Tag Archive for iraq at Zeal For Truth

Tag Archive for 'iraq'

When Extremism Becomes Mainstream

Published by Colin September 8, 2008 in Essays, Religion, Politics and Philosophy. 7 Comments

Would anyone born into an extreme society be aware of the exact nature of that society relative to history? For example, if there was a bubble thrown around Soviet Russia (in many ways there was) - wouldn’t the people of that society view ideas like free-will, free-markets and free-speech as extremes? The norm might be long lines for basic necessities, rampant crime, neighbours, friends and family disappearing and never returning.

In many ways, the centre of mainstream society can be measured by what ideas are considered extreme. We look back in hindsight at societies such as Hitler’s Germany and Soviet Russia as though these movements became mainstream by magic. We ignore the history and conditions which made certain ideas, leaders and philosophies popular. We see images like this and this (warning: graphic) and assume that this guy is soley to blame. We fail to realize that perhaps the most important explanation of these images is this one. We presume that extremism will come into our society announcing itself with nazi flags, poverty or honest people being locked up right away.

So many American Christians are terrified of such boogey men. Take fighting radical Islam - which is often compared in mainline conservatism to a war against “fascism“and Iraq is compared to World War II. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Islamic Law, radical Islamic repression, widespread Islamic Terrorism and Christian persecution at the hands of Islamic elements in government will never become a reality in the US.

Extremism Doesn’t Look Like Extremism
I suspect that Sinclair Lewis is a little closer to the mark: “when fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” This is not a statement to be ignored - it is backed by historical patterns that are repeated over and over again. Extremism rarely comes from outside a society, but it cultivated, embraced and implemented from within. Adolph Hitler wasn’t released on the world until he had secured power in his own society using tradition, religion and philosophy that Germans were familiar with. In other words, we must be more fearful of internal extremism gradually overtaking those historically accepted and mainstream “Americanisms” - the constitution, freedom, Christianity, security, prosperity, capitalism and “democracy.”

American Extremism will look like patriotism. It will be embraced by the dominant religious elements: Christianity in this case. It will be described as traditional American values such as free-enterprise, democracy and security.

Because extremism moves into the mainstream culture, language and political system - the best measure is historical context. For example, “liberal” is used today as a cuss-word against left-wing democrats. I accepted this as the historical definition until, when I was twenty, I visited a memorial to Meriwether Lewis and was shocked to see Thomas Jefferson use the term to describe Lewis:

Of courage undaunted, possessing a firmness and perseverance of purpose which nothing but impossibilities could divert from its direction, … honest, disinterested, liberal, of sound understanding and a fidelity to truth…

I looked into it and found that the mainstream definition is relatively new, and in fact completely the opposite of what it had meant for hundreds of years. If it weren’t for the word “libertarian” - we might not have a word that summarises something close to the definition of liberal.

Case in Point: GOP Primary
But this has happened with so many things. Conservatives in the past eighteen months have been calling Ron Paul a radical and a fringe candidate. And he is - in that his positions aren’t mainstream in the slightest nor are they what is now called “conservative.” There is a radical gulf between Paul’s view and the conservative movement.

But that is what should scare us - and if conservatives would stop marching forward and question their orders for a moment, they might get a glimpse of where they are going. For example, “county first” was plastered all over McCain’s convention - is that phrase responsible? Is it biblical? Is it actually patriotic? Should that be the moral and political priority of conservatives and Christians? If that is an acceptable idea, is a rally worth $16 million in money taken from the country, celebrating one man, in one political faction a genuine articulation of that ideal?

How Extremist Leaders Win the Support of Otherwise Principled Men
What does it mean when those voices calling for objective morality and the rule of law are considered extreme in favour of embracing those solutions with “reasonable,” “common-sense” and short-term sacrifices to solve problems that were first created by such measures? Conservatives don’t like Paul because a purer form of traditionally conservative ideals comes out so different than the practices of what is now called conservatism. Conservatives would rather align themselves with men who share almost none of the deeper convictions, morals and ideals of their own movement, but who will still give lip service and token support to popular conservative causes (abortion, family, military). They will support unprincipled extremists who are promising that they will ignore their nature. This is foolishness - but a familiar path that humanity has taken in placing reckless, unprincipled men in power.
Continue reading ‘When Extremism Becomes Mainstream’

The Foolishness of Confronting Russia

Published by Colin August 12, 2008 in Current Events. 89 Comments

While I was racing around frantically last night to try and arrange the last minute details of my move to England, I was shocked to hear whatever conservative talk show host that was on the radio calling for the president to send US troops into Georgia to fight Russia. The host went on a long tirade about “protecting our national security interests” and how these missions must be handled delicately because of the gravity of the international relationships at stake.

It boggles my mind, when the economy is tanking and the currency is being debased to pay for our military expenditures, that some would be so quick to commit more blood and treasure to yet another conflict in some far-away land to fight some other global threat.

Is this what conservative foreign policy has been reduced to – sending troops at the bat of an eye on the basis of a vague ideal such as “national security interests?” This is recklessness.

Believe me, if I ever believed that the security of my family or my property were at risk, I would be the first to show up at the recruitment office with my guns in hand. I would gladly defend my home and even my neighbours from an imminent threat. But the idea of sending US troops over to start a war with in Georgia against Russia would definitely be the blow that absolutely cripples this country.

I presume that most conservatives do not share the views of the radio personality I heard last night. John McCain is arguing for a US military surrogate (NATO) to do the dirty work. McCain suggests using diplomacy “force Russia to withdraw from Georgia.” Last time I checked, diplomacy was about giving and taking, negotiating and making voluntary proposals. “Force” however, ultimately means threats and coercion which must be backed by aggression. McCain is clearly engaging in double-speak.

Yet another war would be disastrous for the US. Our economy is swirling around the toilet and our important relations around the world are dissolving. We need to wake up and start plugging holes or this ship is going to sink.

A Biblical Critique of Christian Zionism

Published by Chris A August 6, 2008 in Essays, Religion and Politics. 12 Comments

Zionist tendencies among American Christians have become ever apparent. Many times we hear the term Judeo-Christian, signifying an historical and theological link between the Hebrew people and Christians. It is obvious that a link exist. Most Christians understand that the Hebrew people were the chosen people of God, through whom the scriptures and messianic prophecies came. Jesus was a Hebrew from the tribe of Judah, and all of the first Christians were Jews. Jesus himself often referred to the Old Testament scriptures written to the Jews. Often this term, Judeo-Christian, is used to describe shared core values between Jews and Christians.

Support of Israel
Christian Zionism, while recognizing historical and theological connections between Christians and Jews, takes the concept a bit further. Current geopolitical events surrounding Israel are often compared against eschatological prophecies, with the state of Israel being viewed as the favored side in any conflict with her neighbors; these conflicts, of course, are generally with respect to what is regarded among opposing sides as holy land. Arab Palestinians believe they have a right to the land, and claim to have been disenfranchised by Israel. The Christian Zionist perspective takes sides against Palestine, citing God’s covenant with Abraham in which the holy land was promised to Abraham’s descendants. The Arab Palestinians, although also descendants of Abraham, are not considered to be rightful heirs to the land because they descended from Ishmael and not Isaac. The dispute over land rights has been a particular point of international contention ever since the end of World War II, with Arab and Muslim nations typically supporting the Palestinians.

Biblical Justification for Support of the Nation State
As has already been mentioned, support of Israel is in part predicated on the belief that the Holy Land rightly belongs to the Jews. But there is another common reason many Christians believe support of Israel is necessary, and it is found in Genesis 12:3.

“And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.

Another scripture often used to muster up Christian support of Israel is Romans 15:27.

Yes, they were pleased to do so, and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things.

There are other scriptures used by Christian Zionists to back up their theology, but these two references are among the most common.

Problems with the Use of Scripture
The problem I have with Genesis 12:3 being used as a reason to support the nation-state of Israel is that it equates Abraham and his descendants with the modern nation state. Certainly there are descendants of Abraham in the Israeli government, but are we to believe that they represent all his descendants? Even many of the citizens of Israel, as well as other Jews, oppose much of what that government does. Are they too in danger of being cursed?

The Bible should be used to interpret the Bible, and since the Bible is progressive revelation, the Old Testament should always be interpreted in light of the New Testament. Consider Paul’s explanation of Genesis 12:3 found in Galatians 3:

6Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 7Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.” 9So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer… 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us–for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”– 14in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Here we find a very different interpretation of the Genesis account. Paul, himself a Hebrew, says the blessing of all nations was in relation to their receiving the Seed of Abraham, who is Christ.

I will not dismiss the possibility of a dual meaning of this scripture altogether, but it is clear that Genesis 12 in no way should be interpreted as blind support for any government.

Now, with Romans 15, let’s look at the context of what Paul said to determine whether this had anything to do with support of Israel.

26For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. 27Yes, they were pleased to do so, and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things.

Verse 26 plainly reveals that the subject under discussion was monetary support of the Jewish Christians. What did Paul mean when he said that the Gentiles had shared in their spiritual things? Well, he could have meant that the Gentiles were made partakers of the knowledge of God through the Jewish Christians. But I tend to think that he was speaking specifically about the “saints in Jerusalem” since this is where the church was born. At any rate, it is clear that Paul was speaking about Christians who were Jewish, rather than all of Israel.
Continue reading ‘A Biblical Critique of Christian Zionism’

Iraq’s Yellowcake Uranium

Published by Kenneth Martens July 31, 2008 in Current Events. 4 Comments

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” - President George W. Bush, January 28, 2003

Have you heard the news reports about the 550 tons of yellowcake uranium ore found in Iraq? No? Well, that’s because the mainstream media has decided not to report the story. With the big to-do about the Niger document forgeries a few years back, you’d think any story about yellowcake uranium ore would be big news, but that’s because you’re not a reporter or a network executive.

In case you missed it, Iraq did buy uranium ore from Niger–in 1981. [Source] That uranium has been sitting around in storage for over a decade. It was inspected by the UN weapons inspectors. Everybody knew about it. (This makes me wonder: if Iraq had 550 tons of this stuff, why would Saddam want to buy more from Niger? Maybe he forgot he already had some.)

The current story is that the 550 tons of uranium ore have been shipped to Canada. The US military had been guarding it since the invasion, and had been keeping its existence a secret lest terrorists try to steal it. (Wait, why terrorists would want to steal yellowcake uranium ore? Does Osama bin Laden have a gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment facility hidden in a cave in Afghanistan?)

Don’t be Fooled
So now you know about Iraq’s yellowcake. You know that Iraq bought the yellowcake from Niger in 1981. You know that this yellowcake is not the yellowcake alluded to in Bush’s speeches in the runup to the 2003 invasion. This ore was already in storage and being watched by UN inspectors. You won’t be fooled by articles like this one at Coloradoan.com that claim this yellowcake uranium justifies the invasion.

The News Reports
The news outlets almost completely ignored this story, but you can find a few articles online.

CNN - 500 tons of uranium shipped from Iraq, Pentagon says
AP at Yahoo News - US removes uranium from Iraq

Links: McCain’s Gaffe, Oil Strategy and God is Green?

Published by Colin May 9, 2008 in Current Events. 4 Comments

We recently talked about some counterfeit gospels. Maybe we should have put “green-ism” or “environmentalism” in there as well. From Jew:

God is Green. Really? The apostles must have forgotten to record Jesus’ teachings on environmentalism, because I don’t see it in the Bible. Oh well. What can we expect from a website that says “What makes you feel love and forgiveness? If you can find these, you have found God.”

Fixing The Oil Problem
Senator John Barrasso from Wyoming has outlined a plan to temporarily relieve gas prices. Well, it’s not so much a “plan” as a command to the government to stop taking oil from others who need it so it can sit in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Barrasso’s bill, S. 2927, instructs the federal government to stop putting oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when the average price of gasoline is over $2.50 per gallon, and the price of diesel fuel exceeds $2.75 per gallon.

“Everyday the government is pulling tens of thousands of barrels of crude oil off the market that could otherwise be used by truckers, airlines, and our neighbors,” Barrasso added.

In other words, it’s that same old story that always follows government intervention: unintended consequences. The very problem that the SPR was created to fix (oil embargoes from the middle east causing high prices/shortages), it has now caused: high prices and shortages.

Barrasso is just making economic sense of a stupid policy. What do we expect when the US government itself is demanding massive amounts of oil - especially to just store in unused tanks “just in case.”

McCain Admits What We’ve All Known: Blood For Oil
Speaking of oil, John McCain got grilled last week after admitting in his speeches something that even Obama and Clinton would shy away from saying:

My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.

Once again, we have unintended consequences playing out. We go into Iraq to secure natural resources we ~~need~~ want (which happen to belong to someone else) and find that our intervention has created so much instability and chaos that the price of a barrel of oil has gone up over 400% of what it was pre-invasion. Go figure.

One Final Goodie from Bush & Co.

Published by Don Emmerich April 30, 2008 in Politics and Current Events. 79 Comments

Originally Published at Don Emmerich’s Blog.

Ruining our economy wasn’t enough. Nor was waging an immoral, unnecessary war. No, it seems that the Bush Administration might have one final goodie for the American people. Yes, that’s right, a war with Iran.

Not only does the administration continue saber rattling over Iran, but it’s now known that the Pentagon is planning for “potential military courses of action.”

The stated reasons for this potential attack are that (1) Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons and (2) Iran has for some time been waging a proxy war against the U.S. in Iraq.

So these are the charges. Of course, charges are not always factual, and we should keep a few things in mind.

First, according to the U.S. intelligence agencies, Iran terminated its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Now, of course, Dick Cheney claims that he knows better, that he knows what Iran is really up to with its uranium enrichment program. But this guy doesn’t have a very good track record when it comes to making predictions; moreover, I think it’s safe to say that the 16 U.S. spy agencies know more about the inner workings of Tehran than our Rambo-wannabe vice president.

But why then, some have asked, does Iran insist on enriching uranium? Surely, they must be lying when they say they have peaceful intentions; surely they must want to blow up the world. But that doesn’t at all follow. Just three short decades ago, Henry Kissinger claimed that Iran needed nuclear energy because its economy demanded that it save its oil for other purposes. (We should also keep in mind that, as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is permitted to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.)
Let’s move on to the second charge, which is that the Iranian government is arming many of the Iraqi insurgents. Now, for obvious reasons, even if it could be shown that the insurgents have arms that were made in Iran, it wouldn’t follow that the Iranian government was responsible for the attacks. Among others, this point has been made by Gen. Peter Pace, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In February 2007 when the Bush gang began claiming that the Quds Force was sending explosives to Iraqi insurgents, Pace told the Voice of America,

It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it’s clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit.

This should all sound very familiar. The same people who lied about Saddam Hussein having WMDs and al Qaeda ties (and in case you didn’t hear, there were no WMDS and no al Qaeda ties)—these same people are now trying to hoodwink the country into another war.

I’m certainly not defending Tehran, which is repressive and undemocratic. I personally think the Iranian people were much better off under Mohammad Mossadegh, who was a peace-loving and democratically-elected prime minister in the 1950s, a man who—oh by the way—was driven from power by the CIA and replaced by a brutal monarch. (And what, you’re asking, did Mossadegh do to deserve such treatment? The answer is that he thought Iran’s oil reserves should be owned by Iran, not the British government. A very heretical belief in Western minds.)

Now it’s certainly possible that, despite its claims, Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. And I certainly don’t think the world would be a better place with a nuclear-armed Iran. But it’s simply absurd to believe that, if Iran got nukes, it would use them against the U.S. and/or Israel. If nothing else, the Iranian government is rational. And therefore it realizes that using nuclear weapons against nations with superior military forces and enormous nuclear stockpiles would result in its own annihilation. So if Iran is seeking nukes—and again, our intelligence agencies tell us that such is not the case—but if it is, then it would only want them as a deterrent.

Now is not the time for another war. Now is the time to talk, something the Iranians have been trying to do for several years. In May 2003, for instance, Iran’s leaders sent a negotiating package to the U.S. through a Swiss diplomat. There wasn’t anything Tehran wasn’t willing to discuss: “everything was on the table—Iran’s nuclear program, policy toward Israel, support of Hamas and Hezbollah, and control over al-Qaeda operatives captured since the U.S. went to war in Afghanistan.” Yet the Bush administration not only refused to talk to the Iranians but even reprimanded the Swiss diplomat for conveying the message.

It seems that all we can do at this point is pray.

From Vietnam to Iraq: Learning from Our Mistakes

Published by Colin November 28, 2007 in Essays, Politics and Current Events. 65 Comments

In the fall of 2004, as I was getting closer to finishing my undergraduate education, I began to breathe easier knowing that I’d soon be leaving the constant barrage of “left-wing propaganda” at the University of Oregon. Like many current college-aged conservatives - I was holding on for dear life to the mainline conservative mantras in the hope that I would pull through my college experience without succumbing to the mind-washing ideologies surrounding me.

No conservative agenda was more attacked than the War in Iraq, and naturally, I defended that war all the more fiercely. But that began to change when I took a seemingly unrelated class on the history of Vietnam. Reading former Communist Minister of Justice Truong Nhu Tang’s book A Vietcong Memoir allowed me to look at a conflict similar to Iraq without being concerned about the current political debate.

An Overview of Ideology in Vietnam
For Americans on the outside looking in, the politics around the Vietnam War were commonly drawn up in the oversimplistic terms of American might versus the global Communist revolution. Yet for those within South Vietnam’s nationalist struggle for independence, like Truong, the War and the time period surrounding it meant something completely different. Starting from his first encounter with Ho Chi Minh until his eventual exile a few years after the War, Truong and many like him in the various organizations he helped pioneer and participate in, saw independence as the ends of a struggle that employed various means.

He did not want to see Vietnam be the subject of a colonial power (such as France), occupying country (such as the United states) or global ideology (such as Communism). Truong was above all, a nationalist who wanted to see an end to foreign occupation, influence and manipulation in the South as well as a strong, liberal, free and democratic government structure to eventually be unified with the North through peaceful means.

How Violence Becomes the Answer
Why was an otherwise peaceful, democratically-minded individual like Truong drawn to ally himself with such radical and violent communist groups? After all, Truong was not a communist, nor was he sympathetic with their ideology, methods or goals - however, he hated seeing his country occupied. He wanted to be free - left alone by the powers of the world so that he, and his countrymen, could make for themselves a society that reflected their values and culture.

But the US, the latest in a line of occupying powers, was not leaving anytime soon. Moreover, they subverted these noble ideals as illegitimate regime after regime was set up by US agencies. For people like Truong, it was clear that the US was not going to be bargained with and that war was the only alternative left open to them in order to secure freedom. The communists were the most prepared for war and they had plenty of funding from China to make things painful for the US in the South.

The Iraq Parallels
In a war against occupiers, people who would otherwise be enemies (communists and nationalists in this case) are drawn into tight alliances. In many ways, we are seeing the same thing in Iraq - there is strong support for democracy oriented movements in the middle-east. Iraq was burgeoning with such a movement before the US-led invasion, hence the easy sell to the public by US officials. Vice President Dick Cheney, for example:

I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

But liberation soon turned into another long occupation in their land and those who originally welcomed us are ready for us to go and let them pick up the mess. But we aren’t leaving, and our leaders and future leaders are pledging years of occupation. Naturally, at some point, after seeing his family and friends traumatized by the violence surrounding him, the typical peace-minded Iraqi is going to give up on waiting and instead join with terrorists and insurgents. Though he is probably a moderate Muslim and hates the terrorists, he hates the US (and the occupation it represents) more and would rather ally with radical terrorists and try to do something about it than sit back as his life is destroyed as collateral.

In fact, we should consider that imitation is the best form of flattery. Many of the insurgents, rather than hating US ideals, are demonstrating the universality of freedom and liberty. They love those ideals which founded the US - and they are fighting an occupying power just as our founders did some two centuries ago.

Consider the state motto of New Hampshire, “live free or die” - it is a noble phrase, and yet in many ways, it is the rally cry of those moderate Iraqis who have joined with their enemies (and ours) to fight the US.

Iran and the US: The Shared Goal

Published by Colin September 13, 2007 in General. 39 Comments

Aside from the US war in Iraq, the next most pressing foreign policy question is the developing conflict with Iran. Many on both the right and left have put forth proposals outlining everything from sanctions to a preemptive nuclear strike. What makes Iran so dangerous?

They are clearly a radical fragment of the global Islamic movement

they are developing nuclear technology, which, according to most analysts, could be ported to weapons in as soon as ten years
they actively fund and support insurgents fighting against the US in Iraq (more so than any other state, they are “the other side” in the War on Terror)
They have declared that Israel should be removed from statehood, by force if necessary

Primarily due to these reasons, many Americans are naturally a little worried about Iran. At the very least, they are hostile towards the idea of Iran continuing on their present course. American officials (including the candidates for president in both parties) are presenting the country with the idea that the worst case scenario is a very realistic possibility. In fact, just yesterday, it was announced that plans to bomb Iran are now in the works.

Most relevant parties have concluded such a comprehensive attack plan would require at least a week of sustained bombing runs, and would at best set the Iranian nuclear program back a number of years — but not destroy it forever… The Bush administration “has just about had it with Iran,” said one foreign diplomat.

From the Other Side
However, in the eyes of Iranians, the US is not exactly seen as their buddy. Not including direct US meddling in Iran since the 50’s, the typical Iranian is going to fear the US for the following reasons:

They are engaging in a global “War on Terror”, which up to this point has only been against member of their religion and in their geography
They have nuclear weapons and some of their leaders and potential leaders have threatened to use them
They have actively supported Iran’s enemies in the region and even rebuilt entire nations in their area. They actively fund hostile regimes, even supplying them with weapons and training
They took Islamic land by force and created a belligerent Jewish state right in their midst

It not surprising that many Iranians, who were on the verge of toppling their own extremist regime (with a pro-diplomacy, pro-capitalist one), have now decided that, while they hate their own government, the US and it’s policy are much more dangerous to their way of life. Likewise in the US, where congress and the president have approval ratings at historic lows - people are clearly more afraid of terrorists than of the US government.

The Shared Goal
Both governments, ironically, have a common interest - fighting each other. If the US government is able to preserve the spectre of a global Islamic terrorist threat, then, despite the infringement of liberties associated with the “sacrifice” for war, the current status quo will survive and even prosper. If the Iranian regime can convince it’s people that the US is out to both directly and indirectly fight against their religion and nation-build in their region, then the people will not turn on them.

Naturally, the only requirement of these governments is not to change policy, but to balance an escalation of conflict with the quenching of dissent. This is not by way of a conspiracy or a unified agenda, but just like any issue which transfers into votes (gas prices, abortion, homosexual marriage), it is naturally in each politician’s best interest to drum up problems that government needs to fix. The perception of an aggressive Iran is as good as gold in an election year.

For example, after announcing his candidacy for President, former Sentor Fred Thompson has declared:

…if we look weak and divided in this country, we’re going to pay a heavy price for it in the future. We’re living in the era of the suitcase bomb, and they’re not going to go away. They’re here now, they’re armed and dangerous, and they’re trying to get weapons of mass destruction… Iran is becoming more and more obvious, a major, major problem for the United States of America. They are killing our people… they’ve got 3,000 centrifuges now and basically reprocessing that uranium enough to get fissile material within the next few years and most experts think well on their way to making a nuclear weapon and, of course, they’ve threatened Israel… I don’t know how much more stark the situation can be. They perceive us as being weak. They perceive us as being divided, and they think they can get away with anything.

The same is true for the Iranian leaders, only their situation is much more dire, as they were near radical change towards moderation. Everyone has heard Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s threats and strong language, yet even a cursory look into the economic and military condition of Iran shows that they have no muscle to back this up. However, this desperation has bred the same kind of dissent quenching language. Take Ayatollah Khamenei’s remarks in March:

The only way to oppose and react to such aggression and coarseness is to preserve our national unity… [The Americans] are determined to divide us. That’s why all the political parties must stand together under the banner of the imam... Under the pretext of sectarian feelings, religious inclinations and gild orientations, the enemies are bent on destroying unity of the Iranian nation or fan religious differences in the world of Islam and draw a wedge between the Iranian nation and the rest of the Islamic community by inciting war between Shiites and Sunnis …In God’s assistance, all people of every sect or religion will expedite their hopeful move towards their bright future, at the same time all Muslim nations will demonstrate their unity by promoting Islamic solidarity and fraternity.

The Hype Factor
Like most complicated issues (it’s not really complicated, but too complicated for talking points) this common interest has been generally missed in the smaller (and more emotional) issues like nuclear technology and anti-Israel statements. However, the essence of the debate was most recently captured on the Factor when Ron Paul and Bill O’Reilly squared off on the issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdpkOg4q-3c

O’Reilly has a vested interest in a conflict (or at least the hype thereof) because it gives him something to rant about. Dr. Paul’s “history lesson” which “may or may not be true” (so let’s exchange talking points all day on it) is boring and calms people down when they should be fired up. Otherwise they are not terrified of the major catastrophe brewing in the Middle East (unless America is over there kicking butt).

The reality is that just as the current unpopular leadership of Iran and the US share a common goal, the citizens of these countries will be the ones who pay for any conflict in taxes and with their lives. As in every war, the leaders of both countries will demonize the other side while simultaneously speaking of the necessary sacrifice involved to “win” the conflict. While it may be in the leadership’s best interest to promote conflict, it is obviously in everyone else’s interest to seek peace.

Canada’s Involvement in the Afghan Mission

Published by gurr8 July 19, 2007 in Politics and Current Events. 143 Comments

With the growing public sentiment (fueled by the Canadian media) against the war in Afghanistan coupled with the prospect of continuing rule by minority government, it seems unlikely that Canadian Forces will continue operations in the Afghan arena beyond the 2009 commitment.

Over the past year, it has become apparent that the Canadian media has taken up the war in Afghanistan as its personal cause (that is, when it isn’t spending all its time talking about climate change). It is impossible for one to go hardly a day without hearing a media outlet (be it a newspaper, radio show, or television newscast) compare the war in Afghanistan to the war in Iraq. This is an effective technique for turning sentiment against the war in Afghanistan: the war in Iraq has never been popular with the Canadian public. Many reasons could be proffered for why the public has such a hatred of the war in Iraq, but it should suffice that after seeing through the non-sense produced by the Bush administration in the lead-up to the invasion, great offense was taken at America’s attempt to bully and insult its closest allies into joining the Iraq foray. While holding a position against the Afghan war is a respectable position (though the author may disagree), there are several reasons why one can – and should – be against the war in Iraq and support the Afghan mission.

While one may be able to argue that the invasion of Afghanistan was hasty, it was supported by the international community and supported with diverse armed forces.
The Afghan community as a whole supports the mission to destroy the Taliban and is glad to be free from their government.
The Afghan mission is not at the point of hopelessness.

Simply comparing the Afghan mission to Iraq is hardly a compelling argument, yet it appears to be working. Support for the operation has dropped from an already low 55% (March 2006) to 40% (May 2007) [PDF].

Canada is currently ruled by a Conservative minority government. In fact, it is the smallest minority government in Canadian history. According to polling, no single party is sitting in a position to form a majority (or even a strong minority) government if an election were called immediately. As such, it is highly unlikely that Canada will see a federal election at all in the foreseeable future and even if an election were called, it appears from the polling that the makeup of the government would change very little. There are currently four parties holding the balance of power: the Conservatives, the Liberals (the Official Opposition), the NDP, and the Bloc Quebecois. Only the Conservatives are in favour of continuing to support the Afghan Compact with military force. While the Bloc are representing their constituents (Quebecers are strongly opposed to the mission), the Liberals and NDP appear to be using the controversy as a political bat with which to beat the Conservatives. This political opportunism is worst with the Liberals, who were the ones who put Canada into the mission in the first place and now act as if they never had anything to do with the decision.

The long and short of it is this: regardless of the merits of the mission, Stephane Dion is right: no consensus will ever be reached to extend Canada’s involvement beyond the 2009 commitment. In the author’s view, this is a terrible thing for the people of Afghanistan.

Perhaps, Perhaps, Perhaps

Published by Ornot the Majestic June 7, 2007 in Politics and Current Events. 8 Comments

*Note* I am studying for my medical boards (which I take in six days) so this will be a quick and general rundown of my thoughts between studying tentorial herniations and allergic polyarteritis nodosa. Don’t ask me, I still don’t know.

Ask somebody, anybody, who Ron Paul is, and you’ll likely get one of two answers: One, of course, being most commonly “who?”, which is not surprising coming from a country where only one in seven Americans aged 18-24 can find Iraq on a map. The second most popular, being of course “that guy running in the wrong party.” Daily show host Jon Stewart asked it, and after the second GOP debate, it was the first question asked. So what, right? Not that he really has much a chance, according to the most recent Gallup polls. It’s a moot point.

I guess then, that is the point.

Think back to the 2000 election. By a narrow margin, Republican George W. Bush nudges out Democrat Al Gore by less than a 1% margin in the popular vote. Green Party candidate Ralph Nader takes 2.73%, and hatred of party-line Democrats everywhere. The cry of “Ralph Nader stole the election from Gore” echoed down the the left-hand side of the streets of New England and California, while Kleenex stock skyrocketed. Their biggest pre-election fear was realized…a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. Wasn’t that how it went? (Politics is perception, isn’t that how is goes?)

Or was it that there were issues out there that were big enough to swing some people away. Or perhaps, just maybe, some Americans discovered they didn’t like to be pigeon-holed into left/right political box.

According to this article, we could have a similar “problem” on our hands, only this time it is within a party itself.

The other important thing to note is that Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate to oppose the war. This is critical because it means that the anti-war Republican vote will almost exclusively be on his side. And the pro-war vote would be split among all the other candidates..

While this is more than likely a far stretch, there is no doubt that Ron Paul and his campaign has given the Good Ole Boy Republican Club its fair share of eye twitches and sweaty jock itch, especially considering his views on the Iraq ~~Conflict~~ War. Not to mention many anti-war moderates/independents, tired of the two-party taffy pull, might find his brand of realism and staunch opposition appealing. Recent polls indicate that opposition to the war is at about 67%. Of the 169 million registered voters, only 43% are registered Democrats, making this well beyond a Democrat-only issue. Not to mention that the Iraq War may be big enough to cause a pull on these “fringe” voters, especially for those living in states not requiring registration to vote in primaries.

So let us pretend that Ron Paul manages to throw a monkey wrench into the giant GOP machine, not by winning, but by swinging some votes to upset the would-of-should-of-been future Mr. Forerunner, yielding the crown to a lesser-likely hero. Will the streets of Anytown, USA run red with pachyderm tears while cries of “how did we let this happen to us” echo across Middle America? Or will we, as Americans, finally realize that we can’t have our cake and eat it too, for we demand what we aren’t willing to take.

We demand a difference and change in each election, but question any deviation from the standard. We occasionally give 3rd parties a glancing nod, then frustratingly cast them into the “wasted vote” pile as we reluctantly choose a lesser evil. When these 3rd party candidates run under that larger umbrella, they are immediately chastised and questioned about their sincerity of perceived polarization. “You’re different” they cry, “perhaps you made a mistake and meant to be over there, playing on their team?!” Why must the difference you crave fit into that box you’ve built? Perhaps, America, just perhaps, you’ll find that choice is more important than the allegiance and alignment.

So, despite the opinions of many who enjoy comparing the likelihood of election with political importance (like our very own Darius. BTW, welcome!), it may be a little too soon to start picking out your proverbial wallpaper with your bedfellow top-runner.

America may not be done surprising you.

WordPress database error: [Out of memory (Needed 1046536 bytes)]
SELECT DISTINCT DAYOFMONTH(post_date) FROM wp_posts WHERE MONTH(post_date) = '10' AND YEAR(post_date) = '2008' AND post_type = 'post' AND post_status = 'publish' AND post_date < '2008-10-11 04:50:10'

Zeal For Truth