Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: 4rthofjuly007 who wrote (16764)	4/9/2003 11:53:08 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 89467

I do not think that 1441 or previous resolutions require the passing of additional resolutions in order for enforcement They do. 1441 does not state what action will be taken if UN Sec Council (not the US) decides it is not complied with. UN Sec Council never decided on whether or not Iraq was in breach of Resolution 1441. And they never decided on what the punishment for any such breach would be. So the US deciding for itself that Iraq has breached 1441 and deciding again for itself that the appropriate punishment is an invasion is not within the framework of 1441. P.S>> What do you think about the reactions of the Iraqi people today? They sure look happy. I sure hope it lasts. Call me a pessimist, but given the skillful diplomacy of the Bush administration over the past year or so, I have serious doubts as to how the delicate situation in Iraq and ME in general will be handled. Take a look at this, for example: Let's see how happy the Iraqis will be (not to mention Muslims suspiciously eyeing the US over this whole invasion) once the Christian missionaries come along. globeandmail.com Washington is trying to portray its battle as one of liberation, not conquest, but Iraq is about to be invaded by thousands of U.S. evangelical missionaries who say they are bent on a "spiritual warfare" campaign to convert the country's Muslims to Christianity. Among the largest aid groups preparing to provide humanitarian assistance to Iraqis ravaged by the war are a number of Christian charities based in the southern United States that make no secret of their desire to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ and win over Muslim souls. The largest of these is the Southern Baptist Convention, an ardent supporter of the war as an opportunity to bring Christianity to the Middle East. It says it has 25,000 trained evangelists ready to enter Iraq. "That would [mean] a heart change would go on in that part of the world," Mark Liederbach of the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary explained in a recent speech to the SBC. "That's what we need to be praying for. That's how a Christian wages spiritual warfare." Such words have caused deep alarm among military and diplomatic authorities. Although Christian aid organizations have worked comfortably alongside secular groups in other conflicts, Muslims around the world are already suspicious of U.S. motives in Iraq, and the worry is that missionaries could reinforce the widespread popular belief that the war is really a "clash of civilizations" between Christians and Muslims. Muslim groups say they believe the presence of evangelists is a sign that President George W. Bush is trying to impose his own evangelical Christianity on Muslims. It does not help that Mr. Bush became a born-again Christian in the 1980s with the assistance of Billy Graham, the founder of the SBC. "This is creating a real serious problem of perception: Here we have an army invading Iraq, followed by a bunch of people who want to convert everyone to Christianity," said Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on Islamic-American Relations. "How's that going to look in the Muslim world? And how's it going to look that this guy says Muslims are evil and he's the guy who works with the President?" Mr. Hooper was referring to Mr. Graham's son, Franklin, who runs the SBC. The younger Mr. Graham, who delivered the invocation at Mr. Bush's inauguration in 2001, has repeatedly gone on the record describing Islam as "wicked."

To: 4rthofjuly007 who wrote (16764)	4/9/2003 11:54:41 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 89467

I've learnt to disregard mass cheering mobs in Arab streets, these don't seem too reflective of underlying attitudes... besides if an Abrams was parked outside my front door I'd hide my AK47 and join in the cheering too... I can't think there'd be many who mourn Saddam, in truth, I really can't. But I've mentioned before that the IRA only had about 1% passive support in NI - Sinn Fein only recently rocketed from ~2% vote to ~30%, and a lot would not vote for them while they espoused terrorism - and only about .01% active support. Terrorism works just fine with a few fanatics, especially against foreign occupiers - even when those occupiers have been local for 400 years. <edit> and continuing the NI parallel, I can't see the Arab/Farsi/Kurd Muslims being much more welcoming of evangelist Protestant Christians than Irish Catholics Christians... do you? Even if they welcome the aid, they won't want the preaching - and they won't be pleased about being lowered to needing charity, other, that's bad for a 'face' culture. As for the underlying attitudes - well, if the reactions we've seen on SI are typical, I can barely think of any stance more likely to endear hatred in the Iraqis than the combination of arrogance, superiority and gloating evinced by many so-called Christian Americans here... sadly, the wiser heads are unlikely to be called up on Baptist aid missions.