Please answer the following … once again … concerning the power vacuum in Iraq, and the ongoing Iranian desire for hegemony in the region -

Yes, Reagan had a reason for actively avoiding the creation of a power vacuum in Iraq.

If we’re not there as a force then someone else will be because the world’s oil supply can’t be left to the whims of those who would obviously replace us. I would rather it be us.

It was OK back in the good old days when all the arabs wanted was our money. Now they want our souls.

That in all likelihood will doom Petraues’ recommendations to keep the pressure up (assuming it is still working) in September.

In the meantime, I am in favor of setting aside my distrust of Bush’s domestic security agenda, and strongly supporting, like the shamnesty rejection, a strong hand in Iraq. He is to be encouraged to not only stay the course until September, but to offer a troop pull-back (he’ll have to offer something) that is results-oriented and not time-oriented.

SAN DIEGO — An investigating officer has recommended dismissing murder charges against a U.S. Marine accused in the slayings of three Iraqi men in a squad action that killed 24 civilians in the town of Haditha, according to a report.

The government’s theory that Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt had executed the three men was “incredible” and relied on contradictory statements by Iraqis, Lt. Col. Paul Ware said in the report, released Tuesday by Sharratt’s defense attorneys.

It’s is not binding, but it carrys a lot of weight. Someone warming up that crow for Murtha?

The God of our OT fathers directed many “atrocities” in Holy Scripture. I wonder what Eric Rudolph was thinking?… or Timothy McVeigh?… or ?
The Koran does not “justify” 9/11. But these terrorists believe passionately in a “current version” of Islam that grants the power of Life and death to the faithful.
They may eat their own.
Randy

I never said the God of fathers didn’t direct “atrocities” in Holy Scripture. Whatever Eric Rudoplh or Timothy McVeigh were thinking it wasn’t justified either textaually in the Bible or by popular interpretation of Christian scholars.

The Koran does not “justify” 9/11.

Wrong. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume you haven’t read the relevant passages of the Koran that not only justify violence against non-Muslims but impel them as obligatory.

The God of our OT fathers directed many “atrocities” in Holy Scripture. I wonder what Eric Rudolph was thinking?… or Timothy McVeigh?… or ?
The Koran does not “justify” 9/11. But these terrorists believe passionately in a “current version” of Islam that grants the power of Life and death to the faithful.
They may eat their own.
Randy

Thomas the Wraith on July 10, 2007 at 10:22 PM

“Moments” of violence, Thomas?
In spite of the Good News of our Master?
Let’s not drag our Jewish brothers along. They, at least, have honest ignorance.
Randy

The point is that Islam is inextricably bound with violence against unbelievers, both in the detailed history of Muhammad and the generation immediately following him and in the theology contained in the Koran. This is why ex-jihadists like Hassan Butt and Ed Hussain keep telling the Brits that they need to directly challenge Muslims in Britain not simply to denounce terror but to grapple with the theology and texts that justify, even demand violence.

Just look at the words used to define the two religions. “Islam” means submission. “Muslim” means one who submits. Muhammad himself used these Arabic words as he commanded people to submit to the will of Allah (of course he was the sole source of the will of Allah.) “Christ” (a word by the way that Jesus never used since it is from a language he never spoke) means “the Anointed One”; a Greek translation of the Hebrew word for Messiah. “Christianity” is a Latinate variation used to describe those who believe in Christ.

Thomas the Wraith on July 10, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Hey, Thomas.
Christian history is littered with atrocities sanctioned by “The Church”.
We didn’t need to borrow from anyone.
I get the distinction between Mohammad and Christ The Lord, but do you think Jesus would “counter attack”? :)
Randy

You missed the point he was trying to make. Justify the Crusades by directly quoting passages from the Bible. Now justify the 9/11 attacks by quoting from the Koran. The former is impossible, the latter shouldn’t take up too much of your time.

We didn’t need to borrow from anyone.

Unlike Mohammed who plagarised passages from the Old and New Testaments and mixed them with his death cult ideology while paying special attention to his personal appetites.

The fact is that the Christians who carried out the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and the Conquista of South America are not justified by Christian dogma so they are burning in hell.

In contrast the Muslims who conquered Constantinpole andcarried out 9/11 are textaully justified by what they believe to be the word of God.

Now if you think my argument is weak you can prove it by the reading the Bible and the Koran, reading leading Christian and Islamic scholars and offering a coherent argument explaingin why I am wrong. I look forward to it.

The Koran on the other hand, was written by Muhammad and Muslims consider it to be the Word of Allah, unalterable and unchangeable. It is filled with numerous verses calling Muslims to war against the cities of unbelievers, violence against the unbelievers as individuals, enslaving unbelievers, taxing unbelievers, etc. And interpretation in minimal if any because it was “written” by one man who, they believe, heard the words, in Arabic, from the Angel Gabriel.

Muhammad murdered people and ordered people murdered. Christ clearly did no such thing. The fact that 1000 years after Christ a Pope used religion to mobilize people to defend their co-religionists in a war against Muslims in no way equates Christianity with Islam. The mere suggestion is offensive.

I think the only way to win now is to let the military do their job without all the political rules of engagement. Let the military break things and kill people which is what we pay them to do. Going in this was a 5 year mission without Rumsfeld ordering Vietnam-esque rules of engagement. The way the politicos have run it I don’t think we could ever truly claim victory now. How a bunch of educated people missed that it historically takes several years after a war to stabilize a country and re-establish a functional government and infrastructure is beyond me. Why this administration never presented that information to the public or made a case for that fact loudly and often is mind boggling. I can only assume that Rumsfeld and company were stupid enough to believe that this time was going to be different and that we would actually be able to accomplish the stated goals in a much shorter time than history has proven is required. I am so angry at the administration for putting our military in harms way so misguidedly. I was a military brat and know the gut-wrenching worry of having loved ones in harms way. I pray that I am wrong.

And the Pope of his time Blessed the Crusaders
williars on July 10, 2007 at 9:47 PM

The Pope was not the founder of a religion, merely the head of a Church. Mohammad was both the founder of a religion and the author of that religion’s holy book.

As for the “religiously sanctified war” this was an idea appropriated from Islam after the jihad conquered previously Christian lands. The Crusades were a counter-attack.

Apples and oranges, man.

Not to mention that this whole damned thing can and probably WILL go nuclear…Iran first IF the Pakis aren’t subdued by the Indians/Chinese. THEN Israel

You mistake me, MB4.
I was not comparing Christ to Mohammad.
I was talking about getting along….

Yes but if warfare is religiously sanctified as it is in Islam then isn’t the potential for getting along diminished in comparison to Christianity which advocates fairness and goodwill towards men?

MB4/aengus ’08

For one thing, because of Mohammad.

He and his teachings were not exactly Christ like.

MB4

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid echoed that sentiment.

“The surge has been going on for six months,” he told reporters. “We’ve lost more than 600 troops costing taxpayers more than $60 billion. The escalation has done nothing to bring the Iraqi government together. It’s done absolutely nothing to lessen the violence in Iraq.”

WTF?!?!? How does he get away with this misinfomation??? Didn’t I hear ole GWB say it has been 2 weeks?
PPPPFFFTHHH