« Chick Blogging | Main | Tips for Servers »

Iraq

Today marks the 5th anniversary of the resumption of the Iraq War. While many folks find it convenient to try changing the facts, it should be remembered at the start that this war did not start with President George W. Bush, nor indeed any American, but by Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, for which the cease-fire provisioned clear conditions. In short, Saddam broke those conditions seriously, deliberately, repeatedly and beyond any doubt, so that the war was joined again through his malfeasance and no other.

The United States has suffered almost four thousand combat deaths in the war. While painful and a sad cost which no nation wishes upon its soldiers, in any historical context this cost is light compared to the accomplishments. Indeed, it is the historical context which matters in judging the war. While connections to Al Qaeda were lacking, there is no question that Saddam's Iraq was friendly to Middle East terrorists of many factions.

This means that a serious war against the infrastructure of Global Terrorism required military action against Iraq. This was indeed one of the conclusions made by the Congress when it approved the use of force against Saddam's regime, and indeed the basis for the Clinton Administration's 1998 signature of the act making regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States.

There are essentially only three paths to consider regarding Iraq's relationship with the Middle East. If Saddam had not been removed from power and he was as capable as he claimed, Saddam's support for terrorist groups would have insured another major attack upon Americans and the soil of the United States. If he was as weak as some suppose, not removing Saddam would have left Iraq open to invasion from Iran, who indeed was raising troops in apparent plan to do just that thing; the prospect of a Greater Persia in command of the territories of Iraq in addition to itself would have crippled the world economy in short order, and brought on untold horrors to the people of the Middle East as the vision of such men as Ahmadinejad would have been unrestrained, with bloody Jihad the pitiless assailant of every moderate Arab nation. Nuclear war with Israel would almost surely have occurred. The third road is the one we took, removing Saddam in hopes of creating a stable and more democratic form of government. When the shouting settles down and wiser heads speak, it turns out that while imperfect, the Iraq now in place is a better, safer alternative to what we faced half a decade ago.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/28614.

Comments (79)

"Saddam's support for terro... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Saddam's support for terrorist groups would have insured another major attack upon Americans and the soil of the United States."

There was no basis for you to make this statement. Even the Pentagon in it exhaustive but buried final report on the Iraq/al Qaeda connection concluded there were no operation relationships.

Try the 9-11 commission lin... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Try the 9-11 commission link in that post, Barney. They rather disagree with your assumptione that only Al Qaeda would strike the US and that there would not have been an Iraq-AQ cooperation as time progressed, and THEY reached their conclusion after consulting with terrorism experts.

Then again, ignoring facts and spouting GoreLies is pretty much your whole repertoire, is it not?

Barney - still incompetent.... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Barney - still incompetent.

I felt great apprehension a... (Below threshold)
epador:

I felt great apprehension about the second invasion due to the poor coalition we had going in. The real failures and challenges that occurred were when Saddam was allowed to bribe his way into Russia, China, as well as France and other European nations to oppose the invasion. Had the standing President faced this challenge when it occurred (Bubba), the GWOT would have been stronger, we would have had sufficient forces to stifle violence (no SURGE necessary) and secure weapons at the outset. GW may not have recognized the significance of the bribery, but he had little time to counteract what had been in place for eight years.

We were preparing for two to three times the casualties in a few weeks for what we've lost in five years.

This is all made even more ... (Below threshold)
BPG:

This is all made even more interesting when you consider the following:

1) Hussein was connected, in that same report, to several known terrorist groups, including Egyptian Islamic Jihad, who's one-time leader is OBL's #2 - Ayman al-Zawahiri.

2) France, China, and Russia did not want to help us invade Iraq because they were making millions off of the U.N. Oil for Food program from Saddam. They weren't going to ruin their meal ticket.

DJ, there is and never was ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

DJ, there is and never was any evidence that Saddam supported terrorist attacks on US soil.

"The Iraqi regime was involved in regional and international terrorist operations prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. The predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq," according to the report. Read excerpts from report (pdf)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/

Barney, you just cannot bri... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Barney, you just cannot bring yourself to check out links which might tear your silly talking points apart, can you?

http://www.9-11commission.gov

You have to forgive Barney.... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

You have to forgive Barney. He prefers cherry picked, misleading, and misrepresented tidbits, rather than getting the whole story. It's a lot easier to be a usefully idiot that way. Leftists are not "big picture" people for that very reason.

Now why someone would want to be a useful idiot like Barney is a whole different issue...

"In my judgment, Saddam ass... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"In my judgment, Saddam assessed Usama bin Ladin and al-Qaida as a threat rather than a potential partner to be exploited to attack the United States. Bin Ladin wanted to attack Iraq after it occupied Kuwait in 1990 rather than have the Saudi government depend on foreign military forces. Several captured al-Qaida operatives have said Usama refused to consider working for or with Saddam, according to press accounts. Saddam would have understood that after Usama had realized his ambition to remove U.S. forces from Arabia and eliminate the Al Sa`ud and other ruling families in the Gulf, that he would have been the next target."
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_yaphe.htm

DJ, where is your proof that Saddam did or was planning to operationally support a terrorist attack on US soil?

I wonder how long the USA c... (Below threshold)
galoob:

I wonder how long the USA can keep borrowing $13 billion per month to run this war in the face of a global financial crisis and a dollar crash.

galoob, you really don't ha... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

galoob, you really don't have any clue about the magnitude of the resources of the US, the size of the US federal budget, and what a small fraction of that is being spent on Iraq?

Casualties aside, how much ... (Below threshold)
matthew:

Casualties aside, how much has the war cost in dollars? How many American (or other) lives could have been saved or drastically improved had that money been spent on, I dunno, humanitarian aid or medical research or education?

And how many Iraqis have died, and continue to die, vs. how many Saddam put to death?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I'm not sure one can give the war a thumbs up or down without giving them some thought.

By the way, where is there any evidence that Iran was going to invade Iraq? I wonder whose side the U.S. would have armed that time around--Saddam's or the Ayatollah's? No way it would've been neither.

SPQR, with a handle like th... (Below threshold)
galoob:

SPQR, with a handle like that you should remember that Rome spent itself into the ground.

13 Billion a month is a lot of money. It's like a Boston Big Dig every month and a half. And it took 20 years to spend that Big Dig money. Even inflation adjusted, it's like an Apollo Moon program every two or three months.

A country's currency is a market measure of the economic strength of a country. By that measure, we are tanking. Someday the bill might come due from the Chinese who are buying our T-bills.

Oh well, if it makes you feel good to think that everything's OK, that we are not borrowing ourselves into insolvency, have at it. Reality bites, though.

galoob = chicken little... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

galoob = chicken little

3,990 US Troops Killed... 2... (Below threshold)
The Cold Hard Facts:

3,990 US Troops Killed... 29,395 Wounded... 2,100 Have Tried To Commit Suicide... 88% Of Military Officers Say War Has Stretched US Thin... 82,000-89,000 Iraqi Casualties... 4,500,000 Iraqi Refugees... Global Terror Incidents From January 2001: 1,188... Global Terror Incidents From January 2006: 5,188

Republicans are not strong on terror. They are stupid on terror. Making new enemies while isolating your allies ...Not smart.

At least one thing you lack... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

At least one thing you lack, Cold Unused Brain:

CONTEXT.

Wow, DJ that\'s quite a ref... (Below threshold)
Cold Hard Facts:

Wow, DJ that\'s quite a refutation. I\'m really impressed. maybe you can come back with \"I know you are but what am I\" next time?

5 times as many terror incidents since the invasion, that there is a successful stragededy.

One I would expect you to endorse though
DJ Dumb Dumb.

"galoob = chicken little"</... (Below threshold)
max:

"galoob = chicken little"

DJ Drummond = idiot

Cold-Hard-Rock-In-Cranium, ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Cold-Hard-Rock-In-Cranium, you cited no sources, and popped off a collection of data tied to false claims, yet you are surprised I don't stand in awe of your post?

Yeah, right.

When was the last attack on US soil, btw?

How many top AQ leaders are still kicking their heels?

These and all the other cogent questions you ignore, while continuing to play 'It's Bush's fault' for everything you don't understand.

How pathetic. Predictable, but sick.

But really, DJ, you're awfu... (Below threshold)
matthew:

But really, DJ, you're awfully glib in your all things considered, THE WAR = A-DOUBLE-PLUS "analysis".

You have a tenuous grasp of the concept of causality if you think that the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq has somehow prevented people from blowing things up on U.S. soil.

Barney's hilarious. ... (Below threshold)

Barney's hilarious.

DJ says: "Saddam's support for terrorist groups would have insured another major attack upon Americans and the soil of the United States."

Barney says there's not proof that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda!

DJ replies: "They [the 9/11 commission] rather disagree with your assumptione that only Al Qaeda would strike the US and that there would not have been an Iraq-AQ cooperation as time progressed, and THEY reached their conclusion after consulting with terrorism experts."

Barney cites another bit of text specifically related to al Qaeda and then comes to the same ridiculous conclusion; Saddam did not support attacks against America.

Barney, Saddam supported and communicated with the Army of Muhammed which is an offshoot of al Qaeda. If you're interested at all and want to know what an ignorant little twerp you are, read Page 35 here and see exactly what the Army of Muhammed's goals were.

It has been five yea... (Below threshold)


It has been five years and regardless of how anyone feels about the current status of things I feel it is important to remember the events that occurred at the beginning of the invasion. I made an eight minute documentary about the looting of the Iraqi National Museum. I had the good fortune of interviewing Dr. Donny George, the former director of the Museum, and learned a great deal about this tragic, historical, and still misunderstood event. Below is a link to the video. I hope it is insightful about one aspect of the this war that is still raging five years later.
-Stuart Draper

http://www.scribemedia.org/2008/02/07/looting-the-iraqi-national-museum/

Oyster, does that then warr... (Below threshold)
matthew:

Oyster, does that then warrant an invasion and occupation of this magnitude and costliness?

If you pee your pants every time some idiot declares his/her intention of "destroying America" or smearing the marmite of Islam across the bagel of Western civilization, then you, personally, are letting them win. A war on terror? How about a war on cancer or poverty instead?

When the chickens come home... (Below threshold)

When the chickens come home to roost, Barney is what's left on the ground below.

Jeez, and there's old max a... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Jeez, and there's old max again, making assessments without any valid sources.

Isn't galoob a toy company that came up with that cheating device called the 'game genie'?

How about a war on stupidit... (Below threshold)

How about a war on stupidity, matthew? I know just where to start.

In case you haven't been paying attention, this was not what started the war, nor did I imply it was enough to start a war. But you go ahead and toss those red herrings out there all you want. That's the problem with people like you. Your myopic vision only allows you to look at individual circumstances or issues as if they're not interconnected somehow. That or you're hoping you can compartmentalize things in a way that distorts or ignores the full picture. Saddam's support of this particular terror group is only one of many and varied reasons for the war.

Time to go back to your corner.

Had the standing Preside... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Had the standing President faced this challenge when it occurred (Bubba), the GWOT would have been stronger, we would have had sufficient forces to stifle violence (no SURGE necessary) and secure weapons at the outset.

Oh, so it wasn't that Bush and Rumsfeld ignored the advice of the generals that we needed more forces, and then fired the ones who disagreed with them. It wasn't Cheney's prediction that the Iraqis would throw us parades. It wasn't the commander-in-chief's fault that securing weapons was not a priority. It wasn't that Bush was later forced to accept reality and backpedal into "the surge".

No, it was none of that. It was Clinton's fault!

It must be nice to have a little bugaboo you can blame everything bad on so you can keep your head in the sand.

The plethora of reasons, Oy... (Below threshold)
matthew:

The plethora of reasons, Oyster, still don't convince most people in your country, let alone the rest of the world, that the war was worth prosecuting. Are you simply smarter than them? Is everybody else stupid, or ignorant?

Put the majority of people in your country, and the vast majority of the rest of the world, in the corner with me.

I stand by my assertion that people who are afraid of terrorists are letting terrorists win. They don't warrant the attention you insist on giving to them, let alone tectonic geopolitical reorganization at an obscene cost of human life and treasure.

DJ, you list facts like the... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

DJ, you list facts like the Iraq war is just a continuation of the Kuwait invasion, you list facts that we have not been attacked since 9/11, yet the liberal lefty dufus' continue to propagate the lie.

The the left, before Iraq the terrorists really, really hates us and wanted us dead, now that we are in Iraq, they really, really, really hate us and want us dead. How stupid can the left be? Nevermind. ww

Not too long ago the majori... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Not too long ago the majority of the people in the world thought the world was flat and that the sun revolved around it.

Being in the majority has nothing to do with being right.

Being thoughtful, having an open mind, seeking out and learning all the facts instead of a few cherry picked ones, and looking at the big picture will get you a lot closer to the truth.

I wish our friends on the left, who would prefer to see the US be defeated and tuck tail and run from Iraq, would be a little more liberal in their thinking.

dufus' is possessive, and s... (Below threshold)
matthew:

dufus' is possessive, and spelled wrong. Doofuses is plural, and spelled right.

People can be wild and coherent at the same time, Willie.

Who has not been attacked? Americans? I thought the jerks with AK-47s in Iraq were terrorists, and that they'd killed about 4,000 Americans.

Why are you such a pansy? If some asshole ten thousand miles away from you wants you dead, do you:

A) pimp for, and attempt to justify after the fact, an expensive and bloody war; or

B) ignore them and get on with life

?

When I hear the jingoistic "tough on terror", it makes me laugh, because it really means "totally afraid of idiots really far away from me".

We've been listening to the... (Below threshold)
matthew:

We've been listening to the same arguments for five years, P. Bunyan. Just because they've failed to convince us (and a majority of everyone else), doesn't mean we just don't get it. It could very well be that the arguments being made are shitty at worst; and at best insufficient justification for an invasion and occupation.

There are 50,000 Iraqi prostitutes in Syria that weren't there before the war. Something else to factor into your crass cost/benefit analyses.

...though you are right: co... (Below threshold)
matthew:

...though you are right: consensus does not determine facts, and truth is independent of opinion.

There are differences, though, that make your flat Earth analogy tenuous: compared to Columbus' Europe, our civilization today is 1) literate; 2) informed; and 3) governed at least in part by empirical science rather than theological B.S.

"The plethora of reasons... (Below threshold)

"The plethora of reasons, Oyster, still don't convince most people in your country,..."

It convinced Congress and the majority of America before and for a good while after. It was only until there was evidence of mismanagement that some of that majority began to change their minds. While there are many of us still that believe going to war and deposing Saddam was the right thing to do, we can still hold reservations about how it was conducted. That the situation was able to be turned around has been encouraging.

If you were against the war from the beginning, no matter how it was conducted, then fine. You're entitled to your opinion, but don't try to twist it into a "I was right all along" scenario or try to feed me that line that "more people agree with you so that makes you right" bullshit.

The media has played an enormous role in shaping public opinion with massive negativity over the last few years and even still after the situation improved they were grasping at straws to maintain a negative output in their reporting. Now they've just stopped reporting at all. Unless, of course, something bad happens.

And finally, matthew, I am not "afraid of terrorists" in the same way that a child is afraid of the boogeyman. If I were confronted with a terrorist, you're damn right I'd be afraid. And so would you. But that's as far as it goes. Ask the people of the Middle East if they're afraid of terrorists though. They wouldn't take your little sentiment so lightly.

How are the victims of the ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

How are the victims of the terrorists supposed to get on with their lives when they're dead?

Also when one political movement has control of almost all of the media as well the educational system, as is the case today your #2 point is invalid and #3 is debatable. I'll grant you #3, but there is still a lot more religion than science behind government decisions. (And a lot of religion disguised as science -- anthropogenic global warming & atheistic Darwinian evlution for examples-- which is the most dangerous.)

Typo- I meant to type "and ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Typo- I meant to type "and #1 is debatable"

Yes. It totally sucks when ... (Below threshold)
matthew:

Yes. It totally sucks when terrorists kill people. It sucked when Saddam Hussein killed people. But there are lots of things that pose a far greater threat to your security than assholes with guns in a desert on the other side of the Earth. I was serious when I said that a war on cancer would be a more fruitful way of serving the national interest than a war on some abstract concept.

Also, how is Darwinian evolution (in all its accuracy and soundness) "dangerous"? Seems to me that unthinking fundamentalism of any sort (Islamic, Christian, collectivist [Communism]) is what you should be worried about, if history has anything to teach us.

"Saddam supported and commu... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Saddam supported and communicated with the Army of Muhammed which is an offshoot of al Qaeda." oyster

oyster, page 35 never mentions support. It says deal with them according to priorities. There is nothing in this that confirms Saddam was supporting or in collusion with the AoM.

Barney, the wagons are circ... (Below threshold)
matthew:

Barney, the wagons are circled. At this point if it could be proved that Saddam forwarded to Osama an e-mail with all of his favourite Family Circus comics in it, that would constitute a smoking gun for these increasingly desperate people.

Isn't that cute - matthew a... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Isn't that cute - matthew and Barney are exchanging their favorite fairy tales.

DJ, the ship is sinking and... (Below threshold)
matthew:

DJ, the ship is sinking and you seem to fancy yourself its captain. It's great that you're sticking to your guns unlike all those fools in Congress/the media/America who changed their minds when they realized the war was not sufficiently justified or properly executed.

I mean, come on. Iraq is the worst place in the world to be that has a government. It would be funny reading your writing on this topic, if the subject matter were a tad lighter.

Barney, I didn't say that p... (Below threshold)

Barney, I didn't say that page 35 made any claims about Saddam's support of AOM. But he did support them, and if you don't want to look it up so you can keep pretending, then fine, but don't expect anyone else to subscribe to your fantasies.

It convinced Congress an... (Below threshold)
Brian:

It convinced Congress and the majority of America before and for a good while after. It was only until there was evidence of mismanagement that some of that majority began to change their minds.

Uhh, wrong, as usual.

But that support drops off if the U.N. backing being sought by the United States, Britain and Spain Monday is not obtained. If the U.N. Security Council rejects a resolution paving the way for military action, only 54% of Americans favor a U.S. invasion. And if the Bush administration does not seek a final Security Council vote, support for a war drops to 47%.

Seriously, do you even bother to check if you're right when you write this stuff? Or do you just type what you want to be true?

Brian--that you find a dist... (Below threshold)
matthew:

Brian--that you find a distinction between facts and conjecture is revealing of your liberal bias and general anti-Americanism.

For the last time: wishes are ponies.

I\'m sorry DJ Dumb Dumb. He... (Below threshold)
The Cold Hard Facts:

I\'m sorry DJ Dumb Dumb. Here are all the sources you can handle. Now let\'s watch you find other creative ways to dodge the issues.


3,990: American troops who have died in Iraq since the start of the war. [icasualties.org, 3/17/08]

29,395: Number of U.S. service members that have been wounded in hostile action since the start of U.S. military operations in Iraq. [AP, 3/11/08]


60,000: Number of troops that have been subjected to controversial stop-loss measures--meaning those who have completed service commitments but are forbidden to leave the military until their units return from war. [US News and World Report, 2/25/08]

2,100: Number of troops who tried to commit suicide or injure themselves increased from 350 in 2002 to 2,100 last year. [US News and World Report, 2/25/08]
27.2: Percent of noncommissioned Army officers who reported mental health problems during their third or fourth Iraq tour [Los Angeles Times, 3/7/08]


The Cost to Our Military Readiness


88: Percent of current and former U.S. military officers surveyed in a recent independent study who believe that the demands of the war in Iraq have \"stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin\" [Foreign Policy/Center for New American Security, 2/19/08]


12,057: Number of new Army recruits who were granted moral waivers in Fiscal Year 2007. [Houston Chronicle, 10/14/07]

1,188: Number of global terrorist incidents from January - September 11th, 2001. [American Security Project, \"Are We Winning?,\" September 2007]


5,188: Number of global terrorist incidents in from January- September 11th, 2006. [American Security Project, \"Are We Winning?,\" September 2007]


30: Percent increase in violence in Afghanistan from 2006 to 2007. [Reuters, 10/15/07]


21: Number of suicide bombings in Afghanistan in 2001. [Center for American Progress, \"The Forgotten Front,\" 11/07]


139: Number of suicide bombings in Afghanistan in 2006, with an additional increase of 69 percent as of November 2007. [Center for American Progress, \"The Forgotten Front,\" 11/07]

Cold hard facts...there is ... (Below threshold)

Cold hard facts...there is a URL tab just below the comment box. Using it will expedite responses to your comment.

"Barney, I didn't say that ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Barney, I didn't say that page 35 made any claims about Saddam's support of AOM." oyster

Then what was this? If page 35 does not support your claim that Saddam "supported" AoM where is it?

"Barney, Saddam supported and communicated with the Army of Muhammed which is an offshoot of al Qaeda. If you're interested at all and want to know what an ignorant little twerp you are, read Page 35.." oyster #21

Not to mention the 4 millio... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

Not to mention the 4 million Iraqi refugees -- 2 million internal and 2 million have fled. That would be the equivalent of 40 million Americans.

And, there's cholera, and the illnesses from the toxins unleashed by bombs, and the lack of clean water (the average, blue-collar-type Iraqi spends approximately 1/3 of their income on water), and there is a lack of electricity, and people are trapped walled off ethnic ghettos making things like visiting your relatives or going to school difficult and dangerous.

Imagine having 5 years- and counting- of living like this -- you'd feel like your own life was stolen from you -- especially if you were a teenager or young adult.

If the terrorists lay down ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

If the terrorists lay down all their weapons and quit this would end immediatly. If the Americans just give up and pull out, as Hillary and Barack have promised, things will very quickly be orders of magnitude worse. The world and the Iraqi's will look back on these last five years as the good old days.

Care to refute that any of you who would prefer that the Americans declare defeat and pull out as quickly as possible?

Adrian<b... (Below threshold)


Adrian

and the illnesses from the toxins unleashed by bombs,

If you're going to take us down the misery trail then give us some context. The abovementioned toxins...are you talking about the Kurds?

and people are trapped walled off ethnic ghettos making things like visiting your relatives or going to school difficult and dangerous.

And the very popular Qusay Saddam Husayn and Uday Saddam Husayn Humanitarian Campaign made their lives easier?

Imagine having 5 years- and counting- of living like this

And how was it better before Sadamm took the rope? Give us some context.

especially if you were a teenager or young adult.

How many Iraqis never made it to the teenage years? How many of these kids witnessed their parent's death under that Great Humanitarian Saddam. Saddam really tugged at hearts in scenes like this:

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/741700.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF193875DCB1DD8387ABB85DFBD4A01674D0C284831B75F48EF45

The good old days, right Adrian?


" Imagine having 5 years... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

" Imagine having 5 years- and counting- of living like this"

Contrary to what your hero, Micheal Moore, would have you believe, life in Iraq was not a bed of roses, nor a kite flying paradise under Saddam's decades of war and especially after the UN sactions and the UN oil for weapons program. I most Iraqi's have known nothing but war their entire life. My side wants this to end, even if the end is not instant. Your side wants to pursue a course that will guarantee that it continues. Or does one of you want to argue that there will suddenly be peace and harmony if we pull out as quickly as possible?

#15: "82,000-89,000 Iraqi Casualties... "

Two points about this evilly misleading "cold hard fact". The first related to Arian and Micheal Moore's point above is that is that it's estimated that before the Allied invasion the "compassionate" and "liberal" UN sanctions were causing about 6000 persons per month to starve to death. Mostly children, womean,the ill, and elderly.

Second, Abdo picks up a gun, Abdo is a terrorist-- Abdo puts gun down, Abdo is a "civilian". Now you carefully said "Iraqi", not "civilian" as many leftists do, but how many of those "Iraqi's" in your statistic were bent on killing other Iraqi's and Allied troops? The point is that the only innocent civilians that were intentionally killed in this war were killed by the side that Hillary and Barak want to lead to victory.

"Also, how is Darwinian ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"Also, how is Darwinian evolution (in all its accuracy and soundness) "dangerous"? Seems to me that unthinking fundamentalism of any sort (Islamic, Christian, collectivist [Communism]) is what you should be worried about, if history has anything to teach us."

"All it's accuracy and soundness" is based upon layer upon layer of unproven assumptions (as is AWG). It is a theory, and as such I cannot deny it's validity but I in no way acknowledge that it is a proven fact. To those who believe that it is a proven fact it is a religious belief it is not science.

Now evolution is science. Cold hard facts. It appears that the oldest life forms on Earth were very simple, almost barely recognizable as living cells and gradually over the millenia life evolved into the complexity that we see today.

There are competing scientific theories as to the driving force behind the evolution of life on Earth. One theory is that it happened, well, basically by chance with the aid of natural selection. Another theory is that the evolution of life on Earth was driven by some sort of intelligent entity and aided by natural selection.

To say that one of these theories is "science" while the other is not is a religious statement not a scientific one. Those fascist religious fanatics who demand that the power of government be used to force the scientific theory that supports their religious beliefs and force the exclusion of all other valid scientific theories are DANGEROUS.

I am affraid of Communism. I have cousins who lived in Communist Poland. I do want that to happen here. That why I hold out hope that some of you leftists will open your eyes to what you're actually supporting. Try to see the big picture.

But other forms of fundamentlism can be scary too. Whether it be terrorism, a constitutional ban on gay marriage, or a leftist judge ordering that a factully correct sticker that denies a fundamental tenet of the athiest religion be removed from pubic school textbooks, it all scares me.

Oops! That paragraph should... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Oops! That paragraph should read:

To say that one of these theories is "science" while the other is not is a religious statement not a scientific one. Those fascist religious fanatics who demand that the power of government be used to force the scientific theory that supports their religious beliefs to be taught in pubic schools and force the exclusion of all other valid scientific theories from those public schools are DANGEROUS.

P. Bunyan, gravity is a the... (Below threshold)
matthew:

P. Bunyan, gravity is a theory. If by fact you mean "true by definition", or "true beyond the possibility of doubt", then no, evolution cannot be factually proven. But that doesn't matter to scientists, whose job is to rigorously apply empirical analysis to disprove hypotheses. Darwinian evolution holds up to their collective scrutiny. You want to tell yourself God is responsible for it? Sweet, awesome, go ahead. But to suggest that it ought to be taught as a scientific theory? Nobody objects to that in principle; all they (we) want is for you to first find some evidence, and an army of scientists to pore over it and attempt to disprove your hypothesis for a few decades.

I don't support Communism, which requires state ownership of basically everything. I support social democracy, which forces those with sufficient means to contribute to the overall welfare of their fellow citizens. That so many conservatives insist on conflating the two systems makes debating with them from my perspective a complete and utter waste of time.

Saddam et al committed atrocities; now, insurgents and terrorists are slaughtering each other (and their wives... and children... and parents...) at a much more alarming rate. Prior to the invasion, at least they had enough doctors and running water and electricity to function as a society (albeit an unforgivably dictatorial one). My point is, it's no longer obvious that Iraq is better off now than before the invasion and occupation, so trotting out that argument is no trump card. It seems to me that someone like Saddam (secular dictator) might be the only person capable of holding that incompatibly diverse country together and restoring a semblance of order. Ideally, this person would eschew torture and murder in favour of tough law enforcement, but it's not like Iraqis aren't being tortured and murdered every single day right now.

While it's down the list of shitty happenings in Iraq, keep in mind that women and girls have lost most of the rights they previously enjoyed, and are murdered by evil fanatics for attempting to exist as dignified human beings.

None of this is to say that every U.S. solider should be pulled out--I just think that the people responsible for this unmitigated humanitarian and economic disaster need to be exposed, publicly shamed, and then forever ignored. Basically, that greasy ghoul John McCain should never be allowed to participate in serious foreign policy discussions, and Bill Kristol should get the fuck off of my television screen. (Looking at you, John Stewart.)

matthewMy po... (Below threshold)

matthew

My point is, it's no longer obvious that Iraq is better off now than before the invasion and occupation, so trotting out that argument is no trump card.

You have no evidence to support that statement. Before the invasion you had how many media outlets with what freedom to report what was actually happening in Iraq? None. Not even CNN...which had a deal that required them to sell their journalistic soul.

The life of the Iraqi people is known today in a depth and detail that has never been available to consumers of the news until now. That is because reporters and journalists have access that has never before been available...thanks to the United States.

To take this one step further, some of these reporters and journalistshave carried their same political baggage into this newly opened state and produced their same predictable biased reports. Hidatha? Jamal Hussein? Doctored photos from Reuters and the AP? Sound familiar?

Here is what is obvious: more real facts about Iraq are pouring out of that country faster and more accurately than ever before because the dictators and thugs are being eliminated.

Do you actually talk to servicemen and women who have deployed? Schools and hospitals are being constructed, people actually vote in public, and AQ is being routed, killed systematically, by both American and Iraqi troops.

Matthew, do you know what a... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Matthew, do you know what a strawman is? I never said "God". That would be religion.

The scientific theory is called intelligent design and the evidence is called the fossil record. If you weren't so narrow minded you might realize that the fossil record supports both the atheist theory of evolution and the intelligent design theory of evolution. Many scientists believe the prepoderence of evidence supports the athiest theory, but most of those start from the position that it had to have happened athiestically and close their mind to all other possibilities. It's a long story which doesn't belong in this thread, but suffice it so say that they are essentially theologians.

However there are also many scientists who are thoughtful, liberal, and openminded and those scientists admit that the fossil record actually more closely fits the theory that some sort of intelligent designer (the nature of which we have no clue) was behind the whole thing.

Close minded people like you who can't even recognize what is a religious belief and what is fact scare me. I do have religious beliefs, as does everyone, but I recognize the difference between what I beleive and what I know as fact.

People like you who don't understand the nature of socialism scare me, too. Every great socialist leader from Stalin to Castro did not intend for their populace to live in universal poverty, they just wanted those with sufficient means to contribute to the overall welfare of their fellow citizens. And they thought it would be a good idea to use the power of government to force that on the people. The result is always the same.

Now with regard to Iraq you started with a not unreasonable comment. I disagree of course, and it was easily refutable, as Hugh did, but it started out pretty reasonable. Then, well, not so much.

So not "every U.S. solider should be pulled out" now huh? So you don't support Barack's position but rather Hillary's? Rather than a quick cut and run, you'd rather just make it easier for the terrorists, but still leave them something to do other than just kill other Muslims? But McCain's a "greasy ghoul"? That's pretty sick.


P.S. You being a John Stew... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

P.S. You being a John Stewart fan explains a lot though. I know this is going to be a complete shock to you, but that show is fake news. Get it- they make it up. It's not real. Not that you've yet demonstrated the ability to tell the diffence so you 'prolly don't get it.

And another shocker- Colbert isn't really a conservative, he's just pretending.

Santa's not real either. Sorry.

To say that one of these... (Below threshold)
Brian:

To say that one of these theories is "science" while the other is not is a religious statement not a scientific one.

Let's say I drop a rock and it falls to the ground.

My theory is that the earth attracts the rock with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Your theory is that an invisible person reached out and moved the rock.

Person X's theory is that the rock didn't move at all, but used its psychic powers to make us believe that it did.

Person Y's theory is that Martians froze time, moved the rock down slightly, restarted time again, and then repeated this until the rock settled on the ground.

Now... you're going to claim that these are all equally valid scientific theories?

If you weren't so narrow... (Below threshold)
Brian:

If you weren't so narrow minded you might realize that the fossil record supports both the atheist theory of evolution

Who says it's an "atheist" theory? Couldn't God have created evolution as the mechanism for populating the earth? That's what many scientists believe, by the way. Or are you too closed-minded to consider that possibility?

It's very convenient that people who agree with you are "thoughtful, liberal, and openminded", while those who don't are "narrow minded". Tell us... is that a theory or is that a fact?

"Now... you're going to ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"Now... you're going to claim that these are all equally valid scientific theories?"

And Brian lacks the ability to distinguish between strawmen and scientific theories. Science is not about simplistic subjective observations: "I drop a rock and it falls to the ground".

If you had an understanding of science greater than that of a second grader in the 70's or at a private school you'd understand how moronic your puerile comment was.


"Who says it's an "athei... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"Who says it's an "atheist" theory? Couldn't God have created evolution as the mechanism for populating the earth?"

That EXACTLY what I'm saying you moron!

My god you're thick, PB. I ... (Below threshold)
matthew:

My god you're thick, PB. I don't have any religious beliefs--religion is theological. Look up that word in a dictionary. You mean to say that some of my beliefs could someday be shown to be false, and that an article of faith is required to not believe in intelligent design (let's shorten that to "god"). That's trivially true: no person could exist without potentially false beliefs. The difference between religious beliefs and non-religious beliefs is that religion involves conjecture, filling in the blanks where no evidence exists. Darwinian evolution, on the other hand, is like a puzzle that's nearly completed--a rational person can assume what the finished puzzle would look like, with low probability of error. As for socialists, you could also include a lot of popular and successful leaders from Western Europe, Canada, the U.S., Latin America, India, etc., but you pick totalitarian Communists to belittle everyone to the left of John McCain. It's like me saying conservative politics inevitably lead to evil because of Mussolini and Pinochet and Timothy McVeigh. (Pretty stupid, isn't it?) And thanks for pointing out that Jon Stewart isn't a news anchor. Does comedy bother you? And anyway what thinking person gets their (non-local) news from television anymore? You didn't even read what I said. I was complaining about Stewart giving Kristol a microphone--if he was as left-wing as you're convinced he is, that douche bag wouldn't be on his show every six months. He has zero credibility on anything having to do with foreign policy.

Al Qaeda is responsible for a small portion of the violence, Hugh. There are many groups killing each other for many reasons. Millions have fled the country. Girls are being prevented from going to school. Women are being made to cover their faces in public. Iraq was a lot of bad things before the invasion, but it wasn't an internally violent and unstable Islamic theocracy. I thought conservatives were supposed to hate those and not propagate them.

What else would have to go hideously wrong in that country for you to rethink your support for the war? 4,000 servicepeople and, what, 80,000 civilians killed isn't too many? I expect we disagree about that. But how many would be too many for your taste? If it's so integral to the survival of Western civilization (or whatever the justification du jour is) would you support a draft if recruitment targets aren't met?

Yeah, Brian, PB's got the m... (Below threshold)
matthew:

Yeah, Brian, PB's got the memo: package ID as evolution, call Darwin a fringe nut, and hope that religion can muscle its way into science classrooms more effectively than when creationism was repackaged as ID.

Most scientists who believe in evolution and god do not want "competing" theories taught as science because they understand the difference in rigor between holding a theory and having faith in conjecture shoehorned into holes in nearly flawless scientific theories. That sort of conjecture belongs in religious buildings, not public ones. My parents are Christians and scientists and their position is exactly that.

That EXACTLY what I'm sa... (Below threshold)
Brian:

That EXACTLY what I'm saying you moron!

No, that's not at all what ID claims. Gosh, it's tough debating with you when you don't even understand your own position. I don't even hold your position and I understand it better than you do.

Barney, you dishonest littl... (Below threshold)

Barney, you dishonest little liar. Nice how you cut my sentence off to again pretend you have an argument.

And Brian, do YOU read the stuff you link to as well? There's a lot more to that than you'll admit.

While many Americans are uneasy about a war without U.N. backing, most don't blame Bush for the impasse, even in the face of heavy U.S. and international media criticism that he botched the diplomatic job. Most Americans say Bush is doing a better job handling the Iraq situation than the U.N. is.
By a ratio of more than 2-to-1, most Americans say the Bush administration has done a good job handling diplomatic efforts with other nations. Most focus the blame on France and Russia, which have led efforts to block a U.N. resolution authorizing war.
If he was as weak as som... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

If he was as weak as some suppose, not removing Saddam would have left Iraq open to invasion from Iran, who indeed was raising troops in apparent plan to do just that thing; the prospect of a Greater Persia in command of the territories of Iraq in addition to itself would have crippled the world economy in short order, and brought on untold horrors to the people of the Middle East as the vision of such men as Ahmadinejad would have been unrestrained, with bloody Jihad the pitiless assailant of every moderate Arab nation. Nuclear war with Israel would almost surely have occurred.
DJ Drummond

First, this is blatant speculation and rampant fear-mongering. You've presented no evidence that Iran was formulating this plan.

Second, let's say Iran did do this, who's to say they would have had any success? Look at all the trouble we've had in Iraq with the biggest economy and best military force in the world. But in your world view, Iran would roll right over Iraq and keep on trucking all the way to Israel.

Third, let's run with this possibility a little further. Iran does invade and conquer Iraq. Now, the US (with undeniable proof of the "axis of evil" speech) has the grounds to invade and overthrow the Iranian regime. Not only that, but we are also truly seen as "liberators" in the eyes of Iraqis and al Qaeda is at a loss of how to respond (since we would be repelling their Shiite nemesis).

I think DJ, you've just presented the best rationale for why we should NOT have invaded Iraq. Saddam would have been out of power (killed by Iran), the Iranian government would have been overthrown (our response to their invasion), and we would have a justified military presence streching from Iraq through Kuwait, UAE, Iran, to Afghanistan. All better poised to strike in Pakistan or Syria or Saudi Arabia where the last refuges of al Qaeda are situated.

Lastly, who are these "moderate" Arab nations which you refer to? Saudi Arabia and Egypt are the biggest players other than Iran in the region and I would never call them "moderate" (maybe your definition of moderate is not religious or governmental, but rather military/geopolitical). Jordan is the only "moderate" Arab nation that comes to mind for me. Turkey is moderate too, but they're not Arab.

"I don't have any religi... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"I don't have any religious beliefs--religion is theological. Look up that word in a dictionary."

Umm I think you need to look it up. Being a typical narrow minded leftist you choose to focus on definition #1 and pretend that the others simply don't exist. Being open minded and thoughtful, I know and understand all definitions of the word and in this context, I was referring to definition #4: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". See it can have nothing to do with a belief in God. Atheism is a religion.

Now being a typical arrogant leftist you probably think you and humans in genereal know everything, but the reality is that the sum of all human knowledge to this point makes up a very, very small percentage of all there is to be known. I'd put it at about 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000135%, but that's just what I believe--it is not a fact. (And unlike you and Brian I can tell the difference. )

"You mean to say that some of my beliefs could someday be shown to be false, and that an article of faith is required to not believe in intelligent design (let's shorten that to "[G]od")."

First, where the hell do you get all that straw to build these strawmen you keep throwing up? Is there any staw left in Canada? Again: The intelligent design theory of evolution does not mention God. That would be a religious belief, not science. Intelligent design IS science.

Second, no, I'm saying that your unwillingness to admit that the traditional theory of evolution is not fact but instead a theory based upon layer upon layer of unproven assumptions is a religious belief. You take it on faith that it happened and is true and you have expressed your religious faith with ardor in this very thread: "Darwinian evolution, on the other hand, is like a puzzle that's nearly completed--a rational person can assume what the finished puzzle would look like, with low probability of error."

There you display your ignorance of the fossil record and how you have let your faith fill in the gaps. The reality is that the "puzzle" has billions of pieces and so far "science" has discovered maybe a couple million of them. You religiously believe that the puzzle is nearly complete. You use your faith to fill in the gaps and to you the puzzle appears to be nearly complete, but 99.995% of the puzzle is filled in with imaginary pieces for which there is no concrete proof of existence. I'm sure you were taught that bit of theology in the indoctrination centers you attended. You were taught that a theory based upon billions of unproven assumptions with billions of missing links is "nearly flawless". That is dogma, not science my friend, and it has no place in public schools.

If you had any clue as to how many times the theory has had to be "revised" to fit new discoveries that constantly conflict with the old theories you'd realize how much of a joke your "nearly flawless" and "all it's accuracy and soundness" statements are. Those statements are merely expressions of your religious ardor.

What is your background in science anyway Matthew? I have a degree in biology from the University of Michigan.

"but you pick totalitarian Communists to belittle"

I didn't pick them to "belittle" anyone. I picked those particular socialist leaeders to point out that they had the same ideology and worldview as you. They had the same intentions as you. They might have gone about it a little different, but it's all shades of the same gray. If you want to live like that, that's fine with me, but it is the antithesis of everything that made America what it is today (the greatest country in the world) and I don't want America to be just another socialists country just barely getting by, with a skinny population riding around on bicycles. The only reason things are as good as they are in the socialist countries (not that they are all that great) is because of America. If America becomes socialist, then the entire evolution of human civilization will stagnate and regress.

"Yeah, Brian, PB's got the memo: package ID as evolution, call Darwin a fringe nut, and hope that religion can muscle its way into science classrooms more effectively than when creationism was repackaged as ID."

And then back to the lies and strawmen. I never said Darwin was a fringe nut, simply that his theory is not a fact. I never said it should be banned from the schools. You leftists are EXACTLY the same a Christians were decades ago when they tried to use the power of government to keep a valid scientific theory out of the schools, simply because it contradicted their religious beliefs. It was fascist when the Christians did it back than and it is equally fascist today.

"That EXACTLY what I'm s... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"That EXACTLY what I'm saying you moron!"

Actually I was wrong when I typed that-- that was not exactly what I said. I plead "blogging while exhaused". Still I've never said that that wasn't a possibility, as Brian suggested, and still Brian is a moron.

The US military lost more s... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

The US military lost more soldiers in the first 5 years of the Clinton Presidency than the US military lost in the first 5 years in Iraq.
(Numbers from CRS report to Congress pdf)

via Instapundit

PB wrote:Howeve... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

PB wrote:

However there are also many scientists who are thoughtful, liberal, and open-minded and those scientists admit that the fossil record actually more closely fits the theory that some sort of intelligent designer (the nature of which we have no clue) was behind the whole thing.

Who are the scientists that you're talking about, and how do they argue that the fossil record more closely fits with ID?

"Who are the scientists ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"Who are the scientists that you're talking about"

I don't even know how to answer that. Do you seriously want me to list every single scientist who admits that ID Evolution is a valid scientific alternative to Darwinian Evolution? What is the point of that? Do you believe that none exist? Or you just want to see if you can top Brian & Matthew's pile of stawmen with a spectacular agumentum ad hominem of your own making?

I could spend a few seconds on Google and get you a list of names, but as much as I hate to dodge a question, no matter how pointless, I just can't do that. You could do that for yourself if you really wanted to know after all.

I rather answer you by sharing a personal experience from a while back. I had taken a class on chordate phylogeny and one of the early lectures what about the foundations of the theory. Many of the points the professor made I'll list below in the second part of this post, but he presented these points as if they totally proved Darwinian evolution and not only that but he directly said that these points showed that the idea that God could have had anything to do with the evolution of life on earth was clearly wrong.

A couple days later I went to his office hours and sat down and asked him how he could say something like that when the evidence showed no such thing. In fact, I suggested, it appears that the evidence could just as easily support the idea that some entity we might describe as "God" could clearly have had a hand in it.

His reply was that I was right, but he could not say something like that in the university community.

"and how do they argue that the fossil record more closely fits with ID?"

Now that's a more reasonable question.

The fossil record shows that the earliest forms of life on earth were very, very simple single celled organisms. They diversified, but stayed basically the same for a very long time (it's estimated at about a billion years), then suddenly (from a geological standpoint) new more complex life forms appeared. They were still single celled but a lot more advanced than the earlier life. Those life forms again diversified, while not significantly increasing in complexity for a very long time again. Next multi-cellular life appeared and diversified while again remaining basically the same for a long period. This basic pattern was repeated time and again throughout the millennia. This is why scientists have been able divide the evolutionary history of life on Earth into Epochs, Periods, Eras and such.

Now if the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution were at work, we'd expect to see a more gradual appearance of complexity than what is in evidence in the fossil record. However if some intelligent entity was guiding the evolution of life on Earth, we might theorize that that "Intelligent Designer" developed a set of simple life forms, then set them loose on Earth and let natural selection micro-evolve them for a period of time while the I.D. "went back to the lab" to work on more complex designs. After a time the I.D. completed the new designs and used them to modify the original models that had been micro-evolving on the Earth, and released the new life forms into Earth's ecosystem.

This process was repeated over and over again. Most of the times the new models would simply out competed with the old ones and natural selection would remove them from the ecosystem in a short time (geologically speaking). A Few of the best designs would survive though, in fact we still have what are likely direct descendents of the earliest life forms on Earth that are extant. There does appear to be at least one occasion when the dominant life forms had grown too extreme and had to be rapidly exterminated to make room for the new ones.

(See? You can clearly define the theory of intelligent design without ever mentioning "God" or anything in the bible or any other religious text. It is science, it is not religion.)

The fossil record more clearly supports that theory than Darwin's.

The lack of transitional species in the fossil record also supports the ID theory over Darwin's. There is not one single instance in the fossil record where a clear A to B to C to D species genealogy is evident. Darwinian supporters have theorized that A did not really "evolve" into "B" and so on, rather a "common ancestor" (I'll call it CA1) evolved into A and CA2, then CA2 evolved into B and CA3, then CA3 evolved into C and CA4, then CA4 evolved into D. Now I cannot deny that that does tidy up things nicely and allows atheist religious fanatics to see in their mind's eye all those theoretical pieces of the puzzle and declare with ardor that the theory is "nearly flawless" and full of "accuracy and soundness". The fact remains, however, that there is no direct factual evidence that, of the millions upon millions of common ancestors that had to have existed for Darwinian evolution to have happened, even one single common ancestor did actually exist. Of course that doesn't prove they didn't exist, but at this point they are theoretical. ID evolution does not rely on theoretical common ancestors.

This is an interesting, although clearly leftist biased, article. Consider this statement:

"Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution."

With that definition of evolution, the statement that "humans evolved from ape-like ancestors" is exactly equivalent to saying "Toyota Camry's evolved from horse drawn buggies".

Now if every student walked out of science class with the clear understanding that "evolution" in that sense is fact, but Darwinian evolution is not, then I believe most Conservatives and Neo-Cons like myself would be happy. The fundamentalist Christians might not, but they are as bad as the fundamentalist atheists that are currently defining the curriculum in most public schools in this country.

In most schools evolution is presented as if it's a fact that it occurred "naturally". Darwin and the mechanisms he proposed are thoroughally discussed and a biased case is made in favor of the natural, atheist theory. Alternative ideas are not allowed, even if it takes the courts to impose those restrictions over the will of the people. That is the issue with which I and, I believe, many people on my side of this argument have the biggest problem. The idea that Darwinian evolution is fact, no matter how arduously you believe it is nearly perfect in all it's accuracy and fullness, is a religious belief. Religious beliefs do not belong in public schools except when presented and clearly defined as such.

Alternative, valid scientific theories should not be banned from public school. It was wrong when the Catholic Church did it in Galileo's day; it was wrong when the Christians did it in the late 19th and early 20th century and it's wrong when the leftists do it today.

The fundamentalis... (Below threshold)
Maggie:
The fundamentalist Christians might not, but they are as bad as the fundamentalist atheists that are currently defining the curriculum in most public schools in this country.

So fundamentalist christians are currently defining curriculum.
If that were true, there would still be
morning devotions with prayer,
condoms would not be on sale, abetting and
enabling promiscuity, and the true fundamentals of education
would be taught.
Reading, writing, and arithmetic.
With english, history, and the hard sciences.
The reason why the majority of kids today graduate unfinished, illiterate, and unprepared for life, is because we don't define the
curriculum.

I didn't say the fundamenal... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

I didn't say the fundamenalist Christians are defining the curriculum, Maggie. I said the fundamental atheists are.

What I meant by the paragraph you quoted is that the fundamental Christians who want to define Intelligent Design as: "God created the entire Universe in 7 days, about 5000 years ago" are as bad as the fundamental athiests who want students to walk out of science class believing that the nearly perfect, natural, athiest (or Darwinian) theory, in all its accuracy and fullness, is a fact.

I'm sorry I didn't make that clearer.

I agree with most of the rest of what you wrote though. Except "evolution" is a "hard science". Sadly, what is being taught in many highschools currently is a bit a hard science and a whole bunch of atheist dogma.

Well, at least Brian answer... (Below threshold)
epador:

Well, at least Brian answered my thoughts, albeit inconclusively (no response to my accusations about Bubba other than to say GW screwed up too). Brian, care to cite all that Bubba did to help prevent the bribery and corruption scandals that undermined any chance for an effective coalition and guaranteed disaster if we did invade Iraq? After all, he did make repeated statements that we might have to.

Oyster also echoed my thoughts, thanks.

As to the ID/evolution debate, that's not what this thread is supposed to be about, unless you think that the current natural selection in Iraq has some intelligent design or is complete entropy.

I feel that the main supporters of ID are more fundamentalist than PB would like to think. Ongoing discussions that attack weaknesses in the ID position are easily found at Respectful Insolence (Google it to find it - where a surgeon and cancer research scientist takes on all manners of woo, but sadly has a Wizbang Blue view of politics).

I don't disagree that many ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

I don't disagree that many supporters of intelligent design are fundamentalists, and are possibly even the majority of the supporters of that theory. I do believe that they are destroying the credibility of the theory, however, because they trap themselves in the very small box of their religious ideology and attempt to fit the data into that box. In that respect they are exactly the same as the leftist theologians that blog at Respectful Insolence and the one that wrote the encyclical I linked to in #71 above.


I don't disagree... (Below threshold)
Maggie:
I don't disagree that many supporters of intelligent design are fundamentalists, and are possibly even the majority of the supporters of that theory. I do believe that they are destroying the credibility of the theory,

Mr. Bunyan have you personally polled each
fundamentalist christian on their opinion/
belief in creation? Or are you broad brushing
them as a whole group. I am a so called
fundamentalist, in that I try to walk in
the path of salvation Christ gave to each
and every one of us, including those
who have denied Him.

Well of course I haven't Ma... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Well of course I haven't Maggie. So please tell me where I''m wrong.

Do fundamentalist not take the Bible literally? Do fundamentalist not believe that the Earth cannot be more than a few thousand years old? Do fundamentalisists not view the theory of Intelligent Design as being basically the exact story that Moses told in Genesis?

I don't mean to offend you or insult your faith Maggie. I have a great deal of respect for Christianity. My whole point is that religious beliefs and scientific facts are not one in the same- no matter if you're a fundamentalist Christian, or a fundamentalist atheist.

Wow, the extremists at both... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Wow, the extremists at both ends of the spectrum are arguing with me-- I feel like John McCain

...or Hillary Clinton.... (Below threshold)
matthew:

...or Hillary Clinton.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy