Thursday, February 23, 2006

Iraqi Civil War?

A quick observation about the Mosque attack in Samarra, Iraq. So, the Sunni insurgents get this radical idea to go blow up one of Shiite Islam’s most holy shrines. The result: Shiite’s go on a rampage killing scores of Sunnis. The backlash: Sunni Muslims pull out of the fragile Iraqi government leaving the country on the verge of civil war.

This is very, very bad for stability in the region. Sunni government support is seen as essential when it comes to curbing insurgent violence over the long term. Now that that support is gone, it gives insurgents a fresh victory. The insurgency (Al Qaeda) feels that if they were not able to stop the elections (something which they tried and failed to accomplish), then causing the government to fail is the next best victory.

If it comes to Civil War in Iraq, we can probably expect the following to occur:

  • Total loss of credibility and trust for America and the Bush Administration.
  • Justification for Iran’s Ahmadinejad to defend fellow Shiites in Iraq and cement his role in bringing about the return of the Hidden Imam through world instability.
  • Al Qaeda will claim a convincing victory and enjoy free reign amid the chaos.

There are many other possible scenarios, but these three are the most likely immediate events that would occur should civil society break down in Iraq.

From a spiritual perspective, I have mixed emotions on what will actually happen. If there is a civil war, it might actually give Muslims a chance to stand up against their common enemies (terrorists) and establish freedom based on their own will and efforts. Yes, America will look bad – but as I have said before, we’ve been warned of these times.

Eventually, America will stumble because of the iniquity that abounds in our culture. We have no respect for our leaders and fail to support them, and with that comes certain consequences. We have been promised that this nation will not fall unless we allow it to sink into wickedness. So while we still have much good to do in the world, like liberating Iraq, we will still have to pay the price for denying that which is good. So, as God has often done, he will use the same event to help those in need while punishing the wicked.

Sunday, February 05, 2006

Twisting Freedom Again

In a time when we are trying to preach the values of freedom to Muslim nations, inviting them into the world chorus of vibrant democracy, Europe does something monumentally stupid and offensive and then tries to defend it as responsible freedom of speech.

Give me a break.

Has the world gone mad? There was once a time when freedom of the press meant that in order to enjoy that freedom, one must exercise good judgment in what was printed. Yes, we have the right and freedom to say and do what we want – but that does not trump responsibility for our actions.

Freedom is not meant to go without responsibility. In other words, just because we can do something doesn’t necessarily mean that we should do it. There was a time when this was universally understood and respected. However, even in those days, people would occasionally cross the line of good taste and offend someone else through their right to say what they please. But in those days, the irresponsible person was often taken to task by his peers – eventually leading to an apology of some sort. This was civil liberty.

These days, with all of the attacks on personal responsibility by Satan and his angels, freedom has become a grossly perverted concept that has given rise to an “everything goes” culture that is utterly bankrupt in decency or taste. Now, one does not need to provide justification to saying what he feels. The freedom of speech is reason enough. Now, people say things because they can – regardless of whether it offers society any redeeming value at all. To question such speech is to question freedom in general.

So in Europe, where morals have been dead for a generation, no one blinks when newspapers print an image that is offensive to a billion people on the planet. Instead of doing the higher thing, and apologizing for crossing the line, the nations of Europe rally behind their perverted notion of freedom. No one has the right to tell them what to print. Responsibility be damned.

This is a tough spot for most freedom-loving people. Americans, including myself, cherish our freedoms more than any other earthly gift. So at first glance, we want to rise to the defense of the European media. But why should we defend such a poor use of freedom? The argument that we should defend their freedom to print what they please “just because” doesn’t amount to anything. The better use of freedom would be for the nations of Europe to apologize. But this won’t happen, and as a result Europe and the west will sink to new lows of journalistic freedom. Because hey, why stop at a few disrespectful images when there are so many other stimulating things to print?

And perhaps the bigger problem to consider is this: why would Muslims even want democracy at all if this is the kind of freedom it stands for? I tell you that they will reject it, and we will have pushed them deeper into a corner because of our own poor uses of liberty. And yes, it is our responsibility. We need to do more if we truly want to reach out to Muslims. We need to show them that sometimes responsibility for our actions is more important than proving a point by printing something offensive just because we can.

Europe must pay the price for its irresponsibility. Of course, I do not condone the burning of embassies as so many Muslims seem to be doing in response. That is a poor choice on their parts, and they will be held accountable as well. But Europe knows better. Europe should be teaching a high lesson. But since Satan has removed the concept of responsibility so that people can act without conscience, the battle lines between good and evil will continue to be drawn and solidified.

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

US Would Defend Israel Militarily

This is somewhat of a foregone conclusion, but it's always nice to see it restated with such gusto.

NASHVILLE, Tennessee (Reuters) - President George W. Bush vowed on Wednesday the United States would defend Israel militarily if needed against Iran and denounced Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for "menacing talk" against Israel.

In a Reuters interview aboard Air Force One en route to Nashville, Bush also said he saw a "very good chance" the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency would refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

"I am concerned about a person that, one, tries to rewrite the history of the Holocaust, and two, has made it clear that his intentions are to destroy Israel," Bush said.

"Israel is a solid ally of the United States, we will rise to Israel's defense if need be. So this kind of menacing talk is disturbing. It's not only disturbing to the United States, it's disturbing for other countries in the world as well," he added.

Asked if he meant the United States would rise to Israel's defense militarily, Bush said: "You bet, we'll defend Israel."

Ahmadinejad has prompted international condemnation for anti-Israel rhetoric in recent weeks, including saying it should be wiped off the map, and also calling into question the Holocaust.

If it were not for the United States, Israel would probably cease to exist. This is why many Arab nations have traditionally been resentful of the U.S. Our weapons, money and influence serve as a great deterrent to any would-be aggressor. Without that kind of support, Israel would almost certainly be overwhelmed by its Arab neighbors. The European Union is no help either. With the exception of Great Britain, Europe has never shown any real affection for Israel, and would likely (although not overtly) welcome its destruction as a stabilizing influence in the region.