WWJK: Who would Jesus Kill - Military supplier adds bible references to rifle sights
From
here
The Marine Corps is reconsidering its contract with a Michigan company that has engraved hundreds of thousands of rifle sights with Bible inscriptions, a spokeswoman said Tuesday.
"We are aware of the issue and are concerned with how this may be perceived," USMC spokeswoman Capt. Geraldine Carey told ABC News. "We will meet with the vendor to discuss future sight procurements."
Trijicon, based in Wixom, Mich., has been making the rifle scopes for the Marines since 2005 - and carving references to Bible passages next to the scope's serial number.
[LEFT][COLOR=#000000]
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/01/19/2010-01-19_trijicon_company_contracted_by_marine_corps_inscribed_thousands_rifle_scopes_wit.html#ixzz0dCpA1VHg
[/COLOR][/LEFT]
Ok, we already paid a Christian conservative billions of dollars to field the largest mercenary army in recent history. We already had a U.S. president declare a 'crusade' in the middle east. If Muslim extremists are supposed to be the trigger happy religious nutjobs, why are we referencing New Testament bible passages on rifle scopes? A blanket, first aid kit, or a meal ration is something to give comfort. It would be annoying but understandable if someone were slipping in bible tracts there. A rifle scope pretty much serves a single purpose, to target and kill an enemy. Since 2001 this enemy is predominantly Muslim.
So if we're trying to convince the world that this is not a Christian war or crusade on Islam, I think this might be sending the wrong message.
BTW, as of 2001 (see
here), 32% of the military were atheist or non-Christian. Add to that the fact that some devout Christians also might have a problem mixing religion and killing and I think this was in poor taste. If a soldier really wants a Bible reference on his or her gun sight, they can scratch it there themselves.
I don't think that Trijicon is "trying to convince the world that this is not a Christian war or crusade on Islam". Just the opposite, I suspect.
What are the bible passages referenced? Despite the fact that it is a Christian book, not all passages in the bible are meaningful solely to Christians. Don't Jews pretty much go with the "old testment"? And the Song of Solomon is almost porn. Even atheists can appreciate that. Seriously, it would never had occured to me that it was a bible reference if you hadn't told me. Yup I guess it shouldn't happen but I just don't care enough. There are plenty other places where Christianity is way too invasive. But my ambivalence does depend on which passages are referenced.
As a company they are allowed to print that on their product if they so choose, nothing wrong that at all. If the military is concerned about their image in this regard, then they should have weighed the potential negatives of buying this product against the benefits of it being world class quality, and the preferred choice of many soldiers before signing any contract with Trijicon to begin with.
This is a big hoopla over nothing. The print is very small so please tell me how many "hearts and minds" this has lost over the years, and the verses referenced aren't even violent in nature to begin with. From a USA Today article: "This situation is not unlike the situation with U.S. currency," said the spokesman, Air Force Maj. John Redfield. "Are we going to stop using money because the bills have 'In God We Trust' on them? As long as the sights meet the combat needs of troops, they'll continue to be used."
[edit] from a quick search, here are the passages:
John:8:12 “When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, ‘I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.’”
2COR4:6, a reference to part of the second letter of Paul to the Corinthians: "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ,"
MT5:16
"In the same way, let your light so shine before other, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven."
As a company they are allowed to print that on their product if they so choose, nothing wrong that at all. If the military is concerned about their image in this regard, then they should have weighed the potential negatives of buying this product against the benefits of it being world class quality, and the preferred choice of many soldiers before signing any contract with Trijicon to begin with.
I think the point is informed consent. Did the military know about the policy?
I think the point is informed consent. Did the military know about the policy?
From the press covering this story I've read, the company does not make any attempt to hide the markings and openly acknowledges their existence/meaning when asked. Whether the verses were actually known about when whoever made the decision to go with those sights is unknown, right now it seems like typical ass-covering by the military saying they knew nothing. Or they really could not have known, but that is hard to believe given how long this company's products have been used by the military. Then again it could be a case of "well the guys really like these sights, that's an odd looking serial number on the side there.. whatever, they like it so we'll buy it."
The company is overtly Christian. From their website page About Us: "• Morality
We believe that America is great when its people are good. This goodness has been based on biblical standards throughout our history and we will strive to follow those morals." So whoever made the decision to contract with Trijicon knew at least that much for starters.
Hm so it's passages about light. On an instrument designed to help paople see more clearly.... Seems like your regular hypocritical sales spiel to me....
Trijicon's night sights are awesome.
They aren't printing out the full verse ... just the reference, which frankly looks like a product ID code more than anything.
I was amused by the poll the NY Daily News was pretty clearly trying to skew by wording, but it seems to have backfired.
God's winning, 59 to 38, with only 3% undecided.
Poll Results
Thank you for voting.
How do you feel about the fact that U.S. troops are using guns branded with Bible verse?
I am all for it. Our troops need all the support they can get -- God's especially. 59%
I am against it. Military rules prohibit proselytizing, and this may offend civilians in Muslim nations. 38%
Not sure. 3%
Go ahead and freak out if you want. Or you can look at the fact that Trijicon is absolutely top drawer shit. They're a private company who was contracted to produce specific items for the government. They did so. Who cares if there is a series of letters and numbers etched into the metal? Does it have a negative effect on the performance of the equipment? Do you really not have anything better to trip out about?
Matthew 5:16 is, I believe, on a battery-powered illuminated-red-dot sight. No weirder, really, than quoting Luke 4:30 on a fourteenth century bascinet -- a fine piece of martial sassiness!
But heaven forbid we should offend the fuckers they're being pointed at. :rolleyes:
Just issue them to US troops, no problem.
If Trijicon really wants to take over the Wahhabi market, there are always cites of particularly martial Surahs, no?
But heaven forbid we should offend the fuckers they're being pointed at. :rolleyes:
Just issue them to US troops, no problem.
It's also possible they could offend moslem troops in the US army.
But heaven forbid we should offend the fuckers they're being pointed at. :rolleyes:
Just issue them to US troops, no problem.
Are there any agnostic, atheist, Jewish, Moslem, or Buddhist fuckers in the US Army? Mil spec used to be pretty rigid. As to 14th century head gear, it was appropriate if worn by Christian soldiers in a Christian army on crusade, which apparently you guys believe the US Army is.
It just sounds so wrong to put a bible verse on a killing machine. This is what really pisses me off about some Christians....everything is justified conveniently away.
It just sounds so wrong to put a bible verse on a killing machine. This is what really pisses me off about some Christians....everything is justified conveniently away.
Isn't the soldier the killing machine? The gun is just a making holes in things machine... ;)
Isn't the soldier the killing machine? The gun is just a making holes in things machine... ;)
No. Remember? "Guns don't kill people, texting while driving kills people".*
* Property of Zengum, used without permission.
Pico - Seriously? You think there is a disconnect between the Bible and killing? Might want to flip through a couple pages of that book again.
The US military is not a christian or crusader's army, it is an army put forth by the US. They need tools like scopes and night sights. Those tools are made by a company that happens to put a series of letters and numbers on the equipment. If an atheist, jew, or muslim feels compelled to read those letters, grab a Bible, read the verse and be offended... fuck 'em.
Of course, you can sit and home and be offended if you want but I don't really give a shit. How many of you were offended to find out that the report on the Ft Hood shootings makes no mention of the shooter's motivation and faith? None that I can see. Read a report that there are references to Bible verses (all havign to do with light) on scopes and night vision gear and Lookout! Here comes the handwringing and tears.
'all having to do with light'. The implication clearly beng that the Christian God brings the light and that non-Christians are in darkness. So the army of an ostensibly Christian nation is using guns marked with quotations referring to the Christian God's bringing of the light, against non-Christians: thereby bringing the light to them?
Onward Christian soldiers.
...And the Song of Solomon is almost porn...
:biggrin:
Link please?:blush:
:biggrin:
Link please?:blush:
Settle down, there aren't any pictures. :sniff:
Defense contractors should not be inscribing religious messages on anything sold to the government.
Is it s a contracting violation? IDK. Should it be our greatest concern with DoD contracting irregularities? Nope.
What those companies do with regard to private sales is their own business.
Pico - Seriously? You think there is a disconnect between the Bible and killing? ...
No, just between what people who profess to be christian say and what they do.
I'm still looking for your disconnect Pico.
Dana - the verses are about light. The equipment they are etched into draw light into them to give the ability to see at night. or we can just as easily assume it is a big slap in the face to those dirty muslims.
The verses were there before the government gave the contract. Don't like it? don't give the contract to that company. Of course, I'm willing to bet that even a muslim soldier given the choice between having and not having this "offensive" equipment would choose to have it.
In the end I'm sure Trijicon will want to keep the contract and will agree to stop etching the sights. I truly don't care. Admittedly I find it pretty funny. The only part that gets under my skin is all the people pissing and moaning about this trivial issue rather than focusing on bigger problems.
I wasn't suggesting the contract be cancelled. Just pointing out that 'it's about light' isn't necessarily an innocuous thing in the context of a Christian nation at war with a moslem army.
Fair enough. It may not be as innocent as I've put it, but in the end it is still who cares item for me. Sure, there are plenty of people ready to get their panties in a twist but let's face it, most of them are just looking for something to be pissed at anyway.
It's also possible they could offend moslem troops in the US army.
Are there any agnostic, atheist, Jewish, Moslem, or Buddhist fuckers in the US Army?
It doesn't matter, if they are in the US Army they do what they are ordered to do, with the equipment they are issued.
[T Hanks]There is no offended in the Army.[/T Hanks]
I wasn't suggesting the contract be cancelled. Just pointing out that 'it's about light' isn't necessarily an innocuous thing in the context of a Christian nation at war with a moslem army.
You're really reaching, don't fall over.
Fair enough. It may not be as innocent as I've put it, but in the end it is still who cares item for me. Sure, there are plenty of people ready to get their panties in a twist but let's face it, most of them are just looking for something to be pissed at anyway.
You can't say panties, that's sexist and condescending. :eyebrow:
I'm sure that not every single person who is upset by this issue wears panties. But they should.
Quote:
[quote]Originally Posted by DanaC
I wasn't suggesting the contract be cancelled. Just pointing out that 'it's about light' isn't necessarily an innocuous thing in the context of a Christian nation at war with a moslem army.
You're really reaching, don't fall over.
[/QUOTE]
Hardly reaching. It seems fucking obvious to me.
I'm sure that not every single person who is upset by this issue wears panties. But they should.
...being upset and getting involved in a discussion aren't necessarily the same thing, Some of us just like to argue/discuss shit.
fucking manc tart. better untwist your panties. ;)[COLOR="White"]You're probably just upset cuz Arsenal kicked the piss out of Bolton twice in four days.[/COLOR]
How d'ye know I'm wearing any to twist?
You had them on in your picture... but I like the way you think.
Hardly reaching. It seems fucking obvious to me.
But the company has been doing this forever, they couldn't/can't predict who the sights would be used against.
I wasn't saying that's why the company put them on. Just that it is obvious why it might be seen as offensive/dodgy.
But unless it's intentional, then making any offensive connection is tenuous, ie reaching.
He wore new suit, and immediately got run over by a bus carrying an ad for a rival suitmaker. Should the widow be offended by the rival suitmaker?
'all having to do with light'. The implication clearly being that the Christian God brings the light
:redcard: Bullshit - simple assumption.:bs:
Oh and . . . . :sniper:
John:8:12 “When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, ‘I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.’”
2COR4:6, a reference to part of the second letter of Paul to the Corinthians: "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ,"
Of course it is referring to the Christian God bringing light. Whoever follows Jesus will never walk in darkness: the flipside to that is that those who don't follow him, may well walk in darkness.
People who have a flashlight will never walk in darkness does not mean, people without a flashlight will walk in darkness.
Now I think you're reaching :P
au contraire, I'm the one not reaching. I accept 2 + 2, without trying to make 4.
Bruce gets it.
Because "A" is true, doesn't necessarily mean that the inverse of "A" is false.
Bruce gets it.
Because "A" is true, doesn't necessarily mean that the inverse of "A" is false.
Damn...how are specific references to New Testament passages - Second Corinthians 4:6 and John 8:12 - not references to Christianity?
:redcard: Bullshit - simple assumption.:bs
I dont think it is all that big of deal...but WTF? Assumption?
Damn...how are specific references to New Testament passages - Second Corinthians 4:6 and John 8:12 - not references to Christianity?
It's not a question of where they come from, but what the passages say, and more importantly to Dana, what they imply.
It's not a question of where they come from, but what the passages say, and more importantly to Dana, what they imply.
They imply light is provided through Jesus Christ.
But we've reached that point of agreeing to disagree.
And to Dana:
http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=628830&postcount=55They imply light is provided through Jesus Christ.
Not true. They
say Christians will be provided light through Jesus Christ, straight out, no implication at all.
They
do not imply others will be in the dark, nor others won't get their light from a different source.
Damn...how are specific references to New Testament passages - Second Corinthians 4:6 and John 8:12 - not references to Christianity?
Wasn't talking to you & didn't say they weren't. You are again incorrectly assuming what I was referring to. . .
the flipside to that is that those who don't follow him, may well walk in darkness.
*ahem* reread what i said: may well walk in darkness; not will walk in darkness.
I did read it Dana. I even quoted it. No harm, no foul.
*ahem* reread what i said: may well walk in darkness; not will walk in darkness.
You wrote "may well", but you implied "will". :lol2:
Now ^^^^ that's ^^^^ how you kill a thread ;)
Nope that's how you keep a giant ass contract while getting a chuckle at all the crybabies.
Damn, I better buy a couple before I can only get the godless heathen kind that will leave me stumbling in the dark.
hang on a little while. The market will soon be flooded with items that were "lost" when they were modified with the new equipment.
You know I will if I can get a great deal on a nice scope with or without a verse.
and offering removal kits.
What, like, they'll send you a Dremel?
Probably
Scotch-Brite discs or something of that ilk.
I'm still looking for your disconnect Pico.
Screw you Lookout, According to this...
[COLOR="Blue"]
...Of course, you can sit and home and be offended if you want but I don't really give a shit...
[/COLOR]
...you dont really want to know. If you dont see my point, why should I care to explain it to you after that?
Isn't the soldier the killing machine? The gun is just a making holes in things machine... ;)
Aw Jeez...semantics already...;)
Its not a major issue to me and I really dont care if our soldiers have to use weapons with bible verses on them or not, but it leaves me feeling uneasy, because it does imply to me (an atheist) that the killing done with these weapons is religiously sanctioned, and I just never thought we still did that. But I guess we do.
Gee I didn't know sights were considered weapons now. The notion that there are "weapons with bible verses on them" is false. The sight is a piece of equipment, akin to a pair of binoculars, flashlight, backpack, tent, MRE, etc. etc. If these were stamped on the weapon itself, then I could potentially see a problem since the weapon itself is the means to which the military projects force. Not a harmless attachment.
FFS...they are rifle sights. Honestly.
But OK, I get it that it wasnt intentional. That this company does it on all its stuff (right?). Its just an unfortunate turn of events that put these particular sights on US military rifles.
Its still eerie from my perspective.
yeah, but they could be used for checking out the showers of the opposite sex. ;)
Hee Hee...is there an appropriate bible verse for that?
Yes the company puts these on many of their products, and has been doing so long before the military ever started buying them. I just have a hard time seeing how this is any different then lets say if all the MRE packages had verses printed on them. Neither are weapons, however both are used by the military to enhance their ability to wage war. But I highly doubt the same stink would be raised if it was MREs instead of rifle sights.
Hee Hee...is there an appropriate bible verse for that?
No, but it's a religious experience, even if it falls under don't ask don't tell. ;)
But I highly doubt the same stink would be raised if it was MREs instead of rifle sights.
Why do you doubt that?
Screw you Lookout, According to this...
[COLOR="Blue"]
[/COLOR]
...you dont really want to know. If you dont see my point, why should I care to explain it to you after that?
AAAh, well then - Fuck You Pico. You made a statement. I said I didn't get it. You made another statement that didn't explain it. I said I didn't get it. You don't want to explain what you meant, that's fine but just say so.
A soldier's objective is to eliminate the enemy. I never looked AT my scope.... I looked THROUGH it.
Hee Hee...is there an appropriate bible verse for that?
Yeah, I think Monster said that's what Song of Solomon was all about. But there are no pictures, so...
BUT! had they had the scopes then there might have been pictures if they'd also had camera attachments...
And film and cameras.
Not to be a thread killing fun sponge, but I think the real point about this isn't so much the issue of is this a crusade against Islam or is it old testament new testament, east coast vs west coast what seems particularly hypocritical about the whole thing is that no where does baby J advocate killing for any reason. In fact he seems to go to great lengths to dissuade people from doing so.
Why do you doubt that?
Honestly partly just on a hunch, MREs aren't a source of sensational news like guns are. It's like the perfect storm of hot-button issues in the media: guns, Iraq, and religion. Compare that to lets say a stash of dusty surplus MREs with verses printed on them sold at some Army-Navy surplus store in South Dakota. Which would grab the headlines more?
Government endorsement of religion on MRE wrappers would be an epic shit-storm.
Hey, if we're going to take issue about this sort of shit, let's start with something that affects everybody and get god off the money. :p
ooh, just had an idea, I think I might get one of those credit cards you design yourself and put "In :fsm: we trust" on it! :lol:
Ok MRE packaging was a bad example since they're government produced. How about on the bottles of Tobasco included in those meals then? Think that would cause a similar sensation?
The biggest problem here is the media IMO. "Firm ending Bible references on guns"-CNN, "No More Jesus Rifles"-ABC, "Company to Remove Bible References From Combat Rifles"-FOX, "'Jesus Guns': Two More Countries Rethink Using Weapons with Secret Bible References "-ABC. They're not on the guns, they're on something completely harmless. Not the guns. Completely irresponsible and sensational reporting is making this into some huge issue, when a number of service members have known about these references for years already.
The rifle thing probably does have traction because of the apparent perversion of Christ's message and the anti-gun notions of many reporters.
Maybe we could have a Scopes Honky trial? ;)
Bruce [strike]gets it[/strike] agrees with me.
Because "A" is true, doesn't necessarily mean that the inverse of "A" is false.
Fixed that for you.
They imply light is provided through Jesus Christ.
...
Or that Jesus
is the light:
John:8:12 “When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, ‘[COLOR="Red"]I am the light of the world[/COLOR]. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.’”...
Ok MRE packaging was a bad example since they're government produced. How about on the bottles of Tobasco included in those meals then? Think that would cause a similar sensation?
The biggest problem here is the media IMO. "Firm ending Bible references on guns"-CNN, "No More Jesus Rifles"-ABC, "Company to Remove Bible References From Combat Rifles"-FOX, "'Jesus Guns': Two More Countries Rethink Using Weapons with Secret Bible References "-ABC. They're not on the guns, they're on something completely harmless. Not the guns. Completely irresponsible and sensational reporting is making this into some huge issue, when a number of service members have known about these references for years already.
What if MREs had something made by Proctor and Gamble in them, with this image:
Who be the crybaby then? Who would be creating a shit storm then? christian fundies, that's who.
I heard that the letters/numbers referred to passages in the koran that spoke of killing christians.
I'm personally offended that that every single bottle of tobasco used in chow halls and MRE's for the past 20 years has been marked Kosher. I'm not jewish and I find it offensive.
This whole story is stupid and has very little traction among the troops. They could give a shit. Is it sighted properly and will I hit my target is a much more important question. There is no story here.
I'm personally offended that that every single bottle of tobasco used in chow halls and MRE's for the past 20 years has been marked Kosher. I'm not jewish and I find it offensive.
Fuckin' crybaby
Fixed that for you.
Or that Jesus is the light:
What if MREs had something made by Proctor and Gamble in them, with this image:
Who be the crybaby then? Who would be creating a shit storm then? christian fundies, that's who.
I heard that the letters/numbers referred to passages in the koran that spoke of killing christians.
I really hope you don't actually buy into that P&G hoax... anyone who does is an idiot.
I really hope you don't actually buy into that P&G hoax... anyone who does is an idiot.
No.
Really, Pico?
It just sounds so wrong to put a bible verse on a killing machine. This is what really pisses me off about some Christians....everything is justified conveniently away.
"He teacheth my hands to war... I have pursued mine enemies and overtaken them: neither did I turn again till they were consumed." Psalms 18:34, 37 -- that end of that lengthy, variegated Psalm is not all sweetness and light, is it?
"To everything there is a season... A time to kill and a time to heal...A time to love and a time to hate; a time of war and a time of peace..." Ecclesiastes 3 is a mighty fine chapter about perspective, and having it.
I'm not saying these could not be found distasteful; I reckon the writers found it distasteful in their far time too. You can find as many horrors as beauties written in the Bible -- and what is this but a reflection of life itself? The Bible has some rich veins of philosophy, right there for the mining.
I think you could stand to have a more mature understanding of that which is in the Bible. Its tales run from the mystical to the ethereal to earthy to bloody to legalistic to historic to, well, science fiction from Patmos -- all over the place. If someone decorates the tools of blood with a bloody sort of inscription drawn therefrom, is there cause for complaint? I don't think so.
"Justified conveniently"? A common -- too common -- complaint among those with but secondhand knowledge of Christianity -- but not one in the end much borne out. It's more the Bible observing that bad things happen, and sometimes to good people too. It may go on to chronicle what somebody did about them.
Are you going to complain about the Bible being a tool of oppression? Fah. It's quite like a gun: the very properties that make it useful as an oppressor's tool are the properties you can use as a tool to break that oppression and the oppressor with it -- "...as on the day of Midian."
It's vegetables: it's parve. :p
UG, if you used the quote function, we might have a better chance of following you.
Hee Hee...is there an appropriate bible verse for that?
More than one. Heck, you can use the whole Song of Solomon as a stroke book. Really.
Now likening somebody's tummy to a heap of wheat, okay, that's a little out there in simile land for me... but no one could say the Song of Solomon was the writing of a eunuch. It was written by somebody who could spooge.
UG, if you used the quote function, we might have a better chance of following you.
True, Glatt... didn't think how long this thread was -- think I can still edit something in. And Tabasco cain't be nuthin' but parve.
Aaand fixed up. Pico's post was bottom of first page.
First, this is about image and not a "who cares" issue. Ever since the United States began its "war on terror", it has at least attempted to make sure it was not taken as a "war against Islam". They do this because it will much easier for terrorist groups to recruit new members if they can convince people that the US is attempting to wipe out their [Muslims] life and religion, and not just fighting terrorists.
Yes, it is true that these verses really have no effect on US soldiers. Yes, it is true that this company has been putting these on before the "war on terror". Yes, bible versus probably can be found other places in the US Army. But, terrorist recruiters will NEVER bring that up when showing this to others and terrorist recruits will never consider those legitimate arguments either. So, if it is such a non-issue, then why the hell would you keep them on when they can be used as effective propaganda to recruit terrorists against the US?
Trijicon has been putting these on their products for many many years. Who are we to tell them what they can and cannot do? The only right thing for the Gov't to do so that we don't offend anyone, including those we are killing, is to cancel the contract with Trijicon and buy sights from an Asian company. They'll probably be cheaper anyway.
[COLOR="White"](Dripping with Sarcasm)[/COLOR]
What if they were verses from the Koran? Would everybody be all happy and skippy then? :eyebrow:
Funny you say that - I was wondering how upset we here in the US would be if we were getting them from an overseas company that did just that. It would be rather ironic.
Trijicon has been putting these on their products for many many years. Who are we to tell them what they can and cannot do?
Their biggest customer?
Oh, most certainly HM. Did you read my entire post?
The Customer is Always Right.
And when one is a very substantial customer, one has the right to make demands of the company one is buying from. If that company is sensible and wishes to retain the large government contract they'll be willing to make suitable arrangements and amendments: which it would appear they have done.
[COLOR="White"][SIZE="7"](Dripping with Sarcasm)[/SIZE][/COLOR]
If you put something in white; dont be surprised if someone doesn't see it :P
I saw it, but I guess I misinterpreted what the sarcasm was supposed to indicate.
It doesn't show at all on my screen unless I highlight it. I don;t know to highlight it unless there are clues that there's something in white there :P
Really Dana? I see them off-white, just figured everyone else did as well.
I agree to a point. Then again they were on there before we became their biggest customer - perhaps that point should have been brought up at the contracts inception. Either way - seems like a big deal about nothing of any real consequence.
Either way - seems like a big deal about nothing of any real consequence.
You really don't think the image of a Christian Crusade is a big consequence?
"I hope you can sense ... this is of serious concern to me and the other commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan because it can indeed create a perception that is absolutely contrary to what it is that we have sought to do."
[INDENT]- Gen. David Petraeus, commander of United States Central Command[/INDENT]
He gets it.
"Big deals about nothing" often result in unintended consequences (and perceptions) and should be corrected....as has evidently now been done.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/21/rifles.bibles/index.htmlReally Dana? I see them off-white, just figured everyone else did as well.
.
Nope. I have to highlight it to see anything's there. Sometimes if I see a gap in a post I highlight just to check if I'm missing anything :P
You really don't think the image of a Christian Crusade is a big consequence?
I don't see it as a Christian Crusade.
You really missed the point.
I think a big deal is being made of it. This isn't something new, its been like this for many years.
I'm more interested in other issues - this doesn't even make it onto the list of real concerns I have.
You need to realize that this isn't about what any American thinks. It is about what Muslims in countries like Iraq or Afghanistan think. Every since the "war on terror" began, the United States has worked to differentiate it from a "war against Islam" for very obvious reason.
Who cares if someone gets offended? What if that offended person decides that they will join a terrorist group to defend their religion? What if that offended person will refuse to help US forces because they feel the US is attacking their religion?
Once again, this is about image. In Afghanistan, we are working extremely hard to establish and maintain good relations with the local population, but if they feel that our presence there is religious based, all of that will be ruined. The passages were taken off were a reason. And that reason is that those hurt US forces establish and maintain strategic relations with the Islamic population.
They should be more concerned about why the crosshairs are on them rather than what is etched into the scope.
The entire Islamic population? The entire point of taking off the passages off is to tell the majority of the Islamic population that the cross hairs aren't on them.
The actual passages is a non-issue. But since the story blew up, the US military need to cover their asses. That's what they did.
The entire Islamic population? The entire point of taking off the passages off is to tell the majority of the Islamic population that the cross hairs aren't on them.
The actual passages is a non-issue. But since the story blew up, the US military need to cover their asses. That's what they did.
Petraeus got it.
The Cellar generals still dont get it.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/jesus-rifles/story?id=9618791
Trijicon, the gunsight maker that has imprinted Bible verse numbers on its scopes, has announced that it will no longer imprint the verses on the sides of scopes intended for the U.S. military, and will also provide clients with the kits to remove the Bible verse numbers from existing scopes.
More than one. Heck, you can use the whole Song of Solomon as a stroke book. Really.
Now likening somebody's tummy to a heap of wheat, okay, that's a little out there in simile land for me... but no one could say the Song of Solomon was the writing of a eunuch. It was written by somebody who could spooge.
Didn't i already say that?
Could be -- I just wanted to say it too. "In my own inimitable... idiom."
Nope. I have to highlight it to see anything's there. Sometimes if I see a gap in a post I highlight just to check if I'm missing anything :P
Same here, I've mentioned before it's annoying.
The actual passages is a non-issue. But since the story blew up, the US military need to cover their asses. That's what they did.
I agree.
I agree.
It is not just about covering their asses.
It is also a recognition of perceptions...and as was also noted by piercehawkeye...about how it might be perceived by Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan...and understanding the need to be a bit sensitive to those perceptions.
I'm sure that not every single person who is upset by this issue wears panties. But they should.
Trying to picture
General Petraeus in panties.
It is not just about covering their asses.
It is also a recognition of perceptions...and as was also noted by piercehawkeye...about how it might be perceived by Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan...and understanding the need to be a bit sensitive to those perceptions.
Speaking of perceptions, Mike Yon mentioned in Iraq the locals thought we would never leave because some outfits built, or moved into existing, buildings.
In Afghanistan, the locals feel we're not going to stay, and protect them from the Taliban, because we're living in tents and not building structures.
The local commanders have to be aware of these perceptions, they can win or lose the war.
yeah, but they could be used for checking out the showers of the opposite sex. ;)
Hee Hee...is there an appropriate bible verse for that?
Yes. Verse 2.
David and Bathsheba
1 In the spring of the year, the time when kings go out to battle, David sent Joab, and his servants with him, and all Israel. And they ravaged the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained at Jerusalem.
2 It happened, late one afternoon, when David arose from his couch and was walking on the roof of the king’s house, that he saw from the roof a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful. 3 And David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, "Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?"
What were once unacknowledged, relatively infrequent targeted killings of suspected militants or terrorists in the Bush years have become commonplace under the Obama administration. And since a devastating December 30th suicide attack by a Jordanian double agent on a CIA forward operating base in Afghanistan, unmanned aerial drones have been hunting humans in the Af-Pak war zone at a record pace. In Pakistan, an “unprecedented number” of strikes -- which have killed armed guerrillas and civilians alike -- have led to more fear, anger, and outrage in the tribal areas, as the CIA, with help from the U.S. Air Force, wages the most public “secret” war of modern times.
I wonder what is written on these bombs?
Perhaps something like
these. . .
"Hi There!" is always good.
They should be more concerned about why the crosshairs are on them rather than what is etched into the scope.
Damm right.
I think we were talking about a group of people who may or may not be offended by markings on a scope. We are worried about offending a group of people we are already looking at through these scopes though, so... who gives a damn.
To make my position perfectly clear: I don't care about the markings. While I am a Christian I think stuff like that is just hokey. I don't own the company though, so that is their choice. What I do care about is the sad little people running around crying, "aaaagggghhh, we might have offended someone!".
I agree with, the "sad little people" of the PC brigade, are not my concern, but if Petraeus and McCrystal feel it gives the enemy a propaganda advantage, then it must be rectified. It's our absolute obligation to support our field commanders in any, and every, way possible.
If our generals want it off then the company has to choose between their verses and their contracts. Seems pretty easy to me. I do support the generals on this but I wonder if they'd have become involved if it weren't for the PC brigade in the first place.
If it weren't for the PC brigade, it probably wouldn't have become an propaganda opportunity for the baddies. But that's a moot point now.
Unfortunately thats correct, xob.
Most importantly, will it hit what I want when I put the crosshairs on it. I doubt most of them care. I suspect that the majority of those who care are not from the country of distribution. They are just happy to have something other than iron sights on the back of an AKS.
We are worried about offending a group of people we are already looking at through these scopes though, so... who gives a damn.
I think it was all the muslim people who are NOT terrorists that they are worried about offending and or turning into terrorists because of these microscopic writing on a piece of ancillary equipment.
That makes sense. I can just hear Abdul now, "Mohammed, they have verses on some of their scopes! I will quit being an accountant today and blow myself up in protest!"
Straw-carrying camels originated in the Middle East.
audible laugh. thanks HM.
That makes sense. I can just hear Abdul now, "Mohammed, they DON'T have verses on some of their scopes! I will quit being a DRUG DEALER today and NOT go and blow myself up in protest!"
fixed that for ya.
This ran on NPR's All Things Considered and I think it is good food for thought on this topic. Take a moment and read what an ex-marine who served in Iraq has to say.
Hold The Hallelujah: The Perils Of Rifles And Religion
by Benjamin Busch
Benjamin Busch was an infantry officer in the United States Marine Corps. His memoir, 'Bearing Arms', recently appeared in 'Harper's' and his photographs from Iraq have been featured in 'Five Points', and 'War, Literature, & the Arts'. His newest essay, 'Growth Rings', is in the current issue of the 'Michigan Quarterly Review'. He lives in Michigan with his wife and their two daughters.
As a Marine invading Iraq in 2003, I thought we actively separated church and state from our motives.
I know that Scripture embedded in the obscure numbers on rifle scopes may seem like a small detail, and that manufacturer Trijicon likely intended no particular malice by placing biblical references on its equipment. Like, 2COR4:6 represents 2 Corinthians 4:6, "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." There seems to have been neither marketing nor secrecy associated with the presence of these inscriptions.
But these are not innocent times, and the codes are still messages printed and sent out. These notes have now been read and exposed, and we have the baggage of explaining ourselves to people convinced that many of our actions are motivated by religion instead of self-defense, justice or altruism.
As a Marine, I aimed at Iraq through rifle scopes, my vision amplified. When viewing other cultures, even enemies, I think we should be wary of seeing them through a lens marked by religion.
The United States is fighting Islamic extremists. But we are not Christian extremists. When I returned for my second tour in 2005, we were in the embattled city of Ramadi, and we fought jihadists, tribal factions and criminals alongside almost entirely Muslim Iraqi soldiers. It was impossible to segregate the ambitions of singular religions then.
Although the rifle equipment was stamped as a private act by a private company, it was sold to governments, and therefore unavoidably and knowingly coupled with politics. Biblical quotes were thoughtfully chosen — thoughtful enough not to be allowed as innocent of larger context.
By branding weapons with Christian messages, there is a deep and ugly blending of religion, politics and bloodshed, and it has unwittingly painted our government and military with the embarrassing language of "crusade."
America is largely composed of people who consider themselves Christian, separated by various interpretations of the same book. But I did not go onward as a Christian soldier. I went forth as an American, a Marine. I was sent by my country to fight a threat, and thereafter with the best intentions of democracy, not theocracy.
Our efforts in the Middle East were complicated enough, and small symbols are examined carefully by our opponents. Based on my understanding of the teachings of Christ, he would be very disappointed to see his Gospel assigned to war of any kind in the first place.
I leave you with a verse that has not been stamped on our weapons: "But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you" — Matthew 5:44.
That was compelling.
This
But these are not innocent times, and the codes are still messages printed and sent out.
eloquently states the issue at hand.
That was compelling.
This eloquently states the issue at hand.
Agreed.
He recognized that [SIZE="5"]p[/SIZE]er[SIZE="5"]c[/SIZE]eptions are not always an issue of PC but rather understanding how words and actions may be interpreted by others.
but rather understanding how words and actions may be interpreted by others.
I'm relatively sure we all realize that.
I'm relatively sure we all realize that.
I must have been confused by the most recent references to the PC Brigade.
The question was never whether something could be interpreted in a way other than it was intended.
Agreed.
He recognized that [SIZE="5"]p[/SIZE]er[SIZE="5"]c[/SIZE]eptions are not always an issue of PC but rather understanding how words and actions may be interpreted by others.
Politicaly Correct, is not about politics, it's about not saying/doing anything, that anyone, anywhere, might perceive as offensive. Even if it's the truth.
Politically Correct may mean that now; but it started out referring to the attempt not to offend particular groups of people with language that had become loaded. So, it became politically incorrect to talk about 'the little woman' or 'the fairer sex' and became equally politically incorrect to talk about 'darkies' or 'our dusky cousins'.
I am often bemused by how much effort people put into arguing their right to offend. and equally bemused by the level of venom aimed at those who would choose to temper language in an effort not to cause undue offence.
There seems far more venom directed at the 'PC brigade' than at the people who are causing offence by using outdated and offensive language to describe groups of people. Likewise there is far more venom in here for those who would seek not to offend moslems generally through clumsy inclusion of bible verses on gun sights, than there is for a company who was clumsy enough to include those verses in the first place.
Anybody who is offended, or claims an awareness of the potential for offence gets lumped in to a big group and discounted instantly. More disturbingly, given the context of this discussion, is that any moslem who might be offended by this is assumed to be 'the enemy' ... any moslem in Afghanistan should apparently be more concerned by why they are being sighted with this equipment than what is written on it...in other words, all Afghan Moslems are the enemy.
Political Correctness never lacked the Thought Police* features even from its inception. It has grown into a tyranny of non-think. It must be overthrown.
*Blatant 1984 reference.
Define 'they'.
Why is that necessary? If you don't know who wants to cut your head off, DanaC, I'd say you're missing a fundamental right there. And you can imagine why they'd want to cut your personal head off, can't you?
And you know they wouldn't be right or righteous, yet would be by some jerkass philosophy entirely Politically Correct.
I am often bemused by how much effort people put into arguing their right to offend and equally bemused by the level of venom aimed at those who would choose to temper language in an effort not to cause undue offence.
Not their right to offend, not at all. Its their right to not have so much of what is said or done be misconstrued or misinterpreted as an offense when it was not intended as such. The issue, I think, for some is that we have become overly concerned about unintentionally offending anyone, that we almost can't say anything to anyone. It really is getting ridiculous.
There seems far more venom directed at the 'PC brigade' than at the people who are causing offence by using outdated and offensive language to describe groups of people. Likewise there is far more venom in here for those who would seek not to offend moslems generally through clumsy inclusion of bible verses on gun sights, than there is for a company who was clumsy enough to include those verses in the first place.
Anybody who is offended, or claims an awareness of the potential for offence gets lumped in to a big group and discounted instantly.
Not true. Not even close.
More disturbingly, given the context of this discussion, is that any moslem who might be offended by this is assumed to be 'the enemy' ... any moslem in Afghanistan should apparently be more concerned by why they are being sighted with this equipment than what is written on it...in other words, all Afghan Moslems are the enemy.
Let me play Devil's advocate here - just for the topic of discussion. (I'm afraid already this is gonna go really badly)
1) Does the company not have the right to express their religion in a very VERY unobtrusive way? These markings were on their scopes long before any of this started. The situation has changed since then. Apparently the need to change as well. If so,
I and many many others are offended by those people who wish to cover their entire faces as if they were about to commit a crime. I find it politically incorrect for them to wear this type of extremely concealing clothing especially in these troubling and difficult times.
I am often bemused by how much effort people put into arguing their right to offend. and equally bemused by the level of venom aimed at those who would choose to temper language in an effort not to cause undue offence.
Bemused, befuddled and bewildered beyond belief.
Not their right to offend, not at all. Its their right to not have so much of what is said or done be misconstrued or misinterpreted as an offense when it was not intended as such. The issue, I think, for some is that we have become overly concerned about unintentionally offending anyone, that we almost can't say anything to anyone. It really is getting ridiculous.
You are exaggerating Classicman. The "PC is taking over our language" bandwagon is easy to get on but its not reality.
Obviously this is generalized, but really see two types of political correctness. One tries to eliminate things that attacks entire groups of people and the other tries to eliminate things that do not attack entire groups of people. Examples of the first are racist, sexist, and homophobic words or something like putting a confederate flag outside an African American cultural center. Examples of the second are words such as black (not an insulting word to vast majority) or actions such as Christmas lights or putting up the confederate flag in a "state's pride" manner.
Personally, I believe the first type is legitimate political correctness and the second is not legitimate and used by insecure overly offended people who are looking for attention (there is an obvious gray area but I am ignoring that for this). And fuck those people. Unless you speak publically or that insecure person holds some power over you, you are usually fine.
Agreed.
He recognized that [SIZE="5"]p[/SIZE]er[SIZE="5"]c[/SIZE]eptions are not always an issue of PC but rather understanding how words and actions may be interpreted by others.
I'm relatively sure we all realize that.
I must have been confused by the most recent references to the PC Brigade.
I guess they realize it, but they don't care. That doesn't help.
... who gives a damn.
To make my position perfectly clear: I don't care about the markings.
I think a big deal is being made of it. I'm more interested in other issues - this doesn't even make it onto the list of real concerns I have.
This whole story is stupid and has very little traction among the troops. They could give a shit. Is it sighted properly and will I hit my target is a much more important question. There is no story here.
... fuck 'em.
I don't really give a shit.
Go ahead and freak out if you want.
Who cares if there is a series of letters and numbers etched into the metal?
Hey there spexxie - you really think the post of mine you quoted is the same as the others?
Why is that necessary? If you don't know who wants to cut your head off, DanaC, I'd say you're missing a fundamental right there. And you can imagine why they'd want to cut your personal head off, can't you?
And you know they wouldn't be right or righteous, yet would be by some jerkass philosophy entirely Politically Correct.
So speaketh the urbane one; handily leaping into the conceptual trap to which I was referring in the first place.
My point, UG, is that people have raised the potential issue of 'moslems' being given the wrong impression about the nature of this war: to whit, that it is a Christian 'crusade' against Islam. Other people have responded by suggesting that those who might take offence (i.e. moslems) are the enemy and should be more concerned with why they are being sighted in the gun sights in the first place; or, as you so neatly suggest, are the ones who might be wanting to cut my head off. Thereby confirming that, as far as you are concerned, any moslem is apparently slotted into the category of enemy in this conflict.
I don't really think any of the people who've raised objections to the bible verses were doing so because they think it might offend a Taleban or AQ fighter. The problem is that it might offend, or more importantly exacerbate perceptions of the war as a Christian crusade
amongst other moslems - y'know...the ones we aren't fighting. Maybe even the ones who are our allies; our comrades; and the people we are hoping to 'liberate'.
The problem is that it might offend, or more importantly exacerbate perceptions of the war as a Christian crusade amongst other moslems - y'know...the ones we aren't fighting. Maybe even the ones who are our allies; our comrades; and the people we are hoping to 'liberate'.
I gotcha. I understand this. Again how far do we go? When they feel that celebrating Christmas is offensive or going to church or or or whatever. How far do we go so that we don't
UNINTENTIONALLY offend someone.
Oh and are they doing the same for us? Not trying to start a a tit for tat here. Just asking.
Also, You didn't respond to the scenario I presented you. :(
Sorry m'dear: I need to think about that post before I respond :P
As to the offence at celebrating Christmas etc: there are a few cases where that is genuine, but more often than not it is invented by bored journalists and racist dickheads.
Case in point: I get told at least 3 or 4 times every year that 'we can't even put Christmas decorations up in Bradford city centre anymore because it might offend the moslems/pakis'. This story has been doing the rounds for at least 5 years and is complete bulllshit. I've had people trot it out to me when I've been doorknocking/canvassing; I've seen it trotted out in readers' letters to local newspapers 9and equally ludicrous equivalents in national newspapers).
I know for a fact, because I shop in Bradford every fucking Christmas, that there are Christmas decorations there every year. Not just 'holiday' decorations; but proper, Christmas decorations, up to and including a fuck off big manger scene in front of the city hall and christmas trees in the main square and all the smaller centres.
I hear the same thing said of Halifax centre again, it's bollocks) and Leeds 9again bollocks).
The fact that it is patently untrue has unfortunately not stopped it becoming perceived wisdom. It is more or less accepted by a large sector of the population (according to various surveys conducted by the Searchlight organisation) that these stories are true.
Similarly: a huge furore erupted in the press (local and national) about councils not allowing St George flags to be hung in their town halls on St George's day 'for fear of offending moslem/pakis'. It is possible an isolated number of councils did make that rather silly decision. But, it is trotted out regardless of the truth. I have had people tell me that our council won;t allow St george flags to be hung on St George's day. Again, i know this is false. I work in the town hall: there was a bloody great big St George flag hung on the wall of the great hall. The same accusation was made of police for stopping people having st george flags on their cars. People were up in arms because it was 'so as not to offend moslems/pakis'. In actual fact it was a road safety issue, because there had been a number of incidents on motorways, where the little plastic flags on the back of the car had broken off and flown back into the window of the car behind.
As a local politician I find myself being told this stuff again and again. The percentage of these stories that have any basis in truth is miniscule. The weight of them all taken together serves to create a general sense of 'PC gone mad' and 'native English people as second class citizens in their own land'.
There are, from time to time, occasions where an attempt not to create offence goes awry. Someone makes a bad call. But, there are also occasions when someone's lack of sensitivity to a potential for offence also goes awry and someone likewise makes a bad call. These days, people are less likely to be offended by examnples of institutional and overt racism; because the social changes that we refer to as 'PC' have changed the landscape.
The world is not perfect. But, truly, I'd rather someone end up accidentally getting in hot water now and again because someone hasbeen over zealous ion their attempts to avoid offence, than we return to a time when deeply offensive and bigotted language and policy was the norm in public service and the workplace.
The liberal media won't let me say grace at my dinner table, in my own house!!!1
They stopped me saying The Lord's Prayer before bed!
They stopped me saying The Lord's Prayer before bed!
The liberal media won't let me say grace at my dinner table, in my own house!!!1
See! See! There's proof! The Moslems/Pakis are ruining everything... on two continents. Well a continent and a piddly island. :right:
Hey! that piddly island was once Great ya know!
Politically Correct may mean that now; but it started out referring to the attempt not to offend particular groups of people with language that had become loaded. So, it became politically incorrect to talk about 'the little woman' or 'the fairer sex' and became equally politically incorrect to talk about 'darkies' or 'our dusky cousins'.
I am often bemused by how much effort people put into arguing their right to offend. and equally bemused by the level of venom aimed at those who would choose to temper language in an effort not to cause undue offence.
There seems far more venom directed at the 'PC brigade' than at the people who are causing offence by using outdated and offensive language to describe groups of people. Likewise there is far more venom in here for those who would seek not to offend moslems generally through clumsy inclusion of bible verses on gun sights, than there is for a company who was clumsy enough to include those verses in the first place.
Anybody who is offended, or claims an awareness of the potential for offence gets lumped in to a big group and discounted instantly. More disturbingly, given the context of this discussion, is that any moslem who might be offended by this is assumed to be 'the enemy' ... any moslem in Afghanistan should apparently be more concerned by why they are being sighted with this equipment than what is written on it...in other words, all Afghan Moslems are the enemy.
Amen.
My point, UG, is that people have raised the potential issue of 'moslems' being given the wrong impression about the nature of this war: to whit, that it is a Christian 'crusade' against Islam.
Based on the replies, I believe we need to entertain the idea that for a group of war supporters this is, by nature, a Crusade.
Here's a clip from Charlie Brooker's Newswipe. It's a series that analyses news production and patterns of news coverage. It's a bit of a side step, but I think relevant to this discussion. It's a ten minute clip, the most relevant section starts a couple of minutes in, but worth watching the whole thing for clarity. The contribution from the Canadian journalist on the way 'narratives' form in the media is particularly intteresting in the context of our current 'crusade'. Another relevant section is about 9 minutes in: showing how footage of Yemen (in the wake of the recent bomb attempt) relies on videos uploaded by Al Q. and therefore offers an entirely skewed view of the country as being made up of jihadists.
[youtube]AA2VeSjA45U[/youtube]
Hey! that piddly island was once Great ya know!
And then they became politically correct, and look what happened. Heart breaking to see such great people reduced to being.... frenchly. :haha:
Frenchly? Who, dear? Us dear? No Dear! How Dare you? How very dare you!
[youtube]3Lw_2NuS6i8&NR=1[/youtube]
...particularly intteresting in the context of our current 'crusade'.
You actually believe this is a "crusade"? That is a definition place on the WOT by those who oppose it and it's methods. It is a fantasy.
No, I don't believe it is a crusade. I believe it is viewed as such by some. If I actually believed it was a crusade I wouldn't have used quote marks :P
Frenchly? Who, dear? Us dear? No Dear! How Dare you? How very dare you!
I'm sorry, I was just reading about the Brit's wine industry. :o
Your use of the word implies that you support that notion.
I'd bet many more do than will admit it. At least schadenfreude that the terrorist enemy is muslim.
Your use of the word implies that you support that notion.
Nope. But I think some of the people prosecuting the war (particularly during the l;ast administration) and indeed some of the people who support it have veered dangerously close to that. A llot of rhetoric about 'clash of civilizations' tends to support that hypothesis; as does the amount of people who currently seem to equate 'moslem' with 'terrorist' and 'Islam' with 'terrorism'.
personally I have a more prosaic view. I think it was fuck all to do with Christianity and fuck all to do with terrorism either. Given that Iraq and saddam had no connection to 9/11; I think 'we' went into there for entirely selfish reasons, more to do with gain and politics than anything else.
Nope. But I think some of the people prosecuting the war (particularly during the l;ast administration) and indeed some of the people who support it have veered dangerously close to that. A llot of rhetoric about 'clash of civilizations' tends to support that hypothesis; as does the amount of people who currently seem to equate 'moslem' with 'terrorist' and 'Islam' with 'terrorism'.
Keep in mind that it was a solid way to get support from large parts of the country. I don't think that our past few administrations would do anything close to a "crusade" but it would be an easier way to justify and gain support for war.
Nope. But I think some of the people prosecuting the war (particularly during the l;ast administration) and indeed some of the people who support it have veered dangerously close to that. A llot of rhetoric about 'clash of civilizations' tends to support that hypothesis; as does the amount of people who currently seem to equate 'moslem' with 'terrorist' and 'Islam' with 'terrorism'.
personally I have a more prosaic view. I think it was fuck all to do with Christianity and fuck all to do with terrorism either.
Can't agree or disagree entirely.
Given that Iraq and saddam had no connection to 9/11
Agreed.
I think 'we' went into there for entirely selfish reasons, more to do with gain and politics than anything else.
What were those reasons as you understand them?
Keep in mind that it was a solid way to get support from large parts of the country. I don't think that our past few administrations would do anything close to a "crusade" but it would be an easier way to justify and gain support for war.
Actually it is a term not used to justify the wars in any manner at all. It is a term used to vilify those who conducted it. Period.
Actually it is a term not used to justify the wars in any manner at all. It is a term used to vilify those who conducted it. Period.
I didn't mean the word crusade in my post, my bad. I meant the language and rhetoric used that made people think the administration were going for a crusade. That was used to gain support for the war.
What were those reasons as you understand them?
I think there were a number of reasons, some of which were shared by America and Britain; others of which were distinct to each.
1. A controlling stake in an area important both geopolitically and in terms of natural resources.
2. A statement: for America I think that statement was aimed at enemies real and imagined, current and future to the effect that: if you come at us we will tear you limb from limb. Also that here is a superpower at the height of its strength; a way of counterbalancing the apparent rise of other superpowers (such as China).For Britain, I think the statement was more to do with showing we could still be a powerful nation, if only by association, and that we could still 'punch above our weight'.
3. Wars, at their start, as long as they are fought elsewhere and can be justified, however rudimentary and fragile the logic of that justification, are popular. America had suffered a dagger blow to its confidence and this was a way of a. recovering that confidence and b. winning the approval of large swathes of the population by being seen to respond harshly to its attacker: the fact that Iraq wasn't actually involved was conveniently omitted from that public dialogue at the start. Afghanistan was a more logical and justifiable target; but historically unlikely to yield quick victories. Wars are only popular if they yield such quick victories. Iraq had the potential for a fast and 'successful' campaign; with a 'villain' to overthrow and a chance for the population to feel good about what had been done. This reason was shared by the British. Both Blair and Bush had a resurgence of popularity during the early (and 'successful' ) stages of that invasion. Over here we call it 'the Falklands Factor'.
4. There are profits to be made through war; most particularly during the aftermath. Several major companies/corporations with strong links to the Bush administration have made, for want of a better word, a killing out of that conflict. Britain did not want to be left out of that and argued strongly to be a part of the rebuilding process; therefore this, i think, was a reason we shared.
I will agree with number 3.
I think your other three points are bogus and what people want to believe, it borders on conspiracy theory.
Numbers 1, 2 and 4 are common themes in conflicts going back many years. They are rarely the primary reason, which is why I listed them as a number of reasons.
Anyone who thinks we went into Iraq to get their oil or prop up the defense industry is a conspiracy theorist.
I didn't say 'get their oil'. I said gain a controlling stake in an area of the world that is important both geopolitically and in terms of natural resources.
'Get their oil' is somewhat simplistic.
I say we just go with Manifest Destiny because God clearly has given the United States the prerogative to kill who we want, take what we want when we want it, and fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
After all, why re-invent the wheel when that attitude was used so successfully to colonize the planet over the past 600 years or so?
Anyone who thinks we went into Iraq just to kick terrorist butt is deluded.
Of course, I could be wrong. America might be the first great nation in history not to have control of essential resources as a factor in warfare.
Of course, I could be wrong. America might be the first great nation in history not to have control of essential resources as a factor in warfare.
Agreed, Essential resources are a primary factor in any conflict. Bush didn't want the burning fields in the press again either. Who did?
I didn't say 'get their oil'. I said gain a controlling stake in an area of the world that is important both geopolitically and in terms of natural resources.
'Get their oil' is somewhat simplistic.
I agree with Dana. If the Middle East were not a significant oil producing region, we would have relegated it's importance to the same level as Africa. Corporations would still have fought over resources, but the CIA would have not felt it necessary to overthrow a government in Iran, and noone would have felt the need to invade.
Do the anti-conspiracy theorists wish to attempt to deny
Operation Ajax?
BTW Dana, I've been listening to BBC America chronicling Tony Blair's attempts to rewrite his own history, a la Cheney. He's been downplaying the same "Iraq had WMD's" argument he made and trying to make the same "We should/would have invaded them anyway" argument. The two of them should take their show on the road together, like Hope and Crosby.
I didn't say 'get their oil'. I said gain a controlling stake in an area of the world that is important both geopolitically and in terms of natural resources.
'Get their oil' is somewhat simplistic.
Same fucking thing. They don't have much more than sand and we have plenty of that. Don't blow smoke up our skirts.
No, it isn't the same thing. But I am way too tired to sit here and formulate an explanation as to why it isn't the same thing.
Your statements stand as they are. We did not go into Iraq because of Oil or some other fucking bull shit geopolitical reason. If you have some primary source evidence to prove other wise, I mean other than anti-Bush conspiracy theory web sources, I would be glad to read them. Otherwise I have to put your notions into the same category as fringe conspiracy theorists. Hence they are nothing more than speculative opinions of a single person.
Your statements stand as they are. We did not go into Iraq because of Oil or some other fucking bull shit geopolitical reason. If you have some primary source evidence to prove other wise, I mean other than anti-Bush conspiracy theory web sources, I would be glad to read them. Otherwise I have to put your notions into the same category as fringe conspiracy theorists. Hence they are nothing more than speculative opinions of a single person.
You are being too black and white. While I agree with you that our sole or primary reason for going into Iraq was not about securing oil, to say that its position and natural resources did have a direct or indirect factor is ridiculous as well.
Iraq, like Iran and Venezuela, are countries that sit on top of vast natural resources and because of this, these countries are more likely to be watched and gain attention because we are "dependent" on them. Because of this increased amount of attention, the probability of action taken against these countries increases.
We did not go into Iraq because of Oil or some other fucking bull shit geopolitical reason.
Well why did we?
Synopsis - Failed culture sitting on top of oil to be magically made over by breaking stuff.
Otherwise I have to put your notions into the same category as fringe conspiracy theorists. Hence they are nothing more than speculative opinions of a single person.
Of course it's one persons opinion. You asked, in my opinion, what i thought those reasons were and I told you.
The region is important. A controlling stake in that region would be beneficial in terms of natural resources. I did not suggest that we went into Iraq to steal their oil. But that the ability to exert control over important natural resources will have, in my opinion, played a part in the decision to invade. If it diodn't, then great. Well done. Your nation has broken a millenia long pattern.
It is also an important location in geopolitical terms. There is nothing bullshit about such importance, it has informed conflicts for generations, yea even onto the middle ages.
From the link UT posted:
Strategic suitability
Iraq is centrally located with borders on Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. It has major ports through which supplies and troops can move. Thus if we occupied Iraq, it would be ideal as a potential base of military operations against any of those other nations later, should that become necessary.
The governments in the region know it. Having American troops on their borders, or even the threat to move troops there, was guaranteed to get their attention.
If the military victory over Iraqi forces was overwhelming, that would make the threat even more impressive. The military forces of the other nations in the region were even less formidable than that of Saddam's Iraq.
This would make diplomatic threats against them far more effective and inspire much more cooperation from them than had been forthcoming to that point.
Geopolitical importance.
There's no question the area is
important, but gaining a "controlling stake"? If that was the point, it's in the new way that one gains that, not the old way.
Old way: invade, conquer, take the nation's wealth and make the population slaves -- so they will obey you
New way: invade, take out the abusive regime, give the people back their wealth and their voice -- so they will like you
Last month they held the auctions for the development of Iraqi oil. International oil companies bid and won those contracts. There was almost no American oil company involvement. And the Iraqi government's position is that American troops will be gone next year.
So much for the old notion of "controlling stake"; it would appear the USA controls next to nothing in Iraq. But will we continue to have influence? Iraqi blogger
Iraqi blogger The Mesopotamian (paragraph breaks and bold, mine):
A recent encounter left a strong impression on me. It was an acquaintance of mine, a structural engineer like me. We met occasionally for some professional business in one of the Gulf Countries. One day I noticed that he was rather depressed and seemed quite angry. I asked him what the matter was.
He told me that he had an argument with some non-Iraqi Arabs about the Iraqi situation and they all set on him like a pack of dogs chiding him that Iraq was an occupied country and all that kind of spiteful talk about the Iraqis that we have become accustomed to from our Arab “brothers”. Well, this guy was not the type who can take things coolly, and he gave them back what they deserve. We have all been in this situation and had to suffer the stupidity and prejudice of outsiders.
One sentence that he uttered struck me though.
First of all he said that they all had parts of their lands occupied, like the Golan in Syria, and then he said something in Iraqi slang that is difficult to translate. Roughly it may be translated like this: “how happy would they be, had their occupation been like the American occupation”. And then with emotion, he uttered a kind of bitter remark that remains reverberating in my mind – “if the Iraqi people have any friends it’s only America and nobody else”.
For anyone outside Iraq, getting his information from the media, this may sound an incredible sentiment, but for many Iraqis it is perfectly understandable. Well, the Americans are not perfect, and they have committed tons of mistakes in Iraq. Some of the soldiers misbehaved and even committed crimes; there was Abu Graib and all that. Yet, yet, let’s face it, what’s a friend? It is someone who is pleased to hear you are doing well, and doesn’t like bad news about you; in short someone who cares about you. And let me ask just this one question – which people in this whole wide world likes to hear good news about Iraq and is dismayed when things go wrong? Need I answer this question?
Do we forget that America has rid us of one the most brutal regimes in history? And in spite of all our detractors and envious hypocritical critics, a genuine democracy is coming into being, corruption or no corruption, squabbling between various factions, explosions and political assassinations etc. notwithstanding. At least the parliament is not the sham rubberstamp institution appointed by ruling dictatorships that abound all around us. The intensity and bitterness of the frequent political crises and disputes attest to the genuine nature of the pluralism that has come to characterise the political scene. This is something that is a complete novelty in this region of absolute dictatorships, medieval monarchies and sheikdoms.
I think the situation over the last few years has changed somewhat. Not least with regards the involvement of Halliburton.
'Controlling stake' does not mean overall control. It is also the ability to strongly influence in a way that is beneficial to 'our' needs.
Nations are not altruistic, any mopre than humans are. Even our altruism is essentially selfish and that is what i was getting at. One of the reasons 'we' went to war was in order to influence that region in ways that would benefit us. If what benefits us is a peaceful democracy over there then so be it. But it was for our benefit, not theirs.
What we are doing now, is not necessarily why we went in. I do believe that the initial invasion was done partly with a view to western companies contending for those oil contracts. More importantly, though, it was done with a view to 'friendly' companies/countries having control over those resources, rather than 'unfriendly'or unreliable countries having that control.
America is leading the reorganisation. It may not be taking a direct stake; biut it is instrumental in shaping the stakes in such a way that makes access to those resources more secure.
Just a quick point btw: I don't actually think that going to war in order to gain control or inbfluence over access to essential resources makes America an evil nation. It is just what nations do. And it doesn't break down simply into old style invasion and enslavement; new style invasion and democratising. Both have been present in history. (at some point when I find the time, I'll dig out some stuff to support that ;P)
This isn't an acccusation of America as a big bad giant, invading Iraq to steal their oil: it is however one of the reasons that control (however it is achieved) of that region was important, in a way that control of certain other regions wasn't. 'Control' and influence come in many forms: gratitude and cultural debt included.
What was important was securing the region, and that includes securing its resources.
This is no different to what any nation does if it has the capability. I'm not attacking America by saying it.
I do believe the war was wrong. But not for these reasons.
I believe that French and Russian companies got the bulk of the oil contracts when Saddam was in power, and I believe that French and Russian companies have largely bid on and won the bulk of the new contracts.
Thereby putting the oil into the hands of people America can safely do business with. Rather in the hands of unreliable despots and enemies.
I know. Fucking frogs, you just can't work with them.
But it was for our benefit, not theirs.
Those two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
America is leading the reorganization. It may not be taking a direct stake; but it is instrumental in shaping the stakes in such a way that makes access to those resources more secure.
Thats a good thing.
No, you are right: they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I just think the rationale for invasion had more to do with what benefit it would bring 'us' than what good it might do them.
And nor did I say it was a'bad' thing that America was leading that reorganisation. I disagreed with the war. I still disagree with it. I do not believe the ends justified the means. But having done the deed, it is the responsibility of the invading force/nation to restructure the country and leave it in a stronger position.
Whether it is a good thing that control of those resources is in 'friendly' hands is a different argument entirely. Self-interest and morality aren't necessarily comfortable bed fellows. We had no 'moral right' in my opinion to reshape the world according to our needs. But then 'moral right' is a luxury when it comes to foreign policy. And I know of no nation who has ever put it entirely at the head of its actions.
I know. Fucking frogs, you just can't work with them.
lol.
You are being too black and white.
As a retired Military Officer who lost friends there maybe I am just to sensitive about the issue.
While I agree with you that our sole or primary reason for going into Iraq was not about securing oil, to say that its position and natural resources did have a direct or indirect factor is ridiculous as well.
Great. Prove it. The notion is simplistic and fraught with overtones that feed conspiracy theory. There is no evidence to suppor that this was an objective. If it were true we could just go ahead and nuke Iran now and be done with it.
Great. Prove it. The notion is simplistic and fraught with overtones that feed conspiracy theory. There is no evidence to suppor that this was an objective. If it were true we could just go ahead and nuke Iran now and be done with it.
You can't prove that besides saying that anti-American countries with natural resources are criticized a lot more than anti-American countries without natural resources.
And what I said wasn't conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theory would be saying that the government tried to justify the Iraqi invasion with terrorists reason while actually attacking because of natural resources. I am saying that because Iraq is a major oil supplier, they will naturally be watched than someone who isn't a major oil supplier.
You can't prove that besides saying that anti-American countries with natural resources are criticized a lot more than anti-American countries without natural resources.
And what I said wasn't conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theory would be saying that the government tried to justify the Iraqi invasion with terrorists reason while actually attacking because of natural resources. I am saying that because Iraq is a major oil supplier, they will naturally be watched than someone who isn't a major oil supplier.
Fair enough. But it still in no way provides weight to any argument that the natural resources of Iraq had anything to do with the decision to go to war, which was my point of the discussion.
Then why the fuck did we? You keep saying it wasn't about strategic position and it wasn't about resources, as a matter of fact all you ever say is everybody else is wrong.
Apparently for none of the reasons nations usually go to war.
Or maybe America really is the good guy of Gotham City and wanted to free the Iraqi people from a terrible dictator.
Believing everything an administration/government says to its people and believing nothing an administration/government says to its people are two extremes along the same continuum.
Then why the fuck did we? You keep saying it wasn't about strategic position and it wasn't about resources, as a matter of fact all you ever say is everybody else is wrong.
I base it more on an administration whipped into a frenzy over 9/11 and a series of intell failures. If you read Woodward's books on the issue there was a combination of serious intell slip ups, an over zelous CIA director, who to this day still has failed to accept responsibility for his part in pulling the trigger, and and a president who was a puppet of his staff. Many of us doubted his decision to go to war in Iraq and the majority of the people around me at the time knew we were taking our eye off the ball in diverting the attention away from the Afgan Theater.
You actually believe this is a "crusade"? That is a definition place on the WOT by those who oppose it and it's methods. It is a fantasy.
Actually it is a term not used to justify the wars in any manner at all. It is a term used to vilify those who conducted it. Period.
[YOUTUBE]br_70Kbdpow[/YOUTUBE]
Bush was a puppet.
This was better.
....
His comments were made within the 4 days after Sept 11, 2001.
We went into Iraq March 20, 2003.
I base it more on an administration whipped into a frenzy over 9/11 and a series of intell failures. If you read Woodward's books on the issue there was a combination of serious intell slip ups, an over zelous CIA director, who to this day still has failed to accept responsibility for his part in pulling the trigger, and and a president who was a puppet of his staff. Many of us doubted his decision to go to war in Iraq and the majority of the people around me at the time knew we were taking our eye off the ball in diverting the attention away from the Afgan Theater.
Whipped into a frenzy, then perpetrated a halfassed retaliation in Afghanistan, maybe? But they had two years to figure out what was to be gained from attacking Iraq, and that was strategic position and natural resources. Plus Haliburton wasn't making squat in Afghanistan, and troops are just an expendable resource, for politicians. They'll spend your kid, to grow their wealth.
Whipped into a frenzy, then perpetrated a halfassed retaliation in Afghanistan, maybe?
Half assed? You have to be kidding. That was a one sided fight all the way, there was nothing half assed about it other than us pulling out to refocus on Iraq.
But they had two years to figure out what was to be gained from attacking Iraq, and that was strategic position and natural resources.
So you think the whole UN thing, the failed weapons inspections, and intell stating they had WMD was nothing more than a ruse?
Plus Haliburton wasn't making squat in Afghanistan, and troops are just an expendable resource, for politicians. They'll spend your kid, to grow their wealth.
Any thought that we went into Iraq for Haliburton is Conspiracy Theory and unsupported by the facts. If you have something to show me to the contrary I will be glad to read it.
Half assed? You have to be kidding. That was a one sided fight all the way, there was nothing half assed about it other than us pulling out to refocus on Iraq.
That would be halfassed enough, even if there were nothing else.
So you think the whole UN thing, the failed weapons inspections,
The weapons inspections didn't fail; they correctly found no weapons.
That would be halfassed enough, even if there were nothing else.
I would expect your opinion on that issue to be nothing less.
The weapons inspections didn't fail; they correctly found no weapons.
I agree. And if you read Scott Ritters book you can read more details about it. Maybe you forgot about the failed intell summary by CIA Director George Tenet , "Slam Dunk!".
I would expect your opinion on that issue to be nothing less.
Wandering away with the job half done is the very definition of half-assed.
Wandering away with the job half done is the very definition of half-assed.
We didn't wander away until Iraq came into the picture. As I stated earlier, up to that point we were doing a good job. And once we did refocus on Iraq it then became a big mistake, just about a year later.
A-stan is and probably always will be a clusterfuck.
Iraq only came into the picture after a concentrated effort - during the Afghanistan invasion - by the Bush Administration to bring Iraq into the picture. And once they succeeded in that, they left Afghanistan a halfassed job.
Iraq only came into the picture after a concentrated effort - during the Afghanistan invasion - by the Bush Administration to bring Iraq into the picture. And once they succeeded in that, they left Afghanistan a halfassed job.
I don't disagree. My point was up to that point we were doing a great job, better than any military force up to that point, and with the fewest of troops on the ground. It was a historically successful military operation.
War is like a box of chocolates . . .
I don't disagree. My point was up to that point we were doing a great job, better than any military force up to that point, and with the fewest of troops on the ground. It was a historically successful military operation.
I'm sure the troops did as well as they could, but the administration sent them in with those "fewest of troops", and expended all their effort on starting a different war. I know that I (and I expect that Bruce) intended to attribute all of the halfassedness of the invasion on the administration.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia."
. . .attribute all of the halfassedness of the invasion on the administration.
Well you know who 80% of all problems are directly traceable to, right?
That or
It's Bush's fault
:p
Project for the New American Century....remember these guys?
Neo-cons like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowicz, Feith, Pearl, et al, all former PNAC "scholars" or affiliated with PNAC in some manner and all ended up in the Bush administration setting foreign policy.
At the core of PNAC foreign policy was the notion of US being the policemen of the world, promoting freedom and replacing tyrannical regimes with American-style democracy, with force if necessary.
The PNAC started calling for regime change in Iraq during the the Clinton years.
Then 9/11...and within days, the PNAC ratcheted up the call to invade Iraq and the former-PNACers now entrenched in the Bush WH (Feith and Pearl reporting to Cheney and Rumsfeld ) started dusting off the plans...they now had a justification that could be sold to the American people.
And of course, the invasion of Iraq was geo-political and not based on intel or harboring terrorists, or being the policemen of the world and promoting democracy.
If so, North Korea would have been a better target.. more oppressive of its people and a greater threat to the US and its own regional stability (but more formidable than Iraq) .....or even Mynmar, less democratic than Iraq.
These guys had a plan for Saddam the day they took office.
added:
What's left of the PNAC are now the ones leading the charge to bomb Iran.
And this is somehow bad? All five people in the PNAC were and are freedom fighters, so of course that upsets some cryptofascists who don't want robust, manly antitotalitarianism to take hold and spread the blessings of liberty throughout the Earth. No no no; as one of the freedom people, I don't diss PNAC. I ponder them carefully.
And this is somehow bad? All five people in the PNAC were and are freedom fighters, so of course that upsets some cryptofascists who don't want robust, manly antitotalitarianism to take hold and spread the blessings of liberty throughout the Earth. No no no; as one of the freedom people, I don't diss PNAC. I ponder them carefully.
Good policeman or "freedom fighters" value diplomacy as the first tool to resolve conflict. They also understand that one size (American-style conservative) democracy does not fit all.
And ponder the unintended consequences of their actions before invading and occupying a sovereign nation......2-4 million displaced persons and/or refugees, a government with long-standing ties to Iran, strengthening Iran's position in the region......
If so, North Korea would have been a better target.. more oppressive of its people and a greater threat to the US and its own regional stability (but more formidable than Iraq) .....or even Mynmar, less democratic than Iraq.
These guys had a plan for Saddam the day they took office.
:lol2:
And this is somehow bad? All five people in the PNAC were and are freedom fighters, so of course that upsets some cryptofascists who don't want robust, manly antitotalitarianism to take hold and spread the blessings of liberty throughout the Earth. No no no; as one of the freedom people, I don't diss PNAC. I ponder them carefully.
It was an internal DoD Inspector General report that found that Feith and his Office of Strategic Plans relied on "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" and "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaida" to justify the invasion.
Intelligence provided by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to buttress the White House case for invading Iraq included "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community, according to a report by the Pentagon's inspector general.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802387.html
Much like after the invasion, a DoJ IG report found that DoJ attorneys acted politically rather than judiciously, to justify torture.
Is that really the way "freedom fighters" should act? :headshake
When you are smashing totalitarianism, should you refrain in the slightest? As a person of freedom, I say no. I have the belief that liberty should not be denied any people through caviling on the part of any other people.
When you fight, somebody gets an owie. Fact of life, and one I am very comfortable with.
... who don't want robust, manly antitotalitarianism to take hold and spread the blessings of liberty throughout the Earth. .
I'd much rather have robust womanly antitotalitarianism :P
i mean seriously...manly?
We've had T'dub channeling Spock; now we have Urbane channeling Rousseau. Where willl the madness end?
I'd much rather have robust womanly antitotalitarianism :P
i mean seriously...manly?
We've had T'dub channeling Spock; now we have Urbane channeling Rousseau. Where willl the madness end?
ha ha I'm really lol'ing
When you are smashing totalitarianism, should you refrain in the slightest? As a person of freedom, I say no. I have the belief that liberty should not be denied any people through caviling on the part of any other people.
When you fight, somebody gets an owie. Fact of life, and one I am very comfortable with.
You are right Dana it's very eloquent except the owie part. It should be a tagline .
Much like after the invasion, a DoJ IG report found that DoJ attorneys acted politically rather than judiciously, to justify torture.
Ok, hang the lawyers.
I'd much rather have robust womanly antitotalitarianism :P
Ah. I would suggest AnnCoulterOnline, then. She is reliably antitotalitarian in a great big way.
I mean seriously...manly?
I shall be interested indeed to see if you can frame a ... question... about that. The breaking of bad governance calls upon that body of traits the Noble Old Romans grouped under "virtu." Not a bad set of traits to have, IMO.
We've had T'dub channeling Spock; now we have Urbane channeling Rousseau. Where willl the madness end?
About the time and place the last dictator is hanged on the tripes of the last national chief of secret police, to borrow an image from the leftist revolutionaries in the service of a much better ideal than anything that lot of damned thieving schmucks ever came up with.
Good policeman or "freedom fighters" value diplomacy as the first tool to resolve conflict. They also understand that one size (American-style conservative) democracy does not fit all.
But democracy and republicanism more generally conceived, that does fit well for the entire human race. Incremental steps toward the way that does indeed work are fine with me, so long as they come at a steady pace. There are no grounds whatsoever to not have confidence in an open society, a general franchise, economic liberty to the greatest degree, freedom of movement, of information, of finances, of security. Read your Barnett; I am way out ahead of all your argument here.
And ponder the unintended consequences of their actions before invading and occupying a sovereign nation......2-4 million displaced persons and/or refugees, a government with long-standing ties to Iran, strengthening Iran's position in the region......
Always with you, it's you know the price of everything, and the value of nothing. Shame on you, Redux. You should try being a visionary. Ground it in realism and wise strategy as well and carefully as you may, but be a visionary. It would be refreshing. It would also make you recognizably a person of freedom instead of the lesser sort of creature you are presently satisfied with being. (Too small for my spirit.)
Nor would I believe for a minute that our actions there "strengthen Iran's position in the region......" Certainly Iran is bidding for such strength, but it is not us that are making Iran strong, but Iran. They are going to try this, will we or nill we on Capitol Hill, having free will after all! Our actions are there to undermine their strength because absolutely no one outside of Iran trusts the mullahcracy to keep the peace or to bring prosperity.
Warfare is what it always was: the bluntest of instruments, working only by smashing. Do you think your complaints about it are original? Something new? Not so. Where did your desire to destroy the Saddams of the world go? I have it. I cannot see yours. I have virtue thereby.
Where is yours? No no no; as one of the freedom people, I don't diss PNAC. I ponder them carefully.
Ponder their totalitarian leftist roots and consider how they corrupted conservatism with their activist agenda.
@ Sky: It was less a comment on his eloquence than on his use of the word 'manly' in that context :P Rousseau and indeed pretty much all 18th century thinkers and political philosphers had a tendency to use that word to describe anything and everything worth having or being. From radical politics, to 'true feeling': women were considered more or less incapable of sharing in these, beyond their duty to raise radical sons.
'True feeling' or 'sentiment' was 'manly'. Women, though emotional creatures (entirely emotional) were not capable of 'true feeling' and 'manly sentiment'. We were capable of beauty but denied the 'sublime'. From the radicals to the conservatives; it was all 'manly'. The heights of feeling; the depths of logic, none of this was 'feminine'; it was always 'manly'.
Hearing someone use that term in that particular context was slightly startling. If 'antitotalitarianism' is a manly creed, does that mean antitotalitarian women must adopt a form of manliness in order to share in it?
Hmm. No, I don't think so. Now in Ann Coulter's case, it doesn't seem to hurt. It is clear she considers that the harder edges of governance require a macho mindset and are vitiated to ineffectuality in its absence -- misconceiving the possible as the impossible. That, in effect, boils down to smoothing the way for totalitarian governments to keep right on with their misdeeds and unfreedoms.
Pah. And I've been saying that long before I heard of her.
Returning to my point, Ann Coulter reckons that womanly things, domestic things, are not properly the sphere of central government -- so the Nanny State is right out. She pounds away at this relentlessly, under the surface layer of the crises du jour that keep all columnists and pundits eating regularly, and the rest of us amused or stimulated by their perorations.
Griff, that stretches credulity -- and doesn't exactly pop up in The Neocon Reader either. Leftist totalitarian roots?? Irving Kristol??
Womanly = domestic; manly = the polity
*shakes head* I give up.
Griff, that stretches credulity -- and doesn't exactly pop up in The Neocon Reader either. Leftist totalitarian roots?? Irving Kristol??
Neocons' Leftist Origins
Neocons were former liberal war hawks, many of whom were intellectuals, who felt disenfranchised by the Democratic Party's embrace of the peace movement. The neocons decided to jump ship and join with the Republicans, in whom they felt they would have a more receptive audience for their internationalist agenda. They were welcomed with open arms by the Rockefeller Republicans and other members of the beltway right. Traditional conservatives were not enthused by these new arrivals, but they felt that a new group of intellectuals would add gravitas to the movement.
Neoconservative thought represents an ideology with more similarities to Trotskyite communism than traditional American conservatism. Writing in the Weekly Standard, Irving Kristol, who is widely considered to be the godfather of neocons, freely admitted that neoconservatism originated "from disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s." Kristol himself is an admitted former Trotskyite. Trotskyism is the theory of Marxism named after Leon Trotsky, who strongly supported an international socialist revolution and asserted that socialism could only come into being on a global scale. Kristol was the managing editor of Commentary Magazine from 1947 to 1952, which is referred to as the neocon bible. Kristol is also the father of William Kristol, founder of the Weekly Standard. William Kristol, part of the second generation of neocons, is considered to be one of the leading voices of the movement.
Neocon Michael Ledeen, contributing editor for National Review, explained his leftist roots in an interview and said, "I describe myself as a democratic revolutionary, I don't think of myself as 'conservative' at all."
In the book Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency, Pat Buchanan explains:
"The first generation were ex-Trotskyites, socialists, leftists and liberals who backed FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ. When the Democratic Party was captured by McGovern in 1972 — on a platform of cutting defense and 'Come Home America!' — these Cold War liberals found themselves isolated and ignored in their own party. Adrift, they ran over to the Republican Party and were pulled aboard as conservatism's long voyage was culminating in the triumph of Reagan."Exactly: neoconservatism sprouted from disillusionment wrought by experience with the Old and the New Left. A growth experience, and a salubrious one too. These are less "origins in totalitarianism" than the complete rejection of it.
How would the rejection of the New Left and its works come out badly? Through not being leftist any more? Isn't that an unduly strained definition of "bad?" Sounds more to me like finally making it to adulthood. "If you're not a socialist at twenty, you have no heart; if you're still a socialist at forty, no brains."
Neoconservatism is less a rejection than a full embrace of the "total state." They found no problem with activist domestic government but rather split because of the new left's rejection of militarism, the neo-con Frankenstein's other leg.
@ Sky: .............
I just know when you have kids you'll subdue them with academic explanations.
I knew what your angle was. I was astray. It's a gift.;)
I'd much rather have robust womanly antitotalitarianism :P
i mean seriously...manly?
PNAC = excess testosterone therefore nothing but manly
http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Primer.htm
As a person of freedom, I say no. I have the belief that liberty should not be denied any people through caviling on the part of any other people.
eloquant
"If you're not a socialist at twenty, you have no heart; if you're still a socialist at forty, no brains."
We have Obama and he is 40ish and apparently not brain dead and a lot of accusation as being a socialist so it looks to me like we swung away from neo conservatism although we will be paying for those policies for sometime to come.
@ Griff. I appreciated your linked article. It got me reading about something I'd rather not think about.
Thanks
I just know when you have kids you'll subdue them with academic explanations.
Never gonna happen ::P
Half assed? You have to be kidding. That was a one sided fight all the way, there was nothing half Assad about it other than us pulling out to refocus on Iraq.
They got away! Moving the baddies from Afghanistan to Pakistan (temporarily), is not winning... it's half assed, and a failure.
So you think the whole UN thing, the failed weapons inspections, and intell stating they had WMD was nothing more than a ruse?
No it was a success, except it didn't match the neocon agenda. Saddam was a pain in the ass, but not a threat.
Any thought that we went into Iraq for Haliburton is Conspiracy Theory and unsupported by the facts. If you have something to show me to the contrary I will be glad to read it.
:lol2: Yeah right, the military-industrial industry doesn't have any influence in Washington. Cheney and Rumsfeld just pulled this plan out of their ass.
:lol2: Yeah right, the military-industrial industry doesn't have any influence in Washington. Cheney and Rumsfeld just pulled this plan out of their ass.
That's were all the best plans are kept!
Back to the WWJK idea, it strikes me that the early Romans were much more honest. When the Romans needed to kill they just went to Mars, they didn't have to reinterpret other gods... just a thought. I guess we can blame Augustine.
"If you're not a socialist at twenty, you have no heart; if you're still a socialist at forty, no brains."
Only in the Land of UG...where the cowardly lions are also socialists until they get the courage to be freedom fighters and spread the UG vision of imposing an American-style democracy, by force if necessary, even where it is not wanted or may not be the best fit.
Wow - This is even more insignificant than I originally thought.
Look at how obscure this is (See screw for reference)
View more pics
hereYou are right, I see how it would be so obvious.