Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, January 29, 2007
Suzanne Fields :: Townhall.com Columnist
Prophecies of Doom
by Suzanne Fields
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


If we could bind together all the rhetoric over the Middle East, it would fit neatly into the Old Testament's Book of Jeremiah. Beware, beware, beware.

Americans are only beginning to appreciate the issues there, and what they mean to us. We've been asleep, occasionally stirring only long enough to hit the snooze button. Before September 11, few of us had heard the words al Qaeda, jihad, Wahabi, intifada. We've had to learn them, like it or not, and parse their ominous overtones and threatening syllables of doom.

If our prophets once wandered in a wilderness of irrelevance, now they're roaring through a desert without directions or even a road map. (The "road map to peace," as we've learned, is but a chimera.) Arabic has replaced Russian as the language to learn in self-defense. A survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project finds that the United States is disliked most by Muslim countries. That's no surprise, and the feeling is mutual, but we've lately realized that Islamist attitudes can be easily turned into action.

Newt Gingrich, the new Jeremiah, warns that Israel faces nuclear holocaust and the danger doesn't stop at the shores of the Dead Sea. The United States "could lose two or three cities to nuclear weapons, or more than a million in biological weapons," he says. The West has put itself at risk: "We don't have the right language, goals, structure or operating speed to defeat our enemies."

The former speaker of the House, who may be a candidate for president, has never minced words. But rarely has he been so outspoken about how our liberties are threatened: "Our enemies are fully as determined as Nazi Germany, and more determined than the Soviets . . . freedom as we know it will disappear, and we will become a much grimmer, much more militarized, dictatorial society."

Gingrich joined several other big names to speak by video to the Herzliya security conference outside Tel Aviv -- a mecca, you might say, for foreign policy experts and politicians eager to talk about the new threat to the West.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts who also yearns to be president, echoes the Gingrich analysis. He calls Islamic jihad "the nightmare of the century" and warns against comparisons to the Cold War. "For all of the Soviets' deep flaws, they were never suicidal. Soviet commitment to national survival was never in question. That assumption cannot be made to an irrational regime that celebrates martyrdom." He's talking about Iran.

Sen. John McCain prescribes strengthening Israel's ties to NATO. "American support for Israel should intensify," he says. "The enemies are too numerous, the margin of error too small, and shared values too great."

John Edwards of North Carolina, a seeker of the Democratic nomination, urges tougher sanctions against Iran coupled with the threat of military force, but undercuts his tough message with the naive suggestion that more blather is the best medicine. This reprises Hillary Clinton's scolding of President Bush for his reluctance to "talk to bad people." The president talks to bad people all the time, but there are limits in what any president can say to them. "You know one of the first rules of warfare is know your enemy," says Hillary, as if affecting her best West Point expertise, "and we're flying blind because we won't sit down and try to figure out what these people really want, who's calling the shots, how we can better deter them."

If Sen. Clinton has been paying attention, she already knows what "these people" really want. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, has been clear enough. He jeers that the annihilation of Israel is at hand, and throws in the United States and Britain for wicked measure.

Bernard Lewis, a keen analyst of the Middle East and Islamic radicalism, told the Israeli conference that the danger from Iran is real, and particularly lethal because the Shiites believe an apocalypse is near. Given the Iranian leadership, "mutual assured destruction is not a deterrent but an inducement." Apocalypse now, on a worldwide scale, edges toward probable.

President Bush made this clear in his State of the Union address, observing that Shia and Sunni radicals seek to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East and develop weapons to subdue everyone else. "Our enemies are quite explicit about their intentions," he said. "They want to overthrow moderate governments and establish safe havens from which to plan and carry out new attacks on our country."

The president, like many of those who yearn to succeed him, is like Jeremiah, an unpopular prophet. But Jeremiah, as ancient Israel learned, knew what he was talking about. There's a lesson here.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Suzanne Fields is a columnist with The Washington Times.

Be the first to read Suzanne Fields' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
Deja vu?
What happened the last time the US faced an implaccable regime, capable of rousing a suicidal passion in its citizens? Here's a hint: 20 kilotons, times 2. Much angst, but problem solved.

This time, it ain't so simple. The enemy is dispersed among our friends; and among ourselves. The US could glass up the entire middle east, but that would be counterproductive.

To be honest, I don't think a solution is going to happen for a while, but to quote Churchill, "Americans always do the right thing, after exhausting all the alternatives." So I wait patiently for the current alternative (GWB et al.) to be exhausted, and the next alternative (stop selling them the rope to hang you with) to be tried. You never know your luck.

Ms. Fields
Very good article succinctly outlining the threat.
But, there are too many people who don't believe it so we will probably have to take the nukes first, then "react" as usual. Unless America stops hitting the snooze button and wakes up for good this time.

Absurdity
This charming alarm about Mahmoud the Iranian President, stems from a ludicrous yet deadly ignorance. Though the president's opinions may be some indication of the views held in Iran, as anyone who has bothered to even look at a wikipedia article on Iranian government knows, he has no military control. The military is under the authority of the Supreme Leader. So why is there no investigation of his statments, as he is the only one who has the power to use a potential nuclear arsenal? Possibly because his actions include issuing a fatwa against nuclear weapons, and showing real interest in scientific advancement, which is the reason he wants nuclear power. He also has a strong beleif in the future of the islamic community, and wants to establish wider islamic unity, hopes that conflict with the apocalyptic mindset necessary for causing the nuclear devastation of Iran which would result from any attacks on Israel or America. This is obviously not wholehearted support for him or his policies, but affirmation that nuclear armageddon is probably not on his to-do list.
Also if Iran was interested in a second holacaust, why wouldn't they have already started with their own Jewish population (the second largest in the Middle East) as the Nazi's did, I'm not saying that Jews don't face some level of discrimination or even persecution in Iran, but there is hardly a national movement to destroy them.
There are already enough real and urgent threats to the world currently taking shape without concocting fictitious ones.

Warmest regards,
Ian Thomas.

A vigilant society is alive
A sleeping society gets nuked.

Sorry Ian, how long would you have us wait? Until we don't need lights to read? Or can power up our own computers?

It doesn't hurt to keep an eye on him...

Keep telling Americans to 'go back to sleep' and I will think you are... someone you may not be.

Reply
"Just a thought": keeping an eye is completely different from the active military intervention commonly advocated, I was just saying that the statements from Mahmoud are not the ones we should be concerned about, and that the person who we should really pay attention to is the supreme leader, he doesn't seem to be militant, but since all the coverage has been of Mahmoud's impotent threats, I (and many others)am fairly ignorant about whatever beliefs the supreme leader holds.

Nobody listened to Jeremiah either
or the Prophet Amos, my personal favourite (the book is shorter, so read it through and see if anything rings a bell.)

Nobody ever listens to prophets or to people who tell them to run for the hills. Daddy has told us all our lives about the people in the concentration camps at the end of World War II who wouldn't move to save their lives or the lives of their children because they were comfortable and they could not leave their stuff -- and they would rather believe that there were enough good people to keep the bad guys in check, so that they didn't have to do anything. (There is a very politically incorrect song by Peggy Lee called "Manana" that cotains this verse: "The window she is broken and the rain is coming in; if someone doesn't fix it I'll be soaking to my skin! But if I wait a day or two the rain will go away; and we don't need a window on such a sunny day!" That's America in a nut shell.)

Read the Prophet Amos.

The Iranian Mullahs
actually control the country over there. How do we know what they are doing to the Jews in Iran? They could be burning them at the stake by the thousands and we would never know it because the CIA is more concerned with "getting GWB" and protecting their *sses than they are actually acomplishing something. The news media probably have some idea what is going on there but all they are interested in is also "getting GWB". I can agree with some of the posts above on one thing. We will never do anything with Iran until after some kind of major attack. The political will was not there to go after the terrorists until 9-11 and its not there now to go after Iran. Most of the country has forgotten 9-11.

Mr.T sounds like
Chamberlain with his description of hitler when he describes that weasel in Iran. If someone makes statements about obtaining nukes and wiping Israel and the US off the map, he needs to go. Whether or not he is on someone's leash he stirs up the other nuts.
I would have liked to have seen his plane fall off radar last time he was here. You defeat radical islam by killing radical islamists on sight, he qualifies.

How many died in WW2 because of hitler,tojo and moussilini? And we weren't too PC back then.





"Give peace a chance" only works
if ALL NATIONS are interested in peace. A call to "lay down our arms" is a call to folly if only one side lays down its arms, while the other side crosses its fingers behind its back and keeps its weapons ready to hand.

I like to think I would have been a "peacenik" had I been alive and an adult in 1914. In fact, sometimes I like to daydream that I chanced on the secret of time travel, my first step would be to prevent Gavrilo Princip from assassinating Archduke Franz Ferdinand. NOTHING GOOD came out of World War I. This foolish war set the Bolshevik Revolution in motion (thus setting the stage for a century of Cold War) and paved the way for the rise of Hitler (thus setting the stage for a century of Real War). But by the time we reach the 1930s and Hitler was planning world conquest, the well-meaning mantras of the "peaceniks" simply wouldn't work. Too little, too late.

Hitler, Stalin, and their ilk are never interested in "giving peace a chance" -- and that's why we must always be prepared to defend ourselves. How can we spot a person or a nation on whom the peace mantras simply do not work? We must look at the way that person or nation perceives its people. Does it see them as human beings with individual minds and souls, or as a collective? Does it value each human being, regardless of race or gender or ethnicity, or does it embrace the concept of the "untermensch" (by this or any other name)? If the latter is the case, we must beware, for such attitudes are antithetical to everything America stands (or should stand) for, and sooner or later, their sights will be trained on us. Both the view of humans as a collective rather than as individuals and the view of some humans as somehow "less" than others do indeed characterize Iran, so it's doubtful Iran would be amenable to the rhetoric of the peaceniks. It's not going to lay down its arms. We'd better be ready to reach for ours if the need arises.

None of us like war. Any glory that a sane human or nation might take in war was obliterated by the fury of World War I. But if we want to know why war is sometimes a necessary evil, we have only to take a look at "Schindler's List." Some things are worth fighting for -- and some things are very definitely worth fighting against.

unlike with Iraq, this time let's think.
Jeremiah exhorted the people of Jerusalem to abandon idolatry, and return to the Torah, else they would be conquered. And they were. In later years, Jeremiah actually counseled in favor of making peace with the invading Babylonians, not fighting them. And for that he was scorned.

So maybe as a prophet Jeremiah has some relevance, but certainly not as a military advisor.

No one argues that there are many millions of peaceful muslims who just want to live their lives in harmony, but that does not mean Islam is a peaceful religion.

Elections in Palestinian territory, Egypt, and Lebanon, have all yielded impressive gains for radical Islamists.

If elections were held today in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, and Bin Laden were on the ballot, does anyone really believe he would not win?

I fully agree that a modern-day Jeremiah would understand the threat radical Islam poses to our survival.

But I also believe he would not be conjuring up imaginary enemies.

Ahmadinejad does not control Iran. The mullahs do.

The mullahs have recently criticized Ahmadinejad over his inflammatory remarks toward the U.S.

The Iranian economy is not in good shape, and recent municipal elections in Iran have seen Ahmadinejad's party lose support among the people.

A military strike on Iran would have consequences. It would rally Iranians to the government, discrediting reformers there. Iran obviously would retaliate by attacking oil container shipping in Strait of Hormuz. Iran would likely attack U.S. forces in Iraq. The government of Iraq, not to mention its Shia population, would probably rally to Iran...not the U.S.

I am not saying a military strike on Iran is foolish.

But before I would support it, I would need to know specifically that the Iranisns plan to attack us.

And Ahmadinejad does not control Iran.

In any case, we had better be fully aware of the consequences.

Where / When?
Can some "prophesy expert" explain the strong links (practically the ruler managering) between Mohammedan terrorists and Bolivarianos in Venezuela & its colonies?

US people has not yet aware that terrorists territory includes Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, etc. Are US lieders morons?


What we will never do
Unfortunately, the easy, obvious solution to Iran will never be tried. All we have to do is covertly assign a few thousand "military advisors" with a large cache of weapons to help the discontented masses of Iran eliminate the current government.

Of course, there is no guarantee this would result in a friendly state, but given the discontent shown towards the mullahs, and the statements made by a number of Irans with whom I have contact, I seriously doubt the man on the street in Iran would put a radical shiite government in power agina anytime soon.

But, as I said, it won't happen. The current Cia/Dept. of State orthodoxy of today ahs two goals: "stability", even if it is harmful, and hatred of Bush. So, no revolution in Iran.

That should be
That should read "CIA" not "Cia".

I cannot type
That should also read "a number of Iranians", not "a number of Irans".

Make a decision, it's about reality!
All of the comments above are correct, in a way. But it isn't about threats or weapons. Look beyond the words and see the radicalism that is behind it. There is a fire burning in radical Islam that wants to spread and cover the entire globe. We can't expect common sense, sitting at the same table talking about what will work for everyone to solve this problem. This isn't knowing your enemy and fighting on the front lines. Your enemy could be your neighbor and the front line doesn't exist anymore. It disappeared in New York. Look on the globe and mark everywhere there is a conflict involving radical Islam. Lots of marks aren't there?

We have to make a decision and decide if we want to keep our way of life or not! Once you make that decision ask yourself one more question: Are you prepared to die for it? Either decision you make will involve someone dying for their decision. Think about it!

Andrews you forgot the second
most important goal of any civil servant, the first being keeping his/her power. And that is this:

DENIABILITY or failing that, someone beneath them upon whom to thrust blame.


Dash - Other bureaucratic forces
Actually, I was thinking that stability is the only possible goal for a career bureaucrat.

Imagine: Yu are a CIA desk jockey and have just spent two decades learning all there is to know about the current regime. You even have field agents with pull in the current administration.

Now, suppose the president talks about overthrowing that regime. If that happens, all your hard work has been for nothing. Even worse, you no longer have the clout you had in office politics, as your knowledge is now obslete.

So, of course you fight tooth and nail to preserve the regime about which you are an expert.

Now multiply this by the thousands of deskjockeys in Langley and Foggy Bottom, and we can easily see why our foreign policy seems absolutely determined to resists any change, even change for the better.

Andrews
No disagreement. I think i just phrased it more succinctly than you did...

Is Israel my worry?
Sorry, but I do not find Iran a threat to anyone, regardless of what their nutty president says. I believe that most of this scare talk about Iran is being generated in Israel for Israel's benefit, which is to get rid of one of their enemies with American blood and money. We are too much involved with Israel. It's bad enough that we have to literally support the country with 3 to 4 billion dollars a year which is never paid back, but now they want us to fight their wars for them.

I can buy into the Jeremiah's pophecy; this will most likely happen. However,the threat to the USA is not from Muslim armies or navies, but from our own stupid immigration policies that let them into our country in the first place and cause us to rot from within.

Dr. North - a question
I presume you drive a car? Own a home? I know you use a computer.

The car requires gasoline, the home and computer require electrical power - all of which requires OIL.

Stipulated, it would be nice to be less dependant upon petroleum (which is also a major factor in modern chemistry), but we currently are and that's that. IF there were any real chance of new reactors coming on line within the next 10 years that would help; but there isn't and you know it as well as anyone else does. The enviro-terrorists will tie them up in court for YEARS awaiting their buy-offs, and even then they won't stop.

A hydrogen-based economy is also a technical possibility - in another 15-30 years depending upon litigation hold ups and engineering difficulties. No litigation? You are kidding yourself; we can shift from carbon-based fuels thereby reducing CO2, but with hydrogen we generate even greater amounts of the major greenhouse gas: H2O-vapor...

Pre-Emption and Infiltration
We have been infiltrated by Muslims who are embedded like cement in a murderous Cult and Terror Organization called Islam.

We must outlaw this organization that is built on principle not only the opposite of our Constitution but covenants designed to destroy our Constitution.

If you refuse to read the violent book called the Koran then you know not how to deal with it.

Only people who have been fooled call Islam a Religion.

Dash42
It is ironic how the EnviroNazies have delivered the World into the hands of IslamoNazis who have absolutely no regard whatever for the Environment.
Islam would not be a World Threat without Petro Dollars.

This same Islamic ritual continues throughout history.
This may climax in the distruction of Islam and all holy sites in reference.

Suzanne Fields: Prophecy of Doom
Americans have been asleep at the wheel where ancient prophecy is concerned for a long time. Some are just now waking up,all should. The nuclear Doomsday Clock has been set to 5 minutes before Armageddon, and most people have no clue what Armageddon is.
Wake up America and heed the voices of ancient prophets --- read and compare to todays current events headlines. We are close under the Sword of Damocles ever swinging ever coming closer to cut us in half.
We live in a world more dangerous than ever before in history. I can say that because of high tech weapons that can destroy mankind and people willing to use them without a thought of conscience as to the outcome.
Whatever his faults all Americans should support the presidents attempt to set back the Doomsday Clock by unflagging support for 'people of the people'like him. The left is clueless and will be the death of us if we allow them to carry on their sophist minded attempts at capitulation.

Dr. North
Dr. North's aversion to Israel will eventually have to answered for in front of his Creator.

Iran proved its hatred for America when they took our embassy employees hostage during the Carter presidency. It took Ronald Reagan about 20 minutes to make them see the error of their way with either or diplomacy. Welcome home hostages and hail to the chief Mr. Reagan.

'Crazy is as crazy does' so goes the like phrase used by Forrest Gump. A government headed by doomsday prognosticators welcoming a thousand plus years old long dead Twelfth Imam is not playing with a full deck and are deadly serious Dr. North.

He is right on with his belief in Jeremiah and the immigration issue. The sucking sound you hear is the southwest border vacuuming up the human flotsam, jetsom and death merchants in society.

Close the door or suffer the consequence that is surely coming unless we become one voice directed at Washington DC.

A "crying wolf" situation
The problem with President Bush as "Jeremiah" is that his personal credibility, as well as that of the U.S. intelligence community, has been totally shot due to the fiasco in Iraq.

It has led to a genuine "crying wolf" situation, in which Bush and the CIA won't be believed if they talk about the threat from Iran or North Korea or anywhere else.

In fact, I've started to hear mutterings from the "chattering class" that maybe even the threat from al-Qaeda was as exaggerated as the threat from Saddam's alleged WMD arsenal.

National unity, idealism, faith in one's leaders to get things done, are all strategic assets in a democracy, as much as its military forces are. Even if General Petraeus should manage to pull a rabbit out of the hat at the last minute, it will not repair the damage to America's body politic in terms of the new cynicism and disrepute of military approaches to foreign crises.

Look how long it took us to recover from the cynicism and militarism engendered by the Vietnam War. And how our enemies made the most of it.


Oops, correction
I meant to say "Look how long it took us to recover from the cynicism and pacifist anti-militarism engendered by the Vietnam War."

SteveL
"It has led to a genuine "crying wolf" situation, in which Bush and the CIA won't be believed if they talk about the threat from Iran or North Korea or anywhere else."

I guess you don't read about Ahmedinejad's speeches or saw China attempt to launch missiles last July 4th.

Might I suggest
That the author and others who agree with her get their "THE END IS NEAR" signs and go out to your local street corners like good crazy people.

If Bush is a prophet, I'm the Queen of England.

No arguement
MyOpine:
It is ironic how the EnviroNazies have delivered the World into the hands of IslamoNazis who have absolutely no regard whatever for the Environment.
Islam would not be a World Threat without Petro Dollars.

This same Islamic ritual continues throughout history.
This may climax in the distruction of Islam and all holy sites in reference.
********************************

T'ain't gettin no arguement from me on that. The only thing I would say is that without petrobucks they would be far less effective.

Unfortunately, as I said, we have a petroleum based economy and keeping the oil flowing is the sine qua non of modern politics. Rhetoric be da%*ed, come what may, the oil must flow...

Islam=Surrender to the Will of Allah as defined by the mullahs...


Her Majesty Queen Super Mario
You are not aware the goofy Iatollah of Iran plans to use nukes to summon the 12th Imam?
Those guys are quite serious about hastening everyone's way to Paradise.


http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200612/NAT20061215b.html

Nukes from Iran
But they say they only want them for peaceful purposes!

Of course, lying to the infidel is requried to advance the faith....

MyDearPeasantOpine,
Wow, that's certainly an objective news source you have there! Do you think they're the first radicals to plot destruction?

Bush's actions are simply bringing us closer to any apocalypse that might be looming by continuing to act aggressively all over the world, both in physical violence as well as in the political arena.

And Dash, before you start quoting the Quaran, I suggest you take a look at some of the seemingly overlooked violent rhetoric in the Bible.

Context is key.

Thanks for the lesson, Suzanne.


Let's hope all of those who lead us get it as much as all of us who read us seem to be getting it. But, I don't know, it's gonna take a lot of courage.


interesting
It was interesting to see the quote from Gingrinch warning that "freedom as we know it will disappear, and we will become a much grimmer, much more militarized, dictatorial society."

After all despite the legitimate threat that Islamic terrorists do pose to us (and the lesser threat that Iran does since it has much more to lose were it to be involved in attacking us) islamic terrorists do not have the power to make freedom disappear in the US or to make us a more dictatorial society than we are today. Only we can do that to ourselves. The loss of habeus corpus or the freedom from unreasonable searches or the presumption of innocence and the right to a speedy trial are all things that can only be taken away by our government, and our acquiesance.

The Islamic terrorsts are simply murderers who can kill. We need to fight murderers, but only in the way that we fight them do we risk losing our freedom.

Super Mario
True enough that there is violent rhetoric in the Bible; I have never claimed or stated otherwise. However ugly the Church has been (and could continue to be), on the whole it has learned the lessons of history and bowed to the free will of the individual.

My interpretation/quote from the Quran stands.

Her Royal Majesty Queen Super Mario
When was the last time the Bible was use to justify torture and mass murder?
You sound like a total idiot.

Are you unaware of how many times IslamoNazis have attacked America and how many people they have killed?
Here is a partial clue;
http://www.citizensunited.org/multimedia/details.aspx?ID=10

NOW PLEASE read all of this before you ever question my source again because after this I will not consider any error in fact that has already been refuted to be an accident.
http://www.mrc.org/archive/realitycheck/welcome.asp

AND;
I hope you are trying to engage in an honest political debate and do not turn out to be another one of those pathetic perverts who make stupid statements just to provoke endless senseless arguement.
I don't have that kind of patience!

Damn Straight Girl,
Best get out the full length mirror to see how you look in a Burqa...

MyOpine
Wasting your time:

The kool-aid drinkers, aka moonbats, don't believe anything that is not spoonfed by TASS, moveon, or dailyKos...

But keep trying to reach the semi-healthy; those who understand that something is missing and that they can heal themselves if they choose to do so. All they really have to do is learn to READ and understand the English language...

Dash42
I could never understand how these Liberals can be so gullible as to not notice the TOTAL ABSENCE in MSM of anything a Conservative would consider good news.
Common sense should tell them that is impossible and their news is being censored.
You would expect anyone of normal intelligence to notice that?

Maybe I simply have my head in the sand
Dash re: Hydrogen fuel and water as a green house gas... I am constantly amazed about how opinions are formed on both sides with respect to global warming and greenhouse gases. Yes, CO2 and H2O are indeed greenhouse gases. However, there are limits to how much will stay in the atmosphere. In the case of CO2, the atmosphere contains almost 750 gigatons of as CO2. Human consumption of fossil fuels releases a bit more than 5 gigatons per year. Photosynthesis captures approximately 110 gigatons per year from the atmosphere. Where does the rest come from? Plant respiration and the natural decay of organic matter. The oceans and atmosphere exchange approximately 110 gigatons per year as well, in each direction. So while it is prudent to monitor emmisions and conserve fossil fuels, it is not going to do to the earth what glass does to a car on a summer day. Similarly for water. I don't have the stats handy on water vapor, but remember that there is the concept of relative humidity. If we put too much H2O in the atmoshere in a hydrogen fueled economy, we will simply get more rain and snow. DOes anybody really imagine that the H2O produced if all petroleum fuels were replaced with hydrogen as fuel, that it would even begin to compare to the amount of evaporation and rainfall that occurs continuously over the earth's oceans?

Howie re: Armageddon... It may be near, but everybody throughout history has tended to regard the current crisis of their time as the worst thing ever to happen in human history andf the harbinger of doom. Later retrospection tends to diminish the magnitude of the crisis with respect to other historical crises and put them all into perspective.

SteveL re: Crying Wolf... The sad fact is that President Bush never had credibility with liberals from day 1. The Florida recount marathon simply galvanized the liberal movement into the hate Bush movement.

Uh, MyOpine?
What about the Holocaust?

Opine
Well yeah, but rational thought is utterly verbotten in the State Schools. And continues in most disciplines at higher levels as well...

The one thing the Left and their fellow travellers DO NOT WANT is an effectively educated electorate. IF the proles wake up they will see what the Left is doing and we can't have that...

And when Fox news
Pulls such dirty tricks as proclaiming Mark Foley as a DEMOCRAT for a signficant portion of the news broadcast that broke the story of his sexual advances on pages, it's hard to take them seriously.

As for not considering anything on the MSM as "good news for conservatives", that depends on how extreme you lean, I suppose. Perhaps they don't mention God and Jesus enough for you?

The media swings both ways - don't you remember SBC refusing to air the dateline memoriam special to those who had died in Iraq, saying it was trying to make a political statement, then proceeded to air the anti-kerry documentary?

Or did that one just slip by your radar?

Tell me, which is more blatant, a memorial that simply has a picture and name for every soldier killed in the war, for the entire show, or a documentary alleging running democratic candidate was a liar. So much for not taking sides.

I would go so far as to suggest for every example of your "left wing bias", there exists an example of "right wing bias". The numbers are not as skewed as you suggest.

FeedFwd
Nope. I would like to see us shift to a hydrogen-based economy, but don't see it happening any time soon...

My point is that the (non)science groups will B*&^H moan and complain about that as well. I know full well that most of the enviro-wack jobs out there are scared to death of technology and are flat earthers as well. Neo-Luddite comes to mind. They don't understand the science and are gleefully ignorant of that fact...

Super Mario
What about the Holocaust?
Where do you get the idea Christians or the Bible had anything to do with the Holocaust?
Nazi Germany was Athiest.
Hitler was an equal opportunity killer.
He did not confine his slaughter to Jews.

Stalin & Mao both outdid Hitler.
A young woman was just executed in China for distributing Bibles. Someone distributing the Qu'ran would have been executed just as quick.

Radical Islam is the only killer religion we need be concerned with AT THE PRESENT TIME.
Have you noticed that the bodies of all victims who were captured alive show signs of extensive torture?
They believe every pain they cause an Infidel will be rewarded with a pleasure in Paradise.
In Kosovo civilians would buy Christian prisoners from soldiers just to cause them pain and kill them for extra pleasures in Paradise.
IslamoNazis are not very nice.

Mario
Drink more koolaid.

As to allegations: Does Dan Rather come to mind.

"The truth of the allegations is more important than the documented fact" OK, paraphrase, but still valid. Or does this only apply when the victim of such blatant attacks is a conservative. Justice Thomas springs to mind as well.

Oh, ok so now we're talking about
"AT THE PRESENT TIME". You didn't ask present time, you asked: "When was the last time the Bible was use to justify torture and mass murder?"

Hitler refered to Christianity and God on numerous occasions, as did many of his underlings. He wrote about it in Mein Kampf and spoke about it in speeches. He even quoted the bible on occasion. A couple of quotes from his speeches.

"It matters not whether these weapons of ours are humane: if they gain us our freedom, they are justified before our conscience and before our God."

-Adolf Hitler, in Munich, 01 Aug. 1923



"The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc, because it recognized the Jews for what they were".... I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the church and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions."

-Adolf Hitler, 26 April 1933, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]


There are countless more. Hitler is a perfect example of someone using Christianity as justification for Mass Murder.

I do agree, however, that IslamoNazis are not very nice. I do not think it is that simple, though, to lump them all together with moderate islam. The Quaran has violent rhetoric in it, but so does the bible. The great divider is how the holy book is INTERPRETED by a group of people. The book itself is not the problem.



Dash: "Drink more Koolaid"
Thanks for engaging in any sort of debate. My comment stands, bias exists on both ends of the spectrum.

Here's an example: Remember when everyone was alleging that Al Gore claimed to invent the internet? It was all over the media. Well, it turns out thats not what he had claimed at all. He said he took the initiative to work on legislature that would allow the internet to exist, which has been confirmed by those who actually DID create the internet.

All the media stations portray was crazy Al Gore making up things. They made the man into a joke.

Like I said - Both ways.

Super Mario
Sorry to see my first opinion of you is correct.
Can you post a link of Fox calling Fole a Democrat?
Was there a correction or dis they insist Fole was a Democrat?
If Fole was a Democrat he would not have had to resign because it is perfectly normal for Democrats to be scoundrels & child molesters.

NEVER MIND;
That is enough of your sensless off topic argument for the sake of argument.

Here's a video of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9mNmZ9JpG8

The didn't retract it, either.

*They didn't retract it, either.
They did it 3 times, in 3 different cutaways.

Cute jab about the dems being child molesters, btw.

Mario, While you are not busy;
Would you please describe the scope of this war, how you think it started, how we got into it and what it will take to end it?

Liberals make comments about this war that lead me to believe they don't know anything about it!



1 Fox news error destroys their credibility?
I gave you TEN YEARS of MSM errors and you still give credibility to MSM?

Iraq didn't have WMD, Oh really?
Let me ask all those idiots who insist that Saddam Hussain didn't have WMD a simple question:

If you were drug dealer and you had a huge stash of Cocain and Heroin in your home and your home was sudenly surounded by cops but they telegraphed their intention of raiding your house but would only keep it surounded for a couple of months, would you still have the drugs in your house by the time the cops raided your house?

Of course not.

And Saddam knew that he couldn't use his WMD on our troops because he knew thy were well protected for such a senerio, and it would only lend credibility to the invasion, and that is something which Saddam did not want to do. So Saddam was left with only one option and that was to either destroy the weapons once it became clear that there was going to be an invasion or spirit them out to Syria, which a former Iraqi air force general insist in fact happened.

That is far from the first Fox error.
What's most telling about it is that, not only did they not issue a correction- but in future broadcasts they just erased the (D-FL) completely. No corrected (R-FL), just no party affiliation at all. That's interesting, is it not? As for you examples of "10 years of liberal biases", it's like I said before. I can find just as many examples of conservative bias.

Here's an article shows conservative skew in popular MSM programs:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200505110005

Also, here's an interesting study on networks and viewer misconceptions done by PIPA at U Maryland.

http://www.alternet.org/story/16892/

It tackles the issue of why we got into this war (or at least, why most people believe we got into this war). Particularly interesting are the numbers for Fox News viewers.

There are alot of claims as to why we got into the war, and alot of misconceptions. More or less, I believe we got into this war to fight terrorism. The problem I've found is that a majority of Americans (as the study above shows) believed that the terrorists we were fighting and the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were the same, they're not. Then they thought there were WMDs, which there weren't.

The war in Iraq is part of America's global "war on terror" against all terrorists, or at least that's the rhetoric. Iraq has ties to certain terrorist organizations, which is why we're there. Saddam refused to let inspectors in to look for WMDs, Bush got shaky intelligence that Saddam was hiding them and voila, here we are.

I think the war was wrong for many reasons-

Public opinion was used as justification when most of the public simply had their facts wrong (another bit of evidence in support of a conservative media... if there was such a pervasive liberal media bias, why wasn't the public completely against this war from the start? They would have been getting the liberal spin the whole time...)

Solid intelligence wasn't there, this wasn't a "last resort".

To me, the entire thing feels like a gut reaction to 9/11. We couldn't get the guys who did it, so we got a stand-in.

Did you want me to go on some tirade about oil or something? Most liberals don't use that tired excuse. While business obviously has something to do with all wars, and certainly many people have profited from this one, I'm going to give the administration the benefit of the doubt; The war is indeed about fighting terrorism... A noble goal, however misguided and bungled it's been thus far.

As for scope, as I said before, it's somewhat global in ideology, but is restrained right now to Iraq and parts of Afghanistan. It could easily spill over into Iran at some point in the near future.

What will it take to end it? A good question, and one that I won't pretend to have the answer to. In fact, neither does the administration. They have never outlined or defined what might constitute a victory, because I suspect they don't know themselves. How do you beat an enemy that isn't defined by an army or a location? Especially ones engaged in a civil war with eachother as well as you? That's the problem with this entire war. There was never a clear endgame, it simply wasn't thought out enough. Fighting a radical element in this fashion, city guerilla warfare, is new for us, and the very nature of radicalism is that we're not fighting a group of people we're fighting an idea. It's much harder to kill.

Remember when Rumsfeld said he'd be surprised if it lasted even 6 months? 5 years later, where have we gotten?

Lionhearted, let me ask YOU a simple
question:

If you were leading an invasion into a country that you justified by claiming the country had WMDs, and then you arrived to find out that they had none, would you admit you had made a momumental military mistake, or would you claim that they had simply gotten rid of them before you got there?

No one knows for sure if Iraq had WMDs or not, but we found no evidence of them, so either Saddam has a fantastic cleaning crew (especially considering how they did it so fast, as you claim) or there weren't any to begin with.

Super Mario
So, those kurds just all dropped dead coincidentally at the exact same moment? Or did Saddam use some sort of gas?

If he used gas, then he possessed WMD. Not too hard to reason that one out, even for a Demo-Lib.

Second, if he didn't have anything why refuse the inspectors and expel them from the country? Why not document his lack of WMD and avoid the whole invasion?

Do you really think he said "well, I have no WMDs but I won't show the US, even if they invade my nation and execute me"?


Mario
You seem confused about this war.
You keep trying to base it on anti-Bush politics and the problem is not Bush.
Carter & clinton had more to do with involving America than Bush but blame is not important at this point nor is your insane hatred of Bush.
DEMOCRATS ELECTED BUSH BY DEFAULT and I wish they would stop complaining about their own dumb mistake.

There are only three ways to end this war.
Two are very ugly and the 3rd is unlikely.

because I disagree with the war I have
"an insane hatred of Bush"?

I don't hate the guy. I disagree with alot of what he does, but I don't hate him, and I certainly don't base my opinions of his policies on his personality or character. I'd have a problem with the war if Bush was a democrat. Why do conservatives have such a hard time with that concept? If you disagree with something you must be so consumed with hatred for the person that you're not thinking straight. Why do you guys always assume the extreme? Reasonable people are allowed to disagree with the war.

Further, you assume I'm basing my view of the war based on Anti-Bush politics, when I'm simply basing it on my opinions of the war. I don't believe he's handled it well at all, and I'm staggeringly not alone on this in our country today. What you're doing here is you're trying to illegitimize my point of view by saying it's colored by some unreasonable emotion on my part when I'm very cool-headed about how I feel. Couldn't you accept that I disagree with you and deal with the points of contention, rather than trying to attack my character?

Finally, Clinton and Carter may have played a part in involving us, I never blamed Bush solely, but it was Bush who gave the go-ahead. Carter may have made the gun, Clinton may have loaded it, but it was Bush's administration that pulled the trigger. As a result, the majority of the blame will fall on him if this fails, as it should. As Commander in Chief, that's your responsibility.

You're making a couple of assumptions here. In addition to that "insane hatred of Bush comment", by invoking the names of Clinton and Carter, you seem to be assuming (as so many others on this site have said to me) that they're my idols. Everything they did was gold.

That's just not true.

Mario - Both ends
If you'd read my comments previously you would understand that I acknoledge that Fox has a pro-American bias, if any at all. Their Commentators do, and no one is suggesting otherwise.

I note that you evade my comments re: Dan Rather, the Justice Thomas hearings with the canard that ALGORE did not claim to invent the internet. Your extended explanation may be correct, but given that ALGORE is MAKING HIMSELF a joke ('Inconvienient Truth' as settled fact), I see no reason to take him seriously.

As to no evidence: I would point you to a NewsMax carried AP story that did indeed report that WMD had been found. Admittedly unusable, but so what? The chemical/biological agents HAVE BEEN FOUND AND CONTINUE TO BE. I repeat: they are DEGRADED, but again; SO WHAT?

Mr. Clinton (and his co-President) used the same line in 1998. Were they lying then?

How Many Americans Must Die
at the hands of Islmic Jihadists for the limp-wristed lefties to take this threat seriously? What will do it for you? A thousand? No, we already had three times that, and you refuse to see it as proof of anything but how horrible the victims were.

Ten thousand, then? Might that get your attention? Mmmmm...probably not, since more than that have already died internationally at the bloody hands of the Jihadists.

Twenty thousand? 50 K? 100K? A cool million?

I pray we never take another major hit in this country, but if we do, look for this to become a literal prison state, and all your lefty nightmares about government eavesdropping on suspected terrorists won't seem so bad in comparative retrospect.

I don't call the President a prophet (a prophet would have called fire down by now), but he is right that we face an enemy who sees this as the End Times. Whether or not you secularists believe it is irrelevant.

We now live in a world that closely resembles the world described in the eschatological passages of the Bible. Dozens of powers and groups have the means to bring warfare that unleashes unprecedented levels of horror. You don't have to believe or know the Bible to see that. All you have to do is take the blinders off to see grim reality. Maybe two or three millions dead will do that for you at last.

Super Mario
IT IS TOO LATE TO DISAGREE!
We are already in the war.
Who's side are you on?
This is not like Vietnam or Korea or Granada.
We can't just call it off and go home.
A retreat from Iraq would be a military disaster giving the enemy a great advantage.
Unless you are a Muslim, you do not want America to loose this war because it would result in MILLIONS of Americans being painfully executed and the remainder enslaved.
That is one way this war could end.

Or it could end by true Muslims gaining the courage to expell Radicals and cease funding them.

Or it could end by America and/or England being angered to the point where other nations have said; "Kill them all and let God sort it out!"

That has happened many times in the past and there has always been a strong nation to step in and stop the killing. Who could stop America & England?

Dash, I never said bush lied
I believe I said that intelligence was shaky and turned out to be wrong, and that it wasn't good enough evidence to go to war on.

As for evading your comments, as you can see above I wrote a lengthy post to Opine a bit ago. Since I can only post on breaks, I can only get so much in at once. Work must be done in the meantime!

Regarding your post, I'm not sure I get your point. When did I say anything to mirror Rather's statements? When did I even allude that it was ok for a conservative to be attacked but not a democrat? All that koolaid must have dyed my brain because I don't follow your train of thought. Seems like just a way to attack me as being biased against conservatives.

Also, do you have a link to that NewsMax story, by any chance?

There you go, opine.
"If you're not with us, you're against us."

If only everything was as black and white.

You can disagree with the war, and still hope that it sorts itself out, that we win the fight, that we lose as little life as possible.

You're not on the terrorist's side just because you think the administration f*cked this thing up. And people wonder why there's such a party divide in this country. It's due in no small part to politics like yours that paint every differing opinion as "the enemy".

Mario
IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO REASON WITH RADICAL MUSLIMS.
America is in a war to the death.
It is not possible to negotiate a treaty.
It is them or us.
There are only two sides to be on in this war.
Either you are on America's side or you are on the side of Radical Islam.
THESE ARE THEIR RULES, WE DID NOT MAKE THEM!
Why are Republicans so torqued at Democrats?
Democrats are helping the enemy kill our troops.

If Democrats wanted to collaborate with America's enemies and help enemy propaganda, what would they do different from what they do right now?
When a terrorist bomb kills Iraqi civilians or an IED kills some American troops, do you wonder if Democrats helped to recruit the terrorist who did it?

Opine, That's weak.
If democrats wanted to help the enemy, what could they do differently?

Perhaps fight in the streets of America? Bomb some buildings? Perhaps try to convert everyone to Islam?

Democrats helping the enemies kill our troops simply by questioning the leadership? Get real. Are you sure you guys haven't been sipping my Kool Aid?

"If you don't agree 100% with what we're doing, you're an enemy!!!" "No criticism allowed!!!"

That's textbook fascist thinking right there.

Mario
You are just arguing for the sake of argument.
Do you think that showing a divided front and lack of resolution is good for America?
It is like telling the enemy;
"Just kill a few more and wait a moment and America will fold."

Your Nation is at WAR!
That is a statement of FACT you can't deny.
It is not a matter of whether or not you LIKE it!
Prior to war is the time for dissent.
It is too late for dissent now.

Sedition & Treason are not "Free Speach" in wartime.
America is my home and I did my part to keep it free during WW2. I love America and anyone here who does not love America is free to leave. There are no bars in the door.

Anti-war demonstrators?
It is good they expose themselves so we see who the enemy is.
You can be sure their pictures are on file now.

Fascism.
Plain and simple. That garbage you're spewing might have flown in Nazi Germany, but we're in America, man.

Be it wartime or peacetime, it's not sedition to simply disagree with the administration, and it's certainly not treason.

I am off for the evening, we will have to agree to disagree for the time being. Have a good night.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.