Thieving Magpie

At the risk of moving too far into politics for this board, I would like to point out that Iraq has a history of actually using weapons of mass destruction whilst, North Korea, China, Pakistan, India, and the former USSR do not. For much of the past 50 years these things have been used for deterrance by people who are (comparatively) much more level headed and controllable (either by other people, or other countries) than the Butcher of Baghdad. Iraq is a unique situation, and it just does not do to try and lump it together with other nations that have weapons of mass destruction.

It is not so bad that some people have nuclear weapons, but to use them is something else. I don't believe Pakistan or India would use n-bombs should war begin, unless the other side used one first.

In any event, it will be interesting to watch play out.

Ockhamite

Bush is looking for the knock-out blow against islam. This is a crusade for xianity and any oil resouces are secondary. If the weapons inspectors find nothing in Iraq, it won't matter, the decision has been made and a final pretext for invasion could be very minor. US forces may be so overwhelming, the war may be anti-climatic. With minimal casualties, he can then focus on Iran and S. Arabia. There is enough residual hate in the US from the Iran hostage-crisis that garnering public support won't be too hard and how difficult will it be to turn S. Arabia into a villian for the 9/11 attack.

At his last meeting with the Chinese, all he wanted was to get access to proselytize. Killing a missionary anywhere in the world is to invite US military retribution. US soldiers are warriors for god.

seebs

This seems unlikely to me. Iraq is hardly a particularly religious nation at the moment; it's a dictatorship with religious trappings.

I share some of your concerns about Bush's attitude, but I think you're underestimating his ability to look at the world in other terms.

Ojuice5001

Or perhaps, the gods' actions invariably take the form of tinkering with chance events, and Yahweh and Allah are indeed facing off and vying for power. That makes more sense than your theory of the gods not existing I think.

Yahweh and Allah are a pair of loose cannons, and now, as in the Crusades, they're going head to head. The wise individual will side with neither. However, Yahweh is more flexible, since he has to deal with both the Roman gods, and the gods who want people to be atheists.

Don't think you're neutral just because you don't believe in the gods, and stand apart from both Bush and the Muslims. If you're an atheist, you are unknowingly under the control of the atheist-favoring pantheon, and IMO these gods are probably just as shifty as Yahweh.

Ojuice5001

And, if theism is so irrational, how did this come to pass? It seems that if the gods didn't exist, people would have woken up and realized this after about a thousand years of history. If they even thought of such a powerful idea in the first place.

Catachresis

Shake:

I think it is even more perverse than you state. I find it rather hypocritical that the US should be the arbitrator on who can and who cant have these weapons, especially as Bush has repeatedly torn up international treaties on non-proliferation. In addition you seem to be forgetting that US has the longest history of using WMD eg Japan, Vietnam, Yugoslavia.

This is not a unilateral issue. It must be dealt with by all countries in a fair and even-handed manner.

As a final point I hate the definition of WMD.

ybnormal

Whenever a man smart enough or well-managed enough to become President says something absurd, surely you ask, "Why would he say such a thing publicly, what are their motives, and exactly who is their targeted audience?

He is NOT talking to us nonxians.

Bush Sr & SH were yelling the same things at each other before the Gulf War, each talking to their particular receptive audience. And a check back will show that the W. was using his "good vs. evil" thingy in speech after speech from his inauguration onward, and long before 9/11. Nothing has changed. We've heard of these leaked White House memos that clearly advise Admin spokesmen to keep up the diversionary war rhetoric.

Why is it our nature, to want to doubt that? Why do we doubt the absolute simplicity of political survival's inertia? We are loath to accept that we now have an Admin that does exactly what they ridiculed Clinton for, namely, do anything for a vote... live by the polls... and use the military to attack people as a diversion.

The simplest answer behind the Why? of it, is the only real answer. Those in control have but one mission... to remain in control, so they must have support from the Jesus freaks, so they must pretend to actually love Jesus.

Anyone who thinks Bush is more spiritually sincere than Hussein, is one lost puppy.

Cipher Girl

I've always thought how convenient it is that when someone religious wants something then it's also what their deity wants. Interesting isn't it?

Bree

I'd love to see God's followers and Allah's followers duke it out. They'd end up destroying each other - and then there'd be more room for the Infidels!

Okay, that's mean. Sorry, but I had to get it out.

The Lone Ranger

"God is on the side with the heaviest artillery."
-- Napoleon Bonaparte

I recall hearing a story on NPR a few years ago which pointed out that Hussein's was one of the most secular governments in the Middle East until just before the Gulf War. About the time of the Gulf War, Hussein suddenly got religion, and started talking a lot about "Allah's Will" and his duty to oppose "The Great Satan" and so forth.

"How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares 'God wills it thus.' Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
-- Napoleon Bonaparte

Cheers,

Michael