As far as evangelicals and conspiracies go, I think that’s a little bit far. More likely there is a pattern of thinking that has developed certain attitudes toward Israel that influence Christian decision makers

Well-stated Jeff. My experience with evangelical Christianity dictates the same response. The difference in decision-making stems from a vastly different world-view, not from any sort of organized conspiracy.

Jeff, thanks for taking the time to illuminate some of this.

At least a little of the evangelical support comes from end-times prophecy and the belief that Israel represents (or will represent) “God’s chosen people”. For some Christians, this has led to an attitude of “I’m a Christian, therefore I support Israel.”

So it sounds like I'm not necessarily hallucinating WRT a tie-in between evangelical (sounds like that's the right term?) beliefs, end-times and Israel.

One of the notable things is that in the bible, the end-times are prophesied to come when Israel is at peace and walls are no longer necessary (my paraphrasing here). Until recently, this has really made no sense as there was no Israel. Now it makes more sense, though of course Israel is certainly not at peace. Some see the possibility that removing the threat of Iraq being the first step toward this peace coming about. I am inclined to view the situation this way, though I don’t believe bringing peace to Israel should be our nation’s motivation in attacking Iraq. I should also point out that there are some evangelicals who don’t believe that the Israel of today corresponds to the Israel spoken about in these prophecies (i.e. the name is the same, but the people are different).

Interesting that last point. That whole interpretation thing.

There are at least two major views of eschatology

Show's how rusty I am....had to run over to dictionary.com!

Likewise, I discovered that there is a Dispensationalism Web Site , where I found:

"Dispensationalism is a term that describes a system of theology, or a set of guidelines for interpreting scripture that lead to some specific conclusions about God, Israel, the Church, and the Endtimes."


How exactly this translates into the U.S. foreign policy I’m not certain, but this is clearly a driving force among evangelicals.

So, one guess is that some of those evangelical-Israel connections were there but maybe weren't as apparent (to me, anyway) until things got bad recently and expressions of support got louder, more noticable...

As far as evangelicals and conspiracies go, I think that’s a little bit far. More likely there is a pattern of thinking that has developed certain attitudes toward Israel that influence Christian decision makers.

I am wary of getting into a conspiracy mindset. By definition, conspiracies are pursued in secret. The fact that I don't understand how some of this works doesn't mean that it is secretive or conspiratorial. I am more of the "pattern of thinking" way of thinking myself.

(Interesting, though, I just finished reading two things: the book "The Bureau and the Mole" about Robert Hansen and an article in Harpers subtitled "Undercover among America's secret theocrats". The first detailed Hansen's ironic/weird membership in, and some of the controversies surrounding, Opus Dei; the second was about the Fellowship Foundation aka "The Family". Neither of these was very reassuring from the standpoint of diminishing conspiracy anxieties!)

Much of what I see, though, is in the "pattern of thinking" vein, or something like cognitive dissonance. That being said (and you know my irreligious constitution) the prevalence of divinely-inspired patterns of thinking in the current White House, DoJ, and elsewhere doesn't help me sleep better at night!

[tangent]
In a recent thread there was debate about whether the administration was invading Iraq so that its pals (Richard Perle?) could make money. I don't see folks sitting around saying "Let's invade Iraq so we can make money." I see folks formulating other rationale for things like invasions and then making a bundle of money is sometimes seen as a happy coincidence.
[/tangent]

I should emphasize that I’m speaking a great deal out of ignorance here, but I do understand at least a few of the underlying issues.

More than a few, it seems. Thanks again for taking the time to respond.

[by the way: That book I mentioned earlier was in some ways a real stinker. I usually enjoy Stone's writing, but Damascus Gate was a tough read with a confused plot line and characters. I only read it because it was the last book I had on a long vacation in May 2001. I remember it, though, because it tried to examine Israel and the place of Jerusalem in ways I hadn't seen before -- and it also drew some characters and movements that immediately jumped back from memory on 9/11]

That's a laugh I'll gladly concede him ... his last.

I haven't met or heard of anyone who will miss him or say nice things at his funeral. If I can think of this whole mess as some crummy movie plot, though, this seems like the movie where you get the bad guy, but the bad guy planted a bomb somewhere and the movie really isn't over...

US invasion of Iraq 'inevitable'

The United States says American forces will enter Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction even if President Saddam Hussein complies with an ultimatum to leave.

Can anyone find proof of this outside the BBC report? I haven't seen anything like this on US news sites, and don't know any other news sites outside the US beyond the BBC.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030318-4.html

Search for ``no matter what''.

By the way, news.google.com is a good source for verification, as it tries to group similar articles together, although it didn't help a lot in this case.

Ari Fleischer today said, that even if Saddam leaves, the coalition will go in and disarm Iraq peacefully.

Jim, Maybe there is more common ground here than I first thought after reading your post. Could you support the war as a war of liberation from essentially a mass murderer?

Ahh, thank you. The BBC didn't go into detail on this, but the above story does.

Overall, my views on the entire matter have been shifting a bit. I don't like how the US is becoming so distant from the rest of the world right now. But, I also find myself glad something is finally being done about the situation that the UN discussed back in the early 90's. I also am still siding with the people who believe that the US current actions will make matters worse down the road. The problem with this though is that I don't see a better resolution beyond removing the current administration, and replacing it with one that is a bit quieter about its policies. As the MSNBC article pointed out, no one had problems with the 3 non-UN sanctioned military actions preformed under the Clinton administration.

Could you support the war as a war of liberation from essentially a mass murderer?

Could I in principle? Yes. Do I support this war at this time? No.

Let me offer another snippet from the previously cited Sunrise Rotarian interviews:

Mr. HANK RADIKKI (Rotarian): Once you get a quarter of a million troops lined up on the border and we've taken the stand, we've shown why we're doing this, it's way too late. The implications of backing down are huge. It's way too late. I think we just have to do this.

[tangent]
I should offer an apology to any Rotarians on the BBS. It is an organization I know next to nothing about and I shouldn't lump them all together without warrant. I will say, though, that I found the responses of this particular group to be downright horrifying.
[/tangent]

One big problem I have is that Mr. Radikki's main rationale for this war is not unique. In some ways, it looks like it will be adopted on a post-hoc basis by 80 percent of the Democratic Party -- "In for a Penny, in for a Pound" -- I mean, once you have all the soldiers in position, how can you back down? -- "But we already baked the cake!!!" This seems like a really shitty rationale for a war where lots of poor bastards are going to get turned into chutney -- US soldiers, Iraqui conscripts and Iraqui civilians alike.

"The implications of backing down are just huge". Well, I sure *do* think we got ourselves into a fix....but wish we had avoided it.

I guess my biggest problem with the war as proposed is that the administration's case for it shifted from day to day and is based on some considerable deceits. Can't find evidence? Make it up. I guess I find myself in a position that is almost a mirror image to Mr. Radikki: now that I have opposed the war on grounds of shoddy justification for so long, how can I *not* continue to oppose it?

Back to your point, though, one question is how Saddam's murderous tendencies have come to the fore just recently in the "stack" of rationales. I mean, wasn't he a murderous bastard back when he was *our* murderous bastard bulwark against Iran? Wasn't he a murderous bastard in 1991 when W's dad let him retreat to Baghdad?

If the new rule of law is that we should invade any country ruled by a murderous bastard, then it would sure help if we (meaning the U.S.) could get a few other countries to go along with us.

Don't get me wrong. There are times when I wonder how the world sits by -- US, Europe, UN, all -- while butchery runs unchecked (read Gourevitch's book on Rwanda and wonder where the world was...and wonder if W was president, would we have responded?)

So, I both wonder on one hand why we are so selective in our "liberation" ....and, on the other, where these liberations might end.

I'm not sure that is a very consistent answer to your question (full of moral relativism equivocation!!), but that's what I can offer.

Aside from the "murderous bastard" aspects, I would also weigh the loss of life under a continued Hussien regime against the loss of life during this war (lest it not work out as tidily as CNN projects)....and during the aftermath as competitors scrabble to be the new democratic government of a makeshift country with divided interests (and after the Sunrise Rotarians call for our MPs to come home).

Lastly, I take issue on two pragmatic aspects: I think the Crusade aspect will make our situation vis-a-vis the Muslim world much worse.

And I'll admit it: I am a UN kind of guy. I think the way forward is through institutions like the UN and things like treaties -- both of which we seem to be relegating to the trash heap under Shrub.

What pains me is that, as the world's remaining superpower, we *could* have played our cards differently. We *could* be enjoying a much higher degree of affection and support -- but I think we failed to see how much nicer it is to be invited to a party than to barge in.

The guy seems sick enough to ride the bomb all the way even if if takes thousands of innocents and supporters with him.

This is what I fear the most. The religious/military fanatic level seems to have risen quite sharply in recent years, and moreso in recent months with the N Korea crisis. I think that the governments know a lot more than they are letting on about capabilities of the fanatics in the world. Given the fact Saddam has had 12 years to disarm and the UN keeps giving him "more time," he'll keep dragging his feet and laughing all the way ot the bank with his billions he makes selling oil outside of the UN sanctions and moving his missles and alleged WMD all around his backyard like an 8 year old kid with his toy soldiers. He's playing the UN for fools and he's winning.
I support Dubya in his decision, but I really think his old man should've taken the crazy bastard out in 1991. That's where the mistake was made originally. War is not good, but neither is Saddam and he has to go. Just MHO here...

In reply to:

---

the Rev could probably give a better answer

---

I can give a longer answer, however I cannot give a better one... I yield the remainder of my time to Jeff.

to any Rotarians on the BBS. It is an organization I know next to nothing about and I shouldn't lump them all together without warrant.

I always thought the Rotary Club was an amiable, if slightly self-important, organisation of philanthropic social clubs with no particular religious agenda. Mind you, you could say the same about the Church of England

Peter

I always thought the Rotary Club was an amiable, if slightly self-important, organisation

Prompted by the thread, and never having thought further than seeing the logo outside pubs and hotels, where they have weekly meetings, I looked at the site and felt that it was possibly time for a re-think, they seem to be a very focussed charitable organisation.

I think that the point was that here are people that claim to be charitable middle-Americans who have no charity for the international community, not to cast aspersions on the Rotary Club in general.

Sorry, that was the point that I was trying to get across, in response to Peter's perception, and to generally isolate the views quoted from the aims of Rotarians generally.

I think we're all saying the same thing.

I think we're all saying the same thing.

It's called "violent agreement"!

I support Dubya in his decision, but I really think his old man should've taken the crazy bastard out in 1991. That's where the mistake was made originally.

As I said elsewhere, I think that 'finishing' S.H. in 1991 would have been seen as justified (if not exactly endorsed by Russia and some others), and that failure to do that was deliberate. I am willing to concede that I might be wrong in the formar part (global 'placet' on Hussein's removal), but not the later (that US needed him).

As I understand it, there were two reasons for leaving Saddam in power after 1991.

The first was that the UN mandate was strictly about expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

The second, as I understand it:

1. The Saudi government and population are Sunni muslims.
2. The Iraqi government is Sunni/Secular.
3. The majority of the Iraqi populace is Shiite.
4. Iran is mostly Shiite.
5. There is a history of animosity between the Sunni muslims and the Shiite muslims.

Deposing the Iraqi government would have left Saudi Arabia with a majority Shiite country right on their northern border. This would have made Saudi uncomfortable. Leaving the sunni/secular government in charge in Iraq would have been a better option from the Saudi point-of-view.

Moreover, Iraq served as a useful buffer between the fundamentalists (again Shiite) in Iran and Saudi.

I guess that the US administration figures that:
a) Iran is more moderate these days.
b) They're next, anyway. cf Axis of Evil.
c) They'll be replacing one (tyranical) secular goverment in Iraq with another (non-tyrannical) secular government.

The majority of the Iraqi populace is Shiite.

I think that if you discount the Kurds in the north and the Marsh Arabs/Ma'dan in the south that this is not true. I also get the impression (though I could well be wrong) that those populaces don't have any real interest in Iraqi government, and are happy to remain in their tribal structures. Based on that, I doubt that the Shiite Iraqi community would have a large impact on any new Iraqi government. Of course, this is based on my inference that those peoples would rather just be left alone, and that they don't feel that having a controlling interest in the Iraqi government would be an appropriate action.

The real solution to all of this would likely be for northern Iraq to become part of a new Kurdistan, and the southern part to become it's own Fertile Crescent nation.

northern Iraq to become part of Kurdistan

But that'll make the Turks uneasy, because then their (Southern) Kurds will also want to become part of an independant Kurdistan.

I think that that's a major Turkish concern anyway, regardless of whether it's supported by a recognized state.

I think that if you discount the Kurds in the north and the Marsh Arabs/Ma'dan in the south that this is not true.

Not according to this:

Britain also favored Iraq's Sunni Muslim Arabs -- then about 20 percent of the population -- over the Shiite Muslim Arab majority and ethnic Kurds who had rebelled against British colonial rule.

See, Britain managed to screw up the Middle East again. Now it's America's turn.

Edit: managed to find another quote in the same article that reinforces my other point about Iraq serving as a buffer to Iran:

Leaders of the Shiite opposition insist their community's share of power in any post-Saddam Iraq must match its 65 percent share of Iraq's 22 million people.

Those aspirations worry some of Iraq's other minorities as well as the country's mostly Sunni Arab neighbors, who fear that Iran's influence over Iraq would grow.

Yeah, but my point is that allowing the Kurds in northern Iraq a degree of autonomy from a new central Iraqi government could be seen as encouraging separatist behaviour in the Turkish Kurds.

It's not a question of being supported by another recognised nation-state (should the northern Iraqi Kurds seceded completely), it's a question of legitimising the Turkish Kurds' standpoint.

Well, it doesn't say that the 80% Shiite population is not mostly in the Ma'dan, but it's probably not. I stand corrected. Urban Iraq is probably mostly Sunni, though. Maybe that's what I was thinking of.

It's too bad that they can't embrace secular governments over there.

We learned in my Islam course that Roger is correct. That the majority of the Iraqi population is indeed Shiite, and the government is Sunni. This makes for a pretty unstable situation. I'm sure that if the people weren't so damn scared of Saddam, they'd take him out in no time. But I could be wrong.

it's a question of legitimising the Turkish Kurds' standpoint.

I guess I'm changing the argument now, but I don't see where the Turks have a leg to stand on as far as their repression of the Kurdish community goes. The Turkish Kurds are hardly any more than unnamed slaves, as far as I can see.

But back to the question, they've alway been separate from Saddam's Iraq. I don't think that a population that is either under attack or ignored is really part of that country. At least Turkey keeps an iron fist over their Kurds -- not let them roam ``free''.

The Kurds shouldn't fear Turkey or Saddam. Little Miss Muffet is who they should be afraid of.

I'm not saying that the majority is not Shiite or that the government isn't Sunni (though it's more secular than that would lead you to believe), but that extracting the Kurdish and Ma'dan Shiite pupulations leaves you with a majority of Sunnis. The issue is whether or not the 80% Shiite population is concentrated in the north and south as Kurds and Ma'dan. This map shows that the population is mostly distributed that way, but it doesn't show density.

Edit: This article claims that The Sunni to Shiite ratio is much closer than Roger posited, at 52:42, which means that leaving out the Kurds, who are surely nearly 100% Shiite, at 19%, acording to that article, the Sunni claim a majority, and that's not touching the Ma'dan.

Other articles claim other ratios, which could easily make my argument inaccurate. That was just the first on Google.

This is what I fear the most. The religious/military fanatic level seems to have risen quite sharply in recent years, and moreso in recent months with the N Korea crisis.

If I could characterize fanatics of the past decade (at least those I think we should be most concerned about), I'd say that they come from Egypt, Yemen, the Phillipines, Saudi Arabia (and other places) and that they have spent time in all those places and countries such as Spain, France, Germany, Canada, the U.S. and the U.K. among others.

I'm not exactly sure what the recently-commenced war against Iraq really does on this front (or how exactly this relates to another, very serious, issue with North Korea).

What I would like to think is that when the German, Kenyan, or Italian police uncover terrorist intelligence that has implications for the U.S., that they will promptly tell their good friends here in the U.S. about it, and that we would do likewise.

This is a simplistic example, but my concern is that in a near-sighted pursuit of "the right thing" we have sacrificed "the good".

I think that the governments know a lot more than they are letting on about capabilities of the fanatics in the world.

I try not to be any more jaundiced than is warranted, but I can't say that I share your confidence. I just finished reading The Cell and I have to wonder just how much our "humint" (human intelligence) capabilities have improved. Also, when Colin Powell offers such limp proof in front of the U.N., and when the Bush administration is reduced to *fabricating* evidence (aluminum tubes and bogus IAEC Iraq report), I can't say that I am willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt.

Given the fact Saddam has had 12 years to disarm and the UN keeps giving him "more time," he'll keep dragging his feet and laughing all the way ot the bank with his billions he makes selling oil outside of the UN sanctions and moving his missles and alleged WMD all around his backyard like an 8 year old kid with his toy soldiers. He's playing the UN for fools and he's winning.

It may not seem like it, but I do appreciate this point of view up to a point. Well, the balloon has gone up. We'll see what unfolds.

I support Dubya in his decision, but I really think his old man should've taken the crazy bastard out in 1991. That's where the mistake was made originally. War is not good, but neither is Saddam and he has to go. Just MHO here...

All of my bombast aside, I stand prepared to be wrong. I have been wrong before. For example, in 1991, I thought we were grossly overestimating the ability of air power to turn the tide and avoid coalition/U.S. casualties, when in fact events proved that, given the unique, open desert battlefield and a very well executed, limited campaign, coalition casualties were amazingly low (what, 200 as compared to __K Iraqui casualties?)

I don't think what is unfolding is predictable. The 101st may stroll into Baghdad and all may be sweetness and light with all of Iraq's liberated factions/minorities....

I am *still* jaundiced, though, in a way that I think is justified. CNN toadies like Lou Dobbs touting how 50, yes *50*, countries now support our invasion --- I want to know how many of them came on board in the last 24 hours...and how many of them are commiting funds or (more significantly) young men and women.

Oh, and about 2 days out from the deadline, Bush announces a "Roadmap" plan for peace in the Israel-Palestine debacle (a situation he seemed pretty inclined to ignore). How much of this was to give the impression that invading Iraq will somehow improve the chances of solving the Israel-Palestine problem -- or how much of this was to help Tony Blair?

I heard a guy say something on TV tonight that I thought summed up the whole "right/perfect" versus "good" issue, and I was surprised to hear it from someone who I might have considered a hawk in other circumstances. It was Zbignew Brzezinski. To paraphrase:

"It's not Saddam that is the issue. It is whether America can lead...and lead in a way that other nations can respect."