Are you kidding me?? You’re pulling a clip that’s 13 years old to make what point? If anything, this bolsters the point that we can’t just cut-and-run.
It must be really nice living in the mentality of a 9/10 world. Nope, nothing’s changed. Don’t worry about the crazy jihadist trying to kill you.
I bet if you look a little further, you might be able to find a video of a speech he gave in a high school debate class (although, I don’t think “video” was invented then). That would be a real doozy.
Your argument is what then? That Iraq had something to do with 9/11? If that is the case you would be wrong. 9/11 changed absolutely nothing regarding the situation in Iraq. It changed our attitude in relation to the government of Afghanistan and the terrorists they were hiding–as it rightly should have. And given that every prediction Mr. Cheney made in that interview has come to pass as a result of our hasty intervention in Iraq I fail to see how his assessment then was some how made irrelevant given it’s near total accuracy as a predictor of the on the ground situation that would result from an attack on Iraq.
However, I certainly would not argue with your assertion that people with a strong belief in god are not to be trusted and posse a serious on going threat to geopolitical stability. Of course you probably just meant people that don’t believe in your god. But then that is, basically, expressing the same attitude as the jihadhists and hence my expression of the problem at a broader level than you are probably ultimately comfortable with–such discomfort, unfortunately, does not make the point any less accurate. As long as you possess a desire to convert people or condemn people because they do not believe as you believe you are part of the problem. These characteristics are inherent to religion given that religion is a brand, is selling itself, and it doesn’t do much good not to try and expand the brand through all means necessary.
Yep, and it’s not often that I agree with Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, Sandy Berger, Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Evan Bayh, but you have to give them their due as well.
“However, I certainly would not argue with your assertion that people with a strong belief in god are not to be trusted and posse a serious on going threat to geopolitical stability. “ - {my empahsis} …
So according to the erudite dcl, by his own words, *anyone* who believes in god is a jihadist …
This dross is then followed by the truism “These characteristics are inherent to religion given that religion is a brand, is selling itself, and it doesn’t do much good not to try and expand the brand through all means necessary.” which just happens to ignore at least on major world religion which is forbidden, by its *own* rules, to prosyletise … still, I’m sure he believes it sounds bettter the way he wrote it …
Nice of the GOP to leave the comments on eh? Brilliant for the finding of context…
Anyway, to engage with the points made, all of the quotes made prior to the Bush administration coming to power I don’t disagree with–nor are they necessarily at odds with Mr. Cheney’s statements. Many of the statements taken from the last several years are also quite valid and not at odds with Mr. Cheney’s statements. Those that are tend to be based on information that has been discredited and is based on estimates and intelligence information that was quite questionable at the very least, and willfully misleading at the least–provided by the Bush administration.
And again, where was what Mr. Cheney said wrong? Point to the sentence that was inaccurate, less than prudent, or some how massively changed due to events that are know to have happened after 1994. Again, to reiterate something that even the President has finally admitted, Iraq had nothing NOTHING NOTHING to do with 9/11.
to which religion are you eluding Alasdair? I certainly hope you are not thinking of Buddhism here, because you will run afoul of a bit of a problem there… Buddhism also does not believe in god. Perhaps you are thinking of some esoteric sect of Christianity or something though. In which case you must forgive me for not having much experience with them as they are kind enough not to bother me.
Oh, I forgot to engage a point of Alasdair’s. If that belief in god causes them to believe they are some how better and or more deserving than others with a different belief, some how have a right to force their beliefs or opinions on others who are non believers or different believers. Then yes, absolutely it makes them potentially, we’ll use a different term here, a crusader. How would it not Alasdair? It is quite unfortunately a proof by definition. Christian extremists are just as much a problem as muslim extremists who are as much of a problem as any other form of extremist the world over. And unless or until the leaders of these groups are willing to condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the lunacy of people that act in their name we’ve got a serious problem…
9/11 changed absolutely nothing regarding the situation in Iraq. It changed our attitude in relation to the government of Afghanistan and the terrorists they were hiding–as it rightly should have.
Of course, it is quite silly to pretend that “9/11 changed absolutely nothing regarding the situation in Iraq.” It most certainly did change things. After 9/11, which showed how the U.S. homeland was now in play with respect to radical islamic terrorism from the Middle East,, Bush decided that the Iraq Liberation Act signed by Clinton in 1998 — which established regime change as the official position of U.S. foreign policy — had to actually mean what it said.
Perhaps it is true that Iraq had no ties to terrorism, at least not to radical Islamic terrorism. I mean, why else would Abu Nidal have been murdered in his Baghdad apartment right before the invasion, if not to maintain the well-established fact that Saddam had no ties to terrorism? No living ties to terrorism. Well, to that terrorist. But maybe Saddam had no ties to radical Wahhabi Islamic terrorism, or at least not to Al Qaeda, or at least not to the particular 19 hijackers who carried out 9/11. It’s all very nuanced and sophisticated.
I don’t recall anyone arguing that Saddam was not an asshole… Other than the few Republicans that went to visit and get a nice photo op with the man. The point remains–there was a reason to go into Afghanistan there was not a reason to go into Iraq. And going into Iraq has taken our eye of the ball with regards to Afghanistan.
Those [Democratic statements] that are [valid] tend to be based on information that has been discredited and is based on estimates and intelligence information that was quite questionable at the very least, and willfully misleading at the least–provided by the Bush administration.
What utter nonsense. Those Democrats had the same information as everyone else (that’s why it was called “groupthink”), and if they were just misled into war by the oh-so incompetent Bush administration, then they’re either too stupid or too lax in their duties to be responsible for governing.
Or, you know, congress is not given an intelligence gathering agency of their own that is not connected to the executive branch. But yes there was a groupthink problem–I can’t really argue with that statement.
Right, because all the information the numerous Congressional committees and subcommitees on intelligence and foreign relations get from their own hearings with the Pentagon, CIA, NSC, etc. is vetted by the White House first. As if.
Cute. I could ask you the same exact question. But if you want to know the answer, for my part I wouldn’t be second-guessing and Monday morning-quarterbacking POTUS in a war that won’t just be his loss if it goes bad, but a loss for ever American regardless of political party (especially one that is so far removed from the quagmire that was Vietnam as to be a laughable comparison). As much as I detested Clinton, I never for a second thought his actions in Kosovo were in bad faith (or even his firing off some cruise missiles on the eve of his impeachmeant).
Fair enough. I suppose you are right–there are two different arguments here. Should we have made the mistake of getting involved in Iraq. (Well I suppose that phrasing is not leaving a lot to be wondered about my position, but then I think that was clear before now anyway). And now that we are stuck in a situation that is, as much as you’d like to think it’s not, is analogous to Iraq, what do we do about that? And that is, I will grant you a much different question. And is certainly much more difficult to figure out.
Indeed it is. If going into Iraq was a mistake, that doesn’t mean that pulling out precipitously wouldn’t be just as much of a mistake. That is the one parallel I do see with Vietnam. The rest of the dominoes may not have fallen to communism in the long run after the helicopters left the embassy in Saigon, but millions more died than when we were still there and Southeast Asia was the worse for it. Moreover, the WMDs we had to fear from communist countries back then would have come from outside the U.S. and had return addresses.
In the end, I think deciding what to do about Iraq will be choosing the lesser of two evils, as such decisions usually are. If it cannot be shown that there will be any difference between what happens if we leave now or if we leave 5 years from now, then I would be the first to say pull the plug. But I’m not convinced that is the case. There are signs the surge is working. Harry Reid et al, who couldn’t wait to pronounce the war lost months ago, have dropped their talking points about there being a failure to provide security in Iraq, and are now droning on about there being a lack of a political solution. That is significant . . . pathetic, but significant.
Same old, same old from Joe Mama, who still hasn’t addressed the central issue. Cheney predicted back then what would happen if the U.S. unilatterally invaded Iraq and deposed Sadaam and the problems we would have. Turns out he was 100% correct. Given his position within this administration that raises serious questions of not only competency but intelligence.
Was what he said innacurate? No, it was highly accurate. What changed? Joe Mama says its because we were attacked on our home soil. Except we had been attacked on our home soil before. As far back as 1975 (discounting earlier wars with the English, Spanish, Indians, etc which occured much earlier). In 1975 Puerto Rican nationals bombed a bar on Wall Street. We didn’t subject Puerto Rico to martial law because of it though.
But that wasn’t jihadists! Joe Mama cries. Yeah except it wasn’t the first time Islamic fundementalists attacked on U.S. soil either, hell it wasn’t even the first time they attacked the World Trade Center! February 26, 1993 the WTC was bombed by islamic terrorists (also not from Iraq) yet we didn’t invade Iraq then now did we? Interestingtly enough since it was in 1993 thats a YEAR before Cheney’s above comments.
Wait! There’s MORE! In April of that year the Iraqi’s actually tried to assasinate the first George Bush! We retaliated, but we didn’t invade. Why? Because an invasion would bring EXACTLY the problems Cheney pointed out.
No, the only thing that changed is that the second George Bush was in office, surrounded by cronies, unable to catch the ACTUAL terrorist mastermind, and refusing to listen to the advice of people who said invading Iraq was not only flawed, but if you were going to do it, the way he wanted to was flawed.
I guess I have trouble seeing how Cheney’s rationale in that video could be entirely erased due to 9/11. Yeah, there is more of a threat, but why does that cause a complete 180 in his stance? You have to excuse people for thinking something fishy went on in the White House that suddenly made it OK to back-pedal on this policy. 9/11 can’t be used as the sole excuse.
Honestly, I think part of it is that the Elder Bush was a wiser, dare I say more prudent man than some of the people around him and than he is often times given credit for. And ultimately there were those that felt we did not go far enough in Iraq the first time. If I recall Clinton was actually one of those people. However, once explained to him he understood the costs of a full scale invasion and understood it would be untenable. Unfortunately, our current administration–for one reason or another became fixated on Iraq. And unfortunately it has landed us with a very very sticky mess.
Thanks Joe, we seem to be staying a little better on track than normal.
You just convinced me. It couldn’t be that 9/11 changed the WH’s policy towards Iraq. 9/11 was just a continuation of the comparable incidents you cite that came before. It had to have been that “Bush was in office, surrounded by cronies.”
dcl - you have not heard, already, of a small yet significant world religion called Judaism ?
By Judaism’s own rules, they are not allowed to prosyletise …
Apparently, you also didn’t study History much, at least not in the area of the Midle East between 500 and 1500 AD … or you would have realised that the First Crusade was a war of liberation to try to free Jerusalem and the Holy Land from an invader who had taken it over by force - an invader who happened to be Islamic - the Seljuks … take a look at this animated annotated spread of the world’s major religions … you will see how Jerusalem and the Holy Land were Christian until conquered … the early Crusades were a sort of not-very-effective liberation (which, unfortunately, didn’t last long) … the later Crusades were were by a corrupt organised Church and States who were trying to simply gain power …
The first Crusaders weren’t jihadists in the current sense … they believed they were waging a holy war, but not one which required killing off large parts of a population just because the local military was too strong for them …
Personally, I stand against the jihadists because I can look at history and current geography, and I can say, for example, that, if I was Jewish, I would much prefer to live in a Christian country than in a Muslim country … if I was female, I would much rather live in a Jewish or Christian or Buddhist country rather than in an Islamic country … and, since the jihadists want to force people to live in an Islamic country by means of terrorism, I do not see anything good about what they are doing …
Do *you* see any good in what the jihadists are doing, dcl ?
Alain, where is the hostility coming from? As Alasdair points out, this post was by a guestblogger, as noted in the byline. But more broadly, I wonder what leads you to believe that my “true level” is “the gutter.” Are you a disgruntled Domer or something?
Joe Mama, i don’t think its possible to change your mind when it comes to Bush, but I do notice that rather than addressing my points you simply made a joke. Since you claimed the difference was being attacked here in America, and I pointed out how that had happened prior without us needing to invade Iraq, i think you need a new reason why invading iraq now was such a great idea, especially since all the bad things Cheney said would happen DID happen.
Yeah, there is more of a threat, but why does that cause a complete 180 in his stance?
Were you really that unaffected by 9/11? Before 9/11 I was for open borders; now I am not. Before 9/11 I was against nation-building; now I think its integral to long-term victory in the struggle against Islamo-fascicm. Before 9/11 I wanted to bomb Saddam out of office but otherwise leave Iraq to implode on its own; nowadays I am convinced leaving Iraq to implode on its own only gives al-Qaeda a new foothold in the Middle East after we spent all that money and effort driving them out of Afghanistan.
I could probably go on, but if 9/11 didn’t cause you to seriously examine a lot of your key foreign policy perspectives and change your mind on some things, IMO you’re a complete fucktard with your head in the ground.
I am absolutely astounded how you guys will tear Bush and company apart for being stubborn and not changing course while refusing to acknowledge that 9/11 rightfully served as a basis for this administration to change its foreign policy thinking in a major way, and instead pointing to dialogue 10-15 years ago to back up your current position. That’s just as retarded as someone on my side of the debate reaching back for Scoop Jackson or JFK quotes.
Please, has your ability to develop a coherent argument really regressed as badly as you’re making it seem with this dumb link to Cheney? Are you really that immune to the lessons of the 1990s and how near-sighted we really were with our decision to leave Saddam in power and not support the Shi’ite uprising?
Since you claimed the difference was being attacked here in America, and I pointed out how that had happened prior without us needing to invade Iraq, i think you need a new reason why invading iraq now was such a great idea…
Oh right, your blind devotion to Bush and co. is plenty. No need to actually defend a position, that would require, you know honesty and intellectually integrity.
I am absolutely astounded how you guys will tear Bush and company apart for being stubborn and not changing course while refusing to acknowledge that 9/11 rightfully served as a basis for this administration to change its foreign policy thinking in a major way, and instead pointing to dialogue 10-15 years ago to back up your current position. That’s just as retarded as someone on my side of the debate reaching back for Scoop Jackson or JFK quotes.
Please, has your ability to develop a coherent argument really regressed as badly as you’re making it seem with this dumb link to Cheney? Are you really that immune to the lessons of the 1990s and how near-sighted we really were with our decision to leave Saddam in power and not support the Shi’ite uprising?
Gosh Andrew, your right! The only possible option to combating a terrorist group funded primarily by the Saudi’s and led by a man who at the time was in Afghanistan was to attack Iraq! A country that wasn’t actually involved with the attacks whatsoever. Clearly the best option was to pull troops from Afghanistan and tax our military in general requiring us to stretch our Reserves and National Guard as well, all the while creating a power vacuum in a highly volatile region, going in without a strategy post Saddam, failing to use enough troops to secure things like ammo depots that were later raided for weapons that were then used AGAINST our troops. We definitely definitely DEFINITELY need to remain involved in a country that continues to grow more violent, where the people don’t want us there, and where 500 people were killed just today in suicide attacks, providing a terrorist training ground and even more ill will towards the U.S.
And your definitely right, its pointless to reference a man who was the Secretary of Defense during a previous engagement with the same country and is now Vice President. While we’re at it we should completely ignoring everything that happened prior to 1995, just pretend it didn’t happened, because it happened in the past its not relevant anymore! Yet at the same time we should look into the past at incidents you feel are relevant because those make sense! Oh the hypocrisy meter is OFF THE CHARTS!
Andrew, I agree, 9/11 did, and rightfully should have, changed the way we look at foreign policy. But it is possible to take things too far and make mistakes, as well. I wasn’t tearing Bush and Cheney apart, only wondering why there was such an extreme shift in mentality. A lot of the same ideas Cheney espoused in the video would still be true, 9/11 or not, and what’s more — it’s been proven. Compare the actual results to what Cheney warned of in 1994. I’m not saying Bush and Cheney are completely wrong about everything all the time (I’m not dogmatically opposed to Bush like some), but I do think they overreached with Iraq, however good the intentions may have been. 9/11 did cause some to seriously examine their perspectives, but that doesn’t mean huge shifts are always the answer.
The ostrich-in-the-sand meter has always been off the charts with you, David. You completely missed my point.
This argument isn’t about whether invading Iraq in 2003 was the right or wrong thing, or whether pulling our troops out right now is the right or wrong thing. This argument is about how relevant Dick Cheney’s words in 1994 are to today’s debate, and the answer is they are completely irrelevant.
In 1990 to 1994, Cheney and company felt Saddam could be contained and that he was defanged. A defanged Saddam and an intact Iraq was considered safer than taking the risk of full invasion, removal of Saddam, and the choice of letting Iraq implode or trying to “nation-build”. At the time, the risk-reward curve did not, in their view, support removing Saddam. I believe hindsight tells us they made the wrong choice, but hindsight is 20/20 and their decision not to “finish the task” was almost universally accepted as the wisest decision at the time by pundits from across the spectrum.
Fast forward 8 years. In the late ’90s, Saddam threw out the weapons inspectors, an action that led Bill Clinton and many Democrats to loudly proclaim we should remove Saddam from power. Instead we shot a few missiles at some anti-aircraft batteries. Meanwhile Saddam charged full ahead with getting his WMD programs planned to the point that, as soon as the sanctions were removed, he could jumpstart building nukes and other WMDs (and with half the world bought off via the Oil for Food scandal, France and company were ready to lift the sanctions and allow Iraq to return to normalcy). Meanwhile, after 9/11, al-Qaeda becomes a clear threat, and the distinct possibility emerges that Saddam could conceivably finance terrorists to attack the U.S., and possibly slip them WMDs as well.
With Iran right next door sponsoring terrorism and next in line on the Axis of Evil, and with the growing chorus of diagnosis that what ails the Middle East is stifling oppression and lack of freedom that makes Islamofascism attractive to younger generations, suddenly that risk-reward profile looks starkly different. You and I can differ on whether the risk-reward profile changed enough to warrant invasion and/or a nation-building exercise (as kcatnd puts it, maybe Dubya and Cheney “overreached”), but the fact remains the pros and cons and risks and rewards of taking action against Saddam completely shifted from where it was in 1990 or 1994 and served as the basis for a complete reexamination of whether invading Iraq and removing Saddam was the best long-term solution.
This should be obvious to everyone on both sides of today’s Iraq’s debate, but to you David, it’s usually not even obvious that your shit stinks, even with your head so far up your ass.
kcatnd - what doesn’t seem to have been noted yet is that, when Cheney answered his questions back in 1994, he had reason to believe that Hillary might be put in charge of going into Iraq - and that should scare *anyone* … (except Saddam Hussein - he had already seen how effective Hillarycare was going to be) …
{Did I get the right dcl-snarky tone to my comment/response ? (grin)}
Oh right, your blind devotion to Bush and co. is plenty. No need to actually defend a position, that would require, you know honesty and intellectually integrity.
David, you wouldn’t know honesty, intellectual integrity, or my position on anything, for that matter, if any of them fell out of the sky and shat right on top of your pointy little head. There is no need for me to waste my time re-defending the position I’ve clearly staked out just because you’re too obtuse to recognize it. Nor will I indulge someone who is so frighteningly stupid as to cite earlier wars on this continent with the English, Spanish, and Indians, or the 1975 bombing on Wall Street by Puerto Rican nationals, as a reason why 9/11 could not or should not have changed anything with respect to our foreign policy towards radical Islam in the Middle East and in Iraq. That is quite simply absurd.
To be honest, though, you get the last laugh here — I’ve once again allowed myself to get roped into an exchange with an insufferable, petulant ignoramus who is a perfect embodiment of all that he decries in others. Nice work.
Andrew, I don’t argue that the risk / reward scale made a shift post 9/11 on terms of foreign policy. Though the reality is it should have shifted pre 9/11 and there were quite a number of actions that could have been taken to prevent it. Again, hindsight is 20/20. To wit, Alsdair, I have no argument that Radical Islam is a threat, and a grave danger. I believe I said as much–if I did not then I’m saying it here. And certainly I would not want to live in a Muslim Caliphate. That said, I also surely don’t want to live in a Christian state either. And conveniently I don’t–or have you not read the Constitution lately (see, there you got my humor style incorrect it’s much wryer and and more nimble than your feeble attempt at a joke)? Further, I would not want to live in ANY state for which the major basis of the government was religion. Such a state is inherently unsound and tends to be overly war like — France (Catholic) + England (Protestant) = 100 years war. Both are now nominally religious states, but have become de facto secular–but the point holds, and our founding fathers understood, that religion is a destabilizing force in government–and Madison was quite pissed off about the House and Senate and Armed Forces even having Chaplains so I have no doubt that prayer in schools would cause him to, metaphorically speaking only of course, roll over in his grave.
Be that as it may, I had indeed forgotten the Jewish injunction against proselytizing, and I thank you for recalling it to mind. I don’t think it necessarily damages the overall point too significantly–but then of the three Abrahamic religions I’ve always thought Judaism to be the most sensible, and the least likely to be at odds with reality and reason (though certainly it has it’s moments) perhaps that’s also due to the fact that they don’t spend a lot of time bothering me about it–so perhaps I’m too want to gloss over that particular argument.
Anyway, back to Iraq. In the interview cited Cheney outlines the costs of going to war. And all of the major issues attendant to going to war in Iraq he properly identified and predicted in that interview and none of his predictions about the costs of an Iraq invasion turned out not to be true. None of those points are, I think, in argument here correct? Now I’ll give Andrew the point that the cost benefit analysis changed in a post 9/11 world. I’ll even grant that the analysis could have pushed us over the edge to making it a valid decision to invade–Andrew’s argument here is probably among the more solid and cogent to that effect. So Cheney changed his mind on the C/B analysis. That does not negate the fact that he knew the costs and dangers of an invasion back in 1994 (I think we can all agree that is before W. Bush invaded Iraq? (see Alasdair, still missing my humor style)). So he knew the dangers he decided that they were worth it for the benefits and decided to invade. With me so far? Am I being in anyway unfair to Mr. Cheney up to this point? Misrepresenting his remarks? Or in conflict with the over all Neo-Conservative geopolitical outlook? Okay–so he knows the costs but post 9/11 he feels that the benefits now outweigh the costs–a change from the consensus opinion that he and just about everyone else held back in 1994 but you are correct it is a long time between then and now so his opinion on the C/B could have legitimately changed. This all begs one very large question though: if he knew the dangers, if he knew the costs, if he understood what could happen if we invaded Iraq and it went wrong why, [rhetorical invective of your choosing], did he plan for sunshine puppies and flowers upon invasion instead of an absolute worst case scenario like Bush the Elder did? And that is the point we are asking based on this video clip if Cheney knew what was likely to happen, why was this administration so terribly unprepared for it and, dare I say, surprised by it happening? If you can answer that question in a logically sound manner, perhaps then it would be legitimate to concede the point that bring up this statement from 1994 was simply rhetorical politicking. But if you can’t I fail to see how this statement is not germane to the present debate and a legitimate point to be made.
dcl - I only have time for a quick response, for now … I’ll address your Cheney-point-by-point tonight, after the Hollywood Bowl …
Please, however, go read some history books about the 100 Years War … it ran from the 1330s to the 1450s … “Its basic cause was a dynastic quarrel that originated when the conquest of England by William of Normandy created a state lying on both sides of the English Channel.” (Taken from here ) …
As far as I know, most historians consider that, prior to the Diet of Wurms, there was no “Protestant” Church … since said Diet was in 1520, its effect on the 100 Years War is problematical at best … {Stop me if I’m being too subtle, please} …
With that said, even during the fighting between Protestant Great Britan and Catholic France and/or Catholic Spain, it is well-recognised that the fights were over POWER, with the theology used as a convenient pretext at best …
You also say that the US is not a Christian country … whereas I suspect you will find that most people agree that the US *is* a Christian country because of the characteristics of its behaviours … it’s not a Catholic country in its behaviours (now), but it is more a Christian country than it is any other form of country … it is managing to tread that line whereby no single sect or cult is “established” as the One True Religion, yet it remains a predominantly Christian country and is flourishing as a result …
Compare that with the situation in Lebanon, which *was* a Christian country until Islamist violence forced what had been a Christian majority (as of the last census in 1932 counted ‘em at 55%) out, by killing off Christians or simply driving them out by making their lives untenable … sadly, that has been the history of a number of religions, how they have spread … even more sadly, Islam seems to be the only major religion that is still, currently, trying to spread that way …
For all the faults, real and perceived, of the US, its history has not been the history of an empire, and especially not in the past 70 years … (with the possible exception of the 50th State) {(check its flag if I’m being too subtle}… empires just aren’t supposed to give stuff back once they have conquered ‘em militarily …
Alasdair, you hit the nail brilliantly on the head with out realizing it I’m sure. When you mention the wars were about power with religion used as a side case. How wonderfully astute of you to recognize that Religion is always and only really about power. gaining it consolidated it and using the concepts of religion to control others and as a cause for their overthrow. Religion is wonderful for fooling the superstitious and the gullible into doing what you want them to. Again religion’s purpose is power and control. It has no other purpose.
And the United States, as designed, is intended to be secular that there happen to be a lot of christians here is totally irrelevant to that point. So take your power hungry christian nation rhetoric and shove it up your ass. I don’t want to be fighting another dumb ass crusade between Christians and Muslims. It’s bloody stupid. So when I say that Religion is the single most destructive, poisonous, and evil force that man has ever created. Know that I mean it.
The problem with the 1994 Cheney video isn’t that he changed his mind on whether it would be right to invade Iraq. The problem is that he didn’t take significant measures in the invasion to prevent the events that he knew might happen from actually happening. The video shows that his fault in this regard is not mere ignorance, but rather gross incompetence.
“How wonderfully astute of you to recognize that Religion is always and only really about power. “ … {my emphasis} …
Dane - I feel sorry for you … I feel sorry for anyone who cannot see the good that has been done by many religions … I feel sorry for anyone who does not have those good examples to follow … and I feel sorry for those who are literally incapable of separating out the good from the evil because they consider all religion to be evil …
How wonderfully astute of you to recognize that Religion is always and only really about power. gaining it consolidated it and using the concepts of religion to control others and as a cause for their overthrow. Religion is wonderful for fooling the superstitious and the gullible into doing what you want them to. Again religion’s purpose is power and control. It has no other purpose.
Wow… I mean, wow. When a person on the right states how they feel uncomfortable around gay people they are a bigot. When dcl slams everyone and everything about religion he somehow thinks its different.
Yes, clearly you are less brainwashed then I am despite my religious up bringing. Clearly I follow my faith not by choice but because I was “fooled” into it, i’m superstitious and gullible. Or maybe, JUST maybe, i thought about it, considered it, and found that I believed in something that you didn’t. Clearly your limited mind is able to grasp all the concepts of the universe and has an explanation for each and every one of them, nothing is beyond current human understanding, and nothing could possibly be beyond it. Not even that its for sure, but no even the mere possiblity is anathema to you.
Apparently religion is only useful for bad things, never helps anyone or anything and can’t possibly have helped make the world a better place. With such astute reasoning and willingness to be open to other peoples ideas you have convinced me.
Oh, wait, no. You are a small minded bigot who extols the virtues of diversity except when it comes to things you don’t agree with, then the other side is absolutely wrong. Who is it that claims that the other side is 100% wrong all the time and only leading to the downfall society? Oh right, the fundies and jihadists on the right! Oh yeah and the militant atheists on the left. It never ceases to amuse me how alike the two groups are…
Alasdair, I don’t in any way object to your emphasis added. And I’m so glad that I could bring you and David together in this argument. I also knew I’d catch flack for being so terribly dismissive of religion–I always seem to and yet I doubt any one would bat an eye if a launched a full scale verbal tirade on Zeus… A deity that was, during his ascendancy, believed in just as much as God.
Be that as it may I don’t need some two thousand year book of myths to tell me the difference between what is right and what is wrong–certainly considering that what the Bible portends to be right so terribly often is plainly wrong. Nor do I have any desire to defend or be part of an institution that condones pederasty or argues that condoms are the work of the devil in Africa leading to an ever widening epidemic of AIDS. Or for that mater the local folk religion that says you can cure AIDS by fucking a virgin. MADNESS. Good examples? Lets kill people that don’t agree with us? Good examples the inquisition? Even mother Theresa was flaming hypocrite–it’s okay for Princess Di to get a divorce but change the law in Ireland to allow divorce–hell no, I’m going to fly all the way from Calcutta to stop that! Give me a break good example my ass. How about failure to condemn the fatwa against Salman Rushdie by nearly every major religious leader the world over–well you know he shouldn’t have committed blasphemy–that’s right david the damn Pope sided with the crazy ass muslim extremists that wanted to kill a man over a book! Free expression–apparently not if it conflicts with any religion. Then it’s okay to shoot you and your family.
Alisdair, I am perfectly capable of separating good from evil and right from wrong that I don’t depend on some book that people made up 2000 years ago. The Bible has no real bearing on that ability nor do I need you to feel sorry for me, or pray for me or endeavor to intervene in my life in any way shape or form. And since I’m capable of thinking for myself my ethical and moral compass is not rooted 2000 years in the past where, among other-things, slavery was seen as perfectly normal, beating people–possibly to death–for very minor transgressions seemed perfectly reasonable, nailing a man to a cross and letting him spend 30+ hours dyeing as his insides were slowly ripped apart causing suffocation and, assuming the nails in the hands and feat were placed with the intended accuracy, piercing the nerves in one’s extremities such that the slightest breeze over one’s skin would cause excruciating pain the likes of which you will likely never experience in the corse of normal life, having men fight each other to death in the middle of an arena for sport and pleasure was considered okay, women were subjugated and treated as property, and on and on and on. So, like I said, no need to feel sorry on my account I’d rather think for my self than have the ethics of 2000 year old misogynists try and tell me what’s right.
I think that about covers Alasdair’s, um shall we call them arguments? Seem to be more holier than thou I’ve got a special book I’m so special and with all the special people. Sorry your screwed but it’s okay I’ll try and save you by interfering in your life and endeavor to make you feel bad because you don’t believe but that’s okay because it will make me feel better about myself that I tried to do the christian thing…
Never the less. David. Let us see… As to your first point there are two courses of argument I could take. One that we are discussing a difference in kind the other that we are discussing a difference in actions. As to a difference in kinds I don’t think it is wrong to tell someone they are being foolish, that they are being duped, or that they are being silly and overly superstitious (seriously, no 13th floor? your kidding right?). Now generally all of those issues are based on choice. Being gay or being black or being female or being short or being blind or being in a wheel chair (you get the idea) are all things that are not based on any sort of choice. You don’t choose to be any of these things. On the other hand you choose to trust a con artist –be they from Nigeria telling you you can make a lot of money or if they are in the pulpit sunday morning telling you to be good don’t cause differently keep your head down do what the ruling class wants and you get to go to paradise once you’ve waisted the one and only life you’ve got. I generally thing that it is an ethical responsible to inform someone that you think they are being coned or swindled–It’s not necessarily information that the person wants to here–but if they bring it up… The other is a difference in action. Don’t bug me with your religion and how I should follow it or how I’m damned or how we should enshrine it in the laws of our country and I don’t give a shit what you believe. You start bugging me with it and how I should follow your foolishness too, your damn right I’m gonna get pissed. Likewise a couple snogging excessively in public should be told off regardless of their gender. So as to your first argument I don’t think it particularly holds water. The Christian Right brought up this whole we should be a Christian nation prayer in school, religious doctrine in the laws, and theology in science class. You don’t try and put that power hungry lunacy in the public sphere and, as long as you don’t break laws like committing pedophile, I don’t care what you do.
Brainwashed… don’t get all defensive about this. Besides your mocking irony lacks internal logic. How would I be less brainwashed despite your religious brainwashing. The proper mocking statement would be: Clearly you are less brainwashed than I because of my religious up bringing I can’t possibly think for myself. And it goes on. But I get what you meant. I understand this is a touchy subject and I generally never treat it with kid gloves.
But, as too the actual point here. Well, if my mind is limited, clearly it would not be able to grasp all the concepts of the universe, so the internal logic here is a bit off again. Be that as it may. I certainly can’t argue that I have all the answers. But that does not stop me from realizing that modern science has a heck of a lot more answers than the ancient Greeks did when they made up there gods around 3000 years ago, or the Christians Muslims and Jews did when they made up their explanations from about 3000 years ago to around 1500 years ago (my math might be a little off there, don’t hold me to the dates, I’ve never been good with them). So yes there is a whole heck of a lot we do not understand about the universe that is awe inspiring and fascinating about it. That requires further study and inquiry and that people far smarter than I will slowly figure out more about it in the future and that these things might be different from what we think we know now. All these things true. But all of this does not change one thing, Religion clearly got it wrong. On almost every count the stories of the Bible are wrong. And aside from a few basic things that crop up literally every where in terms of moral decision making the moral choices and such are utterly repugnant. From what God did to Job to the whole thing where god wanted Abraham to murder his own son. Yes, very compassionate.
So in short, there is a great deal that is beyond human understanding. That does not, ipso facto, mean that this stuff beyond human understanding will come to us out of a story book that… lets see, humans wrote… Just as much as they made up all the Greek myths. There is no functional difference between the two.
Now, is it possible that there is something outside of the effable reality we see every day? Or that which we can study with our tools that let us see far beyond what man has ever been able to see before? Absolutely–anything is possible. BUT, this you can’t disprove god therefore he exists argument is illllogical — it as logically flawed as telling Iraq to prove they don’t have WMDs–hell it’s possibly even more flawed than that. Prove that Big Foot does not exist… Cool there’s big foot. Prove that there is not an all powerful spaghetti monster… You get the picture. And really it is rather arrogant and solipsistic to thinking that god made this whole big world just for us. and made us all like him and on and on. How very self centered. Perhaps we are just part of a massive cosmos that we can’t begin to understand and to which we are no particular concern to whatever is beyond or outside of it? I mean we exist in a totally unimpressive and unimportant side street of the universe, I think it’s rather silly to think we would there by be particularly important to anything but ourselves. It is far more interesting to try and really understand that reality than to think we were made up from dirt or a drop of blood or whatever happens to be in vogue this millennium.
Religion is useful for power. It’s consolidation, the ordering of masses of people around what you want them to do. The moral ethical guidelines are offered and you are encouraged not to think about them but instead focus on paradise–some reward for keeping your head down and following the rules–for giving massive amounts of your income to the king and wasting your life. Instead of cherishing this one chance you have to exist on this earth and to be aware of it. To challenge your self and to explore what life has to offer you because you only have one shot at it and there might not be anything else–so learn as much as you can about what is and hand that down to the next generation so they can find out still more. And yes, religion always seem to come up with the basics of what humans need to survive in a community. And then they run off in some crazy ass direction. Religion is neither necessary nor sufficient for people to help others, do the right thing, or make the world a better place as you say. Put another way, it really is not hard to come up with, “Do not do onto others what you would not have done onto yourself”. Actually that’s not the standard Christian translation of the rule. They usually use, “do onto others what you would have done onto yourself”. Which, if you’d care to think about it some, is a significantly less evolved thinking on the subject than the first statement I rendered. If you can’t figure out why on your own, stick with religion, you clearly need help on finding the difference between right and wrong.
Other side? hmm, there is a thought. I’m not atheist–I really have given this subject a lot of thought. I’m not agnostic. I’m not Christian–and thankfully never baptized. I’m not buddhist. I’m not Muslim, I’m not Jewish, I’m not Hindu, I’m not Zoroaster. When it comes to religion I much prefer to be nothing at all. And honestly, when it comes down to it weather or not there is a god or not is a totally useless question–but that is a topic for another discussion.
Lets see, David’s last paragraph. (You know it’s about time, this is way too long a comment.) we’ve dispensed with bigotry angle. We’ve dispensed with the I’m right about everything and know all angle as a total miss characterization of the concept. Small minded? I rather think not as I’m willing to accept a much broader range of possibilities than someone who is convinced they’ve got the “right” god. Let’s see other side 100% wrong. I suppose you could argue that. I mean if I didn’t think I was right I clearly would not have sat here typing this long. The trouble is it is a question about which nobody can be right. It is actually (much to do with many of the comments you’ve already made and their general applicability to issues of religion) 100% impossible to be “right” no matter the position you take–as I said the basic question is in fact useless–which remains a topic for another day. Downfall of society? Hmm, not if the busy body holier than thou crow can manage to keep their nose out of other people’s business. Now, if they can’t do that religion certainly has never done much good for society–the Dark Ages. Followed by the pushing aside of complete dogmatic subjugation by religious leaders A.K.A. the enlightenment. When would you have rather lived? Well last, finally, you mentioned three groups. And the difference between the first two groups and the last one is that the last really just want to be left alone and for the first two to keep there noses out of other people’s business. Well I don’t know if that’s necessarily true for the militant atheists. But seeing as you decided to lump me in with them, I figured I’d just reiterate one last time my opinion–which is, don’t bother me with your mubo-jumbo and I don’t care what you do on your own–though really, it would be best if you take the kids to the doctor when they are sick, and that whole female circumcision thing really is child abuse–so it would be nice if you left the kids alone long enough to make their own informed choices–a point the Amish at least somewhat understand.
Dane, i’m far too tired and my day sucked, so i’m not really in the mood to wade through the whole comment you made, i’ll do so tommorow, but from the brief skim, i’m sorry but you are just emphasizing a willful ignorance and or bigotry and i’m going to call you on it. To distill the entirety of religion down into “its brainwashed superstition used only for power” is the most ignorant and arrogant statement anyone has made around here lately, and the fact that Alasdair AND Joe mama AND Andrew have been sparing with me in other threads should tell you how strong that has to be.
I don’t begrudge you the personal belief that religion is what you think it is, you are free to not believe in religion, but frankly your absolute certitude that its all exactly what you think it is and that there isn’t the possibility of more, is arrogant.
I will not even begin to deny that some use religion as a means to do some terrible things. Nor will i deny that people use it as an excuse to jusitfy their behavior. Then the same can be said of groups like PETA, so am i allowed to declare that all animal lovers are in it only for power? How about environmental extremeists? Just as there are people who abuse religion, there are those who use it to better mankind, to help others and to find a better path in life and beyond. You don’t feel like you need that, and I respect that, i think your missing out, but I don’t call you brainwashed because of your beliefs. Yet you lump the ENTIRETY of religion into the catagory of being brainwashed? It never even enters into your mind that maybe just maybe we don’t see things as you do?
Like I said, you are exactly like the fundies you so despise and both you AND they with your absolutist attitudes are part of the problem in this country right now.
Sigh, I’ve no desire to expound again upon the same topic and frankly I’d much rather discuss far more interesting questions then continuing over and over this heavily trodden ground. I will say I disagree with your analysis though. My apologies for not keeping sacred cows or treating religion any differently than I treat any other topic–it is simply a matter for philosophical inquest as any other. Nothing is off the table concerning it. The Main point I think you’ve missed is not certitude on my part rather it is a willingness to admit when we don’t know something and to leave it as unknown instead of making up a fairy tail about it. I fail to see how that is certitude beyond your own that Jesus is the only begotten son of God that came to earth and died for our sins &c. &c. That ALSO fails to accept that there could be something else, a different answer but you’re sure yours is right. Instead I’m willing to say that beyond the reality we see here on earth and from earth we basically know nothing. That there are a near infinite number other possibilities for what lies outside of our realm of understanding and it would be foolish to spend a whole lot of time fighting and gesticulating in favor of one made up idea in favor of another. Prove, for example, that the earth is not some sort of prison colony for a massively advanced civilization from outer space that specifically hides their existence from us. Just because it cannot be proven false does not make it a strong argument. Instead I suggest that we methodically inquire into the unknown and see if we can’t discover more and add to our wealth of knowledge. Often times what we find out is significantly more fascinating, awe inspiring and humbling than what religions have come up with. Understandably this sort of thing can be freighting and lead to an existential crisis for some. But to really give these things serious thought where no idea is held up on faith alone but instead rises our falls by the merit of it’s argument.
David, I’ve given this issue a significant amount of thought and done so over a very prolonged period of time and through significant amounts of research, reflection, and discussion. And I will say that my thinking on the issue has evolved significantly from what I thought when I was younger, and I imagine that it will continue to evolve and change as I get older and as we learn more about the world around us. I can assure you that it is not a position taken out of ignorance of the issue at hand. Nor is it a question of arrogance. Granted I’ve spent more time looking at the historical aspects of religion than the doctrine itself. How this doctrine evolved is something I’ve spent time on. What it has been used for &c. &c. but I’m not offering a solution at all. I’m simply exposing to the cold harsh light of day the side of religion that most people want to ignore and questioning faith, all faith, in the same terms. The Muslims, Catholics, Hindus, Mormons, Jews, and Buddhists cannot all be correct. Much less their various internal sects that exist. Much less the religions that no longer exist. Yet all, to one extent or another and much less with the Buddhists (but they are a bit unique) tend to argue they have the one true answer and all others are wrong. Clearly they all cannot be right there is no possible way then to choose a faith. There can be no correct answer–even if we don’t accept into our argument ideas and possibilities not yet explored by world religion. So you have made a selection based on what those around you have selected. That’s fine. However, does this make you correct? Does this put you in a position to exert moral superiority over others? Does this mean that you should enshrine your beliefs in the laws of a secular nation? Clearly not. Like I said, I’ve no problem with you believing whatever you like so long as you keep those beliefs out of my affairs–I fail to see how that is a bigoted opinion. Now if I were tying to tear down churches or force you not to believe that which you believe–that would be a different matter, and something the religious already do yet we don’t see you calling them bigoted.
Not all animal lovers belong to PETA, so I fail to see how your analogy holds. It is a question of belonging to a group that condones certain behaviors. Lets use professional sports and performance enhancing drugs as an allegory. There is a team or a sport or organization that looks the other way in the case of doping. Now continued association with that organization is a tacit approval of that behavior. If one does not approve of the behavior one should sever ties with the organization or fight to stop the problem. In the case of, say, cycling, sponsors have demanded that doping be stopped (as they pay the bills this seems a good idea). So now we have cycling trying to route out the problem and condemning the cheats. Firing cyclists for unethical behavior. In baseball, on the other hand, there is no real effort to halt the problem there is a continued tacit approval of it. And unless you are out there trying to fix that problem you are, de facto, approving the status quo. I should hope you get the idea.
In the case of religion though, you say there are those that use it to better man kind? Perhaps. But not if they don’t leave me alone while they do it. Not if they are trying to put religion into the laws. Not if they are trying to add prayer in schools. All of these represent actions that a devoutly religious person would be want to do in the name of making the world a better place perhaps. And perhaps they have right intentions. But it does not make the action right–and it does not make the world a better place.
As Hamlet said in Shakespeare, “there are more things in heaven and earth than man has ever dreamed of”. So why on earth are we clinging so fervently to the dreams of men and the religions they’ve made instead of accepting that there is simply far far more that we do not know than we know. And that the reality is far more fascinating and interesting than our bedtime stories.
Dane #45 - simple answer - Leviticus - the Purity Laws - if you ever find yourself in a situation where your ability to maintain what we consider basic hygeine, then Leviticus is an excellent substitute for a By Scout Handbook when it comes to food … follow the kosher laws, and your chance to survive and thrive are significantly enhanced … check the stories of those who survived the Holocaust in the camps - the ones who kept kocher had much higher survival rates …
Dane #47 - quick response … who is thrusting their religion into your laws ?
Currently, the only religion succeeding in doing so is the zero-Deity religion aka atheism … do a little digging, and you will find that most people who would like the possibility of prayer in schools are trying to require prayer of the form of a specific denomination in schools, they are trying to return to when prayer in schools was permitted … they are not trying to ADD prayer in schools, they are trying to reverse the BAN on prayer in schools …
This is an archived post. Comments are closed.
To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:43:01 pm
Best video clip ever.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:07:25 pm
Are you kidding me?? You’re pulling a clip that’s 13 years old to make what point? If anything, this bolsters the point that we can’t just cut-and-run.
It must be really nice living in the mentality of a 9/10 world. Nope, nothing’s changed. Don’t worry about the crazy jihadist trying to kill you.
I bet if you look a little further, you might be able to find a video of a speech he gave in a high school debate class (although, I don’t think “video” was invented then). That would be a real doozy.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:22:29 pm
Your argument is what then? That Iraq had something to do with 9/11? If that is the case you would be wrong. 9/11 changed absolutely nothing regarding the situation in Iraq. It changed our attitude in relation to the government of Afghanistan and the terrorists they were hiding–as it rightly should have. And given that every prediction Mr. Cheney made in that interview has come to pass as a result of our hasty intervention in Iraq I fail to see how his assessment then was some how made irrelevant given it’s near total accuracy as a predictor of the on the ground situation that would result from an attack on Iraq.
However, I certainly would not argue with your assertion that people with a strong belief in god are not to be trusted and posse a serious on going threat to geopolitical stability. Of course you probably just meant people that don’t believe in your god. But then that is, basically, expressing the same attitude as the jihadhists and hence my expression of the problem at a broader level than you are probably ultimately comfortable with–such discomfort, unfortunately, does not make the point any less accurate. As long as you possess a desire to convert people or condemn people because they do not believe as you believe you are part of the problem. These characteristics are inherent to religion given that religion is a brand, is selling itself, and it doesn’t do much good not to try and expand the brand through all means necessary.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:23:13 pm
Interesting to speculate what changed the Veep’s mind …
August 15th, 2007 at 2:25:03 pm
Yep, and it’s not often that I agree with Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, Sandy Berger, Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Evan Bayh, but you have to give them their due as well.
Well said, folks :-)
August 15th, 2007 at 2:27:02 pm
And FWIW, those clips are all way more recent than Cheney’s 1994 clip.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:34:04 pm
Talk about a “leap of faith” !
“However, I certainly would not argue with your assertion that people with a strong belief in god are not to be trusted and posse a serious on going threat to geopolitical stability. “ - {my empahsis} …
So according to the erudite dcl, by his own words, *anyone* who believes in god is a jihadist …
This dross is then followed by the truism “These characteristics are inherent to religion given that religion is a brand, is selling itself, and it doesn’t do much good not to try and expand the brand through all means necessary.” which just happens to ignore at least on major world religion which is forbidden, by its *own* rules, to prosyletise … still, I’m sure he believes it sounds bettter the way he wrote it …
Feh !
August 15th, 2007 at 2:38:17 pm
Nice of the GOP to leave the comments on eh? Brilliant for the finding of context…
Anyway, to engage with the points made, all of the quotes made prior to the Bush administration coming to power I don’t disagree with–nor are they necessarily at odds with Mr. Cheney’s statements. Many of the statements taken from the last several years are also quite valid and not at odds with Mr. Cheney’s statements. Those that are tend to be based on information that has been discredited and is based on estimates and intelligence information that was quite questionable at the very least, and willfully misleading at the least–provided by the Bush administration.
And again, where was what Mr. Cheney said wrong? Point to the sentence that was inaccurate, less than prudent, or some how massively changed due to events that are know to have happened after 1994. Again, to reiterate something that even the President has finally admitted, Iraq had nothing NOTHING NOTHING to do with 9/11.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:42:22 pm
to which religion are you eluding Alasdair? I certainly hope you are not thinking of Buddhism here, because you will run afoul of a bit of a problem there… Buddhism also does not believe in god. Perhaps you are thinking of some esoteric sect of Christianity or something though. In which case you must forgive me for not having much experience with them as they are kind enough not to bother me.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:52:15 pm
Oh, I forgot to engage a point of Alasdair’s. If that belief in god causes them to believe they are some how better and or more deserving than others with a different belief, some how have a right to force their beliefs or opinions on others who are non believers or different believers. Then yes, absolutely it makes them potentially, we’ll use a different term here, a crusader. How would it not Alasdair? It is quite unfortunately a proof by definition. Christian extremists are just as much a problem as muslim extremists who are as much of a problem as any other form of extremist the world over. And unless or until the leaders of these groups are willing to condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the lunacy of people that act in their name we’ve got a serious problem…
August 15th, 2007 at 2:53:31 pm
9/11 changed absolutely nothing regarding the situation in Iraq. It changed our attitude in relation to the government of Afghanistan and the terrorists they were hiding–as it rightly should have.
Of course, it is quite silly to pretend that “9/11 changed absolutely nothing regarding the situation in Iraq.” It most certainly did change things. After 9/11, which showed how the U.S. homeland was now in play with respect to radical islamic terrorism from the Middle East,, Bush decided that the Iraq Liberation Act signed by Clinton in 1998 — which established regime change as the official position of U.S. foreign policy — had to actually mean what it said.
Perhaps it is true that Iraq had no ties to terrorism, at least not to radical Islamic terrorism. I mean, why else would Abu Nidal have been murdered in his Baghdad apartment right before the invasion, if not to maintain the well-established fact that Saddam had no ties to terrorism? No living ties to terrorism. Well, to that terrorist. But maybe Saddam had no ties to radical Wahhabi Islamic terrorism, or at least not to Al Qaeda, or at least not to the particular 19 hijackers who carried out 9/11. It’s all very nuanced and sophisticated.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:59:22 pm
I don’t recall anyone arguing that Saddam was not an asshole… Other than the few Republicans that went to visit and get a nice photo op with the man. The point remains–there was a reason to go into Afghanistan there was not a reason to go into Iraq. And going into Iraq has taken our eye of the ball with regards to Afghanistan.
August 15th, 2007 at 3:02:09 pm
Those [Democratic statements] that are [valid] tend to be based on information that has been discredited and is based on estimates and intelligence information that was quite questionable at the very least, and willfully misleading at the least–provided by the Bush administration.
What utter nonsense. Those Democrats had the same information as everyone else (that’s why it was called “groupthink”), and if they were just misled into war by the oh-so incompetent Bush administration, then they’re either too stupid or too lax in their duties to be responsible for governing.
August 15th, 2007 at 3:11:49 pm
[T]here was a reason to go into Afghanistan there was not a reason to go into Iraq.
Well, there were actually 23 reasons given and voted on by both sides for going into Iraq. You just might not like any of them.
August 15th, 2007 at 3:14:34 pm
Or, you know, congress is not given an intelligence gathering agency of their own that is not connected to the executive branch. But yes there was a groupthink problem–I can’t really argue with that statement.
August 15th, 2007 at 3:20:52 pm
Right, because all the information the numerous Congressional committees and subcommitees on intelligence and foreign relations get from their own hearings with the Pentagon, CIA, NSC, etc. is vetted by the White House first. As if.
August 15th, 2007 at 3:23:21 pm
Joe, let me ask you this. Think about what you would be arguing if the situation were reversed.
August 15th, 2007 at 3:31:08 pm
Cute. I could ask you the same exact question. But if you want to know the answer, for my part I wouldn’t be second-guessing and Monday morning-quarterbacking POTUS in a war that won’t just be his loss if it goes bad, but a loss for ever American regardless of political party (especially one that is so far removed from the quagmire that was Vietnam as to be a laughable comparison). As much as I detested Clinton, I never for a second thought his actions in Kosovo were in bad faith (or even his firing off some cruise missiles on the eve of his impeachmeant).
August 15th, 2007 at 3:36:27 pm
Fair enough. I suppose you are right–there are two different arguments here. Should we have made the mistake of getting involved in Iraq. (Well I suppose that phrasing is not leaving a lot to be wondered about my position, but then I think that was clear before now anyway). And now that we are stuck in a situation that is, as much as you’d like to think it’s not, is analogous to Iraq, what do we do about that? And that is, I will grant you a much different question. And is certainly much more difficult to figure out.
August 15th, 2007 at 3:56:15 pm
Indeed it is. If going into Iraq was a mistake, that doesn’t mean that pulling out precipitously wouldn’t be just as much of a mistake. That is the one parallel I do see with Vietnam. The rest of the dominoes may not have fallen to communism in the long run after the helicopters left the embassy in Saigon, but millions more died than when we were still there and Southeast Asia was the worse for it. Moreover, the WMDs we had to fear from communist countries back then would have come from outside the U.S. and had return addresses.
In the end, I think deciding what to do about Iraq will be choosing the lesser of two evils, as such decisions usually are. If it cannot be shown that there will be any difference between what happens if we leave now or if we leave 5 years from now, then I would be the first to say pull the plug. But I’m not convinced that is the case. There are signs the surge is working. Harry Reid et al, who couldn’t wait to pronounce the war lost months ago, have dropped their talking points about there being a failure to provide security in Iraq, and are now droning on about there being a lack of a political solution. That is significant . . . pathetic, but significant.
August 15th, 2007 at 4:36:23 pm
Same old, same old from Joe Mama, who still hasn’t addressed the central issue. Cheney predicted back then what would happen if the U.S. unilatterally invaded Iraq and deposed Sadaam and the problems we would have. Turns out he was 100% correct. Given his position within this administration that raises serious questions of not only competency but intelligence.
Was what he said innacurate? No, it was highly accurate. What changed? Joe Mama says its because we were attacked on our home soil. Except we had been attacked on our home soil before. As far back as 1975 (discounting earlier wars with the English, Spanish, Indians, etc which occured much earlier). In 1975 Puerto Rican nationals bombed a bar on Wall Street. We didn’t subject Puerto Rico to martial law because of it though.
But that wasn’t jihadists! Joe Mama cries. Yeah except it wasn’t the first time Islamic fundementalists attacked on U.S. soil either, hell it wasn’t even the first time they attacked the World Trade Center! February 26, 1993 the WTC was bombed by islamic terrorists (also not from Iraq) yet we didn’t invade Iraq then now did we? Interestingtly enough since it was in 1993 thats a YEAR before Cheney’s above comments.
Wait! There’s MORE! In April of that year the Iraqi’s actually tried to assasinate the first George Bush! We retaliated, but we didn’t invade. Why? Because an invasion would bring EXACTLY the problems Cheney pointed out.
No, the only thing that changed is that the second George Bush was in office, surrounded by cronies, unable to catch the ACTUAL terrorist mastermind, and refusing to listen to the advice of people who said invading Iraq was not only flawed, but if you were going to do it, the way he wanted to was flawed.
August 15th, 2007 at 4:41:04 pm
I guess I have trouble seeing how Cheney’s rationale in that video could be entirely erased due to 9/11. Yeah, there is more of a threat, but why does that cause a complete 180 in his stance? You have to excuse people for thinking something fishy went on in the White House that suddenly made it OK to back-pedal on this policy. 9/11 can’t be used as the sole excuse.
August 15th, 2007 at 4:48:31 pm
dcl,
I appreciate the reasoned exchange.
August 15th, 2007 at 5:00:03 pm
Honestly, I think part of it is that the Elder Bush was a wiser, dare I say more prudent man than some of the people around him and than he is often times given credit for. And ultimately there were those that felt we did not go far enough in Iraq the first time. If I recall Clinton was actually one of those people. However, once explained to him he understood the costs of a full scale invasion and understood it would be untenable. Unfortunately, our current administration–for one reason or another became fixated on Iraq. And unfortunately it has landed us with a very very sticky mess.
Thanks Joe, we seem to be staying a little better on track than normal.
August 15th, 2007 at 5:04:19 pm
David,
You just convinced me. It couldn’t be that 9/11 changed the WH’s policy towards Iraq. 9/11 was just a continuation of the comparable incidents you cite that came before. It had to have been that “Bush was in office, surrounded by cronies.”
Why are the rest of you laughing?
August 15th, 2007 at 6:04:38 pm
Cheap shot Brendan. Your true level, the gutter.
I guess it is easier than coming up with reasoned arguments.
August 15th, 2007 at 6:23:16 pm
dcl - you have not heard, already, of a small yet significant world religion called Judaism ?
By Judaism’s own rules, they are not allowed to prosyletise …
Apparently, you also didn’t study History much, at least not in the area of the Midle East between 500 and 1500 AD … or you would have realised that the First Crusade was a war of liberation to try to free Jerusalem and the Holy Land from an invader who had taken it over by force - an invader who happened to be Islamic - the Seljuks … take a look at this animated annotated spread of the world’s major religions … you will see how Jerusalem and the Holy Land were Christian until conquered … the early Crusades were a sort of not-very-effective liberation (which, unfortunately, didn’t last long) … the later Crusades were were by a corrupt organised Church and States who were trying to simply gain power …
The first Crusaders weren’t jihadists in the current sense … they believed they were waging a holy war, but not one which required killing off large parts of a population just because the local military was too strong for them …
Personally, I stand against the jihadists because I can look at history and current geography, and I can say, for example, that, if I was Jewish, I would much prefer to live in a Christian country than in a Muslim country … if I was female, I would much rather live in a Jewish or Christian or Buddhist country rather than in an Islamic country … and, since the jihadists want to force people to live in an Islamic country by means of terrorism, I do not see anything good about what they are doing …
Do *you* see any good in what the jihadists are doing, dcl ?
August 15th, 2007 at 6:26:04 pm
Alain - tu as tort !
Brendan has not yet been part of this post or these comments …
dcl (aka (if I understand it) Dane) is the poster … (and the poster boy for the D-list, too) …
August 15th, 2007 at 6:51:03 pm
Alain, where is the hostility coming from? As Alasdair points out, this post was by a guestblogger, as noted in the byline. But more broadly, I wonder what leads you to believe that my “true level” is “the gutter.” Are you a disgruntled Domer or something?
August 15th, 2007 at 9:13:34 pm
Joe Mama, i don’t think its possible to change your mind when it comes to Bush, but I do notice that rather than addressing my points you simply made a joke. Since you claimed the difference was being attacked here in America, and I pointed out how that had happened prior without us needing to invade Iraq, i think you need a new reason why invading iraq now was such a great idea, especially since all the bad things Cheney said would happen DID happen.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:32:29 pm
Yeah, there is more of a threat, but why does that cause a complete 180 in his stance?
Were you really that unaffected by 9/11? Before 9/11 I was for open borders; now I am not. Before 9/11 I was against nation-building; now I think its integral to long-term victory in the struggle against Islamo-fascicm. Before 9/11 I wanted to bomb Saddam out of office but otherwise leave Iraq to implode on its own; nowadays I am convinced leaving Iraq to implode on its own only gives al-Qaeda a new foothold in the Middle East after we spent all that money and effort driving them out of Afghanistan.
I could probably go on, but if 9/11 didn’t cause you to seriously examine a lot of your key foreign policy perspectives and change your mind on some things, IMO you’re a complete fucktard with your head in the ground.
I am absolutely astounded how you guys will tear Bush and company apart for being stubborn and not changing course while refusing to acknowledge that 9/11 rightfully served as a basis for this administration to change its foreign policy thinking in a major way, and instead pointing to dialogue 10-15 years ago to back up your current position. That’s just as retarded as someone on my side of the debate reaching back for Scoop Jackson or JFK quotes.
Please, has your ability to develop a coherent argument really regressed as badly as you’re making it seem with this dumb link to Cheney? Are you really that immune to the lessons of the 1990s and how near-sighted we really were with our decision to leave Saddam in power and not support the Shi’ite uprising?
August 15th, 2007 at 11:15:17 pm
Since you claimed the difference was being attacked here in America, and I pointed out how that had happened prior without us needing to invade Iraq, i think you need a new reason why invading iraq now was such a great idea…
No, I really don’t.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:59:05 pm
No, I really don’t.
Oh right, your blind devotion to Bush and co. is plenty. No need to actually defend a position, that would require, you know honesty and intellectually integrity.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:10:13 am
I am absolutely astounded how you guys will tear Bush and company apart for being stubborn and not changing course while refusing to acknowledge that 9/11 rightfully served as a basis for this administration to change its foreign policy thinking in a major way, and instead pointing to dialogue 10-15 years ago to back up your current position. That’s just as retarded as someone on my side of the debate reaching back for Scoop Jackson or JFK quotes.
Please, has your ability to develop a coherent argument really regressed as badly as you’re making it seem with this dumb link to Cheney? Are you really that immune to the lessons of the 1990s and how near-sighted we really were with our decision to leave Saddam in power and not support the Shi’ite uprising?
Gosh Andrew, your right! The only possible option to combating a terrorist group funded primarily by the Saudi’s and led by a man who at the time was in Afghanistan was to attack Iraq! A country that wasn’t actually involved with the attacks whatsoever. Clearly the best option was to pull troops from Afghanistan and tax our military in general requiring us to stretch our Reserves and National Guard as well, all the while creating a power vacuum in a highly volatile region, going in without a strategy post Saddam, failing to use enough troops to secure things like ammo depots that were later raided for weapons that were then used AGAINST our troops. We definitely definitely DEFINITELY need to remain involved in a country that continues to grow more violent, where the people don’t want us there, and where 500 people were killed just today in suicide attacks, providing a terrorist training ground and even more ill will towards the U.S.
And your definitely right, its pointless to reference a man who was the Secretary of Defense during a previous engagement with the same country and is now Vice President. While we’re at it we should completely ignoring everything that happened prior to 1995, just pretend it didn’t happened, because it happened in the past its not relevant anymore! Yet at the same time we should look into the past at incidents you feel are relevant because those make sense! Oh the hypocrisy meter is OFF THE CHARTS!
August 16th, 2007 at 12:20:36 am
Andrew, I agree, 9/11 did, and rightfully should have, changed the way we look at foreign policy. But it is possible to take things too far and make mistakes, as well. I wasn’t tearing Bush and Cheney apart, only wondering why there was such an extreme shift in mentality. A lot of the same ideas Cheney espoused in the video would still be true, 9/11 or not, and what’s more — it’s been proven. Compare the actual results to what Cheney warned of in 1994. I’m not saying Bush and Cheney are completely wrong about everything all the time (I’m not dogmatically opposed to Bush like some), but I do think they overreached with Iraq, however good the intentions may have been. 9/11 did cause some to seriously examine their perspectives, but that doesn’t mean huge shifts are always the answer.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:58:27 am
The ostrich-in-the-sand meter has always been off the charts with you, David. You completely missed my point.
This argument isn’t about whether invading Iraq in 2003 was the right or wrong thing, or whether pulling our troops out right now is the right or wrong thing. This argument is about how relevant Dick Cheney’s words in 1994 are to today’s debate, and the answer is they are completely irrelevant.
In 1990 to 1994, Cheney and company felt Saddam could be contained and that he was defanged. A defanged Saddam and an intact Iraq was considered safer than taking the risk of full invasion, removal of Saddam, and the choice of letting Iraq implode or trying to “nation-build”. At the time, the risk-reward curve did not, in their view, support removing Saddam. I believe hindsight tells us they made the wrong choice, but hindsight is 20/20 and their decision not to “finish the task” was almost universally accepted as the wisest decision at the time by pundits from across the spectrum.
Fast forward 8 years. In the late ’90s, Saddam threw out the weapons inspectors, an action that led Bill Clinton and many Democrats to loudly proclaim we should remove Saddam from power. Instead we shot a few missiles at some anti-aircraft batteries. Meanwhile Saddam charged full ahead with getting his WMD programs planned to the point that, as soon as the sanctions were removed, he could jumpstart building nukes and other WMDs (and with half the world bought off via the Oil for Food scandal, France and company were ready to lift the sanctions and allow Iraq to return to normalcy). Meanwhile, after 9/11, al-Qaeda becomes a clear threat, and the distinct possibility emerges that Saddam could conceivably finance terrorists to attack the U.S., and possibly slip them WMDs as well.
With Iran right next door sponsoring terrorism and next in line on the Axis of Evil, and with the growing chorus of diagnosis that what ails the Middle East is stifling oppression and lack of freedom that makes Islamofascism attractive to younger generations, suddenly that risk-reward profile looks starkly different. You and I can differ on whether the risk-reward profile changed enough to warrant invasion and/or a nation-building exercise (as kcatnd puts it, maybe Dubya and Cheney “overreached”), but the fact remains the pros and cons and risks and rewards of taking action against Saddam completely shifted from where it was in 1990 or 1994 and served as the basis for a complete reexamination of whether invading Iraq and removing Saddam was the best long-term solution.
This should be obvious to everyone on both sides of today’s Iraq’s debate, but to you David, it’s usually not even obvious that your shit stinks, even with your head so far up your ass.
August 16th, 2007 at 4:17:44 am
kcatnd - what doesn’t seem to have been noted yet is that, when Cheney answered his questions back in 1994, he had reason to believe that Hillary might be put in charge of going into Iraq - and that should scare *anyone* … (except Saddam Hussein - he had already seen how effective Hillarycare was going to be) …
{Did I get the right dcl-snarky tone to my comment/response ? (grin)}
August 16th, 2007 at 9:14:53 am
Oh right, your blind devotion to Bush and co. is plenty. No need to actually defend a position, that would require, you know honesty and intellectually integrity.
David, you wouldn’t know honesty, intellectual integrity, or my position on anything, for that matter, if any of them fell out of the sky and shat right on top of your pointy little head. There is no need for me to waste my time re-defending the position I’ve clearly staked out just because you’re too obtuse to recognize it. Nor will I indulge someone who is so frighteningly stupid as to cite earlier wars on this continent with the English, Spanish, and Indians, or the 1975 bombing on Wall Street by Puerto Rican nationals, as a reason why 9/11 could not or should not have changed anything with respect to our foreign policy towards radical Islam in the Middle East and in Iraq. That is quite simply absurd.
To be honest, though, you get the last laugh here — I’ve once again allowed myself to get roped into an exchange with an insufferable, petulant ignoramus who is a perfect embodiment of all that he decries in others. Nice work.
August 16th, 2007 at 10:08:35 am
Andrew, I don’t argue that the risk / reward scale made a shift post 9/11 on terms of foreign policy. Though the reality is it should have shifted pre 9/11 and there were quite a number of actions that could have been taken to prevent it. Again, hindsight is 20/20. To wit, Alsdair, I have no argument that Radical Islam is a threat, and a grave danger. I believe I said as much–if I did not then I’m saying it here. And certainly I would not want to live in a Muslim Caliphate. That said, I also surely don’t want to live in a Christian state either. And conveniently I don’t–or have you not read the Constitution lately (see, there you got my humor style incorrect it’s much wryer and and more nimble than your feeble attempt at a joke)? Further, I would not want to live in ANY state for which the major basis of the government was religion. Such a state is inherently unsound and tends to be overly war like — France (Catholic) + England (Protestant) = 100 years war. Both are now nominally religious states, but have become de facto secular–but the point holds, and our founding fathers understood, that religion is a destabilizing force in government–and Madison was quite pissed off about the House and Senate and Armed Forces even having Chaplains so I have no doubt that prayer in schools would cause him to, metaphorically speaking only of course, roll over in his grave.
Be that as it may, I had indeed forgotten the Jewish injunction against proselytizing, and I thank you for recalling it to mind. I don’t think it necessarily damages the overall point too significantly–but then of the three Abrahamic religions I’ve always thought Judaism to be the most sensible, and the least likely to be at odds with reality and reason (though certainly it has it’s moments) perhaps that’s also due to the fact that they don’t spend a lot of time bothering me about it–so perhaps I’m too want to gloss over that particular argument.
Anyway, back to Iraq. In the interview cited Cheney outlines the costs of going to war. And all of the major issues attendant to going to war in Iraq he properly identified and predicted in that interview and none of his predictions about the costs of an Iraq invasion turned out not to be true. None of those points are, I think, in argument here correct? Now I’ll give Andrew the point that the cost benefit analysis changed in a post 9/11 world. I’ll even grant that the analysis could have pushed us over the edge to making it a valid decision to invade–Andrew’s argument here is probably among the more solid and cogent to that effect. So Cheney changed his mind on the C/B analysis. That does not negate the fact that he knew the costs and dangers of an invasion back in 1994 (I think we can all agree that is before W. Bush invaded Iraq? (see Alasdair, still missing my humor style)). So he knew the dangers he decided that they were worth it for the benefits and decided to invade. With me so far? Am I being in anyway unfair to Mr. Cheney up to this point? Misrepresenting his remarks? Or in conflict with the over all Neo-Conservative geopolitical outlook? Okay–so he knows the costs but post 9/11 he feels that the benefits now outweigh the costs–a change from the consensus opinion that he and just about everyone else held back in 1994 but you are correct it is a long time between then and now so his opinion on the C/B could have legitimately changed. This all begs one very large question though: if he knew the dangers, if he knew the costs, if he understood what could happen if we invaded Iraq and it went wrong why, [rhetorical invective of your choosing], did he plan for sunshine puppies and flowers upon invasion instead of an absolute worst case scenario like Bush the Elder did? And that is the point we are asking based on this video clip if Cheney knew what was likely to happen, why was this administration so terribly unprepared for it and, dare I say, surprised by it happening? If you can answer that question in a logically sound manner, perhaps then it would be legitimate to concede the point that bring up this statement from 1994 was simply rhetorical politicking. But if you can’t I fail to see how this statement is not germane to the present debate and a legitimate point to be made.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:32:37 pm
dcl - I only have time for a quick response, for now … I’ll address your Cheney-point-by-point tonight, after the Hollywood Bowl …
Please, however, go read some history books about the 100 Years War … it ran from the 1330s to the 1450s … “Its basic cause was a dynastic quarrel that originated when the conquest of England by William of Normandy created a state lying on both sides of the English Channel.” (Taken from here ) …
As far as I know, most historians consider that, prior to the Diet of Wurms, there was no “Protestant” Church … since said Diet was in 1520, its effect on the 100 Years War is problematical at best … {Stop me if I’m being too subtle, please} …
With that said, even during the fighting between Protestant Great Britan and Catholic France and/or Catholic Spain, it is well-recognised that the fights were over POWER, with the theology used as a convenient pretext at best …
You also say that the US is not a Christian country … whereas I suspect you will find that most people agree that the US *is* a Christian country because of the characteristics of its behaviours … it’s not a Catholic country in its behaviours (now), but it is more a Christian country than it is any other form of country … it is managing to tread that line whereby no single sect or cult is “established” as the One True Religion, yet it remains a predominantly Christian country and is flourishing as a result …
Compare that with the situation in Lebanon, which *was* a Christian country until Islamist violence forced what had been a Christian majority (as of the last census in 1932 counted ‘em at 55%) out, by killing off Christians or simply driving them out by making their lives untenable … sadly, that has been the history of a number of religions, how they have spread … even more sadly, Islam seems to be the only major religion that is still, currently, trying to spread that way …
For all the faults, real and perceived, of the US, its history has not been the history of an empire, and especially not in the past 70 years … (with the possible exception of the 50th State) {(check its flag if I’m being too subtle}… empires just aren’t supposed to give stuff back once they have conquered ‘em militarily …
August 16th, 2007 at 2:45:53 pm
Alasdair, you hit the nail brilliantly on the head with out realizing it I’m sure. When you mention the wars were about power with religion used as a side case. How wonderfully astute of you to recognize that Religion is always and only really about power. gaining it consolidated it and using the concepts of religion to control others and as a cause for their overthrow. Religion is wonderful for fooling the superstitious and the gullible into doing what you want them to. Again religion’s purpose is power and control. It has no other purpose.
And the United States, as designed, is intended to be secular that there happen to be a lot of christians here is totally irrelevant to that point. So take your power hungry christian nation rhetoric and shove it up your ass. I don’t want to be fighting another dumb ass crusade between Christians and Muslims. It’s bloody stupid. So when I say that Religion is the single most destructive, poisonous, and evil force that man has ever created. Know that I mean it.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:00:28 pm
The problem with the 1994 Cheney video isn’t that he changed his mind on whether it would be right to invade Iraq. The problem is that he didn’t take significant measures in the invasion to prevent the events that he knew might happen from actually happening. The video shows that his fault in this regard is not mere ignorance, but rather gross incompetence.
August 16th, 2007 at 5:00:29 pm
“How wonderfully astute of you to recognize that Religion is always and only really about power. “ … {my emphasis} …
Dane - I feel sorry for you … I feel sorry for anyone who cannot see the good that has been done by many religions … I feel sorry for anyone who does not have those good examples to follow … and I feel sorry for those who are literally incapable of separating out the good from the evil because they consider all religion to be evil …
August 16th, 2007 at 7:08:24 pm
How wonderfully astute of you to recognize that Religion is always and only really about power. gaining it consolidated it and using the concepts of religion to control others and as a cause for their overthrow. Religion is wonderful for fooling the superstitious and the gullible into doing what you want them to. Again religion’s purpose is power and control. It has no other purpose.
Wow… I mean, wow. When a person on the right states how they feel uncomfortable around gay people they are a bigot. When dcl slams everyone and everything about religion he somehow thinks its different.
Yes, clearly you are less brainwashed then I am despite my religious up bringing. Clearly I follow my faith not by choice but because I was “fooled” into it, i’m superstitious and gullible. Or maybe, JUST maybe, i thought about it, considered it, and found that I believed in something that you didn’t. Clearly your limited mind is able to grasp all the concepts of the universe and has an explanation for each and every one of them, nothing is beyond current human understanding, and nothing could possibly be beyond it. Not even that its for sure, but no even the mere possiblity is anathema to you.
Apparently religion is only useful for bad things, never helps anyone or anything and can’t possibly have helped make the world a better place. With such astute reasoning and willingness to be open to other peoples ideas you have convinced me.
Oh, wait, no. You are a small minded bigot who extols the virtues of diversity except when it comes to things you don’t agree with, then the other side is absolutely wrong. Who is it that claims that the other side is 100% wrong all the time and only leading to the downfall society? Oh right, the fundies and jihadists on the right! Oh yeah and the militant atheists on the left. It never ceases to amuse me how alike the two groups are…
August 16th, 2007 at 11:33:46 pm
Alasdair, I don’t in any way object to your emphasis added. And I’m so glad that I could bring you and David together in this argument. I also knew I’d catch flack for being so terribly dismissive of religion–I always seem to and yet I doubt any one would bat an eye if a launched a full scale verbal tirade on Zeus… A deity that was, during his ascendancy, believed in just as much as God.
Be that as it may I don’t need some two thousand year book of myths to tell me the difference between what is right and what is wrong–certainly considering that what the Bible portends to be right so terribly often is plainly wrong. Nor do I have any desire to defend or be part of an institution that condones pederasty or argues that condoms are the work of the devil in Africa leading to an ever widening epidemic of AIDS. Or for that mater the local folk religion that says you can cure AIDS by fucking a virgin. MADNESS. Good examples? Lets kill people that don’t agree with us? Good examples the inquisition? Even mother Theresa was flaming hypocrite–it’s okay for Princess Di to get a divorce but change the law in Ireland to allow divorce–hell no, I’m going to fly all the way from Calcutta to stop that! Give me a break good example my ass. How about failure to condemn the fatwa against Salman Rushdie by nearly every major religious leader the world over–well you know he shouldn’t have committed blasphemy–that’s right david the damn Pope sided with the crazy ass muslim extremists that wanted to kill a man over a book! Free expression–apparently not if it conflicts with any religion. Then it’s okay to shoot you and your family.
Alisdair, I am perfectly capable of separating good from evil and right from wrong that I don’t depend on some book that people made up 2000 years ago. The Bible has no real bearing on that ability nor do I need you to feel sorry for me, or pray for me or endeavor to intervene in my life in any way shape or form. And since I’m capable of thinking for myself my ethical and moral compass is not rooted 2000 years in the past where, among other-things, slavery was seen as perfectly normal, beating people–possibly to death–for very minor transgressions seemed perfectly reasonable, nailing a man to a cross and letting him spend 30+ hours dyeing as his insides were slowly ripped apart causing suffocation and, assuming the nails in the hands and feat were placed with the intended accuracy, piercing the nerves in one’s extremities such that the slightest breeze over one’s skin would cause excruciating pain the likes of which you will likely never experience in the corse of normal life, having men fight each other to death in the middle of an arena for sport and pleasure was considered okay, women were subjugated and treated as property, and on and on and on. So, like I said, no need to feel sorry on my account I’d rather think for my self than have the ethics of 2000 year old misogynists try and tell me what’s right.
I think that about covers Alasdair’s, um shall we call them arguments? Seem to be more holier than thou I’ve got a special book I’m so special and with all the special people. Sorry your screwed but it’s okay I’ll try and save you by interfering in your life and endeavor to make you feel bad because you don’t believe but that’s okay because it will make me feel better about myself that I tried to do the christian thing…
Never the less. David. Let us see… As to your first point there are two courses of argument I could take. One that we are discussing a difference in kind the other that we are discussing a difference in actions. As to a difference in kinds I don’t think it is wrong to tell someone they are being foolish, that they are being duped, or that they are being silly and overly superstitious (seriously, no 13th floor? your kidding right?). Now generally all of those issues are based on choice. Being gay or being black or being female or being short or being blind or being in a wheel chair (you get the idea) are all things that are not based on any sort of choice. You don’t choose to be any of these things. On the other hand you choose to trust a con artist –be they from Nigeria telling you you can make a lot of money or if they are in the pulpit sunday morning telling you to be good don’t cause differently keep your head down do what the ruling class wants and you get to go to paradise once you’ve waisted the one and only life you’ve got. I generally thing that it is an ethical responsible to inform someone that you think they are being coned or swindled–It’s not necessarily information that the person wants to here–but if they bring it up… The other is a difference in action. Don’t bug me with your religion and how I should follow it or how I’m damned or how we should enshrine it in the laws of our country and I don’t give a shit what you believe. You start bugging me with it and how I should follow your foolishness too, your damn right I’m gonna get pissed. Likewise a couple snogging excessively in public should be told off regardless of their gender. So as to your first argument I don’t think it particularly holds water. The Christian Right brought up this whole we should be a Christian nation prayer in school, religious doctrine in the laws, and theology in science class. You don’t try and put that power hungry lunacy in the public sphere and, as long as you don’t break laws like committing pedophile, I don’t care what you do.
Brainwashed… don’t get all defensive about this. Besides your mocking irony lacks internal logic. How would I be less brainwashed despite your religious brainwashing. The proper mocking statement would be: Clearly you are less brainwashed than I because of my religious up bringing I can’t possibly think for myself. And it goes on. But I get what you meant. I understand this is a touchy subject and I generally never treat it with kid gloves.
But, as too the actual point here. Well, if my mind is limited, clearly it would not be able to grasp all the concepts of the universe, so the internal logic here is a bit off again. Be that as it may. I certainly can’t argue that I have all the answers. But that does not stop me from realizing that modern science has a heck of a lot more answers than the ancient Greeks did when they made up there gods around 3000 years ago, or the Christians Muslims and Jews did when they made up their explanations from about 3000 years ago to around 1500 years ago (my math might be a little off there, don’t hold me to the dates, I’ve never been good with them). So yes there is a whole heck of a lot we do not understand about the universe that is awe inspiring and fascinating about it. That requires further study and inquiry and that people far smarter than I will slowly figure out more about it in the future and that these things might be different from what we think we know now. All these things true. But all of this does not change one thing, Religion clearly got it wrong. On almost every count the stories of the Bible are wrong. And aside from a few basic things that crop up literally every where in terms of moral decision making the moral choices and such are utterly repugnant. From what God did to Job to the whole thing where god wanted Abraham to murder his own son. Yes, very compassionate.
So in short, there is a great deal that is beyond human understanding. That does not, ipso facto, mean that this stuff beyond human understanding will come to us out of a story book that… lets see, humans wrote… Just as much as they made up all the Greek myths. There is no functional difference between the two.
Now, is it possible that there is something outside of the effable reality we see every day? Or that which we can study with our tools that let us see far beyond what man has ever been able to see before? Absolutely–anything is possible. BUT, this you can’t disprove god therefore he exists argument is illllogical — it as logically flawed as telling Iraq to prove they don’t have WMDs–hell it’s possibly even more flawed than that. Prove that Big Foot does not exist… Cool there’s big foot. Prove that there is not an all powerful spaghetti monster… You get the picture. And really it is rather arrogant and solipsistic to thinking that god made this whole big world just for us. and made us all like him and on and on. How very self centered. Perhaps we are just part of a massive cosmos that we can’t begin to understand and to which we are no particular concern to whatever is beyond or outside of it? I mean we exist in a totally unimpressive and unimportant side street of the universe, I think it’s rather silly to think we would there by be particularly important to anything but ourselves. It is far more interesting to try and really understand that reality than to think we were made up from dirt or a drop of blood or whatever happens to be in vogue this millennium.
Religion is useful for power. It’s consolidation, the ordering of masses of people around what you want them to do. The moral ethical guidelines are offered and you are encouraged not to think about them but instead focus on paradise–some reward for keeping your head down and following the rules–for giving massive amounts of your income to the king and wasting your life. Instead of cherishing this one chance you have to exist on this earth and to be aware of it. To challenge your self and to explore what life has to offer you because you only have one shot at it and there might not be anything else–so learn as much as you can about what is and hand that down to the next generation so they can find out still more. And yes, religion always seem to come up with the basics of what humans need to survive in a community. And then they run off in some crazy ass direction. Religion is neither necessary nor sufficient for people to help others, do the right thing, or make the world a better place as you say. Put another way, it really is not hard to come up with, “Do not do onto others what you would not have done onto yourself”. Actually that’s not the standard Christian translation of the rule. They usually use, “do onto others what you would have done onto yourself”. Which, if you’d care to think about it some, is a significantly less evolved thinking on the subject than the first statement I rendered. If you can’t figure out why on your own, stick with religion, you clearly need help on finding the difference between right and wrong.
Other side? hmm, there is a thought. I’m not atheist–I really have given this subject a lot of thought. I’m not agnostic. I’m not Christian–and thankfully never baptized. I’m not buddhist. I’m not Muslim, I’m not Jewish, I’m not Hindu, I’m not Zoroaster. When it comes to religion I much prefer to be nothing at all. And honestly, when it comes down to it weather or not there is a god or not is a totally useless question–but that is a topic for another discussion.
Lets see, David’s last paragraph. (You know it’s about time, this is way too long a comment.) we’ve dispensed with bigotry angle. We’ve dispensed with the I’m right about everything and know all angle as a total miss characterization of the concept. Small minded? I rather think not as I’m willing to accept a much broader range of possibilities than someone who is convinced they’ve got the “right” god. Let’s see other side 100% wrong. I suppose you could argue that. I mean if I didn’t think I was right I clearly would not have sat here typing this long. The trouble is it is a question about which nobody can be right. It is actually (much to do with many of the comments you’ve already made and their general applicability to issues of religion) 100% impossible to be “right” no matter the position you take–as I said the basic question is in fact useless–which remains a topic for another day. Downfall of society? Hmm, not if the busy body holier than thou crow can manage to keep their nose out of other people’s business. Now, if they can’t do that religion certainly has never done much good for society–the Dark Ages. Followed by the pushing aside of complete dogmatic subjugation by religious leaders A.K.A. the enlightenment. When would you have rather lived? Well last, finally, you mentioned three groups. And the difference between the first two groups and the last one is that the last really just want to be left alone and for the first two to keep there noses out of other people’s business. Well I don’t know if that’s necessarily true for the militant atheists. But seeing as you decided to lump me in with them, I figured I’d just reiterate one last time my opinion–which is, don’t bother me with your mubo-jumbo and I don’t care what you do on your own–though really, it would be best if you take the kids to the doctor when they are sick, and that whole female circumcision thing really is child abuse–so it would be nice if you left the kids alone long enough to make their own informed choices–a point the Amish at least somewhat understand.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:48:17 am
Dane, i’m far too tired and my day sucked, so i’m not really in the mood to wade through the whole comment you made, i’ll do so tommorow, but from the brief skim, i’m sorry but you are just emphasizing a willful ignorance and or bigotry and i’m going to call you on it. To distill the entirety of religion down into “its brainwashed superstition used only for power” is the most ignorant and arrogant statement anyone has made around here lately, and the fact that Alasdair AND Joe mama AND Andrew have been sparing with me in other threads should tell you how strong that has to be.
I don’t begrudge you the personal belief that religion is what you think it is, you are free to not believe in religion, but frankly your absolute certitude that its all exactly what you think it is and that there isn’t the possibility of more, is arrogant.
I will not even begin to deny that some use religion as a means to do some terrible things. Nor will i deny that people use it as an excuse to jusitfy their behavior. Then the same can be said of groups like PETA, so am i allowed to declare that all animal lovers are in it only for power? How about environmental extremeists? Just as there are people who abuse religion, there are those who use it to better mankind, to help others and to find a better path in life and beyond. You don’t feel like you need that, and I respect that, i think your missing out, but I don’t call you brainwashed because of your beliefs. Yet you lump the ENTIRETY of religion into the catagory of being brainwashed? It never even enters into your mind that maybe just maybe we don’t see things as you do?
Like I said, you are exactly like the fundies you so despise and both you AND they with your absolutist attitudes are part of the problem in this country right now.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:46:27 am
Sigh, I’ve no desire to expound again upon the same topic and frankly I’d much rather discuss far more interesting questions then continuing over and over this heavily trodden ground. I will say I disagree with your analysis though. My apologies for not keeping sacred cows or treating religion any differently than I treat any other topic–it is simply a matter for philosophical inquest as any other. Nothing is off the table concerning it. The Main point I think you’ve missed is not certitude on my part rather it is a willingness to admit when we don’t know something and to leave it as unknown instead of making up a fairy tail about it. I fail to see how that is certitude beyond your own that Jesus is the only begotten son of God that came to earth and died for our sins &c. &c. That ALSO fails to accept that there could be something else, a different answer but you’re sure yours is right. Instead I’m willing to say that beyond the reality we see here on earth and from earth we basically know nothing. That there are a near infinite number other possibilities for what lies outside of our realm of understanding and it would be foolish to spend a whole lot of time fighting and gesticulating in favor of one made up idea in favor of another. Prove, for example, that the earth is not some sort of prison colony for a massively advanced civilization from outer space that specifically hides their existence from us. Just because it cannot be proven false does not make it a strong argument. Instead I suggest that we methodically inquire into the unknown and see if we can’t discover more and add to our wealth of knowledge. Often times what we find out is significantly more fascinating, awe inspiring and humbling than what religions have come up with. Understandably this sort of thing can be freighting and lead to an existential crisis for some. But to really give these things serious thought where no idea is held up on faith alone but instead rises our falls by the merit of it’s argument.
David, I’ve given this issue a significant amount of thought and done so over a very prolonged period of time and through significant amounts of research, reflection, and discussion. And I will say that my thinking on the issue has evolved significantly from what I thought when I was younger, and I imagine that it will continue to evolve and change as I get older and as we learn more about the world around us. I can assure you that it is not a position taken out of ignorance of the issue at hand. Nor is it a question of arrogance. Granted I’ve spent more time looking at the historical aspects of religion than the doctrine itself. How this doctrine evolved is something I’ve spent time on. What it has been used for &c. &c. but I’m not offering a solution at all. I’m simply exposing to the cold harsh light of day the side of religion that most people want to ignore and questioning faith, all faith, in the same terms. The Muslims, Catholics, Hindus, Mormons, Jews, and Buddhists cannot all be correct. Much less their various internal sects that exist. Much less the religions that no longer exist. Yet all, to one extent or another and much less with the Buddhists (but they are a bit unique) tend to argue they have the one true answer and all others are wrong. Clearly they all cannot be right there is no possible way then to choose a faith. There can be no correct answer–even if we don’t accept into our argument ideas and possibilities not yet explored by world religion. So you have made a selection based on what those around you have selected. That’s fine. However, does this make you correct? Does this put you in a position to exert moral superiority over others? Does this mean that you should enshrine your beliefs in the laws of a secular nation? Clearly not. Like I said, I’ve no problem with you believing whatever you like so long as you keep those beliefs out of my affairs–I fail to see how that is a bigoted opinion. Now if I were tying to tear down churches or force you not to believe that which you believe–that would be a different matter, and something the religious already do yet we don’t see you calling them bigoted.
Not all animal lovers belong to PETA, so I fail to see how your analogy holds. It is a question of belonging to a group that condones certain behaviors. Lets use professional sports and performance enhancing drugs as an allegory. There is a team or a sport or organization that looks the other way in the case of doping. Now continued association with that organization is a tacit approval of that behavior. If one does not approve of the behavior one should sever ties with the organization or fight to stop the problem. In the case of, say, cycling, sponsors have demanded that doping be stopped (as they pay the bills this seems a good idea). So now we have cycling trying to route out the problem and condemning the cheats. Firing cyclists for unethical behavior. In baseball, on the other hand, there is no real effort to halt the problem there is a continued tacit approval of it. And unless you are out there trying to fix that problem you are, de facto, approving the status quo. I should hope you get the idea.
In the case of religion though, you say there are those that use it to better man kind? Perhaps. But not if they don’t leave me alone while they do it. Not if they are trying to put religion into the laws. Not if they are trying to add prayer in schools. All of these represent actions that a devoutly religious person would be want to do in the name of making the world a better place perhaps. And perhaps they have right intentions. But it does not make the action right–and it does not make the world a better place.
As Hamlet said in Shakespeare, “there are more things in heaven and earth than man has ever dreamed of”. So why on earth are we clinging so fervently to the dreams of men and the religions they’ve made instead of accepting that there is simply far far more that we do not know than we know. And that the reality is far more fascinating and interesting than our bedtime stories.
August 17th, 2007 at 2:48:23 pm
Dane #45 - simple answer - Leviticus - the Purity Laws - if you ever find yourself in a situation where your ability to maintain what we consider basic hygeine, then Leviticus is an excellent substitute for a By Scout Handbook when it comes to food … follow the kosher laws, and your chance to survive and thrive are significantly enhanced … check the stories of those who survived the Holocaust in the camps - the ones who kept kocher had much higher survival rates …
Dane #47 - quick response … who is thrusting their religion into your laws ?
Currently, the only religion succeeding in doing so is the zero-Deity religion aka atheism … do a little digging, and you will find that most people who would like the possibility of prayer in schools are trying to require prayer of the form of a specific denomination in schools, they are trying to return to when prayer in schools was permitted … they are not trying to ADD prayer in schools, they are trying to reverse the BAN on prayer in schools …