't at all involved in Iraq, so I think that worries over European terrorism should be focused on home grown rather than returning jihadis.

what's interesting is how Iraq holds together after the Americans are gone.

It may indeed be interesting, but I don't see how relevant it is. My impression is that most Iraqi's have long wanted Sadaam gone. Furthermore, Iraq is a foreign construct, held together in the past by Sadaam's rule, not really by any sense of nationhood, although surely that exists in a sizeable percent of the population.

I think that the violence that plagues Iraq now has more to do with Arab tribal culture than our invasion, although an obviously weak central government hampers the enforcement of law. I think the ultimate success or failure of the Iraq invasion won't be known for decades, but the evidence to date indicates to me that Arabs are enthusiastic Democrats, so I'm optimistic, although there's always the Islamic factor which I think is inherently anti-democratic( I know you disagree ) and I think those two forces will push and pull for quite a while.

Bjørn, your doubts and infrequent posting of late have somehow reminded me of the old joke about what you get if you cross a Jehovah's Witness with an agnostic: someone who knocks on your door but has nothing to say.

I certainly see you point regarding certainty and doubt, and engaging the thoughtful center as opposed to the fringes. But in this part of the world Michael Moore is not considered a wingnut, but a fearless champion of truth. His opinions are mainstream, and his distortions are peddled as truth.

Bjørn,

There's a difference between what was said, and what the MSM mendaciously emphasize and fraudulently report as having been said. Don't confuse the two. Further, you're viewing events largely through a reality distortion field (RDF). This RDF is unscrupulously created by a perfidious MSM that is subservient to Jihadi intimidation, corruption, and their own self aggrandizement. Though you might be aware of this to an extent, elements of their propaganda can escaped your scrutiny and overwhelm your subconscious. I would advise you reexamine what you THINK you know, and the sources of that knowledge.

This is just their latest programming: CNN headline: "Anti-Arab rioters smash cars, windows in Sydney." That headline is a lie. It's 180 degrees wrong. It should have read: "Arab rioters smash cars, windows in Sydney." But watching CNN and the other MSM networks you wouldn't know that.

Anthony: I have seen people claim that the Iraq war was a bad idea because it supposedly turned a mostly secular dictatorship into an Islamic theocracy instead of a democracy. What are your views on that, Bjorn?

Too early to say.

Jan Haugland: what you get if you cross a Jehovah's Witness with an agnostic: someone who knocks on your door but has nothing to say.

That's a wonderful image. I wish people would begin knocking on doors to say nothing, or maybe to ask questions, or spread doubt.

But in this part of the world Michael Moore is not considered a wingnut, but a fearless champion of truth.

To the extent that's true, it makes Norway part of the fringe. Attacking those fringe views is important, but irrelevant to the issue itself. Showing that Michael Moore is wrong doesn't make other critics of the war wrong. Focusing your attention on such wackoes does, however, makes it easier to dismiss others just as easily. It trains you to use the same style of attack on anyone you disagree with.

Also, how deeply rooted is Michael Moore's worldview in Norway? Has anyone tried to find out?

Bjørn wrote: "Objectivity is the goal - presenting the world as it is, not as we want it to be".

That is, if an objective understanding of the world is indeed possible. In the physical domain you might say that it would be. In the world off politics it surely is not.

Thus, the idea of objectivism in journalism (or in blogging, a stepchild of journalism, anyway) is entirely utopic. The idea that MSM have an obligation to be non-partisan, repeated by Franko above, belongs in fairytales. In the real world it is a standard that no media - "citizen media" or not - will ever live up to.

But is it still worth keeping it as an ideal? Well, that depends. To continually seek truth should of course be the ideal of any researcher, any journalist, any blogger. But to combine this search for the unattainable objectiveness with pretending to actually have attained objectiveness will fail. When the subjectiveness is poorly hidden it becomes embarassing. When it is well hidden it becomes flat, soulless and boring journalism.

Here lies a problem of the blogosphere, as well.

While political bloggers (I will leave those who write about their cats out of this) are generally not good writers (the biggest problem of the blogosphere), they are biased. Often they refuse to admit that they are, and occassionally they instead portray themselves as being amongst the sole champions of the one undeniable truth.

The blogosphere is pretty much precisely like MSM. Same shit, different wrapping. Only thing is that it is even more crap to dig through before one finds a pearl.

I used to hope that the blogosphere could save us from the simplifications of MSM. These days I hope that MSM can save us from the simplifications of the blogosphere.

I also supported the Iraq war, and I supported Bush. I will still take both of them over the alternatives as they were at the time. However, we are in Iraq now, and W. is the president.

The words of the late Steven Vincent, who was kidnapped and killed in Basra after a story he did for the New York Times, still rings as true to my ears as when I first read them in March of 2004.

"Now, when I'm asked if the U.S. can succeed, I can only join others in answering: "We must. The prospect of failure in Iraq is too catastrophic to conceive." It's not a policy so much as a statement of faith: that the center will hold, that democracy and freedom will triumph, that tyrants cannot long escape accountability and justice."

Lets argue about what we could have done better when the job is complete. Internationalism on behalf of freedom is a virtue.

Øyvind: The idea that MSM have an obligation to be non-partisan, repeated by Franko above, belongs in fairytales.

I agree with you that true objectivity is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve in political writing. However I think you misunderstand me; I don’t believe that the MSM has an obligation to be non-partisan in their reporting, only that they have an obligation to be honest about the bias in their reporting. My issue with the MSM is not that they are biased. I am biased, I am very comfortable with my biases and hold no grudge against those that hold similar or differing views. What I think is unforgivable, is to claim that you have no bias or agenda when in fact you do. So, if you claim to be non-partisan then yes, you do have an obligation to live up to that claim. It is in this respect I believe the blogsphere to be more honest in terms of being up front about the political angle they are coming from.

Yes, I do seem to have misunderstood you. The problem is indeed "to claim that you have no bias or agenda when in fact you do". This is a disease of MSM.

Sadly, it is a malady that is also commonly seen in the blogosphere, though.

All news media is biased, the difference is bloggers (usually) admit it. Bias + Transparency = Credibility. The important things is not objectivity but honesty.

Øyvind said:
"That is, if an objective understanding of the world is indeed possible. In the physical domain you might say that it would be. In the world off politics it surely is not.

Thus, the idea of objectivism in journalism (or in blogging, a stepchild of journalism, anyway) is entirely utopic. The idea that MSM have an obligation to be non-partisan, repeated by Franko above, belongs in fairytales. In the real world it is a standard that no media - "citizen media" or not - will ever live up to."

I think this is a very good point and one that also applies to governments. If I may, I'd like to humbly marshal this observation against the claim that Bush has presided over a dishonest administration. I have been open to persuasion on this. I have engaged in alot of back and forth with my liberal friends on the whole "Bush Lied; People died" claim; the best I can convince myself of is 1) Bush, out of a combination of hubris, misplaced idealism, and naivete pursued a variety of foreign policy goals in a less than competent fashion (the jury is still out IMHO) and 2) Bush, not atypically for politicians and not unethically, aggressively pursued his agenda as it emerged and he understood it. Bush, as everyone knows, fancies himself a practical sort as opposed to us "pointy headed" types. This practicality caused him to pivot from the republican isolationism (Taft, Buchanan) that he ran on to republican neo-conservativism (grafted into the republican party with Reagan) because he believed it best addressed the emerging crisis. More than anything, it was a return to discredited Wilsonianism. This may be incompetence - we'll see - but I don't think its dishonest.

Bjorn -

Kudos on a thought-provoking post. I support the war and this President, still. But I admire your thoughfulness.

Thoughts -

I agree with Mark (#1). I simply don't see evidence of flat out dishonesty, certainly not more than many Presidents, and ourselves, have used any number of times. Yes, we all "spin". That is not lying, it is making your case. I smply repeat, a thousand times if necessary, all the things many of Mr. Bush's opponents all over the world were saying about Hussein all through the '90's, and the irresponsibilty of assuming they were all wrong, and "hoping for the best" with Hussein.

Regarding Bush's competence, I happen to think the naivete of many of his opponents staggers the mind. Howard Dean quite literally said that it was not his (Dean's) job to come up with alternatives, only to criticize what actually was occuring.

Something I see virtually NO comment on whatsoever, is what economists call "opportunity cost". What is the opportunity cost of NOT invading Iraq? Let me try a list.

---

1)We are stuck in Saudi Arabia... forever.

2)Every single day of survival is a victory for Saddam and the absolute worst elements of Middle Eastern power that he represents. Every day he grows stronger, we grow weaker, by the simple psychological and political dynamics.

3)All that democratizing movement, and weakening of autocracy that we see, in Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Libya, Saudi, etc? Forget it. Zip. Squat. Count on it. NONE, repeat NONE, of it had even begun in the 20 years before Bush began to seriously gear up for Iraq. None of it. So, forget all that. Nada.

4)Saddam, every day, becomes more of the "new Sala-adin, standing up to the Superpower. And winning. In the Arab mind... winning... big. By being the worst possible kind of tyrant.

5)Bush says 30,000 Iraqis died (about right). The "human rights" activists (hah) of the 90's said 5,000 Iraqi children were dying every MONTH because of sanctions. Do the math. That's 150,000 CHILDREN alone, dead since March 2003. Oh, well. 5,000 more next month. 5,000 more after that. 5,000 more after that. Yawn. Oh, well.

6)Number of elections now seen in the Arab world by 2005? Zero. None. Nada. Wouldn't have happened. Don't kid yourselves. This is the autocratic Middle East we are talking about.

7)Argue the wrongness of Iraqi Freedom all you want. The US has established that, pull a 9/11, and you don't know WHAT the hell we are going to do, and our own allies won't stop us if we get a hard-on for you. What is the cost of NOT sending that message, post 9/11?

8)Something a bit cynical, but significant. Remember, as the jihadists go to Iraq to learn form a "terrorist training ground", the US military is learning volumes on how to fight them at the same time, arguably much more than they. Ignore Iraq for a moment. Surely you agree that, post 9/11, the US is at war. Shall we stick with 20th century knowledge to fight a 21st century asymmetric enemy in a war that will reach far beyond Iraq?

9)Iran is going to be about what it is today. But we would not be in anything close to the strategic postition we are now to put pressure on them.

10) Israel would not be withdrawing from any territory, given all of the above, so that mess goes on.... and on..... and on..... and on.....

---

ALL of the above are issues President Bush/Gore/Kerry would have had to answer and figure out without going into Iraq, and I could go on. The fact is, I simply see very little, virtually NO, addressing of any of it in the vast pool of opinion I have seen over the past years.

The truth is, it was a corrupt and even dying Middle East as a whole that gave us 9/11, not just AQ. As a direct result, Mr. Bush took a sledgehammer to the entire monstrous edifice, and nothing will ever be the same. Now they are building in a way they never have before. Building is much harder than destroying, which is all that region has managed for decades. Children destroy, blithely and for fun. Grown-ups build, with grit and determination.

Mr. Bush has more of the latter in his little finger than his opponents do put together. God Bless him for it.

Oops, forgot ALL the benefits of uncovering the oil-for-food scandal, which was killing Iraqis, while lining the pockets of beaurocrats from New York to Geneva to Paris to New Delhi. All that info? Nothing. None of it. Not a clue. Business as usual.

I think I could add to this list every five minutes, but I'll stop now.

But everything I have listed we have to address if we are going to seriously propose a retroactive decision not to go into Iraq. Anyone who has specifics on them, please do chime in.

By the threads:

1: Where do you have to be to stop being marginal? In the legislature? A leading collumnist? The most successful documentary in history? I wish that the crazy arguments were just those made my the insignificant, but the Iraq war approaches trade in the degree that crazy beliefs and incoherent positions *are* the European mainstream. The "blood for oil", "Bush lied, People died", "life was better under Saddam" and suchlike remain common, particularly amongst those who rule us.

2: The struggle with the media is, indeed, partly tangential, although Iraq has shown it at its worst. Still, it strikes me as being hugely important in broadening the debate, making the media a little more accountable, and making commercial pressures on the MSM clearer and hence hopefully moderating their political biases. Being from the UK, I have particularly enjoyed watching our own Pravda, the BBC, taking an occasional beating.

The attention on it seems worth it because, in its own way, the debate about the media is more important than the debate about Iraq. The debate about Iraq will hopefully have little effect (ie. we won't abandon them prematurely). The debate about the media should have some effect. As an aside, I'm not sure that I'd agree that the blogosphere didn't include criticism of blogs. Some new media absolutists, but also many who held the contrary position. That's partly why I like blogs. I'm a big believer in Hegelian dialectic.

3: Obviously, with any politician, what you see depends on how you look at 'em. My field is trade (well, international commercial law), and in successful trade negotiation he's been the most successful president since Kennedy. Almost completely untold story. Other than social security, he's achieved just about everything he's put his mind to (still working on immigration reform). You might disagree with his aims, but I think it's harder to call him incomptetent than a lot of people think.

On torture: There's a consensus opinion that torture doesn't give you useful results. Of course, there haven't been many studies on it recently, but St. Augustine lived at a time when it was practiced, openly, by scholarly minded people. His view of its investigative was so high that he felt that good Christian judges should be willing to torture the occasional innocent man to death rather than holding back and either letting everyone off or punishing many innocent people. The distinction that people miss is that it should be an engine of the state, not of law. If you want people to say something, you can make them say it, making it relatively useless for confessions or for fingering others. If you want the truth, though, it is valuable. It's much harder to be a good lier when you're high, sleep deprived, and in pain. I'm not saying that it has been worthwhile, but I think we'll be in a better position to make the judgment in a decade or so when we know more about what knowledge was gained from it, how many lives saved.

4: Well, yeah. Incidentally, the uncovering of the institutionalised corruption of the UN was one of the benefits of the liberation, not least because it might provide a disincentive for future UN officials and assorted foreign ministers to take bribes from dictators.

5: The final thread, and the most surprising one.

Why do you think we're losing? Assuming that we had average luck, I get the impression that that would be a vindication for the decision to go to war. If we do lose, and the country collapses, then, yeah, it wasn't worth it. If we win, if Iraq becomes another Bahrain (although, of course, Bahrain wasn't a democracy before we invaded), would you feel that your earlier position was right?

My own thought on the best justification is the 1,000,000 Iraqis killed in the decade before liberation by sanctions, by us. In the last couple of years, 30,000, at least according to Bush. Maybe 5 times that, or more, according to the Lancet. Still, it's a death toll that will shrink, rather than going on forever.

Neat, Andrew. Rare to see someone make the same point I was, and at the same time.

Mark, Bellevue wrote: "This [what Bush is doing] may be incompetence - we'll see - but I don't think its dishonest."

Personally I do not know what is worst; an incompetent president or a dishonest president.

If one keeps at a basis that the goal for the United States is to create a stable and democratic Iraq one can of course hope for nothing but success for American politics. Whether the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, like I did believe, or the right thing to do, as several posters here believe, is irrelevant.

What we have to focus on now is to do our best to contribute to building a democratic and peaceful Iraq. In this area American politics have in a number of cases been incompetent and counterproductive.

I do hope that this incompetence is not mainly caused by a lacking understanding of Middle Eastern history, and that Bush have advisors that are better than some off his supporters. When Andrew X claims that "they are now building in a way they never have before", this is quite simply not true.

"To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." -- Sun Tzu, the Art of War

The goal of enemy propaganda is to eliminate the possible cognition of victory and therefore destroy any possible hope for victory. That's what the MSM has tried very hard to do. Thanks to the internet and independent bloggers they have failed in that mission. The conversation has now shifted, if ever imperceptibly to some. ;) It's not about questions of "military" victory (a goal declared impossible up until recently), but what follows after. And what follows after is the best kind of victory. Hope.

Until I read that Russia, France, Germany, England, etc. have re-vamped their intelligence units, I can only believe that Iraq had the WMDs. The USA is the only intelligence unit that is having a do over (and the more you hear about the internal war at the CIA, the more you wonder what that is all about). Years ago, talking to my WWII veteran father, about the My Lai horror and how upset I was about it, he told me I was a fool to think that only occurred in Vietnam. Awful things occur in war, he said, ALL WARS. And from what I have read, post-WWII was not TIDY. It is unfortunate that your resolve has dissolved. If you think the mid-east was stable before Iraq, you have a very low threshhold for orderly conduct.

This is not relevant to the right or wrong of invading Iraq, the Americans are very far behind the previous regime in terms of torture and sadism. It's more a question of moral corruption,(...)
-Historical irrelevant and erronuous. Read books about 2nd World War. Small example: Most of Skorzeny Commandoes were put in front of a firing squad after being catched in Ardennes forests in Battle of the Bulge in American uniforms, no court...

The fear of a nuclear program was the main justification for the war
- No it wasnt. It was the WMD, that is much more than Nukes. While it wasnt discovered a major program (2 sarin rounds were used to attack US patrols) all pieces were in place. And all the signs and behaviour pointed to it. Including development of ballistic missiles(with SA-2 anti air missile engines) with a so tiny warhead that only reason for them would be wmd.

I am always puzzled by some supporters of war that expected that all things will fall in place after invasion. That didnt and doesnt make any sense.
It's a big struggle to change hundreds of years of behaviour.

Nothing in your post makes the case: Bush dishonest.
Main failures in my opinion:

1-Security after Invasion, since State Department worked to undermine the operation Bush should have put someone that could control it and not Powell.

2-Military procurement, Logistics: Humvv unable to cope with IEDs and no flexibility and solution - in 2WW 1-2 years was enough to design a new tank , many gear with problems in a US Army always looking for golden bullet and Hyper tech stuff, instead of plain Infantry needs.

RE: "When Andrew X claims that "they are now building in a way they never have before", this is quite simply not true."

Oyvind, you put this out there without a shred of arguement to back up why what I said is not true. Your post simply asssumes Bush is inncompetent/dishonest, and moves right on without any substantiation whatsoever, which adds basically nothing to the conversation.

When I say, "building in way they never have before", here's ONE piece of backup...

Within the past TWENTY-FOUR HOURS there was a televised debate in Iraq and beyond between the sitting Iraqi leader, Mr. Allawi, and two of his challengers. An Arab leader, on national TV, has to explain his policies, how he arrived at them, why they are right, and two challengers say, "no, these OTHER policies are in fact best, and here's why you are wrong, Mr. President", the Iraqi people must then CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES who deserves their vote..... and the international Bush-haters DO NOT CARE. At all.

Thaty lack of interest is an unmitigated and unforgivable disgrace. Those debates alone will send out ripples of democracy that will make millins ask "Why can't MY leader answer questions like that?", etc. That impact can be subtle but enormous, which is why tyrants the world over fear it. But millions of Westerners who would DEMAND those rights for themselves would literally see them denied to Iraqis if it serves a Bush-loathing agenda.

Don't think we don't notice that selfishness... it staggers the mind.

OK, I've digressed a bit from the "building" argument, so that isn't aimed at you. We all can point at those it is aimed at, and they are many.

But guess what. I AM right. They ARE building.. something not seen before in the entire history of the Arab world. It is a dificult and painful birth, fraught with setbacks, real and potential. Kind of like raising a child... or birthing a democracy.

And millions who take their rights for granted greet it with contempt and indifference. In THAT, I shall not mince words, may lie the end one day of Western Civilization, and our freedom, and our culture. That contempt and indifference is far more a threat to our grandchildren than any outside enemy.

Andrew X:

When it comes to the areas where incompetence has been shown I think Bjørn has already summed up some off them.

The military invasion was done with great expertise, although it was slowed done by a number of factors, and actually took longer than I had expected of the most modern, well-equipped and strongest military force in the world. It is winning the peace the Coalition have done a number off grave mistakes.

Abuse and outright torture, handing an excellent propaganda tool as Abu Ghraib to radical Islamists and reactionary baathists, was a major screwup. But it started before, by basing the whole war on WMD when Iraq never had any chemical or bacteriological weapon worthy of the name (if conventional weapons had been used in for instance Halabja, the number off deaths would have been just as high, but the effect of fear would have been less) was also handing a gift over to terrorists: "Here you go... a nifty propaganda tool, just tell everyone that America is lying". When leftists like I can point out this, radical Islamists can and do to.

Putting your eggs in the basket of Ahmed Chalabi was hardly a good idea either. Alienating the Sunni minority - not a smart idea. I could go on forever.

Some of these things has probably happened because of bad luck. Some have happened because of incompetence. Too many off the people that have been taking important decisions have not had the necessary cultural insight to do so. It does not help being smart alone.

And when it comes to the Iraqis building... yes, definitely. This is however not the first time a Western intervention has tried to drag a Middle Eastern country into the modern world by the use of arms. General Frederick Stanley Maude, a Brit, is famous for stating this after entering Baghdad in 1917:

"Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators."

Like in other Arabic countries under French or British influence political reforms were undertaken, although in the framework (not so foreign to Europeans) of constitutional monarchies. The British goverment laid out the political and constitutional framework for Iraqs government, and failed drastically. In the twenties the Brits used poison gas in their efforts to put down a rebellion.

Through the failure to include Sunnis to a larger degree in the political process (a failure the Sunnis are of course partly to blame for themselves), there is again a risk that an Iraqi government while being more modern than its neighbours will lack legitimacy and ultimately fail drastically... being reduced to a Shiite-dominated dictatorship, to a state of civil war, etc.

That is the negative viewpoint to take. Other and positive viewpoints are possible; one has to consider the major steps Iraq has taken since it was liberated from the hands off Saddam Hussein. The successes are important, noticeable and a good example. And they are frail, partly because of misguided Coalition policies, partly because of bad luck, partly because the reactionary forces in Iraq are much stronger than I really like to think about.

Attempts at representative democracy is nothing new in the Middle East. Reforms in the direction of more freedom has been attempted in Iraq as well, under the Interim Constitution of 1958, political prisoners were freed and Kurds that had taken part in uprisings in 43 and 45 were given amnesty, and welcomed home. The ban on the communist party was lifted. The promising developments lasted for a good year or so.

Realizing that this is not the first shot at democracy, and realizing why democracy has failed a number of times in the region is essential. Believing that something new is going on in Iraq, when it in fact is not, is dangerous, as it draws attention away from the very valid lessons of history.

Andrew X,

Fjordman has an interesting entry on his blog as to why might be (the contempt and indifference), at least as it concerns Europe. It's titled The Second Fall of Rome. Well worth reading:

http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/11/second-fall-of-rome.html

erratum: ..why ^that might be..

Ok, Oyvind, that's more backup.

Some responses....

"The military invasion was done with great expertise, although it was slowed done by a number of factors....."

The three week timing was about what the military expected all along. But here's the biggest point... That analysis was NOT what a great many media outlets, ESPECIALLY the BBC, said at the time. For them, it was one long litany of failure, quagmire, and catastrophe, so much so that the Ark Royal task force blacked out the BBC and lodged a formal complaint about it's coverage, not because it was damaging morale or the like, but because what they were saying was either patently false, or true in the same way that explaining a supermodels body by focusing entirely on her excratory fucntions is "true". True, but hardly the "whole truth" as the law would say.

Does this very dynamic sound at all familiar? Bush's US approval ratings last month hit a low of 37% (now rising). The media's overall approval ratings over the past five years have never gotten above 30%, and circulation/ratings are plummeting.

Thus, for me to assume (with factual backup) that the media are totally focused on the negative in Iraq is hardly out of line. The BBC is the worst.

That brings me to Abu Ghraib. A contemptible event. But have you looked specifically into some of the details of both French policy on suspected terrorists, as well as the conditions they are kept in? There are some hairy stories out there, buthas the New York Times or the BBC covered them for 45 out of 60 days the way Abu Ghraib was?

Excratory functions. They are not pleasant, quite disgusting, and in this case not the whole story by a loooong shot, but hardly worth the media they got. The debates I mentioned above? 30 seconds on CNN, if that. That's sound editorial judgement? Please.

Alienating the Sunni majority? C'mon. They are 20%, who have owned everything and everyone in that country for decades. How are they NOT going to be alienated. It is an absolute FACT that both Shia and Kurds have been "alienated" by American officers who are stopping them from going off on the Sunnis big time.

Rather than continue point by point, it is ionteresting to note that much of what we are saying will be dated within a week. I simply believe that, if the elections go well.... for the THIRD time... it will be a watershed event of enormous consequence for the Arab world and the world as a whole. (One reason it has failed in the past is that statist totalitarianism and/or socialism was seen as a viable option, which is largely not the case today).

And if it does succeed, those fat, happy, and free Westerners who fought to keep it from happening with every ounce of their strength will not be forgotten.

Bjorn,

Iraq's illusory nuclear program...The fear of a nuclear program was the main justification for the war...

I think you are laboring under a serious misapprehension. "WMD" does not equal "nukes."

I am unaware of any analyst who thought Iraq actually had an operating nuclear program of any magnitude. Nobody expected that Saddam would be able to produce nuclear weapons of any kind in any time frames of less than a decade and only then without sanctions (barring having someone give him enriched uranium).

The WMD threat poised by Saddam came largely from chemical and biological weapons that could be delivered anywhere in the world anonymously by terrorist networks. Of those two, chemical weapons, specifically nerve gas poised a significant risk . A thimbleful could kill everyone in an airplane. Ten liters of nerve gas can kill tens of thousands.

Even given what we know now, it is clear that previous to the invasion, Saddam could, AT ANYTIME OF HIS CHOOSING have created the small batches of nerve gas needed to kill thousands. Creating nerve gas requires (1) skilled chemist and technicians who know how to make nerve gas, which Saddam had because they made his nerve gas in the past (2) a few million dollars, which he had (3) off the shelf reagents (4) an ad hoc facility that would fit inside a semi-trailer. Every intelligence service in the free world, including France and Germany, believed that Saddam had deployable chemical weapons at the time of the invasion.

I think you believe Bush was dishonest because you never actually heard or read what Bush actually said. Instead, you heard only the meta-debate, what other people said he had said. If you thought "nukes" every time Bush said WMD's then that is not Bush's fault. Its yours for not researching the technical issues involved.

Bjorn,

Iraq's illusory nuclear program...The fear of a nuclear program was the main justification for the war...

I think you are laboring under a serious misapprehension. "WMD" does not equal "nukes."

I am unaware of any analyst who thought Iraq actually had an operating nuclear program of any magnitude. Nobody expected that Saddam would be able to produce nuclear weapons of any kind in any time frames of less than a decade and only then without sanctions (barring having someone give him enriched uranium).

The WMD threat poised by Saddam came largely from chemical and biological weapons that could be delivered anywhere in the world anonymously by terrorist networks. Of those two, chemical weapons, specifically nerve gas poised a significant risk . A thimbleful could kill everyone in an airplane. Ten liters of nerve gas can kill tens of thousands.

Even given what we know now, it is clear that previous to the invasion, Saddam could, AT ANYTIME OF HIS CHOOSING have created the small batches of nerve gas needed to kill thousands. Creating nerve gas requires (1) skilled chemist and technicians who know how to make nerve gas, which Saddam had because they made his nerve gas in the past (2) a few million dollars, which he had (3) off the shelf reagents (4) an ad hoc facility that would fit inside a semi-trailer. Every intelligence service in the free world, including France and Germany, believed that Saddam had deployable chemical weapons at the time of the invasion.

I think you believe Bush was dishonest because you never actually heard or read what Bush actually said. Instead, you heard only the meta-debate, what other people said he had said. If you thought "nukes" every time Bush said WMD's then that is not Bush's fault. Its yours for not researching the technical issues involved.

Andrew X,

For your reconstruction Jones, peruse this.(via Econopundit )

Chock full of graph goodness.

Rupert -

Oh my effin God! That is some amazing data. Total thanks!

But remember.... "We aren't building anything" over there. I haven't seen it on CNN or the BBC, ergo it hasn't happened.

Hmm,.. and I thought the hysteria over WMD had something to do with head panties.

"Alienating the Sunni majority? C'mon"

I think you should read what I wrote once more. I am talking about the Sunni minority, not the other way around.

If you are off the belief that the whole Sunni minority consists of Saddam-supporters, you are of course wrong. But let me avoid building that strawman. I am convinced that you know better, and thus I would like to ask you to refrain from oversimplifying the Sunni question in this way. Frankly, it reminds me off orthodox Marxists and their "dictatorship of the proletariat":

Alienate the bourgeouise? They are so-and-so-few and have owned everything and everyone in that country for decades. How are they NOT going to be alienated.

The point remains that the Iraqi democracy has thus far failed to include Sunnis more than marginally, and this is a failure that threathen to undermine any long-lasting development towards democracy in Iraq. There are signs that Sunnis will play a larger role in the parliament soon to be elected, however, which would give reason for some optimism.

I am also totally uninterested in hearing what France is doing in this or that regards. I have never claimed that French politics are particularily brilliant - in fact I have claimed the opposite. I do not see any reason to discuss France in a discussion that has little to do with France. Neither do I see the point of discussing BBCs coverage of the conflict. It is an irrelevant and boring discussion.

Personally I did oppose the war, but I also believed that the major war effort would be done in less time than it was. If any pundit in any media thought that it was the war effort in itself that was going to turn into a quaqmire he was wrong, and he has been proven so. I was wrong myself, too, believing that the difficulties of city warfare in Baghdad would create more problems for American forces than they did.

Some of the questions I think should be discussed, and where I think Westerners without political titles might have something to contribute with, and a chance to do so, is:

1. How do we best support the democratic elements in Iraqi society, regardless of whether these are pro- or anti-American?

2. How can we best ensure that the Iraqi state, not yet a democracy, but on its way to become one, will continue on that path?

For Americans and people from other countries having military forces in Iraq (Norway has, I believe, one man at the moment) it should also be off interest to discuss how one can best achieve the combination of getting out of there as soon as possible with ensuring that everything wont go boom when one does. That is quite a nut.

As mentioned there are a number of areas were I feel that the Coalition has failed, where their efforts have been counterproductive rather than productive. These areas are necessary to discuss openly to avoid similar things from happening again.

Discussing openly does not mean "support Bush blindly, because he liberated Iraq", nor does it mean "try to excuse [whatever] with something someone else has did that somehow can be porrayed as worse". If one locks one self into that kind of an ideological cage, one asks to get stuck, and one will get stuck.

This is, ironically, the same thing that is happening to those on the Not-so-smart-Left that think that they are fighting in the cause of "anti-Imperialism" when they support local fascists, reactionaries or just plain criminals in Iraq who fight for anything but democracy.

I interpret Bjørns post as an attempt off breaking away from those ideological traps. Jan Haugland might get the impression that this means that Bjørn has nothing to say, really, but if Bjørn wants to knock at my door down in Mechelen and have a discussion over a Belgian beer or five; he is more than welcome.

O -

'Majority' was a misprint. I did say they are 20%. That is self-evidently a minority, and thus the point.

As for "caring what the BBC is saying, I DO care, intensely. It is not like they are not a player here, a passionless eye merely recording what it happening. I merely mention French detainees to point out media hypocrisy and mendaciousness.

What is being said about Iraq globally has an ENORMOUS effect on what happens on this planet, and the BBC is the biggest global player, bigger than CNN in that regard. I will not dimiss them as just an observer. They most certainly are not, and they know it very well, and act accordingly.

Thus my point. Mr. President says things are going well in many respects. The media virtually refuses to report on that. And, from intense reading of alternate sources such as.... oh... personal reports from soldiers on the ground for example (many of them), I don't see a single reason to trust the MSM media filters any more than the President. THey have proven every bit as agenda driven, every bit as willing to ignore Fact A and play up Fact B if B fits their agenda and A does not.

So dismiss though you may, the international coverage of this war is a huge part of the story. And if Iraq does succeed as I think and pray it will, a LOT of journalists are going to have a LOT of explaining to do.

Ahh, yes. You wants a quick fix. Resolution by the end of the evenings’ episode and TV dinner.

But let me ask you this. All this talk of mistakes and failures; Without the violence, would there have been the urgency to participate, the urgency for change? Would there have been an understanding of courage, if there wasn't first an understanding of fear? Would there have been an understanding of victory, without the taste of defeat? Would there have been an understanding of resolve, without first understanding difficulty.

Hope you're not too drunk to contemplate these tangental philosophical musings as you ponder how to best ensure that Iraq, on its way to becoming a democracy, will continue on that path to democracy.

Mika --

All I can add is....

----

There can be no triumph without loss.....

There can be no victory without suffering....

There can be no freedom without sacrifice.....


And all you have to decide.... is what to do with the time that is given to you.

----

"This is but a taste of the terror Sauramon will unleash. We MUST fight.

"I will not risk open war."

"Open war is upon you, whether you would risk it or not."

----

ELROND: "Gandalf, the enemy is moving. Sauron's forces are massing in the East, his Eye is fixed on Rivendell! And Saruman, you tell me, has betrayed us -

Our list of allies grows thin..."

"This peril belongs to all Middle earth. They must decide how to end it. Not just for themselves but for those who come after. The time of the Elves is over. My people are leaving these shores.

Who will you look to when we have gone? The dwarves? They hide in their mountains seeking riches. They care nothing for the troubles of others."

GANDALF: It is in Men that we must place our hope.

ELROND: Men!! Men are weak... The race of Men is failing. The blood of Numenor is all but spent, its pride and dignity forgotten. It is because of men that the Ring survives.

----

"What can Men do against such reckless hate?"

"Ride. Ride out to meet it."

----

"The fires of Isengard will spread....

The woods of Hobbiton and Buckland will burn....

And everything that is green and good in this world will be gone....

There won't BE a Shire, Pippin."

----

"There may come a day, when the courage of men fails, when we forsake our freedom, and break all bonds of fellowship. But it is not this day.

This day.... we FIGHT!"

"By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you, STAND, MEN OF THE WEST!"

"This day.... we FIGHT!"

If not that, at least we can try and reduce the number of
dumb ass, leftist Orcs we have to put up with.

Bjørn:

It's interesting to read you on this topic now. I apologize for not having read the many comments here. There are a few things I object to in your otherwise fairly solemn and thoughtful post.

This part I do not agree with:

"This does not by itself show that the invasion was wrong.....Perhaps We had bad luck."

We had bad luck? Well, so did Iraqi civilians who had war brought to their country and have been killed in thousands for bogus reasons. (Saddam could have continued to fix that if that was what we wanted) You can't just say it was bad luck that the war in Iraq has turned into a quagmire, and then say it was not wrong to go to war? Going to war is a bit too important matter for that.

Another thing is that you generalize and talk about how would 100 similar invasions have fared. Interesting take. And a lot of the heated (and sometimes very interesting) debates we had on this issue were indeed about the general concept of war to install democracy. I often brought up the image of spreading democratic ideas with B-52s. I'll stick with that one :-) Yet, you cannot use a hypothetical generalizing treatise about "these kinds of wars" as an excuse for saying that the specific case Iraq was neither wrong nor right. The war in Iraq is one case. It's not all cases. And in this particular case the Bush administration botched it. And we're all gonna be paying a small part of the price. Consensus in the war on terrorism is dead, and the terrorists have (as you point out) a fine training ground in Iraq. In hindsight it doesn’t really matter if this kind of war could have worked in theory, because in this particular case, it did not work in practice. As much as I love theoretical debates, my position is that practice should trump theory on the case of Iraq.

Anders -

Nice of you add a posting where virtually all that you wrote has already been answered by those whom you yourself acknowledge you didn't bother to read.

I've already said my piece. Now I'll let Austin Bay say it, someone who has actually put his neck on the line so that this world might be free of yet another monstrous tyranny.

http://www.strategypage.com/onpoint/articles/20051214.asp

With Iraq's latest trip to the polls, the great revolt continues.

It's not a revolt led by generals with tanks or by millenarian terrorists, but a democratic revolution led by Iraqi men and women braving terrorist threats and bombs to vote.

Democratic politics, emerging in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine, are providing an alternative to the afflictions of war, terror and tyranny. That evil trio has dominated Central Asia and the Middle East, spilling blood, sapping economic progress and destroying hope.

....

However, the dark source of the War on Terror lies in the dysfunctional political systems of the Arab Muslim world.

For decades, the Arab street (a violent drag controlled by tyrants, their power enforced by terror) kept Arab reformers in the Arab alley or the Arab jail. The Arab street also has served as a theater for choreographed displays of anger. Addressing the real sources of Arab deprivation and degradation -- autocratic oppression and systemic corruption -- was forbidden. Arab reformers either shut up, went into exile or were assassinated

That's no longer the case. The successful, history-shaping, liberating war in Iraq has begun to "free the street." It isn't free yet. Theo-fascist and Saddamite bombs strike Baghdad every day. Syrian assassins, trying to stop Lebanon's democratic movements, are murdering Lebanese democrats. Reformers know these acts of terror are attempts to "turn back the clock" and return control of "the street" to the dictators.

Despite the violence, Iraqis and Palestinians are creating democratic alternatives. The world's free people need to encourage the Iraqis and Palestinians, not disparage them with defeatist rhetoric and myopic pessimism.

Iraq's and Palestine's victories, now matter how incremental, must be recognized and rewarded.

That's because the democratic revolt's biggest payoffs are at least 10 to 15 years away.

A long haul? Indeed, 15 years is a large chunk of an individual's lifetime. However, in terms of fundamental political and economic reformation, it's no eon.

Peace, the rule of law and steady, honest leadership will make Iraq one of the wealthiest countries in the region. It has water, agriculture, a source of capital (oil) and a population willing to work. Palestine lacks Iraq's natural resources, but Palestinians are aggressive entrepreneurs. Babylon and Bethlehem make Iraq and Palestine prime tourist destinations.

What's in it for the United States? Democratic nations police terror -- they don't promote it. And that amounts to victory in the War on Terror.

'Nuff said.

Well Andrew. I did apologize for not reading it all (never seems to help does it?). Following that I actually bothered to read your comment. And then scrolled up to see that you had swamped this thread with some silly Lord of the Rings stuff. There might be some interesting stuff in some of the other 7 entries you've made here. But you got it right. I can't be bothered.

You had one great line, which I enjoyed: "Democratic nations police terror". Exactly right. That's the way it should be. Would you say that there were 300 000 policemen who invaded Iraq?

I would disagree that Bush is dishonest. I would rather state it that he 1) put forward the simplest sound bites of concepts which are at best hazy mozaics ( a la intel data) 2) did tend to cherry pick the ones that were strongest.

The average Joe does not understand that Intel is hazy , contradictory and subject to a thousand misinterpretations and personal baises before it ever SEES the president's desk.

I think the abuse thing boils down to a basic lack of leadership (sins of omission not comission) at many levels, in that guidance was purposefully vague, and the happenings on the ground left much to the indivual restraint or saidsm of the perpetrators. "plausible deniability"

I think the "den beste" case for the war, the strongest case there is, was never made public. I'd argue that the admin would have hard time doing so.

That many bad things WILL fall through the cracks because the admin and the GOP in general are not facing intelligent well thought out opposition. They get a free ride because the dems are plain silly.

I believe the MSM has been lazy and arrogant. They think they have some special quartre d'estat oblige cemented in the constitution that provides them rights and privleges unasailable and unquestionable.

I believe that Bush's admin has been as competant as any large beaurocracy could be - which is to say "not very much", but many by which he is compared had the good fortune of not having important things to do. I think Reagan is the exception not the rule about wielding the gov't to do big things. (Ike kept things quiet, so did Ford, Carter was a mess, Bush I was scattered, LBJ was a defense disaster, JFK was around so short the ink was barely dry, Nixon? please)

Anders -

Heh. One posting equals a "swamp".

Ten car bombs equals a "quagmire".

Yeah, we got it. They're voting for a permanent government today, as we speak, for the first time in Arab history. Ever.

Ever.

That's following the Iraqi Presidential debates that I wrote about above, that you are oblivious to because you did not bother to read it, and I'm guessing a lot of major media did not bother to report on. That's a first for the Arab world as well. Ever. (The debates, not the media behavior, which I also wrote on, which you did not bother to read.)

So the world has changed in the past 24 hours, for the better, for those who have even a passing interest in the spread of representative government to a people formerly ruled by a tyrant are rightfully celebrating that.

But the Euro-Left, and the American hard left, loves tyrants, always has, always will, and can respond to these events with nothing more than mopery, cynicism, and downright fury that the Baathists and Jihadists are being sidelined. Free people governing themselves is boring. It doesn't have that delightful frission of revolutionary violence and terror.

We got that too.

The purple finger tolls for thee.

(BTW, that wasn't my line you mention, it was Austin Bay's, who has served in Iraq and understands the situation better than either one of us.)

Andrew X wrote: "Yeah, we got it. They're voting for a permanent government today, as we speak, for the first time in Arab history. Ever."

Bullshit.

I could name several examples, but will choose one I find particularily illuminating. In 1972, Lebanon held free - relatively speaking - parliamentary elections.

While the elections were in fact flawed for a number of reasons, the same thing was true for the National Assembly elections in Iraq in January and the same thing will probably be true for todays elections.

Obviously, this does not change the fact that, as an Iraqi I just saw on TV said, this is a major step for Iraq. Todays Iraqis were partying in the streets.

However, few would disagree that there are forces that are more than interested in pushing these elections in the "right" direction. Amongst these are forces who have the means to do so, whether through financial pressure, through playing on tribal loyalties or through scaring people away from the ballots. As another Iraqi said in the same news report; "Yes, there is corruption. Every Iraqi can feel that".

Thus the Iraqi elections do not represent much new, instead they represent something the Arab world has seen before; elections that are free "to a certain degree".

I do not believe that is the Americans fault. In Iraq, it was the Coalition forces that made anything resembling free elections possible.

It is worth remembering that the elections in 1972 were the last elections before civil war broke out in Lebanon. The parliament that had been elected became the "war parliament" and would choose no less than five presidents; none off them - of course - being elected in the official hall of parliament. I do not say that Iraq will turn out in a similar way, however there is a distinct danger that it may.

To avoid this it helps knowing a bit about what went wrong in Lebanon.

I can't say I know much about it, but I do hope that the advisors of both the current Iraqi leadership and the advisors off George W. Bush know better than pretending that what happens in Iraq these days have never happened before. If not, I am afraid that this election can soon become precisely what it has called repeatedly... historical; belonging to the past.

There are many reasons this risk exists, but scandals like Abu Ghraib, which Washington DC will have to take responsibility for regardless of its excuses and regardless of what nationality the journalists first exposing them had, have been counterproductive.

Western support for undemocratic regimes throwing "democratic" elections in other parts of the Muslim world is equally so. They are one off several reasons The United States have not been able to sell their argument that the Iraq war was about promoting democracy to neither the Arab Street nor the Arab Alley.

This is a time to cross fingers, however, and hope that the Iraqi elections is the beginning of a true democracy, and not the end of another attempt.

A discussion regarding what we can do to promote that would be much more interesting than comments about the stupid "Euro-Left". This discussion does, however, demand a certain self-criticism both amongst "Euro-Leftists" and American rightwingers.

Oddly, Bush seems to have more off this talent than Andrew X does. Perhaps he just has better advisors.

Øyvind, (Iraqi ex-pat)

You're missing an important point. This isn't about the Iraqi election or bringing democracy to the ME. No one gives a shit about you people. It's about giving that fscked up culture/religion of yours one more chance to get your shit together, or else. It's up to you to decide what you do with it. It's not up to us. It's up to you.

Øyvind: But is it still worth keeping it as an ideal? Well, that depends. To continually seek truth should of course be the ideal of any researcher, any journalist, any blogger. But to combine this search for the unattainable objectiveness with pretending to actually have attained objectiveness will fail.

But then you're not really searching for the truth, if you mistakenly think you've found it. Objectivity is not to pretend that you have the truth, but to work towards it, and try to know your distance to it. The difficulty of the last part is often overlooked - no matter how much we know about a subject, our instinct is to think that we know even more than we really do, to always err on the side of arrogance. It's good to know, but in a way better to know how much (or little) you know.

I agree that objectivity is not a practical goal for media, it's difficult, counterintuitive and unprofitable. But I don't think we should lower our standards to a level that is "practical" for the media. At least I'm not willing to for myself. And if we think of objectivity as an honest search for truth, and not as the truth itself, then it's not an utopian goal, just difficult to reach.

Lene: Lets argue about what we could have done better when the job is complete. Internationalism on behalf of freedom is a virtue.

Yes, but we can argue about the war debate itself, and try to learn from that. That's mostly what I'm doing here, I don't know how Iraq is turning out and we may only later be able to accurately assign praise or blame, but I can look back on how I and others discussed the war, and decide that I don't want to repeat the mistakes I made in that.

Perry de Havilland: All news media is biased, the difference is bloggers (usually) admit it.

Oh, but we have just as great egos as the big media. And isn't that much of the problem, arrogance? Also, acknowledging your bias is a step in the right direction, but not very useful unless it is followed by the next step: Trying to overcome it.

Mark: I have engaged in alot of back and forth with my liberal friends on the whole "Bush Lied; People died" claim

That claim is false, I don't believe he did much lying. But he was dishonest. I really recommend that you read the Spinsanity book, or at least go through their archives, (the blog is dead now). The problem is that we think in extremes: Bush is honest, or no he isn't, and we have 20 angry books by loyal partisans to prove it. Then we forget that there are ways to be dishonest without telling lies.

Andrew X: Yes, we all "spin". That is not lying, it is making your case.

Yes, I suppose we all do it. If you apply for a job, you play up all your strengths, and don't mention your weaknesses. If you're accused of having made a costly mistake, you defend yourself, and blame bad luck, or other people. Some are better at this than others. They work hard to make sure everyone they meet know that they're the hero or martyr of their life story, and they succeed. These people are charming, likeable, they talk well, and they rewrite reality almost without thinking about it.

All very human. But do you not have a problem with nation leaders behaving the same way on a massive scale, the best of the best of our charismatics helped in their work by professional propagandists and an army of partisans? Sure we have to expect it, like we expect corruption in the justice system, and bias in the media, but do we also have to defend it, and say that it's "good enough"? Shouldn't we try to fight it instead?

Regarding Bush's competence, I happen to think the naivete of many of his opponents staggers the mind.

How does the incompetence of his opponents make Bush competent?

All that democratizing movement, and weakening of autocracy that we see, in Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Libya, Saudi, etc? Forget it.

Things that happen after each other aren't necessarily linked.

I think I could add to this list every five minutes, but I'll stop now.

Okay. Now I want you to make a list of reasons why the war might have been a bad idea.

James of England: I wish that the crazy arguments were just those made my the insignificant, but the Iraq war approaches trade in the degree that crazy beliefs and incoherent positions *are* the European mainstream.

That's partly true, and my point is not that those crazy views shouldn't be criticized, and that it isn't bad that so many Europeans have them. My point is that when we focus on the wackoes, we risk overlooking the sane people who also disagree with us, and so we won't hear their arguments. Maybe they're weak arguments, but then maybe they're good arguments, and we'll never hear them. How can you know that your views are solid, when you've only tested them against followers of Michael Moore? Anyone can do that, it's not a challenge. That's like boasting you have the world's most powerful army .. and then proving it by invading Canada. Okay, so you got the Canadians, and maybe that was a good thing, but it doesn't tell us much about the abilities of your army.

It's much harder to be a good lier when you're high, sleep deprived, and in pain.

It's also harder not to tell your investigators what they want to hear, even though you'll have to make it up. But practical issues aside, torture is wrong because it will happen to innocent people. That also applies to indeterminate detention. If you haven't yet been convicted in an independent court, there is no way to be confident that you're guilty, and so we have to set the standard of treatment by the assumption that you're innocent.

Why do you think we're losing?

I don't think you're losing. But I'm not confident that Iraq will hold up when you leave. Maybe it will, and maybe it won't, and as you say that's how we'll know if it was all worth it.

judith l. miley: It is unfortunate that your resolve has dissolved.

It's not a matter of resolve. I'm not suffering anything here, I don't have family or friends in Iraq, and I'm not there myself. To me this is a question of truth. The arguments I used to support the war were either good or bad, bravery and "resolve" had nothing to do with it, and while they're admirable qualities they can be taken too far, if they get in the way of an accurate understanding of the situation. First you analyze, then you place your bets. Pretending that the world looks differently because you want it to has nothing to do with resolve, that's like being on the battlefield and thinking you're invulnerable to bullets.

lucklucky: No it wasnt. It was the WMD, that is much more than Nukes.

Only in the sense that that was the word they used. But whenever Bush said "weapons of mass destruction", his listeners thought "nuclear weapons". Chemical and biological weapons are horrible, but that's all they are. Nuclear weapons make you untouchable, they guarantee that any sane country will do just about anything to avoid a direct conflict with you.

Shannon Love: Nobody expected that Saddam would be able to produce nuclear weapons of any kind in any time frames of less than a decade and only then without sanctions

Then I'm certainly a fool for having gotten that impression.

If you thought "nukes" every time Bush said WMD's then that is not Bush's fault. Its yours for not researching the technical issues involved.

It certainly is. I'll try to pay closer attention the next time.

Anders: We had bad luck? Well, so did Iraqi civilians who had war brought to their country and have been killed in thousands for bogus reasons.

If Iraq is able to achieve stability, then I'll count the Iraqi people lucky. They would not have been able to rid themselves of Saddam Hussein as quickly on their own, and he was a vastly more efficient and capricious killer than the Americans have been. It's not even comparable.

The reason I talk about luck is that luck is a factor in everything we do. Nothing is given, big historical events no more than anything else. Let us imagine that there was a 99% chance of Iraq having become stable and peaceful by now. Success would have been more than probable enough to justify an invasion, and yet it might still have gone wrong. So it's not enough to look at how it went. We have to consider the possibility that everything that could have been expected to ensure success was done, and that we were simply unlucky.

The war in Iraq is one case. It's not all cases.

If we look backwards, yes. Looking forwards, Iraq is a million possibilities, and possibilities were the basis we had for making our choices in 2003. They're all we have.

Oyvind -

Good stuff. Makin' me think. That's why we're here.

Lebabon, 1972 - Lebanon existed under the National Pact, namely that power and top positions (President and Prime Minister, etc) were to be apportioned between Christian, Shia, and Sunni at ratios set ahead of time. The leaders were elected by prlimentarians, not the general population as we see in Iraq today.

http://www.ghazi.de/governm.html#nation

Still, previous to Iraq of late, yes, these were the closest the Arab world has had to free elections, and Lebanon has always been seen as the most cosmopolitan Arab nation, no coinicidence.

RE:"However, few would disagree that there are forces that are more than interested in pushing these elections in the "right" direction." --

When is this NOT true in an election? The question is, are they cheating or lawbreaking in doing so? That remains to be seen, but flaws and problems nonwithstanding (Florida, Germany recently, etc.), the very fact of doing so in an EXPECTATION that it will be free and fair, that the people are ENTITLED to that and within their rights to demand it, is new and enormously powerful to the entire Arab world, and I think we are in agreement there.

Whether we agree that it is worth fighting for is a different question.

RE:"Thus the Iraqi elections do not represent much new, instead they represent something the Arab world has seen before; elections that are free "to a certain degree"."

We all know strongman rule is the way of the world in the Arab world, and in it's primary nations, Egypt, Syrai, Iraq, Saudi, and beyond. It is breaking that reality that this war is about. I could argue it was from the start, but it certainly is that right now.

RE: Abu Ghraib

History will record that the US Army was well into investigating and charging people for Abu Ghraib three months before the story broke. Since, the President has accepted responsibiltiy, court martials have been convened, and the legal process proceeds publicly. You write as though none of that is true.

As I have said, that was a terrible and inexcusable thing, but only small part of a picture well-placed media critics of the war used to bludgeon Mr. Bush and the Army over, while ignoring a host of sacrifices being made by US soldiers to build and secure the economy and infrastructure of Iraq. That latter story is, I guess, just boring or something, and flat out not being told. But today's events, which you agree are a good start, would NOT have happened at all without those terribly ignored sacrifices.

Note if you will, the extraordinary statistics compiled by the Brookings Institution, no conservative think tank by any stretch. Many but not all support my analysis, but look at them and make your own conclusions. It's an extradrdinary document. Thanks to Rupert, up there.

http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

To wrap up, "a discussion regarding what we can do to promote real democracy in Iraq" would be welcome, but my very first post here (12-14:05.02)
mentioned the number of realities that the US and the world would HAVE to deal with had there been NO Operation Iraqi Freedom, and primary among those is the fact that democratic forces made virtually NO progress whatsoever in the 20 years prior to 2003. D'ya think the fact that multi-billionaire dictatorial strongmen who would use murder and terror to rabidly stamp out any hint of it, in their own countries and other Arab states as well, had anything to do with that?

In a nutshell, nothing was going to change as long as Saddam sat on his throne of skulls, and changing the dynamics of a corrupt and terrorism fostering Middle East ("draining the swamps") is what the Bush administration said this war was about within a week of 9/11. That has never changed.

What others say about their reasons has changed all over the map. But for them, for all of us really, it's just talk in the end.

Today, freedom has made a big step. That is cause for rejoicing.

Bjorn -

RE: "Spin" We are arguing the validity and reasoning of the war. It is just like a case in court. If Bush is "spinning", so to are his opponents, so the opposition is just as invalid. I don't buy the premise of "spinning on a massive scale". I simply believe that what was said by politicians and Intel people in 1990-2000, was believed by them then, and significant counter-data came to light in 2000-2003. Meanwhile, 9/11 changed radically the entire way the US looked at the Middle East and it's dangers. It would have been insane for it not to.

It is up to all of us to voraciously collect whatever info we can on this, and judge accordingly. What we write here today is part of that, and God bless you, Bjorn, for providing one of mnay forums. The 2004 election was largely on the one single question of Iraq. We have the answer, it's about 53% for Bush, 47% against.

What we see since has to do with just how determined we are as a nation to see it through, and how naive we may or may not be regarding what success will require.

When I compare "Bush's competence to his opponents", the point is, if Joe Smith is on trial, and his prosecution is incompetent... and his defense is incompetent.... um, just who IS competent around here? Perhaps the observers (i.e. journalists) making the judgement are the only competent ones? That's a smidge self-serving.

If the opposition to an "incompetent" policy are themselves demonstrably "incompetent", then maybe the original premise of incompetence deserves a second look. That's my point. If there is some "middle ground" between invading and not invading that is different from the failed middle ground of 1991-2000 (shredded sanctions, starving children, Saddam still firmly in charge, etc), I sure can't see it, nor have I hear it from anyone else.

Regarding the democratizing of the middle east (which you don't dispute) "not necessarily linked" to the fall of Saddam, yes, I not the "necessarily" caveat. Look at it as an enginneer. You have a line. How about one of the UN's "freedom index". That line, for the Arab world, is virtually flat, or on a slight down or up tilt, just slight, for thirty years.

Suddenly, there is a radical shift in that line. Any engineer is going to say, "something happened here. Somehting had to. This isn't just a random shift". What is the most significant event in the Arab world since 2000? More to the point, what is the SECOND most significant event (maybe untrelated to Iraq) that could cause these changes? Anything? Anyone? I'd like to hear some that cannot be traced back to the toppling of Saddam as a major factor.

"Okay. Now I want you to make a list of reasons why the war might have been a bad idea."

THAT is a fantastic request. I've written a lot, so let me sit on that for a moment. I could list things said by others that I have an answer to, but I've already said a lot of that here, and elsewhere. Let me ponder. I might ask opponents of the war to do the opposite as well.

(this is fun)

Ahhhh!!!

Correction to above,

I simply believe that what was said by politicians and Intel people in 1990-2000, was believed by them then, and ** NO ** significant counter-data came to light in 2000-2003.

Completely changes the meaning of the sentence. D'oh!

Björn,

First, I think you can sleep well after the elections. At least the people seemed enthused.

Second, all efforts should be focused on assisting Iraq in building a solid democracy including all the services neccessary for a modern civilized country. The success of this democratic experience will rest upon getting all community services in place and running.
(Norways one man support is just absurd).

The main lesson from this war, how to fight terrorists, is what the western culture should embrace and they should train their security forces accordingly.

--by implying a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11,--

food for thought, somewhat recent Instapundit posting.

IIRC, over 70-75% on 9/11 or 9/12 thought Saddam had a part in it.

Could it be because of 8 years of Bubba and what he said???? This didn't come out of the blue sky, there was history there.

-- Humvv unable to cope with IEDs and no flexibility and solution --

Humvees weren't designed for that, that's why they weren't able to cope w/them, lucky.

What they're doing now is hiding the IEDs in look-alikecinderblocks which is a common sight on the side of the road. We're only getting about 40% of them.

We've been dealing with the Iraq war over at The Foundation, and there is one really good article (and some other not half bad, but obviously ideological) there about the justification for the Iraq war, it deals with facts only, not ideological stuff, its interesting, especially comparing it to the more partisan essays found there.
Here is a link for that Essay.
http://thefoundationofknowlege.blogspot.com/2005/12/another-essay.html
Peace,
Chris

OH, Bjorn...

--All that democratizing movement, and weakening of autocracy that we see, in Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Libya, Saudi, etc? Forget it.

Things that happen after each other aren't necessarily linked. ----

Via Instapundit:

http://freedomforegyptians.blogspot.com/2005/12/i-cried-when-i-saw-this-picture.html

The US liberated Iraq and heralded freedom and democracy in the entire Middle East. Before March 2003, there were no popular movements in Egypt like “Kefaya”, Doctors for change”, “Writers for change”, “Journalists for Change” and “Children for Change”…etc. I had never heard of one single demonstration in any street before Iraq. In Lebanon, Syria was manipulating the Lebanese and taking all their income. Now, the Lebanese people are determined to win their freedom and independency. In Saudi Arabia, who could have ever believed that women would go to vote as in Jeddah? In all Gulf countries, at least now there is a female minister or member of parliament at countries where women’s place was their home regardless of their education."

--http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/george-bush-gains-fans-in-unexpected.html--

------

They're going to do what they think is just enough to get US off their backs, but the genie is starting to come out of the bottle.

Same w/the Chicoms.

Also via Instapundit:

STRATEGYPAGE on the Iraqi elections:

This relentless progress of democracy is causing quite a commotion throughout the Arab world. While it is fashionable to denounce the American presence in Iraq, and what the Americans were doing, the Arab language buzz on the net is going in unexpected directions. Because of al Jazeera and the Internet, young Arabs everywhere are not only able to observe what it happening in Iraq, but to discuss it with young Iraqis. These discussions are not noted much in the West, because they generally take place in Arabic, and often via email and listservs. The non-Iraqi Arabs are impressed at the proliferation of media in Iraq, and the eagerness of Iraqis to vote, and make democracy work. The economic growth in Iraq is admired, and is already attracting entrepreneurs from other Arab countries. The more cynical non-Iraqis believe that it will all come to nothing, and that another Saddam will eventually emerge and shut down all this democratic nonsense, as is the case in most of the Arab world. But the pessimists appear to be in the minority. Arabs are tired of dictators, economic stagnation, the corruption and living in a police state. Moreover, there’s a nimble quality in Arab thinking that allows them to simultaneously blame the Americans for going into Iraq, and praising the result.

Read the whole thing.
----
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iraq/articles/20051218.aspx

'
.....France does not like America. Neither, for that matter, does Germany and several other European nations. All those lovely headlines about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s recent visit, suggesting that Europeans will forgive us for killing their Arab friends in response to 9-11, are the foolish notion of journalists who haven’t a clue that Europe has been taken over by Arabs in particular and Muslims in general.......'

.
......many Americans still want to believe that Islamists, the extreme Muslims characterized by the Taliban and al Qaeda, are just a minority of greater Islam and, once isolated and destroyed, we will be embraced by those to whom we have brought freedom and democracy is dreaming. Recent history, however, bears witness to the fact that Arab Muslims kill each other with impunity to insure Jihad succeeds. Why would we ever think they would not want to continue to kill us as well? .......'

read on >>>>>>>

http://www.annaqed.com/english/politics/call_it_eurabia_now_alan_caruba.html

and 'everything you wanted to know about Islam and how all these discussions in this blog can be seen in the proper perspective without all the obfuscation that purported centrists and radical and moderate european leftists would like to offer us in their attempts to 'explain' away Islam's actions. READ ON --->

http://www.islamundressed.com/#_Toc113793227

Gracias,

Sister Ayesha N. Kim

It is commendable to change ones mind and if it is done as publickly as the host of this site has done, doubly so. Takes balls, as our American friends call it.

What amazes me the most is the almost total and ever increasing lack of comprehension between average American and European in most crucial issues. Is it that we have taken the different forks on a evolutionary ( or intelligently designed ) road? Is it that taming the man has happened with two different speeds in the respective continents? Here using the stick is getting less and less attractive option as a tool to settle conflicts between the nations.

In closing I also want to point out that the precieved anti Americanism is not necessaryly so. Most of the time the loud protests are just expressions of profound disappointment in what could have been and in what have been lost.

A lot of people have a fascination for spreading democracy in the Greater Middle East. Many people believe this to be vital to American interests. That has to be LONG term interest. Democracy is nice, but the transistion to democracy is not nearly as often nice. I recommend a recent article titled "Can Democracy Stop Terrorism?" in the well-renowned journal "Foreign Affairs" (Vol. 84 No. 5 Sept/Oct). There F. Gregory Gause III writes:

"If Arab governments were democratically elected and more representative of public opinion, they would be more anti-American" (pp.70)

Anyone who cares to read any survey material from the Arab world would have to acknowledge that the Arab street is by and large fiercely anti-American.

Another problem is of course "bogus" elections. Saddam had a few. And there was something called an election to install the fantastic new Iranian President. Yet, can we be sure that if elections were more fair in Iran would Ahmadinejad not have been elected....? I'm not sure about that. People tend to forget that democracies have the capacity to produce horrible leaders. Democracy is certainly the best form of government, but believing that it is some sort of silver bullet against terrorism is a bit naive.

"There is no reason to believe that a move toward more democracy in Arab states would deflect al Qaeda from its course" (Gause III 2005:70)

Merry Christmas T'Y'all

Bjorn,

Much of what you wrote is an honest evaluation and look back on the events that lead us into a war with Iraq, and I find we share some common ground. I too was in favor of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. But like many, I did not fully understand the overwhelming financial infrastructure and resources that had long ago been established by a multitude of Islamic jihadist organizations, nor comprehend their capacity to sustain a Jihad. Therefore, my evaluation differs slightly from yours.

First, there appeared to be several possible motivations for entering into this conflict:

1. The fear Saddam Hussein will use nuclear and chemical weapons indiscriminately.
2. A moral obligation to free a repressed Iraqi and Kurdish population under Saddam Hussein.
3. Stabilization of the oil supply.
4. Retaliation for 911.
5. A commitment to defend the Israeli’s.

In response to Item 1: On December 14, 2005 President Bush was finally forced to admit in public that the war in Iraq was caused by "faulty intelligence." Only GWB knows how honest he's been. I still believe he is competent, however now much wiser. Therefore, I’m reluctant to call him a liar. He’s got a tough job with many pulling him in different directions.

In response to Item 2: This could be a valid argument, but Iraq was not posing a threat to the USA or other nations. However, if this argument is justifiable we should also have gone after the repressive Sudanese government long ago.

In response to Item 3: The best way to stabilize the oil market is to start drilling within our own territories where there is an abundant supply. Unfortunately, environmental regulations, partially funded by lobbyist bankrolled by the royal house of Saud remain ever powerful. The belief that crude oil is a fossil fuel is now being challenged by the scientific community, and someday we may find that oil is a bio-product of a continuing biochemical reaction below the earth's surface, which also explains why we continue to find and drill for oil in extreme depths all over the world.

In response to Item 4: The real culprits behind 911 is the vast worldwide financial networks that support the Islamic jihadist. You must understand the Islamic jihadists goals are to destroy the West and bring it forcibly into the Islamic world. Again, the bigger player was Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

In response to Items 5: The roots of the current problem with terrorism in the world today can be traced back to the Jewish terrorism in the 1940's, led by Menachem Begin's Irgun Gang and Yitzhak Shamir's Stern Gang that ultimately forced the British to leave Palestine. Thus, the Israeli State was founded on terrorism. As Jesus said in Matt. 26:52, "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword." Please understand, I align myself with no one in this conflict. President Bush needs to recognize that he cannot fight Arab terrorism while supporting Jewish terrorism. The Bible makes it very clear that our judgments must not be partial. (Ex. 23:1-8; Mal. 2:9; James 2:4) Jews are not God's privileged people. The biblical prophets make that very clear. For a detailed study see the book, "The Struggle for the Birthright," by Steven Jones.

You are correct when you say: “The Americans are not anything like the Baath's, but their actions have served the propaganda of their opponents. That was dumb and counterproductive”. Therefore, it was encouraging to note that on December 15 President Bush was forced to agree to ban the use of torture by redefinition to include banning physical pain on detainees.

As for a democratic revival and stability in the Middle East; that will not happen until the repressive religion of Islam has been kicked out the door. Only those in bondage to this religion can do that. Our interests as Westerners can best be served by being salt and light.

--Most of the time the loud protests are just expressions of profound disappointment in what could have been and in what have been lost. --

EUtopia - this time it's really, really REALLy going to work.

Honest.

Europe had US then 9/11. And we woke up. And remembered our roots.

Europe had US then 9/11. And we woke up. And remembered our roots.

Israel?

Those are yours, too, Cory, but that wasn't exactly what I was thinking.

colonialism.

Geronimo,

Being born of Jihad, every single muslim state was born of terrorism. Israel's main enemies are these Jihadi strongholds located inside and around it. Why it is you wish to withdraw support for Israel, a natural and active ally in the fight against the Jihadis, in favor of her enemies, the Jihadis? I don't follow your "logic".

Sandy,

The evils of colonialism have often been over rated.

It's actually produced many good things in the world (like me) and look at what happened when all those colonial states handed control back to the natives!!

Cheers
Cory.

Geronimo and Mika,

Islam is a territorial religion. Muslims sacralize their grounds and to have Jews ruling over arabs is intolerable. Geronimo are you calling for the dissolution of Israel, the only beacon of decency , democracy and rationality in the midst of allahic mayhem and murder?

Muslims worship a 'God' that has spatial coordinates on the surface of the planet. In tandem with your religious beliefs does that not strike you as odd that a supreme entity the creator of the vast universe would be restricted to a cubical structure with spatial coordinates somewhere in the environs of Mekka?

Sister Rebekka Kim

specialist in dangerous religious cults
דת מסוכנת ומומחה של כת
危險的宗教和宗教崇拜專家
اختصاصي الدين و العبادة خطير.

Beth Chayesh Chadashim
Kibbutz Ha'arotz

"..does that not strike you as odd that a supreme entity the creator of the vast universe would be restricted to a cubical structure with spatial coordinates somewhere in the environs of Mekka?"

Sister Rebekka,

God needs money. (So do his trusted guardians). Now that the muzzi faithful know god's address, they also know where to send this money. (Part of their religious duty. One of the "pillars of Islam").

PS,
That should be:

מומחת של דת מסוכנת ושל כת

Sister Rebekka Kim and Mika,

First and foremost, I’m a student of history. I have been captivated by history from my youth; however, the past fifteen years have been spent trying to understand the various civilizations that gave birth to Western Civilization. The selfish side was tgw search for my own "Roots". Some may know I'm an American of Norwegian descent. As an American I’m naturally interest in American History, including Native American history. To gain proper perspective that requires knowledge of European History, Middle East, and Far East History. My faith as a Christian and the total lack of any teaching regarding Christian History requires kneading secular and biblical history for hard answers: a task secularists loath.

The conflict over Palestine is not simple, cut, and dry. I challenged you to read; Steven Jones "The Struggle for the Birthright", or “One Man’s Destiny” by C.R. Dickey. I can not respond in short, what has taken me years to learn. Much of what we generally believe is based on a narrow perspective. For example; if all you know about Israel becoming a nation in 1949 comes from the book “Exodis” by Leon Uris, or watched the movie by the same name directed by Otto-Preminger, you would be very poorly informed. I deplore Islam and what it has done to deceive man; therefore I share much with what Oriana Fallaci writes regarding this subject, yet she is an Athiest.

Note those who call themselves citizens of the current state/nation of Israel call themselves Israeli, not Israelites; subtle clues. There are many atrocities and examples of mans inhumanity to man committed on both sides. There is no moral ground regarding this conflict, although most of us tend to sympathize with the Israeli's; even myself at time.

Once you have familiarize yourself with the history behind this conflict you can answer most of the questions you ask of me yourself.

"Note those who call themselves citizens of the current state/nation of Israel call themselves Israeli, not Israelites; subtle clues."

Subtle clues to what? What's the mystery we're trying to solve here?

Mika,

There is no mystery. Do the reading yourself, please do not rely on me for answers. I can point you in the right direction, and I already gave you some excellent references. These are by no means the only authorities. History is like a 100,000 piece puzzle. In 15 years I assembled maybe half the pieces, enough to understand the gospels and OT are very accurate. The only problem for you and I are the many missing details that make it seem like a mystery. I’m basically a Thomas, i.e., I need to see the scars, touch the wound, witness the battles, and connect the dots; it’s my burden and bent. My prayer for myself has always been for wisdom. You see Mika, I’m not terribly bright. So, to tell you anything else would be the blind-leading-the-blind.

Again, read: The Struggle for the Birthright. I can be downloaded as a PDF free at: http://www.gods-kingdom.org/Birthright/Default.htm

One Man’s Destiny by C.R. Dickey can be purchase on line from several sources, including Amazon, but I suggest http://www.artisanpublishers.com/

A Very Merry Christmas to All

Geronimo,

You were trying to imply something by pointing out that modern Israelis call themselves Israelis, as opposed to calling themselves Hebrews, Judeans, Israelites, or whatever. You're the one that brought this up. I'm asking you to clarify. What was your point in saying such?

Further, earlier you said that we should withdraw support for Israel because as you say, "the roots of the current problem with terrorism in the world today can be traced back to the Jewish terrorism terrorism in the 1940's". I pointed out the factual error and logical inconsistency in such a statement, and I have yet to hear you address it. Are you still of such opinion?

Further still, although earlier I have not called you on it, you make another patently false assertion when you claim the "Israeli State was founded on terrorism". The Stern Gang was a marginal group in Israeli politics. On the very rare occasion they managed to pull an operation, the target served hostile military interests. The most controversial of these operation was the targeting of the King David hotel in Jerusalem. But if blame is going to be assigned, you can blame the British who used that building as their communications headquarter. The same British, whose navy blocked immigration of Jews from Europe to Israel. To many Jews such actions made the British largely culpable for the death of millions of European Jews. Jews that could otherwise have escaped Nazi barbarism to relative safety in Israel.

Another point. It wasn't the Stern Gang or terrorism that "forced" the British out in 1948. Not by a long shot. Rather, it was common decency in the aftermath of the holocaust, the expiration of their mandate, a UN vote, and Israelis declaring their Independence at the end of that mandate. You say you are a student of history. I have to remark, you are either a very poor student, or you have an agenda that you're trying to mask under the cover of ignorance. In any case, you have yet to back up any of your assertions. And referring me to others is not going to do it. It's not them that are putting forth these statements here, it is you.

Shalom brother Mika,

מומחת של דת מסוכנת ושל כת

Toda raba Rabbi Mika.

I bet you'll make a good mohel...from 'goy' to 'moy' ;)

Hey, i'm just a simple QOReAN buddhist kuntry girl rooting for Israel :) !!!

but do check this out---->

http://www.masada2000.org/nobel.html

( why is there a dearth of noble prize winners from the muslim world?)

Scientific veracities definitely present a challenge to orthodox muslims (and some christians )who take scriptural writings as sacrosanct and immutable -- a horrible recipe for ignorance, stagnation , retrogression and suppression of the evolutionary potential of the human species.

Certain alien species in the distant past of humanity have introduced powerful psychotronic control of the human mind via memetic tools such as 'religion' and 'dogmas'. This powerful psychologic and psychotronic tools are meant to imprison the human mind and limit the human potential.

Buddhism on the contrary is a non revealed , maverick 'religion' which demands thinking and rational contemplation of the human condition ....evolving a very high system of ethics and morality while dispensing away with superstition and the intervention of a bloodthirsty and vengeful Deity.

check out :

www.xfacts.com
www.ancientX.com
www.sitchin.com

http://www.accampbell.uklinux.net/essays/skeptic/narrative.html ( the origin of religion)


http://www.geocities.com/scimah/memes.htm ( meme theory and religion )

http://www.geocities.com/scimah/mathematics.htm ( Buddhism, mind, mathematics and meta-mathematics)

http://www.geocities.com/scimah/idols.htm ( response to an islamic critique of Buddhism )

Sister Ayesha Nyanyaponika Kim

Regarding Geronimo's comments,

Perhaps the following info may help us understand why it is imperative for Israel to survive:

For very graphic videos of how muslim treat collaborators and POW SCROLL DOWN TO 'PROTECT YOUR THROAT' ON THE LEFT HAND COLUMN

WARNING VERY GRAPHIC VIDEOS -- DO NOT WATCH IF FAINT OF HEART.

click on links:

http://www.masada2000.org/index.html

http://www.masada2000.org/realwar.html

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?
id=2747 ( first the saturday people -- this article by Jack Engelhard proved prophetic !!!)

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=5749 ( toulouse burning ....)

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=5776 ( happy days for france :)

Sister Rebekka Kim
Kibbutz Beit Guvrin

ohhh Geronimo and Mika,

one more thing ...the jews are truly the 'miner's canary' of the world !

read on:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=5180

תודה רבה

Sister Rebekka Kim
Kibbutz Ein Hamifratz

위험한 종교 전문가

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR TO Y'ALL

also on this festive season would all muslims and others out there reflect on this:

http://members.aol.com/yahyam/mvegetarian.html

http://www.ivu.org/news/1-96/muslim.html


http://198.65.147.194/English/Science/2001/01/article5.shtml

by the way jesus was a vegetarian

see links:

http://www.jesusveg.com/index2.html

http://www.soystache.com/jesus.htm

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/4620/essene.htm


http://www.ivu.org/history/christian/christ_veg.html


Sister Rebekka Kim
Essenic messianic-buddhist Jewess

PS:

also check out this link------>

http://www.geocities.com/scimah/Sentientbeings.htm

Rabbi mika! LOL!

Actually, I recently took a test and it was determined that I'm a "Satanist".

Having said that, I have no problem with a bloodthirsty and vengeful deity. Kinda fits with my personality and philosophy. "He who is kind to the cruel, is cruel to the kind."

But you're quite right in saying that Jews are the 'miner's canary' of the world. And I'd like to tie this in to your comment about Islam being a territorial religion. As you say, Muslims sacralize the ground they conquer as dar al Islam. To have others later reassert their sovereignty on that ground is unacceptable to Muslims. This is essentially the conflict we're seeing in Israel. It is a microcosm of and what I believe will unfold on a macro scale the rest of the world.

Under Islamic conquest, many peoples were forcibly robed in the clothing of Arab nationalism, ethnicity, culture, history, language, religion, etc. As the failed Islamic Empire and Archetype further loses strength, the Jihadi empire will begin to unravel and disintegrate. People will start to seek and reassert their original identity (as the Jews have), or seek a new non Islamic identity. Jews living under the Ottoman's rule, were the first to break free from the Islamists. With the democratization project(s) now underway in the area, other peoples will soon follow. That's the general trend I see evolving. That's the reason Jihadists will not come to terms with Israel. Israel represents the beginning of the end for them. That's the reason they try and assassinate it by any means at their disposal.

What strikes me about Geronimo's statements, is that with all his professed years of schooling, he seems to be completely ignorant of some very important insight. When one talks of the Jewish religion, one needs to be very careful. The Bible is not just is a vessel of the Jewish "religion", is it a vessel of Jewish language, law, ethics, culture, tradition, ethnicity, history, national ethos. God was the mechanism the state used to unite the nation, but having at least 4000 years of common history (See tablet dated to the reign of the grandfather of Amraphel), 3500 after the conquest of Jerusalem, national ethos can be just as a good a devise for such a purpose. How many egyptians today would be able to conversate with the ancient Pharaonic Princes and Priests of Egypt? How many Iraqis today would be able to conversate with the ancient Hammurabi Kings and Priests? How many Italians today would be able to conversate with the not so ancient Romans? How many Tunisians today would be able to conversate with the great people of Carthage? Carthage (from the Phoenician Qart-Hadasht "New City". Written without vowels as QRT HDŠT קרת חדשת). Yet ask any 6th grader in Israel today, and he will not only be able to perfectly conversate with King David and King Solomon, but that secular 6th grader would be more nuances in Jewish thought and religious philosophy than the Temple Priests of the day!

Happy Hanukah, Merry Christmas and a Happy New year!
And to you Sister Kebekka, Happy Festivus! ;)

Sorry Sister Kim. Somehow Sister Kim and Rebekka got truncated into Kebbekka. And that should read 'nuanced in Jewish thought'.

Did you say you were jewish ? Modern hebrew is a contrived language with many new words invented for modernity. I guess the grammar and syntax did not change much because of continuous usage of the language in religion, unlike demotiki greek and katharevousa greek or attic greek where there is much difference in the ancient and modern form

ex: kalimera = good morning /modern greek

kali himera = good morning/katharevousa greek

"Goy goy, y'makh sh'moy, ki leoylom khasdoy " ;)!

Yiddisch is still popular, but Ladino is a dying breed.

Froehliches Weihnachtsfest und Happy Kwanzaa to you :)
بركات للسنة الجديدة
聖誕快樂 和 新年快樂
Feliz Navidad y un próspero año nuevo

Rebekka Kim Goldstein
Kibbutz Hamaapil

LOL! Emmanuel Goldstein!

"Did you say you were jewish ?"

No, I did not say. But I am. More Judean, than Jewish. I figured you figured as much.

"Modern Hebrew is a contrived language with many new words invented for modernity. "

I have to disagree. By your definition any modern language is a contrived language. For any language to evolve into modernity, new words need to be introduced, often borrowed from foreign sources. Modern English is be a particularly strong offender in this regard. But unlike Shakespearean English, the grammar and syntax remained unchanged in modern Hebrew from that of biblical Hebrew.

It's true that many Latin or Anglicized words (for lack of a better term) were introduced into daily modern Hebrew speech. But that I believe is a temporary phenomena. The words describe modern technical concepts and terms. Obviously they could not have existed during the days of the Bible. But what I see happening with modern Hebrew is a trend to replace this Latinized verbiage with original modern Hebrew equivalents. The effort is facing some resistance right now due to the large influx of immigrants that are more comfortable using the Latin verbiage. But I think in the long term, as a new generation of native born Israelis becomes schooled in the Hebrew equivalent of this technical language, you will see a gradual dying of these foreign grafts into the Hebrew script. Basically the fate facing Yiddish and Ladino.

Shalom again Rabbi Mika,

Yes, several of the people that go to our Buddhist Meditation center are of jewish heritage.They freely practise the teachings of the enlightened Buddha since buddhism is so transcultural , they do not find it in conflict with Judaism.

Islamists viciously oppresses buddhists world wide. In india islam contributed to the near extinction of buddhism. Currently the islamist hooligans in bangladesh are viciously persecuting the peaceful buddhists in the chittagong delta area. We had some interaction with local sufists . Regretfully there is also a dark side to Sufism ( which origin predates Islam and drews from the preIslamic jewish mystic sects). If i remember correctly the terrorists involved in the Beslan school massacre in russia drew their inspiration from the Sufi Naqshbandi Sect.

check these out :

http://www.kadampa.org/

http://aboutdharma.org/developing-compassion.htm

http://home.btclick.com/scimah/whatsnew.htm

http://home.btconnect.com/scimah/

Sister Rebekka Nyanyaponika Kim
Beth Kadampa Hebraica

Aum Mani Padmee Hum , Hail to the jewel in the Lotus

Regrettably much of this viciousness can be traced to old Jewish scripture. Jews have had to develop an extreme defense mechanism against the intrusion of foreign deities into their religious/political space. The Jewish state having sovereignty over terrain of extreme geographical variation, needed a mechanism to unite the diverse character of its people. A singular, abstract, and invisible deity was the solution it came up with to tackle the problem. Unfortunately, being located at the crossroads of continents, trade routes, and civilizations, Jews have had to fend off foreign religio/political influence or suffer the risk of national fracture. (See the story Ahab. Northern Israel separation from Judea, etc.). That has lead to some nasty passages in the Hebrew scripture in regards to the worship of anything other than YHVH. This scripture was later picked up by Christians and Muslims and transformed from a defensive posture to that of an offensive posture.

To me, modern Zionism, or the shared Jewish national consciousness, is more than enough to define my Israeli nationality. I don't need to believe in, or worship the deity YHVH. And I don't. Still, I am extremely averse to any Jews or Israelis should they feel the need for worship, to participate in any kind of ritual that is outside the Jewish tradition. That would include Buddhist meditation.

Mika,

why would you be averse to Bddhst meditation which is applied psychlogy. If you are secure in your jewish identity and tradition you should not entertain any aversion. Why , you should even attend a mosque - some mosques invite infidels, of course with the ulterior motive of conversion LOL.

Sister Rebekka Kim
Beth kadampa mahaprasangka

Mika,

ps: bddhsm reached as far as palestine. Jesus taught a version of the bddhadharma specifically boddhicitta or teachings on compassion and kindness.

Sister Rebekka Kim

I have visited Muslim mosques and many a Christian church and cathedral. That's not the problem. As described above, the problem is one of national unity. Introducing other forms of worship, ritual, celebration, tradition, language, etc., fragments national unity. I don't want to see a balkanization of the population happening. We've been on that path. It's a recipe for disaster. Our politics is already fractious enough. That's why I'm quite content to let Yiddish, Ladino, and other foreign traditions wither away in the curriculum of higher academy. My grandparents were very proud of their Lithuanian Yiddish, and when they arrived in Israel they were extremely disheartened that that tradition was not maintained and encouraged by the state. I, on the other hand, see the wisdom in that policy and have no problems in discarding that foreign heritage.

Yeshu probably visited India. But as I related earlier, I don't particularly view these teachings of "compassion and kindness" with any kind of fondness. I find them logically contradictory and morality reprehensible.

.

Mika,
Re, your 2005-12-25 01:55 comments

A form of discredit repeated all too often against those who seek truth is name calling. Well, Mika, you are victim of “some” information and sister Kim marched in goose-step behind you. There are a number of books that chronicle the events leading up to the Israeli statehood, but “The Struggle for the Birthright” by Jones does an excellent job of kneading it all together. Let’s take your perception of history, from where ever it came, and see how it compares with the writings of those who were there.

But first, you asked: would I withdraw support from the Iserali’s? My answer depends on the type of support you refer. The problem is after 57 years the USA boxed them in on this issue because they did not understand the history behind the conflict…much like you, and they allowed themselves to be manipulated. Another question that must be asked is “could Palestinian Arabs govern themselves?

The modern idea for a Jewish nation was birthed in a book by Theodor Herzl in1897 titled The Jewish State, He became so appalled by anti-Semitism at the treason trial of Alfred Dreyfus he believed the only solution would be a Jewish state of their own.

In 1907 the first organized armed group of Zionists in Jaffa was formed called the Bar-Giora. In Dan Kurzman’s biography of former Israeli Prime Minister, Yizhak Rabin, Soldier of Peace we find The Bar-Giora, is named after the last Jewish defender of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. who took an oath, stating “In blood and fire Judea fell and in blood and fire Judea shall arise”.

In 1909 the Bar-Giora formed Hashomer , then after World War I , in 1919, Haganah was formed, which eventually transformed into the Israeli Defense Force in1948.

In 1915 the British sent Col. T. E. Lawrence to convince the Arabs to revolt against the Ottomans. This resulted in the Damascus Protocol, whereby they helped the British defeat the Ottoman Empire in exchange for the independence of all Arab land in Asia, and Palestine fell under this agreement.

Two years later the Zionists laid claim to a state of their own under the Balfour Declaration. However, Arabs had a prior right to have a Palestinian State under the Damascus Protocol. The Balfour Declaration was a letter of intent written by Britain’s Foreign Minister to Baron Lionel Rothschild on Nov. 2, 1917, saying, it favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement, however making it clearly understood that nothing shall be done to prejudice civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

The Arabs were promised independence in most of the Middle East; including Palestine, and the Jews were promised the right to immigrate to Palestine and live as equals in Arab territory. It said nothing about dispossessing Arabs or denying them political or social rights. It was understood that Arabs would continue to remain the majority population, and that the Arab-dominated government would also allow Jews to purchase land and live there with equal rights among the Arabs, if they so desired. This is not much different from Jews freely living in America today. Unfortunately Zionists ignored what it said about equal rights for all; reading in what they wanted to hear. The Balfour Declaration was used by Zionists to instill in Jews around the world the hope for a Jewish State, which ignited a fire that soon got out of control.

Between the Damascus Protocol and the Balfour Declaration, the British made a third set of promises to France and Russia by the Sykes-Picot agreement on May 16, 1916. Sir Mark Sykes of Britain and Charles Francois Georges Picot of France agreed to divide the spoils of the Ottoman Empire among three countries. France was to receive western Syria and the city of Mosul. England was to take control from Baghdad to the Persian Gulf. Russia’s share fell outside of the Middle East.

The French knew nothing of the Damascus Proocol agreements, and the Arabs knew nothing of the Sykes-Picot arrangement that totally contradicted their promises of Arab independence. Only after the Russian revolution in late 1917 did the Russian revolutionaries discover and publish these secret Tsarist papers, for Russia was part of the Sykes-Picot agreement. This was when the Arabs discovered that they had been betrayed.

On May 5, 1920 the Allied Council of Four partitioned Syria to France and gave Britain the mandate to rule Palestine. T. E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) wrote of the fraud with great bitterness in his book, Seven Pillars of Wisdom.

The British government was caught in their own a cross-fire, and knew that they had created a monster that could not be control. The British defended the Jewish Zionists only half-heartedly, while the Arabs saw that Britain had no intention of granting them independence. Betrayed by the British, many Arabs had no confidence in the British government’s will to resist the published Zionist intention of establishing a Jewish state.

With each Arab retaliation against Jewish immigrants, and seeing that the British were reluctant or unable to defend them against the Arabs, the Zionists took more and more responsibility for their self-defense. And as time passed, the people became more militant. After all, once they had accepted the basic premise of Zionism and had moved to Palestine, they had no choice but to defend themselves, which, led to the era of Jewish terrorist activity against both the Arabs and the British.

Your said: The Stern Gang was a marginal group in Israeli politics. On the very rare occasion they managed to pull an operation, the target served hostile military interests. The most controversial of these operation was the targeting of the King David hotel in Jerusalem. But if blame is going to be assigned, you can blame the British who used that building as their communications headquarter. The same British, whose navy blocked immigration of Jews from Europe to Israel. To many Jews such actions made the British largely culpable for the death of millions of European Jews. Jews that could otherwise have escaped Nazi barbarism to relative safety in Israel.

There is plenty evidence The Stern Gang was anything but a marginal group. Menachem Begin later became the head of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, the most important and effective Jewish terrorist organization in the 1940’s. In 1951 Begin wrote in his book The Revolt about Jabotinsky and the: Story of the Irgun.

Yitzhak Shamir was the second most important Jewish terrorist leader in the 1940’s, heading the Lehi (the Stern Gang), and would later to become one of Israel’s Prime Ministers. In his biography, he described the sinking of the Struma and how it affected Lehi’s decision to assassinate Britain’s Lord Moyne. On Nov. 6, 1944 two young terrorists from Yitzhak Shamir’s Lehi (Stern Gang) assassinated Britain’s Minister for Middle East Affairs, Lord Moyne, in Cairo, Egypt. The assassins were caught, tried, and hanged on Mar. 23, 1945. Jabotinsky was the spiritual inspiration behind the Jewish terrorism waged against the British by both Mr. Begin and Mr. Shamir during the 1940’s. From 1943 to 1948 the Irgun terrorists were led by Menachem Begin, who became the Likud Party’s first Prime Minister of Israel in 1977.

It was the work of the Jewish terrorists, most notably Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir that drove the British out of Palestine by handing over the problem to the newly-formed United Nations.

Throughout the early 1900’s, thousands of Jews were convinced to move to Palestine illegally in order to force a change in British policy. When stopped at the border or harbor, the consequences could turn bloody and grim. When the S.S. Patria arrived at the Haifa harbor in Palestine filled with Jewish immigrants, the British authorities refused to allow them to enter the country and ordered the ship to leave the harbor. On November 25, 1940, the S.S. Patria was blown up in the Haifa harbor. Initially this act was blamed on the British, but ten years later the responsibility for this act was placed at the door of the Haganah General Staff who had decided not to permit the Patria to leave, then blew it up. The number of victims was officially placed at 276. In his book The Revolt, former Prime Minister Menachem Begin says “the Haganah was responsible for placing the bomb on the Patria.” “Fifteen months later the S.S. Struma exploded in the Black Sea, killing 769 Jewish immigrants. The Haganah described it as an act of ‘mass-protest and mass-suicide,’ and the U.S. media once more placed the responsibility for these deaths at the door of the British and their Palestinian immigration policy.

Ben-Gurion both supported and perpetrated terrorism, but usually did so secretly, so as not to let the world know. Once he had raised money for arms in the summer of 1945, the Haganah openly joined with the Stern and Irgun terrorists for about nine months in a reign of terror throughout Palestine. This “United Resistance Movement” lasted from Nov. 1945 to July 1946, ending only with the most spectacular terrorist act: the blowing up of the King David Hotel on July 22, 1946. Killed were 17 Jews out of a total of 91.

There is a definitive division between religious Jews and the political institution of the Zionists. This distinction is so eloquently expressed by Rabbi Michael Ber Weissmandel in an article he wrote May 26, 2000. See: http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/tenquestions.html

Let’s address your question of my motives. First and foremost, I want to know the truth. The truth exposes the sinister agenda of others. Secondarily, I despise the religion of Islam and all its associated ideologies. From my perspective there are no winners in this conflict, only innocent victims, both Jew and Arab, caught in a conflict perpetuated by the chief liar, Satan himself. Unless we understand the origin of the Middle East conflict we find ourselves being used like pawns.

There are many more details that will help us all understand what is truly behind the conflict(s) in the Middle East, and we have only touch on but a few. I’ve also read much of this conflict from the Arab perspective, and I also understand what motivated Nazi Germany to exterminate millions of innocent Jews. I remain a student of history with both eyes wide open.

Geronimo,

I said I thought you might be deliberately trying to hide an agenda behind a vail ignorance. This is not name calling. I may just be giving you credit when in actuality you deserve none. But the fact remains. You are either ignorant, or you hold back information for reasons I can only assume are sinister.

Let me give you an example.

Have a read here:

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/%7Esamuel/feisal1.html

It is a Joint Arab-Jewish agreement on Jewish Homeland, dated January 3, 1918.

In early 1919, King Faisal, then the only recognized Arab leader in the world, executed a treaty with Chaim Weizmann adopting the understanding of the Balfour Declaration. It outlined relations between Palestine and the Arab state, recognizing the former as a National Home for the Jews, in which they should quickly settle. He wrote, "We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our delegation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday to the Zionist organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper."

The 1919 Faisal-Weizmann treaty provided a firm foundation for League of Nations ratification of the Balfour Declaration at the San Remo Conference in 1920. The proposals covered Palestine - from the Mediterranean through the entire Galilee, up to the Litany River, hundreds of miles east of the Jordan River through all of current day Jordan, and into part of the Sinai. The League assigned Palestine Mandate administration to Britain, entrusting it to establish the National Home for the Jews. (emphasis mine)

Read the treaty agreement in full. When you're done, please let me know if you were aware of it. If you were not aware of it through all your 15 years of reading on the subject, why do you think that is. If you were aware of it, why is it that you don't mention it?

I reread you last post and it seems to me your ignorance stems from a total lack of proportionality. I'm not sure if it's just out of intellectual laziness that you go on parroting such idiotic revisionist, pro jihadi accounts/interpretations/terminology, or if there's something darker lying behind. Although, truthfully, I am leaning towards idiocy and intellectual laziness.

Let me make it clear. When I say the Stern group was a marginal group in Israeli politics, that's how it was. First and foremost, even the most cursory glance at the history of Israeli politics would tell you that the Left in Israel completely dominated Israeli politics and life up until the late 1970's. Right wing politics in Israeli politics just did not exist. It was only after a series of blunders, scandals, and 30 years of left wing political shenanigans and mismanagement, that the Right finally got an opening and managed to hobble together a coalition of religious and nationalist parties to come into power. That's what the word Likud means -- a coalition.

Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir were in the political wilderness for 30 years!! The fact that they later became leaders of Israel means nothing. George Bush is a member of the obscure Skull & Bones Society. By your logic this Skull & Bones Society is a main stream political party. Can you see how absurd that line of argument is? And we're not even taking into account the fact that 30 years have past between Menachem Begin, a member of that group, and Menachem Begin right wing politician winning an historic election to the post of PM of Israel. Can you see how loopy this evidence that you presented is? It's a distorted, disproportionate, and revisionist interpretation, and it is false.

You further go on and link me this nonsense from "Jews not Zionists", as if it has some meaning. As if out nearly 15 million Jews in the world today, of whom 99% support Israel, 10,000 Jews that subscribe to that idiocy has any relevance. There are a 100 Jews in Iraq, 100 Jews in Egypt, 100 Jews in Lebanon. Does that mean that these countries are hospitable to Jews? That maybe they are Jewish countries? That's basically the kind of logic you're trying to present here. It's idiotic.

You say you're after the truth, but you use terminology that obscures and distorts the truth. You call the Stern group a terror organization. The Stern group did not do what they did to spread terror. I mean any idiot can see that. They were not terrorists. You can say they were political assassins, but that is wholly different than what you're comparing them and equating them to.

Mika of Ekron,

Why is 'compassion and kindness' illogical and morally reprehensible. Explain?. Baalzebub will be most pleased with you.

Perhaps you are a satanist/jihadist after all :)?

Sister Rebekka Kim
Beth Kadampa Judaica

Bjoern,

I had to modify a short post 3x, just to get past your stern anti spam robo-cop !

..i'm beginning to suffer from post-manualpause
haaaaaaaaaah ;)!

Sook-Im

It's morally reprehensible because you don't extend "compassion and kindness" to criminals. To do so is a mockery of justice. It is a slap in the face to the victims that suffered at the hands of these criminals. Extending "compassion and kindness" to criminals also encourages further criminal behavior. And when the authorities cannot be counted on to provide proper recourse and dispense proper justice, the door is opens to justifiable vigilanteism and a breakdown of civil society.

Extending "compassion and kindness" to people that do not behave criminally does not require any special meditation or philosophy. It comes naturally to normal people. If you need to apply special meditation or a special philosophy to achieve this state of normal human behavior, than there's probably more wrong with you than what special meditation or a special philosophy can address.

Not you personally, kim sook-im. I think you're ok. Despite your meditation. ;)

Mika,

May I remind you that name calling includes accusing me of being ignorant? As for the allegation of holding back information for reasons you can only assume are sinister, I can only ask, what on earth are you afraid of? I might suggest your own ignorance is being exposed!

You and I examine history from different perspectives. I’ve told you mine; a broad understanding for truth. Yours seems to be narrow and focused view, giving suspect to your own agenda. So, what might that be?

As you suggested I went to http://www.eretzyisroel.org/%7Esamuel/feisal1.html and read the “ratification” of the Balfour Declaration agreement by King Feisal Hussein to established a Jewish National Home and found it to contain all that I would expect. No surprise here. However, note that it was intended for Jewish immigrants to live in harmony with the Arabs. In other words: they were to occupy the same land. What would follow was first; Zionist zealots (terrorist) systematically waging war on the Arab to remove them from land meant for cohabitation. From this point history marks lines are draw and terrorism becomes widespread on both sides, Jew and Arab. Now polarized, terrorism gives birth to another form we call Islamic terrorism, fueled by a Wahabi Islam doctrine adopted by all militant Muslims. Again, eyes wide open.

Now I must ask; did you logged onto: http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/tenquestions.htm and read “Ten questions to the Zionists by Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandl”? If not, why? Is that not ignorance? Since it is apparent you did not the Rabbi’s questions are as follows:

IS IT TRUE that in 1941 and again in 1942, the German Gestapo offered all European Jews transit to Spain, if they would relinquish all their property in Germany and Occupied France; on condition that:
a) none of the deportees travel from Spain to Palestine; and
b) all the deportees be transported from Spain to the USA or British colonies, and there to remain; with entry visas to be arranged by the Jews living there; and
c) $1000.00 ransom for each family to be furnished by the Agency, payable upon the arrival of the family at the Spanish border at the rate of 1000 families daily.

IS IT TRUE that the Zionist leaders in Switzerland and Turkey received this offer with the clear understanding that the exclusion of Palestine as a destination for the deportees was based on an agreement between the Gestapo and the Mufti.

IS IT TRUE that the answer of the Zionist leaders was negative, with the following comments:
a) ONLY Palestine would be considered as a destination for the deportees.
b) The European Jews must accede to suffering and death greater in measure than the other nations, in order that the victorious allies agree to a "Jewish State" at the end of the war.
c) No ransom will be paid

IS IT TRUE that this response to the Gestapo's offer was made with the full knowledge that the alternative to this offer was the gas chamber.

IS IT TRUE that in 1944, at the time of the Hungarian deportations, a similar offer was made, whereby all Hungarian Jewry could be saved.

IS IT TRUE that the same Zionist hierarchy again refused this offer (after the gas chambers had already taken a toll of millions).

IS IT TRUE that during the height of the killings in the war, 270 Members of the British Parliament proposed to evacuate 500,000 Jews from Europe, and resettle them in British colonies, as a part of diplomatic negotiations with Germany.

IS IT TRUE that this offer was rejected by the Zionist leaders with the observation "Only to Palestine!"

IS IT TRUE that the British government granted visas to 300 rabbis and their families to the Colony of Mauritius, with passage for the evacuees through Turkey. The "Jewish Agency" leaders sabotaged this plan with the observation that the plan was disloyal to Palestine, and the 300 rabbis and their families should be gassed.

IS IT TRUE that during the course of the negotiations mentioned above, Chaim Weitzman, the first "Jewish statesman" stated: "The most valuable part of the Jewish nation is already in Palestine, and those Jews living outside Palestine are not too important". Weitzman's cohort, Greenbaum, amplified this statement with the observation "One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe".

Rabbi Weissmandl further states “There are additional similar questions to be asked of these atheist degenerates known as Jewish statesmen, but for the time being let them respond to the ten questions”.

As a Christian there we have fundamental theological differences with Judaism, but I respect the views of Rabbi’s like Weissmandl, and men like this Rabbi makeup much more than the one percent you claim.

Your said: “Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir were in the political wilderness for 30 years!!” What a total crock.

If you want to remain an apologist for the The Stern Gang, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, and many others, that is you prerogative. Now it is my turn to refrain from calling you ignorant and narrow minded. Also, consider I understand this website was NOT established to discuss theology. Maybe that’s the agenda you refer to goat me into? What is your agenda that you continue to resort to name calling simply because my perspective is different than yours? Are you afraid others will begin to look at history from a broader view than your narrow perspective?

And finally, as for the Skull & Bones Society, Freemasonry, The Illuminati, and other secret societies, they have not escaped my interest. I too am disappointed to find many world leaders, including some of our own national leaders, associated with these groups. These men do not deserve my apology. But, an understanding of how these societies recruit their members, and to what degree they are allowed, or encouraged, to participate is essential. However, that is a whole different discussion involving yet another form of deception derailing this discussion, which is now over.

Geronimo,

Re those 10 questions. First I have heard of this. So let me tell you what I do know is true.

I know it's true that no one else has ever heard of this, certainly no reporters at that time.

I know it's true that Jews which tried so desperately to escape, at whatever cost to wherever possible, has ever heard of this.

I know it's true that the Spanish who were going through a civil war never heard of this.

I know it's true the Germans, who supposedly made this offer, were in no position to make this offer on behalf of the Spanish.

I know it's true the Nazis signed a secret treaty with the Soviets not to attack them and later attacked.

I know it's true the Nazis signed a treaty with the British not to attack, in front of the whole world, and later attacked.

I know it's true that the Nazis already built their death camps in 1940.

I know it's true they built those death camps because to continue killing Jews with bullets was deemed too wasteful.

I know it's true that to promote hope that hard work would result in freedom, the gate at Auschwitz read "ARBEIT MACHT FREI", work will make you free.

I know what happened after that.

And I also know that anyone that takes those 10 questions seriously is probably not someone with the intellectual capacity with whom I would want to engage in a conversation. You sir, have proven to me, and on more than one occasion, to have the wherewithal of a 3rd grader. I'm sorry, but I just don't have the patience for you anymore.

kim sook-im,

Damn it! When can we start our meditation?

Miss Kim,

Meditation can begin as soon as Mika removes his head from the sand. That will take a while as I can only see his toes.

While meditating just keep telling your self "exposure's good, exposure's good".

Now that everyone's had a Merry Christ Mass I'd like to wish ya'all a Happy New Year.

Now I'm off to the range to check out Momma's new .40. Gosh, I hope that didn't offend anyone?

Geronimo (still yawning)

Dear Rabbi Mika and Rev. Geronimo,

Could you both turn the other cheek , kiss and make up :)

What would Lord Yeshua of Nazaret think of you. The MahaBoddhisatta Yeshua wants for you to practise Agape or Universal Love or Metta. That would be a good example for Ex-christian and his jihadist gang to emulate !

After you have both turned the other cheek, meditate by staring at your navel for l hour - that should get you on the road to buddhahood LOL.

Mika , if you do as i instruct , you shall surely be a future Buddha - perhaps in the hyperdimensional Universe of ArupaDattu. Geronimo, if you can do this, you may well be canonized after your name-sake Saint Geronimo who was martyred by islamoid jihadists - followers of Baalzeboul , a demon who instigates wars and foments jealousies and unrest.

Geronimo: on a more serious note, do you refute the veracity of this report ? ( the author contends that the arab claim to a palestinian homeland is unfounded based on historical facts )

http://www.masada2000.org/index.html

Sister Mahapajapati Nyanyaponika Kim

أختك المفضلة

Namo tassa bhagavato Arahato Samma Samm Buddhasa !

Interesting article on ME politics in the JPost:
.
.
The disintegration of the Alawi tribal state in Damascus is one among other possible outcomes of the present crisis in both Syria and Lebanon. This particular political script could send this rugged bunch of "heretics" fleeing for refuge back home in their mountain stronghold, unleashing the forces of centrifugal fragmentation in Syria to encompass, in addition to the Alawis, the Druse in the south and Kurds in the northeast. A new map for Syria would carry sweeping regional implications for Iraq and Turkey, Lebanon and Israel.

The "Zionist virus," as the Arabs call it, would then spread and grant liberty to small peoples on the model of the Jews of Israel. Buoyed by a dialectical twist of history, the political transformations would serve Israel's strategic benefit. A tamed or divided Syria would neutralize Israel's last major Arab protagonist after Egypt and Iraq, from active aggression.

The source for this enigmatic Assadian scenario can be traced to Sleiman Assad, Hafez's grandfather, who offered his own contribution to this possible turn of events. He, along with five other Alawi representatives, signed a letter on June 15, 1936, sent to French prime minister Leon Blum. Its contents are remarkable when set in contrast to the views of his Ba'athist pan-Arabist grandson and great-grandson.

Considering the Zionist national enterprise, Sleiman and his friends refer in their letter to "those good Jews who have brought modernity and peace… and spread fortune and prosperity in Palestine, without hurting or taking anything by force. Despite this, Muslims declared a sacred war against them and slaughtered their children and women [in 1929 and again in the Arab Uprising of 1936]. The Jews and the minorities of the Middle East are destined for a black future…"

This foreboding prophecy can explain the shifty ideological path chosen by Hafez and his son, and of the Alawi community in general, flaunting their Arabism at every turn, even feigning Islamic faith.

But the game may be over now, but opening up another option. The "minority equation" within a pluralistic Syria can be animated with vigor, if the Alawis throw off the chains of Arab nationalism and join other politically compatible fellow peoples for a modest life of dignity and freedom in the Middle East.
.
.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1134309631221&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

Sister Kim,

I have read much of the material you suggested at http://www.masada2000.org/index.html and I find most interesting are the maps and historical territorial boundaries established over the time period beginning 1917. Also, I agree that there is no country called Palestine, only a geographical location, although I disagree and say that anyone living in this region, regardless of ethnic background, will be referred to as a Palestinian. This is similar to referring to white settlers in the territory occupied by Mexico as Californians prior to it becoming a state. The balance of the information on this website is opinion based on perspective…with some agreement and disagreement.

By 1971 I’d developed an interest in historical novels and accounts regarding a multitude of subjects, including espionage during pre and post WWII era. After the Seven Day War in 1967 with Egypt, there were many Christian writers who regarded this as a prophetic event the Israeli’s were indeed the returning Jews who represented Israel and would soon usher in the Messiah. I swallowed it hook-line-and-sinker for the next fifteen years. One of the many who wrote of this was Hal Lindsey in he’s book “The Late Great Planet Earth”. However, the deeper I got into history the more I found what Lindsey believed didn’t add up, although I feel he’s intentions were noble.

One of facts seldom discussed within Christendom and secular history is the Whole House of Israel includes two kingdoms comprised of twelve tribes. After King Solomon Israel divided itself into two Kingdoms, basically over a disagreement who would be Solomon’s successor.

The Southern Kingdom, consisted of the two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, plus a part of Levi, known as "Judah," or "The House of Judah", while the Northern Kingdom called The House of Israel (sometimes called Ephraim, or Jacob Israel), consisted of the remaining nine tribes plus a part of Levi. The capital of the Southern Kingdom was Jerusalem, with Samaria the capital of the Northern Kingdom. The Northern Kingdom was approximately ten times larger than the Southern Kingdom. The clear distinction is never lost sight of in the Scriptures, and it is impossible to follow the truth of the story of Israel without knowledge of this distinction. These kingdoms would have two separate and distinct destines, captivities, and hardships. They would even war with each other until the Northern Kingdom of Israel was conquered and taken captive by the Assyrian’s in 722 BC, followed by the Southern Kingdom of Judah’s captivity by the Babylonian’s in 586 BC. The Northern Kingdom of Israel never returned to their homeland, while Judah was released by Babylon 70 years later and returned to Judah as a remnant, to rebuild Solomon’s Temple.

The people in the Northern Kingdom of Israel never embraced what would one day be called Judaism. In fact their lack of acknowledging the God of Jehovah was primary reason for their captivity by the Assyrian’s. Isaiah refers to the Northern Kingdom as God's Blind Servant. If you are serious about understanding the conflict over the land formally occupied by the Northern Kingdom called Israel until 722 BC, and the land formally occupied by the Southern Kingdom called Judah until 69 AD, you first need know; who the two sons Abraham represent; Isaac and Ishmael, followed by an understanding of the two sons’ of Isaac; Jacob and Esau. Then you need to understand the significance of the Birthright, the distinction between Esau/Edom and Jacob/Israel.

At this juncture, we can do two things; educate ourselves by reading scripture with a clearer objective through prayer, or we can agree to disagree. I continually try to educate myself because there are still many lost puzzle pieces. This is a long process requiring patience. Therefore, I’m going to suggest we table this discussion for a time to read/research.

Some good references that formed my perspective:

Judah Scepter and Joseph’s Birthright, J. H. Allen (1902 edition)
One Man’s Destiny, Christina R. Dickey (1942)
The Struggle for the Birthright, Steven Jones (Post 2000)

All is forgiven as I harbor no ill will toward anyone on this website.

Courageous to write your development of thoughts so clearly. One remark: the fact that your (and not only yours!) thoughts changes so strongly in a timespan of two years can be regarded itself as an argument against ANY pre-emptive strike: it simply is too open for mistakes. If a war must be fought, it must be a reaction to an action beyond discussion.

Geronimo,

Why does a Universal Deity take sides in tribal disputes ( ancient Jews vs. canaanites, moabites etc.). Odd isn't it?

click: www.sitchin.com

Sister Sophia Kim
ave maria, dominus tecum !

Sister Sophia Kim,

Your asked: Why does a Universal Deity take sides in tribal disputes (ancient Jews vs. Canaanites, Moabites etc.). Odd isn't it?
Since you indicated sometime back you were a convert to Judaism I’m also going to assume you mean the God referred to as Jehovah, Yahweh, Elohim, Adonai, and/or El Shaddai.

I do not believe Yahweh takes sides in tribal disputes. On the contrary, He admonishes those He has bid to do his work much harsher than those to whom the messenger is sent. In other words, the messenger is held to a much higher standard, i.e., the story of Jonah and the whale. Prophets were stoned if they were found to be false prophets because they misrepresented Yahweh and lied. That is also why both the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah were both taken into captivity by their enemies; as punishment. In this case the Assyrians and Babylonians were not enemies of Yahweh, only enemies to Israel and Judah, and that is the example and pattern established for all nations.

Also, He rewards those who bid His work, much like you would your own good sons and daughters who bid your work. Also, don’t’ forget there are consequences to pay for disobedience, just like paying a traffic ticket, and/or sentencing someone for murder or for robbing a bank, along with the natural consequences of taking drugs (addiction) and getting drunk (hangover).

Unfortunately in today’s world we like to blame everyone except ourselves for our misdeeds; that include blaming Yahweh. I believe knowing what I know, I will be judged much harsher for my disobedience than someone who doesn’t have a clue about His existence.

Here we go again, via Instapundit:

Saddam's Terror Training Camps
What the documents captured from the former Iraqi regime reveal--and why they should all be made public.
by Stephen F. Hayes
01/16/2006, Volume 011, Issue 17

THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.

The secret training took place primarily at three camps–in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak–and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria’s GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000. Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis. According to three officials with knowledge of the intelligence on Iraqi training camps, White House and National Security Council officials were briefed on these findings in May 2005; senior Defense Department officials subsequently received the same briefing.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

No crusade - and you didn't answer the question - an open mind is an essential component of freedom. As I assumed you know, open minds feed on the comparison of contrary information, and rejoice at the opening of new perspectives, even when they contradict prior opinions. Your view evolved because you thought about stuff you intially rejected. I think rejecting discussion out of hand is short-sighted - but I have no lessons for you or anyone else. I certainly would prefer us to benefit from a more enlightened and more genuine form of Democracy, it would save us all a lot of heartbreak. That's it.

Job: No crusade

I wasn't thinking of your ideas, but on the way you barged into a thread and demanded that it be turned into yet another Iraq war debate. And that's what would have happened. I may not know what your views are exactly, but I do know what that debate will look like, and that (most importantly) it would have been impossible to say anything about the original subject.

As I assumed you know, open minds feed on the comparison of contrary information, and rejoice at the opening of new perspectives, even when they contradict prior opinions

Yes. What happens, though, when this principle is used to justify off-topic comments is that every thread degenerates into the subject that the most people have the strongest opinions about. And then how can you discuss anything else?

Fair enough - thanks for responding, I appreciate it. As I said, no crusade. In the interest of mutual learning, however, it is well worth pointing out that many of the arguments against the 'War on Terror', which were at first so violently and scornfully rejected by the 'right' in general, are now being reviewed and recognised as valid. In the meantime, and this is the fundamental point, inconceivable damage has been done. It can't be undone, either, and it affects all of us. It was only necessary for the basest of interests, and could have been avoided.

The only possible leverage we have as citizens is to seek to apply a truer form of Democracy - defined as government of the people, by the people, for the people. The system currently in place works increasingly for ends far removed from the public welfare, and so the first job that falls to people who wish to make a change for the better is to stand up and denounce the lies told to us. However tedious the resulting discussions sometimes become, I don't think they're useless - witness the article at the top of this thread.

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1713

Samizdata.net: Evolving views, December 14, 2005 12:56 AM

There is an interesting post on Bjørn Stærk's blog on his changing views of the Bush administration and the war in Iraq....

graphictruth: A WarBlogger Reconsiders, December 14, 2005 07:15 PM

Bjørn Stærk got cited in Samizdata (today is my Samizdata day, it seems I resist the temptation to simply gank the post in it's entirety, but I'll start with his conclusion in order to tempt you to examine his reasoning, check his sources and draw - or