Defense Minister O'Connor Nixes Honourary Doctorate

[Nocrap]

As the graduation ceremonies were taking place at the Royal Military College in Kingston, and students mourned the loss of one of their own, (the slain female soldier was a grad herself), they were also thrown into a political battle over the decision to award a respected US General; Anthony Zinni; an hounary doctorate.

According to the National Post May 18, 2006:

"The Conservative Defence Minister intervened personally to stop the Royal Military College of Canada from awarding an honorary degree tomorrow to a retired American general who has been highly critical of the Bush administration."

National Post Article

O'Connor claimed that by awarding the degree it would appear that we are taking sides. I'm sure it would have been different if Zinni had praised the Bush administration, but that's for a different thread.

My point is that while only 29% of the American people still have faith in Bush's ability to govern and only 38% believe in the US involvement in Iraq, whose side are we really taking?

According to a recent Angus-Reid Poll: "More adults in the United States are disappointed with their government’s decision to go to war in Iraq ... 62 per cent of respondents think the conflict was not worth fighting"

Link to Angus-Reid Poll

Anthony Zinni is an important voice for the American people in getting their message across. He is not a peace activist, but a respected military leader. He is not a Democrat, but actually voted for GW. And while he is not the only US General to oppose the War in Iraq, he took a stand for the American people who oppose Donald Rumsfield's handling of the operation and the misguided intelligence that has done so much damage.

Yes O'Connor instead gave the degrees to two Canadian Generals, who I'm sure would have been awarded doctorates if it was felt thet they deserved doctorates. But that is not the point.

Turning our backs on Zinni means that we have turned our backs on the majority of Americans.

One reporter stated that O'Connor only opened up a pandora's box by strong-arming the school. Normally, I never really pay attention to these things, but it inspired me to research Zinni and others. I found these comments quite revealing from a CBS story:

"The more he listened to [Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz and other administration officials talk about Iraq, the more Zinni became convinced that interventionist 'neoconservative' ideologues were plunging the nation into a war in a part of the world they didn't understand. 'The more I saw, the more I thought that this was the product of the neocons who didn't understand the region and were going to create havoc there. These were dilettantes from Washington think tanks who never had an idea that worked on the ground.'"

Hmmm...Neo-Conservatives...think tanks?

Bush will be gone soon and I rather doubt that the Republicans will get back into office, so we have to look beyond the politics to the heart of the matter.

My support goes to the 71% of Americans who hate George Bush and the 62% of Americans who are no longer willing to risk the lives of their sons and daughters for an inexcusable and unwinnable war.

[BHS]

First of all, the only poll that counts for anything is the one that is open to all Americans. Saying that asking carefully worded questions of a random sampling of the public is definitive of public sentiment is either wishful thinking or a deliberate attempt to mislead.

71% of American's don't "hate" George Bush. You're turning political disagreement into a broadly held personal sentinment to justify your own emotional response to the man.

The Armed Forces are only an option for adults. There is no conscription. The service personel who are in Iraq chose to be there. When their tours end they are re-upping and going back. The wishes of their parents have nothing to do with this. America did not send it's children off to war. Suggesting that the parents of soldiers are no longer willing to do so is a denigration to the free-willed, responsible decisions of their sons and daughters to follow through on a cause that they believe in.

It's positively ghastly that RMC prefers to hand out it's honorary doctorates to failures like Zinni when there are so many more deserving American officers that they deliberately ignore. The only quote you provide from Zinni himself proves how far off of the mark he was. By any rational assessment the war in Iraq has been the most successful military intervention in the history of the world. Saying that the "neo-cons" have never been proven on the ground is completely wrong. (Note to BD: half a million troops isn't "gutted".)

[Wilber]

Nocrap

Because you see this issue in a completely political way, you obviously believe it is OK to politicize the military. This goes completely against what has been the traditional roll of the military in a democracy. The military never indulges in politics, period. Lasting democracies have always known that politicizing the military is a form of Russian Roulette. Eventually it will destroy you.

We are not turning our backs on Americans because we don't allow our military college to get involved in political bun fights. I'm glad we have a Defense Minister who seems to understand that. It would seem that General Zinni also understands it as he did not take a public stand on political issues until after he left the military. As a private citizen he has every right to do so. The RMC does not and should know better than to put itself in a position where it could be accused of playing politics, even if that was not the intention. What if General Zinni had got up and made an acceptance speech that was highly partisan and political? Unlikely maybe, but who knows. The RMC brass would look like idiots.

It is the job of our military to defend Canada and Canada's interests, not campaign against George W. Bush or any other politician.

I suspect that very few Americans "hate" Bush. A majority may dislike him, many of them intensely but not hate. "Hate" is a word used to describe emotions that can result in such things as genocide. Don't belittle its meaning by wasting it on a mere politician.

[Nocrap]

Actually military actions have become very political. Harper himself spoke out for the war in Iraq when he was leader of the opposition and then sent a letter to the Washington Post declaring that Canadians should be standing 'shoulder to shoulder on the battlefields' with the Americans.

The NDP and Bloc opposed extending our involvement in Afghanistan and it went to a vote.

During the last US presidential campaign, the War in Iraq was front and centre.

Harper also made war political when he refused to fly the flag at halfmast for fallen soldiers and when he refused to allow the public to see flag draped coffins returning home, despite families' wish to allow Canadians to mourn their deaths and pay their final respects.

Like it or not, WAR IS POLITICAL and the voting public has a lot to say about it.

Perhaps 'hate' was too strong a word but Mr. Bush has definitely been in the hot seat lately, and his popularity is at an all time low; and mainly because of the War.

I'm sure that Military Colleges hand out doctorates to military leaders from all countries who have made a positive difference on the world stage. Mr. Zinni's credentials, experience and leadership are beyond reproach. The fact that he has offered a credible voice for the majority of Americans who oppose the war, will earn him an honoured place in history.

And let's face it; history will not be kind to either this administration or the unwinnable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. O'Connor's actions were purely political and simply reinforced his government's love affair with everything Republican. He should not have gotten involved.

[August1991]

Anthony Zinni is an important voice for the American people in getting their message across. He is not a peace activist, but a respected military leader. He is not a Democrat, but actually voted for GW....

Turning our backs on Zinni means that we have turned our backs on the majority of Americans.

Should Canadians get involved in a partisan political debate in the US? Should our own government get involved?

I am always surprised how the Canadian Left fears "Deep Integration" and any ties between Canada and the US and yet the same Left is quick to get us involved in American policy debates.

Nocrap, what would be your reaction if the US government were to take sides on a Canadian political issue?

I think O'Connor did the right thing.

[Wilber]

Nocrap

Mr O'Connor and Mr. Harper are politicians. It is their job to be political. The US or any other election is a political event. Did O'Connor make a political decision? You bet. Thats his job. Now any political fallout concerning this incident will land on the politicians, where it belongs. The military itself can never allow itself to indulge in politics. At no time do you ever see active military personnel in the US, Canada or any other established democracy involved in on going political issues or elections. The politicians make political decisions, the military make military decisions. It's a simple concept and we are all better off when they don't interfere in each others field of expertise

General Zinni's military qualifications are not the issue. His political stand concerning on going military matters is. There may be many in the present US military who agree with at least some of his opinions but they cannot and do not speak out. The RMC cannot allow itself to be sucked into that controversy. No matter how much your political bias would like the RMC to politicize itself by taking a whack at GWB and by association your own government, it is a no win situation for them and our country.

In a democracy the military can never be allowed to be part of the political process. Not only does that endanger democracy but will inevitably poison the relationship between the military and government, not to mention the people it is supposed to serve. Bad for the country, bad for the military. If a civil university wanted to give him a degree that would be a different issue.

I would be horrified if our military took a political stand on an issue, even if I agreed with their opinion whole heartedly. It is a cardinal rule in every democracy that the military never involves itself in politics, regardless of their personal opinions.

Look at any country where the military takes an active part in the political process. Most, if not all are either military dictatorships or have some other form of totalitarian government.

[Nocrap]

I don't believe that RMC chose Anthony Zinni because of political bias. I believe they chose him because of his strong military background, his ability to speak and actually justify war and past leadership in conflicts like Vietnam.

General Zinni is not totally opposed to the war though he was asked to speak to Congress before the attack on Iraq and gave solid reasons why his country should not depend on the weak intelligence concerning Weapons of Mass Destruction.

He wanted to fight Terrorism at it's base where there are cells in 60 different countries, rather than focus all of their attention and resourses on one small group at the expense of so many innocent civilians. He felt that Sadam was already taken care of and did not need to be removed.

He actually supports George Bush but fears that his administration has been hi-jacked by neo-conservatives and think tanks. He also opposes Rumsfeld's handling of the operation, as the majority of Americans do.

I live near RMC so am well aware of local opinion. Many here are calling for Harper's 'head on a platter' (words I actually heard at our local market from a group of vendors over his mishandling of Nichola Goddard's return home). She was a graduate of RMC and recent convocation ceremonies honoured her life and mourned her untimely death.

At such an emotional ceremony, those attending also had to scratch an esteem military leader, who was to receive an honourary degree, from the program because he dared to speak out against an administration that ultimately caused her death.

This was not the time or the place to push his political agenda. O'Connor only drew attention to the fact that his administration supports GW and makes us more determined to remove our soldiers from the conflict. If he had not gotten involved, most here would never even know who General Zinni was or what his views were.

[August1991]

At such an emotional ceremony, those attending also had to scratch an esteem military leader, who was to receive an honourary degree, from the program because he dared to speak out against an administration that ultimately caused her death.

There you go again, nocrap. Blaming Bush for this death is akin to blaming Churchill for the deaths of Canadian soldiers in WWII because he ordered them into battle.

The US government did not start this fight but I'll quickly add that who started it is not the issue either. Nocrap, I think you would agree that slavery is an uncivilized scourge that has largely been eradicated, often by the use of force. We are fighting a similar fight now. Western liberal values are worth defending and it is not our fault if we have to use force to defend them.

I am all in favour of attempting to understand the other person's point of view but that doesn't mean I have to tolerate rank medieval behaviour if it poses a threat.

[Nocrap]

At such an emotional ceremony, those attending also had to scratch an esteem military leader, who was to receive an honourary degree, from the program because he dared to speak out against an administration that ultimately caused her death.

There you go again, nocrap. Blaming Bush for this death is akin to blaming Churchill for the deaths of Canadian soldiers in WWII because he ordered them into battle.

The US government did not start this fight but I'll quickly add that who started it is not the issue either. Nocrap, I think you would agree that slavery is an uncivilized scourge that has largely been eradicated, often by the use of force. We are fighting a similar fight now. Western liberal values are worth defending and it is not our fault if we have to use force to defend them.

I am all in favour of attempting to understand the other person's point of view but that doesn't mean I have to tolerate rank medieval behaviour if it poses a threat.

Actually I ascribe to the Benjamin Franklin philosophy that "there is no such thing as a good war".

However, we could argue about the Wars in Iraq or Afghanistan and my view will always be that they are wrong, unwinnable and inexcusable. I support our troops but not their involvement in a civil war, where we must take sides.

This has absolutely nothing to do with defending Western values. War is big business and big business is cashing in.

However, my question with regards to American relations is whether the Canadian public should support the majority of Americans who oppose the war, or the minority who seem to feed off it. And in that vain whether O'Connor should have nixed an honourary diploma simply because the intended recipient spoke for the majority of Americans.

[Wilber]

I don't believe that RMC chose Anthony Zinni because of political bias. I believe they chose him because of his strong military background, his ability to speak and actually justify war and past leadership in conflicts like Vietnam.

I'm not suggesting they did but either way it doesn't matter. Honoring someone who so controversial at this time could give the impression that they are. Frankly, I am amazed the RMC brass would need someone to point this out to them. It's just a bad idea at this time. It they want to honour the man for his military accomplishments, at least wait until Bush and his regime have moved on to their next jobs and the situation in Iraq is more clear. Leave this kind of stuff with the politicians where it belongs.

This was not the time or the place to push his political agenda. O'Connor only drew attention to the fact that his administration supports GW and makes us more determined to remove our soldiers from the conflict. If he had not gotten involved, most here would never even know who General Zinni was or what his views were.

I'm not sure how you get O'Connor drawing attention to the fact that his administration supports GW out of this but it's plain that he doesn't believe RMC should taint itself with US politics. You don't seem to have any such reservations. It is also plain that you support anyone who doesn't support GW. Fair enough but don't preach about political agendas. If this draws more attention to Zinni and his views, why would you consider it to be a bad thing as you seem to agree with him? Or was this supposed to be some sort of stealth degree?

However, my question with regards to American relations is whether the Canadian public should support the majority of Americans who oppose the war, or the minority who seem to feed off it. And in that vain whether O'Connor should have nixed an honourary diploma simply because the intended recipient spoke for the majority of Americans.

Members of the Canadian public may support whoever if they wish. Our military may not.

However, we could argue about the Wars in Iraq or Afghanistan and my view will always be that they are wrong, unwinnable and inexcusable. I support our troops but not their involvement in a civil war, where we must take sides.

The West was attacked by a group based in and actively supported by the regime governing Afghanistan at the time of the attacks. The same group and the same regime our troops are now fighting. It is not wrong or inexcusable to go after the same people who attacked you or your allies. Aside from whatever humanitarian good we can do there, my biggest concern about Afghanistan is that it could breed another 9/11. Yes we are taking sides. We are taking our side.

[August1991]

Actually I ascribe to the Benjamin Franklin philosophy that "there is no such thing as a good war".

Franklin never said that although the phrase has been falsely attributed to him, John Adams and Winston Churchill (among others). [What is it about the Left falsely using quotes from dead white guys to support their viewpoint? There was some quote falsely attributed to Jefferson about dissent floating around a while ago.]

However, we could argue about the Wars in Iraq or Afghanistan and my view will always be that they are wrong, unwinnable and inexcusable. I support our troops but not their involvement in a civil war, where we must take sides.

I suppose you you are entitled to your opinion but seriously, are you in favour of same sex marriage? Assuming you are, do you not understand that at some point your belief in the right to same sex marriage will clash with Islamofascists' belief in the words of the Prophet? Clinton tried to avoid the use of force and it got him nowhere.

This has absolutely nothing to do with defending Western values. War is big business and big business is cashing in.

If wars are good for business, then hurricanes must be great. By your logic, Canada needs a few good hurricanes to improve the profitability of our businesses.

[What is it about the Left always looking for nefarious reasons to explain wars: "It's the oil!" "It's the oil pipeline!" "It's war profiteers!"]

[Black Dog]

BHS:

It's positively ghastly that RMC prefers to hand out it's honorary doctorates to failures like Zinni when there are so many more deserving American officers that they deliberately ignore. The only quote you provide from Zinni himself proves how far off of the mark he was. By any rational assessment the war in Iraq has been the most successful military intervention in the history of the world. Saying that the "neo-cons" have never been proven on the ground is completely wrong.

"Successful" by what standards? On the face of it, Iraq did not pose a challenge militarily, so the quick victory over the regime was no surprise whatsoever. The subsequent occupation, on the other hand, is a different story. It's many failures can be laid at the doorstep of the small cabal of "thinkers" who made promises of flowers and unicorn farts and who's deliveray was equaly insubstansial.

(BTW I have to quiestion the origin of your assertion that the RMC "deliberately ignores" deserving Americans.)

(Note to BD: half a million troops isn't "gutted".)

Numbers lie. You can't measure a military's fighting qualities based soley on the number of people it has in uniform (and in Iraq's case, even the uniform part was abit of a stretch). Iraq's military was comparable to that of Nazi Germany's in spring of 1945: no navy, no air force, and the bulk of it's forces were poorly armed, poorly trained and poorly led: a shadow of its former self. It posed to challenge and no threat.

A91

I suppose you you are entitled to your opinion but seriously, are you in favour of same sex marriage? Assuming you are, do you not understand that at some point your belief in the right to same sex marriage will clash with Islamofascists' belief in the words of the Prophet? Clinton tried to avoid the use of force and it got him nowhere.

Even if one accepts your extremely dubious premise, how exactly does overthrowing one of the most secular regimes in the region advance the cause of fighting Islamonzombiehooliganism?

[What is it about the Left always looking for nefarious reasons to explain wars: "It's the oil!" "It's the oil pipeline!" "It's war profiteers!"]

Gee, could it be that pretty much every war in history has been prosecuted for "nefarious reasons" while cloaked in high-minded rhetoric?

[Nocrap]

BHS:

It's positively ghastly that RMC prefers to hand out it's honorary doctorates to failures like Zinni when there are so many more deserving American officers that they deliberately ignore. The only quote you provide from Zinni himself proves how far off of the mark he was. By any rational assessment the war in Iraq has been the most successful military intervention in the history of the world. Saying that the "neo-cons" have never been proven on the ground is completely wrong.

"Successful" by what standards? On the face of it, Iraq did not pose a challenge militarily, so the quick victory over the regime was no surprise whatsoever. The subsequent occupation, on the other hand, is a different story. It's many failures can be laid at the doorstep of the small cabal of "thinkers" who made promises of flowers and unicorn farts and who's deliveray was equaly insubstansial.

(BTW I have to quiestion the origin of your assertion that the RMC "deliberately ignores" deserving Americans.)

(Note to BD: half a million troops isn't "gutted".)

Numbers lie. You can't measure a military's fighting qualities based soley on the number of people it has in uniform (and in Iraq's case, even the uniform part was abit of a stretch). Iraq's military was comparable to that of Nazi Germany's in spring of 1945: no navy, no air force, and the bulk of it's forces were poorly armed, poorly trained and poorly led: a shadow of its former self. It posed to challenge and no threat.

A91

I suppose you you are entitled to your opinion but seriously, are you in favour of same sex marriage? Assuming you are, do you not understand that at some point your belief in the right to same sex marriage will clash with Islamofascists' belief in the words of the Prophet? Clinton tried to avoid the use of force and it got him nowhere.

Even if one accepts your extremely dubious premise, how exactly does overthrowing one of the most secular regimes in the region advance the cause of fighting Islamonzombiehooliganism?

[What is it about the Left always looking for nefarious reasons to explain wars: "It's the oil!" "It's the oil pipeline!" "It's war profiteers!"]

Gee, could it be that pretty much every war in history has been prosecuted for "nefarious reasons" while cloaked in high-minded rhetoric?

I do in fact support same sex marriage, freedom of speech, freedom to practice religous beliefs and all that 'leftie crapola' it would seem.

But no matter how you spin it, the War in Iraq is wrong. Killing innocent civilians, including many women and children is wrong.

The War did not make America safe or even safer from Terrorists. In fact, it only fueled the anger of much of the Arab world and GW has become the poster boy for Terrorist recruitment.

If the Bush administration had acted responsibly, they would have taken the fight to the Terrorists and not to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Terrorists have no borders. They have cells in at least 60 countries, including the US and Canada. The War on Terror should have been an Intelligence operation and not a lack of intelligence invasion.

[BHS]

But no matter how you spin it, the War in Iraq is wrong.

By your simplistic formulation, no war can ever be right. Nothing is worth fighting for if it means people have to die. I wish this were so, I truly do. I'd love for the whole world to sink into a blissful, war-free delerium. Ain't gonna happen. There are things worth fight for, killing for, and dying for. There always were and there always will be, utopian wishes notwithstanding.

Killing innocent civilians, including many women and children is wrong.

No one is disagreeing with you on this, especially the American military, who take this sort of thing very seriously. That you conflate the goal of liberating Iraq with the intentional slaughter of women and children speaks more of a pathology on your part than it does on the part of the "war-mongers".

The War did not make America safe or even safer from Terrorists. In fact, it only fueled the anger of much of the Arab world and GW has become the poster boy for Terrorist recruitment.

Yeah, but not half as much as the European proto-Union dithering for years while the Muslims of Bosnia were decimated. You'll note, with no small degree of irony, that the problem in that case was the lack of American war-mongering.

If the Bush administration had acted responsibly, they would have taken the fight to the Terrorists and not to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Terrorists have no borders. They have cells in at least 60 countries, including the US and Canada. The War on Terror should have been an Intelligence operation and not a lack of intelligence invasion.

You're arguing with yourself. First you say that Bush should have taken the fight to the terrorists. But he shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan and Iraq - instead he should have gone to Afghanistan, Iraq and 58 other countries. Except he shouldn't have taken the "fight" to those places, but instead he should have gathered intelligence on terrorists. Not to be used to go in and stop them, mind you, but simply...

Say, why would you want to gather intelligence if you don't intend to use it?

[Nocrap]

But no matter how you spin it, the War in Iraq is wrong.

By your simplistic formulation, no war can ever be right. Nothing is worth fighting for if it means people have to die. I wish this were so, I truly do. I'd love for the whole world to sink into a blissful, war-free delerium. Ain't gonna happen. There are things worth fight for, killing for, and dying for. There always were and there always will be, utopian wishes notwithstanding.

Killing innocent civilians, including many women and children is wrong.

No one is disagreeing with you on this, especially the American military, who take this sort of thing very seriously. That you conflate the goal of liberating Iraq with the intentional slaughter of women and children speaks more of a pathology on your part than it does on the part of the "war-mongers".

The War did not make America safe or even safer from Terrorists. In fact, it only fueled the anger of much of the Arab world and GW has become the poster boy for Terrorist recruitment.

Yeah, but not half as much as the European proto-Union dithering for years while the Muslims of Bosnia were decimated. You'll note, with no small degree of irony, that the problem in that case was the lack of American war-mongering.

If the Bush administration had acted responsibly, they would have taken the fight to the Terrorists and not to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Terrorists have no borders. They have cells in at least 60 countries, including the US and Canada. The War on Terror should have been an Intelligence operation and not a lack of intelligence invasion.

You're arguing with yourself. First you say that Bush should have taken the fight to the terrorists. But he shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan and Iraq - instead he should have gone to Afghanistan, Iraq and 58 other countries. Except he shouldn't have taken the "fight" to those places, but instead he should have gathered intelligence on terrorists. Not to be used to go in and stop them, mind you, but simply...

Say, why would you want to gather intelligence if you don't intend to use it?

Intelligence to root out and arrest actual terrorists, not make thousands of innocent people (including Coalition soldiers) pay for the crimes of a handful of people. When I say take the fight, I don't mean start a war with 60 countries. I mean to take action through sanctions, arrests, and heaven forbid perhaps listening to the reasons why they have taken such desperate measures to get their message out.

Violence through Terrorism, or violence through War is still violence against humanity. Victims are just as dead whether they died at the hands of terrorists or soldiers. The assailants have a firm belief that what they are doing is just

The bottom line is that without expensive wars the bottom lines of corporations cashing in on military contracts is compromised. I doubt they have trouble sleeping at night when they can dream about their next Mercedes.

Someone else suggested that since people also profited from rebuilding after a hurricane than perhaps hurricanes should be banned. Now that would really be Utopia. However, hurricanes are natural distasters and what are commonly referred to as 'Acts of Gods', so unpreventable. Wars are unnatural disasters, and acts of madmen and profiteers, commonly referred to as 'The work of the devil', and completely preventable.

There is rarely honour in killing and no matter how much flowery rhetoric we use to justify war, there is simply no justification. 'Thou Shalt no Kill', means 'Thou Shalt not Kill'!

And I believe that Hill & Knowlton mouthpiece O'Connor, is still just that. A Hill & Knowlton mouthpiece, concerned more with profits and pandering to the Republicans; than acting on the wishes of the Canadian, or even the American people.

[Wilber]

There is rarely honour in killing and no matter how much flowery rhetoric we use to justify war, there is simply no justification. 'Thou Shalt no Kill', means 'Thou Shalt not Kill'!

Tell that to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But then, they aren't big on the Bible so I don't imagine they would be impressed with that approach.

[Darth Buddha]

What does European inaction in Bosnia have to do with insufficient justification and horrific collateral deaths in Iraq, BHS? What does it really have to do with nixing an honorary doctorate for purely political purposes?

Oh, I forgot who I was talking to: it has nothing to do with it. It's tought to weed through all these wholly irrelevant, irrational, and downright ill informed tirades sometimes. I keep expecting people to have points that actually impact the matter at hand.

It's clear to me that O'Conner took sides when he INTERVENED, not the other way around. After all, will he intervene if a supporter of the war is to be handed an honorary doctorate? I sincerely doubt it.

There is rarely honour in killing and no matter how much flowery rhetoric we use to justify war, there is simply no justification. 'Thou Shalt no Kill', means 'Thou Shalt not Kill'!

Tell that to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But then, they aren't big on the Bible so I don't imagine they would be impressed with that approach.

I love folks like you: people who don't know the Bible much less the Koran.

The clearer translation of that commandment is "Thou Shalt Not Murder" ... you'll note that this commandment is actually in line with the behavior the God of the Jews expected when he handed that down. You need a remedial couse... an academic one, I'd suggest.

Moreover, the Koran says that you DON'T attack unless you are attacked. If you are attacked and must defend yourself, there is ANOTER set of rules. Isn't that the policy that the U.S. followed in WWII after Pearl Harbor? Isn't that the rationale for going into Afganistan after 9/11? Too bad we didn't follow that doctrine with Iraq, but that's another debate.

If you really want some links to how average MUSLIMS interpret their holy book rather than the straw man you make of them, I'll dig them up. Yes, there is the Wahhabist movement, but they are no different than, say, the Christians in Nigeria.. who behead, disfigure, and neuter their Muslim "enemies." The Armenian Christians in Azerbaijan are no sweeties either, though it is only rarely reported on. Then too, consider the Croats and Serbs: willing to butcher other CHRISTIANS over the Catholic/Orthodox thing and far MORE willing to racially cleanse the BOSNIANS (who were a mixture of both faiths and Islam as well).

Seems you need a remedial course in 20th century history too: your fellow Christians are just as bloody minded as the Wahhabist Muslim minority. Fundamentalists are fundamentalists - a danger any time they feel "opressed" and capable of shooting abortion doctors, butchering those of other faiths, and butchering those of supposedly the same faith.

Check out Wahhabism and it's relation to our "ally" Saudi Arabia (the real source of the philosophy of jihadist terrorism). Check out the mainstream Muslim interpretation of how to react to violence against them (hey, it doesn't NEED interpretation as far as I can see, but religious funda-fanatics can come up witih some pretty half baked ideas). THEN you'll know who the enemy is, and be able to differentiate them from folks we ought to be able to get along with. Check out the bloody and sordid history of CHRISTIANITY in the 20th century while you are at it, to give you a sense of perspective.

After all, if you don't make clear who you have real issues with and those whom you really don't have any major differences with, you'll just earn the emnity of ALL Islam. That's dumb. Very dumb.

[America1]

First of all, the only poll that counts for anything is the one that is open to all Americans. Saying that asking carefully worded questions of a random sampling of the public is definitive of public sentiment is either wishful thinking or a deliberate attempt to mislead.

71% of American's don't "hate" George Bush. You're turning political disagreement into a broadly held personal sentinment to justify your own emotional response to the man.

The Armed Forces are only an option for adults. There is no conscription. The service personel who are in Iraq chose to be there. When their tours end they are re-upping and going back. The wishes of their parents have nothing to do with this. America did not send it's children off to war. Suggesting that the parents of soldiers are no longer willing to do so is a denigration to the free-willed, responsible decisions of their sons and daughters to follow through on a cause that they believe in.

It's positively ghastly that RMC prefers to hand out it's honorary doctorates to failures like Zinni when there are so many more deserving American officers that they deliberately ignore. The only quote you provide from Zinni himself proves how far off of the mark he was. By any rational assessment the war in Iraq has been the most successful military intervention in the history of the world. Saying that the "neo-cons" have never been proven on the ground is completely wrong. (Note to BD: half a million troops isn't "gutted".)

a great reply!