Should we get nervous when a born-again Christian US Pres. goes on a holy mission? - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-05-2003, 03:04 PM   #1
Bono's Belly Dancing Friend
 
Mrs. Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Torontonian in Maryland
Posts: 2,913
Local Time: 02:56 PM
Should we get nervous when a born-again Christian US Pres. goes on a holy mission?

Bush's credibility on line

HAROON SIDDIQUI

"The United States is now the 26th state of the Middle East."

Abdel Monem Said, director of the Al Ahram Centre for Strategic Studies in Cairo. His geographic formulation includes not only the Arab nations and Israel but also Iran and Turkey.


The comment succinctly, if flippantly, captures the American occupation of Iraq and George W. Bush's sudden and rather surprising preoccupation with the Arab-Israeli conflict. He has staked his presidency on completing both assignments successfully.

Pulling the Israelis and Palestinians back from 32 months of violent confrontation and putting them on the road to peace is an extraordinary accomplishment, especially by a president who tried hard and long not to get involved.

But the feat, by itself, will not be sufficient to save his, and America's, heavily damaged credibility.

Bush will have to "ride herd," as he promised yesterday, to see the peace process through. He will also have to manage conquered Iraq better than he has and pull American troops out before armed resistance against them escalates.

The two outcomes are very much linked.

One reason much of the world opposed his war on Iraq was that there already was a war raging in the region between the Israelis and the Palestinians, which he had chosen to watch from a distance. Tony Blair and Arab allies left him no option but to promise to get engaged.

That the war on Iraq was short and successful does not obscure the fact that the invasion was "both illegitimate and illegal," as Jacques Chirac restated this week.

Or that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction and about Saddam Hussein's links to Al Qaeda. If he was misled himself by the people around him, he has yet to acknowledge it.

In fact, his administration, along with the obedient armada of pro-war commentators, has been concocting new rationales to justify the invasion:

The weapons will be found, some day. If they are not, it will only mean that they were destroyed, leaving no trace whatsoever. Or moved out of the country. Worse: Who cares what was said to justify the war? Isn't it enough that an evil dictator was destroyed?

No. American credibility matters.

The Bush administration's disregard for the truth was also demonstrated when the G-8 leaders addressed the issue of the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs.

He told the leaders behind closed doors that the U.S. had no intention of invading Iran. Yet his officials twisted the final communiqué to claim that the leaders had approved the use of force.

"This interpretation is extraordinarily audacious," as Chirac said. Even Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, a Bush supporter on Iraq, said that no one had authorized war on anyone.

What the communiqué, in fact, spoke of, pointedly, were "measures in accordance with international law."

American unilateralism is evident even in the Middle East peace process.

The road map was drawn up in concert with the United Nations, the European Union and Russia. But no one was invited to the Bush show yesterday with Ariel Sharon and Mahmoud Abbas, or the day before with five Washington-picked Arab leaders.

American presidents are known to hog the show — Bill Clinton did so for the signing of the Oslo Accords even though he had no hand in it.

But is Bush serious about solving the conflict single-handedly? If so, is that because he thinks only America matters when it comes to Israel? Or, is it that, as he indicated to the Arab leaders, he thinks of it as his God-given mission?

As much as everyone is entitled to their own religiosity, it's a dangerous business mixing the Almighty with man-made messes. That's what the Taliban of Afghanistan, the mullahs of Pakistan, the ayatollahs of Iran and the Zionist zealots of the settlements in the occupied territories do.

I don't mean to equate the president with any of them.

But believers and non-believers alike should get nervous when a born-again Christian, who also happens to be presiding over history's biggest military apparatus, ventures forth on a holy mission.

Bush was not the only one to invoke God yesterday. Sharon called Palestinian violence inconsistent with the Islamic faith (contradicting all his supporters around here who, post-Sept. 11, have been insisting — ironically, along with Osama bin Laden and his ilk — that Islam and martyrdom go hand in hand).

Bush and Co. should stick to more mundane worldly matters. As they themselves said it well yesterday:

There is no military solution to the conflict; Israel has a right to exist and thrive within secure and well-defined borders free of terrorism; Palestinians have a right not to be abused with the most egregious violations of human rights and they have the right to form, by 2005, a state of their own with territorial contiguity; and that American credibility rides ever more on bringing all this about — along with democracy in Iraq.
__________________

__________________
Mrs. Edge is offline  
Old 06-05-2003, 03:26 PM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:56 PM
No because Bush is not on a holy mission.


"That the war on Iraq was short and successful does not obscure the fact that the invasion was "both illegitimate and illegal," as Jacques Chirac restated this week."

"Or that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction and about Saddam Hussein's links to Al Qaeda. If he was misled himself by the people around him, he has yet to acknowledge it."

The war was authorized by multiple UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement following Iraq's material breech of its obligations. Bush's evidence that showed material breech by Iraq came from the UN inspectors report from 1998 when the inspectors were kicked out.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-05-2003, 07:12 PM   #3
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 01:56 PM
The war was not authorized by the UN. The UN simply passed a resolution saying Iraq shouldn't have WMDS. If you recall, we fought with the UN concerning using force to go in to Iraq -- to the point that we gave up on diplomacy and went in anyway.
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 06-05-2003, 08:03 PM   #4
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 02:56 PM
PLEASE let's not get started on the UN resolutions again.

For the love of God.

Please.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 06-05-2003, 08:56 PM   #5
Bono's Belly Dancing Friend
 
Mrs. Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Torontonian in Maryland
Posts: 2,913
Local Time: 02:56 PM
Yes! This thread is not supposed to be about that AT ALL. It's supposed to be about whether a President should pursue his mission based on his own religious beliefs about what "Almighty God" has would want...whether you agree with the belief or not. This same question would apply no matter what religion he is for that matter. That's basically what this was supposed to be about....mixing politics with religion, and whether that is bad even from "the good guys".
__________________
Mrs. Edge is offline  
Old 06-05-2003, 09:48 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:56 PM
Sharky,

"The war was not authorized by the UN. The UN simply passed a resolution saying Iraq shouldn't have WMDS. If you recall, we fought with the UN concerning using force to go in to Iraq -- to the point that we gave up on diplomacy and went in anyway."

In November 1990, the United Nations authorized member states to "use all means necessary" to bring the Iraqi regime into compliance with current resolutions and "all subsequent" resolutions. ALL SUBSEQUENT! This was resolution 678.

In March 1991, resolution 687 required that Iraq be disarmed of all WMD. Resolution 678 was still in effect and has never been rescended in any way. There for, the member states of the UN have been authorized to "use all means necessary" to insure Iraq is disarmed if it is in material breech of its obligations, since March 1991.

In the fall of 2002, the UN passed resolution 1441 which reaffirmed both resolution 678 and resolution 687. It was passed under the recognition that the Iraqi regime was in material breech of its obligations but was to be given "one last chance" despite current authorization to use military force. If this "one last chance" was not pursued by the Iraqi regime it would mean "Serious consequences" for Iraq. Since all diplomatic and economic consequences were already in effect against Iraq, "Serious Consequences" could only have one meaning, Military Force.

Iraq failed its one last chance and the regime was effectively disarmed because it no longer exists.

On May 22, 2003, the United Nations recognized the USA and the UK as the "Authority" in Iraq in resolution 1483 further legitimatizing the actions of member states of the UN involved in operation Iraqi Freedom.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-05-2003, 09:54 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:56 AM
There is a vast difference between GWB praying for wisdom as a Christian and GWB claiming divine authority to conduct war with Iraq.

This was no "holy war". Most of the talk of such is by people who do not have a true understanding of the Christian faith.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-05-2003, 10:52 PM   #8
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora
PLEASE let's not get started on the UN resolutions again.

For the love of God.

Please.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-05-2003, 11:16 PM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,296
Local Time: 01:56 PM
nah, never mind.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 06-06-2003, 12:47 PM   #10
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 12:56 PM
Quote:
There is a vast difference between GWB praying for wisdom as a Christian and GWB claiming divine authority to conduct war with Iraq.
He went beyond just praying for wisdom. On many occasions he claimed God to be on our side.

Quote:
This was no "holy war". Most of the talk of such is by people who do not have a true understanding of the Christian faith.
I'd be careful of such judgements. No I would not call this a "holy war", but I do believe that his religious beliefs have played a part in his "mission". And many would say that George himself doesn't have a true understanding of the Christian faith.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 06-06-2003, 04:55 PM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:56 PM
Pax, I can forward you all of the links to the online journals that I have used to base my opinions on.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-06-2003, 04:59 PM   #12
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 02:56 PM
That's not necessary, but thanks.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 06-06-2003, 10:09 PM   #14
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 02:56 PM
Thanks.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 06-07-2003, 12:26 PM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
cell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 5,901
Local Time: 11:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Mrs. Edge
Yes! This thread is not supposed to be about that AT ALL. It's supposed to be about whether a President should pursue his mission based on his own religious beliefs about what "Almighty God" has would want...whether you agree with the belief or not. This same question would apply no matter what religion he is for that matter. That's basically what this was supposed to be about....mixing politics with religion, and whether that is bad even from "the good guys".

i dont think any of it would happen. i wouldn't go so far as to put Bush in that born again christian category. its always going to be about politics. never about "holy missions." just my two cents.
__________________

__________________
cell is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com