Anglican Prayer Beads  Prayer Beads  Anglican Rosary Rosaries  Natural Soap  Handmade Soap

So, what? You want us to walk away and say "sure, it's fine, keep trying to kill our families and children in large numbers, we don't care? Go for it, enjoy your terrorism?" I think not.

None of the 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq. There were no WMDs. There was no good reason at all to invade, it hasn't made us safer, and we're not able to win there.

If you want to prevent terrorist attack on the US, go for it. Occupying Iraq is not a good way to do so (quite the opposite), and it's a denial of reality to claim it is.

And thanks, RLP, for being brave enough to take a political stance on this issue, and choose side. I'm sorry if it alienates some people, and if that upsets you, but I'm glad you're telling it as you see it. It's too important to stay silent on. I hope more people like you take a stand.

Thanks to the "mother-of-all pooch screws" there are people in Iraq who can now start a blog and discuss their government just like you do. That is without fear of being exiled or having their family executed by said government.

Your tone and the tone of that article, like so many other anti-Iraq stances, imply that anyone who disagress that invading Iraq was the
"mother-of-all pooch screws" is a complete moron. I can think for myself, I can see the mistakes...it's easy, because we are looking back on it. Oh yeah, hindsight is 20/20. It's amazing all the people now that apparently have 20/20 foresight as well. Bottom line is that in this country we can criticize our government and our president (and we can be as rude as we want) and now Iraqi's are enjoying that same freedom. So maybe that makes the whole thing a pooch screw...but the mother-of-all?

Our troops are still there, our president is still there, because of the belief that Iraqi's are REAL people that deserve the same freedoms that American's take for granted. You can disagree with that being the reason we are there, but I am not a moron nor am I ignorant for believing it.

Your implication is that the whole thing is a waste of time and nothing good can or has come of it. Why do soldiers volunteer to go back to Iraq? Because they don't believe in what they are doing? Because they are total ignorant morons? I don't think so. Maybe it's simply because they disagree with your "mother-of-all pooch screws" stance. What about all the brilliant Iraqi minds that have been exiled for years under Saddam's rule that can now go back and have the courage to rebuild their country? Somehow I don't think they would agree that the whole thing is for nothing. Their strength and courage is a benefit to the entire world, especially the world's fight against terrorism. And THAT is what these people are fighting against, because it is not the Iraqi people.

Why is it brave for him to take this stance but it's ignorant (denial of reality as you put it) when somebody takes the opposite stance?

It's funny (well, maybe not "haha" funny, but more "sweet mother of pearl!" funny) that people like to post critical comments as Anonymous. Buck up and register if you're going to criticize Gordon!

My name is Eric Stepp, and I whole heartedly agree with RLP.

1. Iraq had no WMD. They gave up their programs after 1992, and UN inspector after UN inspector declared there were no WMD even up to the day Bush invaded Iraq.

2. Saddam did not kick out the UN inspectors. He invited them back in, and they were still there until the US told them to leave, because we were going to attack. So, in effect, WE kicked out the UN inspectors.

3. Interestingly, Iraq decided to value and sell their oil under Euros, instead of US Dollars, a few months before the invasion. This would have cost the US billions of transferrable funds.

4. The generals asked for 250,000 - 300,000 troops to invade and hold Iraq. Bush sent 114,000 troops.

5. The troops are not massively re-upping for tour in Iraq. In fact, the Pentagon has had to extend tours indefinitely because they cannot meet their recruiting quotas in all branches of government. The Army, for example, had to reduce their quota by 80% so they could falsely claim they met their requirement (and still didn't, actually).

6. Iraqi exiles may be returning, but those are the elites of the country. Iraq is facing a MASS exodus right now; I believe the last report I saw said that 10% of the population has already left Iraq for Syria, Turkey, and Jordan.

7. Schools are closing all over Iraq (all levels of schools), because they are being targeted by secular rivalists. Women are no longer safe to go to school (Saddam was somewhat progressive in that he did not oppress women through Islamic law).

8. Unemployment is at an all-time high. Why do you think there are such huge casualties with car bombs now? It's because bombers are targetting marketplaces where people are looking for work. Another major reason why reconstruction is going so slowly is because Iraqis are too afraid to work for western companies; they get death threats in the mail and tacked onto their doors.

9. The infrastructure is still screwed. At most, electricity works for only 2-4 hours a day. Telephone lines are still down in most of Iraq. The Iraqi government (those paragons of freedom) continue to shut down the national TV stations when they publish bad news.

10. The incidences of secular violence continue to rise. Over 100 people were killed in the past 24 hours.

11. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq until after the invasion. They WERE in Afghanistan, where we only have 14,000 troops.

12. The majority of terrorist incidents are intra-Iraqi fighting, not Al Qaeda. Bush thought he could wipe out hundreds of years of intra-religious fighting between the Shi'a and Sunni by giving some supposed freedoms.

13. Iraq never, not once, ever, attacked the United States. None of the terrorist attacks in the United States (USS Cole, embassy bombings, OK City, 1994 WTC attack, 2001 WTC attack) were conducted by Iraqi citizens, or people from Iraq.

14. Saddam was not an Islamist. He was a secularist, and was often criticized by those very same Islamists that we fear. He had very progressive policies for women, had secularist schools, and even talked about recognizing Israel as a legitimate nation.

I could go on and on, but I'll leave it at that.

So, yes, I believe this is the mother-of-all-pooch-screws. It was a war that never had to happen. It was poorly prepared for, poorly executed, and with zero thought going into reconstruction. There was no thought about the intra-religious fighting that, of course, was going to happen. The graft and cronyism of reconstruction is mind-blowing. Our military is now severely under-manned (under-peopled?). We have ZERO credibility in the world stage. And, even our allies are redeploying or pulling out of Iraq.

RLP, thanks for taking a stand. Other than your posts a couple years ago regarding gay marriage, I think this is the only other time I've seen you go out on the proverbial limb here. I totally respect that, and even if I didn't agree with your assessment, I would still respect your willingness to put yourself out there.

 *** This is not a signature...***
http://www.projectlucidity.com 

OldPoet --aka Prodigal Aspersions
English lesson # 1. Imply - to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated. Infer - to derive by reasoning, to guess or surmise. Imply is something I do when I write or say...Infer is something you do when you read or hear.

I imply nothing about readers in my article. I am talking about one person...George Bush.

If one infers that I am making some statement about one when I talk about George Bush, one has an inflated sense of oneself. (See, I am not even implying anything here. I am stating it full out.)

I assure you, unless your name is George Bush, the article is not about you.

English lesson # 2. Tone does not imply. Tone refers to the methods by which writers reveal attitudes or feelings (Literature: An Introduction to Reading and Writing, Seventh Edition, by Roberts and Jacobs) My italicized pseudo-quotes, personal observation of the wounded of Iraq and my apology at the end reveal my sadness and a sense of irony.

My friends will see that I am, indeed, learning my lessons at college.

Oh, RLP... This is gonna be one fun comment thread to follow!

But more than that. I like the fact that you had something to say and you said it. I get infuriated with some of the "incediary" blogs where the author is like a kid starting a food fight in the cafeteria. Once the meley's going, he ducks outside to watch in through the windows laughing all the time. You simply came out with something that some people are going to agree or disagree with, but told it the way you saw it. I appreciate the hell out of that.

I also agree with Eric. It's one thing to attempt to scald someone behind the veil of "Annonymous" -- it's another to say, "Here I am. This is who I am, and I disagree with you." One is dialogue. The other is throwing water balloons (or hand grenades) over a privacy fence.

I also think you are right on.
Oh, and by the way... my name is Rodger Sellers from Davidson, NC.

From the point of Christian theology, whether or not a war is winnable has nothing to do with our discipleship.

I don't personally believe in Just War Theory, but even if a Christian person does, there is nothing in the teaching of Jesus that tells us it's OK to go to war as long as you we can win it quickly.

I just don't like it when people rely on making fun of someone to make a point. The endless wave of the same old satire makes for very uninteresting blogs. Taking the link for what it is, I guess RLP is proud of his friend's writing and I will take his link as more a statement on that than his stance on Iraq.

OldPoet
Now, that's what I'm talkin' 'bout. See, I was ashamed to be so silent and "poof" no more silence. Well, RLP linked to me and then, "Poof." No one ever gets snarky about my poetry. And I was not using reverse hyperbole to say I have an audience of 25. 169 people have clicked on my blog in four hours. That's more than I usually get in a month, if you don't count the number of times I click on myself. Lordamercy, as they say in Tennessee. And by the way, just read RLP's comments again. He might like my writing, but he makes his stance on Iraq clear. "Mother of all pooch screws" is his choice of wording.
My focus is on George Bush's response to the war in Iraq now that we know it is, can we agree, not going well. People do not just act out of the moment, without the influence of past behavior, their nature and habits, as though they were created just that second. We can examine the habits and actions of a person's past to predict future behavior, especially if the person is known not to learn from past mistakes or to adapt slowly to the lessons that are learned.
We are (have you noticed all the candidates?)about to choose another slate of nominees and eventually another president. Since they are giving us the benefit of all this time, take a look at how they conduct themselves and how they learn from past victories and mistakes. I am not voting for anyone who cannot learn and act on that knowledge.

Why do people think I'm kidding when I say it should be difficult but possible to put execution of the president on a public ballot?

I have to wonder if some of you *hear* how you're *talking.*

We humans are at our wisest when we finally admit we don't know shit. There's nothing wrong with having opinions. (Once in a while it's even ok to disagree with Gordon. He ain't Jesus.) The trick is to be respectful of those who disagree with your opinions and to not give in to the need to be right and thus trample people. Being militant against a war is *still* fighting. If you want to really take a stand against war, try being an example of peace.

Also, I'm getting used to feeling like people think I'm ignorant because of my political opinions. For the record, I didn't see that implication in the post on Prodigal Aspersions. I didn't even see it in RLP's post. Some of these comments, though...

Just my opinion.

*having no interest in debate, flaming or other argument, she proceeds*

My name is Kathryn Quickert, and I whole heartedly agree with RLP.

Gordon, I applaud your coming out on this issue.

It's your blog and you can bitch if you want to...

But, I think if all on both sides would take a breath and "love their neighbor as their self" the conversation could be more edifying.

Do those who would deny the President the honor of his title ever consider the responsibility of the office. You want to call him George Bush then maybe you should think of him as George Bush, your neighbor. Yep, he is just a man, feet of clay just like us. Just a man with the weight of the nation on his shoulders.

Have you ever noticed how the Presidency quickly greys the hair of those who hold it? Have you ever imagined what it would be like to have to make the calls he has to make. It's easy to say he should have done this or he shouldn't have done that from the stands while he is in the game. Meanwhile, we as citizens of this nation, to a large degree, collapse under the weight of trying to maintain our marriages, control our spending, parent our children, pastor our church, do our job. But we know how George Bush screwed up and how we would fix it or not fix it and throw up our hands and say revolution happens. Yeah it happens and people get slaughtered. Yep, whatever he does people are going to die because of it. Every decision he makes foreign or domestic affects the course of a nation and the world. Any of us want that responsibility? Those who sign their name or those without the courage to even do that? If you think you do, don't forget in order to get there you have to first open your whole life to a microscope focused on your moments of greatest weakness.

George Bush is just a man. One I don't always agree with. One who might have gotten elected to an office beyond his capabilities. One who may be stubborn. Or maybe the other group of citizens is right and he is a man of conviction, protector of our nation, Harvard MBA, etc. It doesn't really matter, nor does it matter that he sought the job. All that matters is that when I think of him as George Bush, my neighbor, and love him as myself, I feel the weight on him, share his pain, carry the hate spewed toward him. It breaks my heart.

Better for me, to think of him as the President and give him the respect due his office. Disagree if I want, that is the right I have, but I for one will maintain civility and aim my criticism at the office. Because, George Bush is my neighbor and I love him.

H.Kay Rothkamm

English Lesson #3...your comment was genius and completely appropriate. There are those here who won't admit it, but know it is true. The truth is sometimes hard to deal with. Thank you.

I'm having a hard time figuring out how to come at this issue from a faith perspective. I'm quite certainly anti-war in this case; I have been since before it began. My great act of protest was keeping a list of the names of the dead US soldiers on my door in my fraternity house. Profound, I know.

I know that politics is inextricably bound with the war, even when we're talking about its compatability with Christian teaching. But how do we talk about the war, and its moral value, without getting into these bullet-point political discussions?

I guess I am having a tough time understanding why people cannot look at issues through their faith-lens, without using their political-lens. It makes me wonder about which lens is most important . . .

Eeeouch, Gordon!

Speaking of pooches, I remember one bit of wisdom a Texas boy like you should appreciate: "Never kick a sleeping dog."

But you did - and the comments show what a shitstorm you stirred up. That's okay, though - you got a word out there and now you've got people talking. At least we can be sure no one on this blog will EVER say "nuke-you-ler" again!

Scott

RLP here again. This will be my last posting.

My piece is an honest assesment of the reality of the situation. There is no solution. None. We shouldn't have gone to war, and now we can't get out. My opinion.

I fully understand that if we leave now we will abandon the Iraqi people and it will be horrible. My POINT is that we have to leave someday, right? And we will not be able to make this situation stable before we go. So whether we leave today, tomorrow, or five years from now, when we go, the forces of power in Iraq will come together in a revolutionary way, and sort things out in a wave of violence.

Listen, if the best minds decide that we need another year. Okay. Two? Okay. I'm not advocating leaving now. I'm saying that whenever we do leave, things are going to be bad. Sometimes there is no solution. We broke a country and there will be no neat and clean way to put it back together.

One of the biggest problems in the Middle East are religious leaders using their spiritual influence to express and propagate their political ideologies.

Even though it is just a link to another’s individuals writing it would appear rlp, someone I consider to be a spiritual leader, is sinking to the level of a Middle East cleric by using his blog to express his brand of politics.

gravellizard

Wow - what a comment thread. Actually it's nice to see a little controversy.
2 observations.
1 - I see no-one (apart from the person who finds reading a list of facts hard - I recommend they try cartoons next time) has commented on the helpful list of facts that someone posted about the war in Iraq. That's a shame, they are all true, and sadly the number of internally displaced in Iraq is rising daily.
2. RLP - I hear your point regarding the fact that the US will leave one day. That surely isn't the point now is it? I mean, they could leave when there is peace and normal citizens can work etc. Or they could leave in the middle of the conflict and 'just let everyone kill each other until we (the rest of the world) can declare a winner'. Perhaps you could comment on the moral obligations that the US and UK have for starting the war, creating the shape of this conflict as it now stands, and leaving the several million Iraqi citizens who are suffering as a result to face the consequences? What do you think that the US should do instead? This is a genuine question by the way, not an attempt to pre-empt your answer.

Oh, and before I forget, I'm not anonymous I'm Amelia, from UK, based in Belgium.

My God … what a mess we have created. During the build up to the war, we were told Iraq was a real threat to our national security. We were lied to. There was no justification for the violence. But here we are. What do we do?

Until there is true dialogue, compromise and reconciliation by the three major players (Sunni, Shiite and Kurds) – it seems to me that a resolution short of open civil war is not possible. Other players in the region (Iran, Syria) are too intent to provide the money and weapons. Just more troops is certainly not the answer.

What if the Sunni, Shiite and Kurds will not reconcile? Try as I might to think of another alternative, I keep coming back to the inescapable fact that we cannot force people to get along. We just cannot. If we were to remain in that situation, the continued US presence will be enabling unending violence and bloodshed.

It seems to me that if the Sunni, Shiite and Kurds will not reconcile, the US has to withdraw, but creating safe zones. There will be massive violence and thousands of refugees to the safe zones. The US must commit real resources and money to relieve their suffering. One side will win. After the civil war is over, again we commit real resources and money to help the winner rebuild the country.

We owe that to them for what we have wrought.

David Spitko

Dear RLP,

I wasn't really expecting a post like this. Admittedly a part of me felt a little disappointed to read these threads of thought and arguments here. I was being selfish, using your gift and forum as my personal escape.

This is what I do for my ministry. I am married to a former career military officer who served over 20 years. I was his family support group coordinator while he was in command. I am a Quaker. Together we worked actively against the impending invasion of Iraq and now probably Iran, knowing that nothing good could come of it. I came with my spiritual convictions and him with his professional opinion. But it happened regardless of our and millions of others' efforts. But we continue to speak out against the injustice and abuses our government is committing in our names. (Legalization of torture, continued restrictions on our civil liberties, unlawful detentions, political arrests)

As part of my ministry I listen to soldiers, to victims of war and torture,to pro-peace activists,and everyday people on the streets. This argument is not semantics or academic to the people I work with. It is their daily lives. For me the arguments as to whether it is a "just-war", a "win-able war" or any other type of "insert-adjective-here" war is not important.

I believe our task now as people of faith is to minister to the needs of those who have been wounded, physically, emotionally and spiritually by this war and many other wars. In the proposed additional DOD funding of $100 billion there are no significant funds for our "troops". Look at the Walter Reed scandal, there are many more yet to be announced. Our local VA cannot provide the additional support needed due to lack of funds. Local social service agencies are not equiped to deal with the types of trauma our soldiers are trying to reconcile. Outside of US military bases you will see predatory lenders and empty food pantries. And that's just the US soldiers.

"Whatever you do unto the least of these you do unto me." Regardless of our stance on whether we can win this, bring democracy, have made Iraq a "free" country there are wounds and needs that we must address, soldiers and citizens. Perhaps you'll feel compelled to enlist and be a physical presence, or begin a dialogue with politicians, join a peace-team, or get your house of worship to be more involved in sending assistance to where it is needed. I invite you to find a way to address those needs and be open to the gifts that will come of it.

Yours in peaceful service, anna

As someone who has a very limited background of christianity and people of faith. And as someone who is sincerely attempting to find out who Jesus is in this chaotic world. I have to say that all this name calling and hatred (yes it sounds like hatred to me - albeit a childlike schoolyard hatred) makes me want to run in the other direction of ANYTHING claiming to be Christ-like. Disagree with whoever you like. Say whatever you like. But I'm having some difficulty figuring out what makes the difference? How would I know a christian in this comment section from anyone else?

And now, I'll move on. Seems like there must be some grown-ups somewhere who can show me the true Christ-like spirit. Because if some of the commentors here are true Christ-like beings then I've been wasting my time these past couple of months. They have nothing worth seeking.

mistake from the begining. anyone outside of the usa could have told you that from the get go. no 20/20 hindsight neaded. just a clear view of what happened.
this may be over the top, but i think it can be likened to columbine. the usa felt hurt and disrespected so they went in with guns a'blazing.

-daytona

I've been debating with myself about what could be added to this comment thread. I appreciate the risk you took, Gordon, in posting this and your willingness to stand behind your words.
I think the way we have been polarized by this administration, in particular by its campaign strategists, leads to knee-jerk reactions from either side of the dividing line. We seem to be losing the ability to listen to one another. If I voted for Bush (hypothetically) am I then required to be knee-jerk defensive when it comes to any assessement of Iraq that is less than positive? Is the opposite also true? If I opposed this war when the drums started beating in the summer of 2002, am I allowed to name as legitimate the hope some had for democracy in Iraq?
A friend of mine is an Army chaplain who was stationed in Baghdad, she spoke to our church about war and how she saw it feed on poverty. I think there is more truth to that than even she may have meant. War feeds on poverty of mind, spirit and material resources. It gives purpose to people whose lives often lack any other purpose or direction. How many times have I heard the assessment that a young person adrift would do well to enlist in the army? Is this simply to give them discipline, or to reshape the meaning of their life militaristically?
Here's what I think. I think it's like that Twilight Zone, if we can be made to argue with each other and entrench ourselves in one position or another, the enemy doesn't have to fly another plane into another building. The work has already been done.
And what a sad irony that we removed a dictator in the name of democracy and now it is likely that the result will be a less-progress, more violent, revolutionary mess that will almost certainly end with a MORE repressive Islamist state.

I hate all of you, and you all hate me. You all hate eachother too. All of you think you've got it all figured out, and so do I. My ego is wrapped up in this war, a conflict composed of thousands individual men and women (the truth is this amounts to NOTHING more than people killing people for no reason)so I'm going to decry you, and dismiss you, and hate you. I feel justified in that hate because you hate me too. Let's all hate eachother, let that be our unity.

You know, Jesus explained all of this to us a couple millenia ago. Do we listen no? Because thanks to all this useless, impotent, murder, some iraqi's can pretend they are free... just like we do.

I feel a bit nervous about joining in again to this comment thread, because this subject is, as for many of us, close to my heart.
But I will indulge myself.
As an aside to the commenter who thought we were not very 'Christian', I think I'd like to remind them that we are all fallible, and in the short comments of a post we probably don't say what we think in the best way, and we cannot interpret the reactions of others. However, it's a good reminder, that I have had to give myself several times over this war. I was so angry in the build up to the war that I had to pray every morning for forgiveness for hating Bush, Blair and the others who spun lies for the sake of policy objectives.

Tangent over.
To respond to your comment RLP, I'm not an expert on Iraq, though I do work in the field of international aid, so I know some people who are, and I think that your assessment may not reflect the political realities of the Iraq situation. The trouble is 'some' people do hate the USA (and UK!) they are the ones who use guns and religion to further their political aims. But the majority of Iraqi people have a range of opinions about the issue - they do not get heard. By pulling out they may find a way to grab power themselves, this is unlikely, more probable ethnic and religious 'leaders' will manipulate agendas and fears to create a divided Iraq, with many civilians dying in the interim. This implies I think I know the answer - I don't. But, I think that focusing on the feelings and not on a realistic assessment of the grassroots realities in Iraq is what got us (yep, I didn't vote for my govt either!) into this mess. So, maybe the pull out is the answer but it should be based on facts not reactions. (Hope that doesn't imply any deductions of why you came to your opinion.)
Lastly, thanks for discussing this on your blog. I don't think it's right for Christians to pretend either a) we're not involved in politics because we all are and b) that we all agree all the time. Just because we believe in the same God sadly doesn't mean we are all going to agree. RLP is famous for his honesty - so please don't stop now! :-)
Amelia - UK, Brussels

Admittedly I am against the Iraq war, and so speak from that very biased view point. My only question to no one in particular is when are we as a "Chrstian" nation going to have a foreign policy based on the Golden Rule as Jesus taught it, not the rule of gold as corporate America teaches it?

Jennifer Hamlin-Navias

Exclusive of my thoughts regarding the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the conflict and after reading all the foregoing I'm struck by the question: "To one who doesn't know Christ, which of the above comments can be identified as presented by a Christian; and with apologies to C.S. Lewis, which ones would be attributed to a disciple of Screwtape?"

Wow.

O.k., just a few thoughts -- my own and no one else's.

First of all, I've heard that the working definition of "insanity" is to perform the same action, over and over, and expect a new and different outcome. We keep throwing blood and treasure at the Iraq situation, but nothing changes. Why keep doing it? The alternative is to either: a.) stop doing it, or b.) throw something else at it OTHER than blood and treasure. Something other than war.

Secondly, on the "incindiary language" thing, wasn't there a phrase in the Bible about how, while it's good to be forgiving and humble, you shouldn't let yourself become "a doormat for a fool"? Now that's fairly incindiary. In fact, a lot of things in the Bible can be said to be fairly incindiary. It's meant to be. The Bible itself was a fairly revolutionary document. It was meant to provoke change, even as some "incindiary" language is meant to. If I believe George Bush to be wrong, I will say so in unvarnished terms. If I believe that some involved in persecuting this war are doing so for personal gain, I will say that as well, again in unvarnished terms.

Being "Christian" doesn't negate emotion, opinion or controversy. It also doesn't mean allowing wrongs to go unremarked on or unredressed. But it does require light rather than heat. So "heated commentary" must contain something of light to be useful and effective. Say what you mean to one another, accept what others say, no matter how they may express it, unless their phrasing confuses you in some way as to their intent. Otherwise, to comment on HOW someone phrases something is to negate not only what they say, but who is saying it as well.

I may be wrong, but I don't recall any restrictions on language per se in the Bible (at least not in the New Testement), though there are quite a few lessons on forgiveness and love.

Somehow, we keep missing those. Kind of like the people who want the Ten Commandments on public display, but for some odd reason don't feel the same about the Beatitudes.

I'm Pat Christensen and I wrote and approved this blog comment (though I might have been foolish for doing so)