Tartarin
If the link is not a lot of trouble, it would be appreciated.
And yes, regarding your point of fundamentalism showing itself in other churches as well. One can understand 'evangelism' as restricted to worshippers in building where the sign outside contains that word, or more broadly to the historical coloring of Christianity in America which clearly spills over into more than a few denominations.
And a big yes on fundamentalism showing its face in other places than Puritanical Republicanism, such as in some of the environmental groups or lefty movements in the sixties.
If the evil is easy to see, and if the answers are simple, there's our baby.
Blatham, bad news. Shirley might be a bit too posh for a lumberjack.
Williams, Shirley Vivien Teresa Brittain, Baroness Williams of Crosby
1930–, British politician. Daughter of political scientist and philosopher Sir George Catlin and novelist Vera Brittain, she entered Parliament in 1964 as a member of the Labour party. She served (1976–79) as education minister in the Labour government, but in 1981 she left the party and became a founder and president (1982–88) of the Social Democratic party (SDP). In Nov., 1981, she was the first SDP member to win election to Parliament; she lost her seat in 1983. Williams was created a life peer in 1993. Hobbies include opera, ballet and lumberjacking.
(made that last bit up he he)
Steve asked...
Quote:Tartarin
Do feel the current US administration is run by a fundamentalist christian - jewish cabal? If you do would you dare say so?
Let me address this too, if I may.
I've just argued against simple answers, and I don't think there is one here either. There appears to me to be a number of quite complex, though identifiable, factors in play. One is the 'evangelical' history I just discussed. Another is the rise of that voice as a power within the Republican party under Reagan's tenure, and which is much stronger even now. There is, as per links I've posted earlier, a significant relationship between the Wolfowitz/Perle/Rumsfeld crowd and the Likud people in Israel, but cabal seems the wrong word. There is also the element of Israel as the main client state of the US military and economic/oil interests in the Middle East. And we need to add to that picture the present doctrines of preemption and hegemony voiced and driven by (mainly) the three chaps above. Finally, there is the significant influence of the weapons corporations (and other business interests) in operating symbiotically with all the above.
Steve
It might work. I have a niece trying to get into the Met and I sometimes stand naked in front of a mirror wearing ballet slippers while weilding a Husquavarna chain saw.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=JUIQVMPT5AJO4CRBAEKSFFA?type=topNews&storyID=2299285
Quote:Iraq Says to Respond to Missile Order with 48 Hours
Thu February 27, 2003 10:45 AM ET
BAGHDAD, Iraq (Reuters) - Iraq will respond to a United Nations order to destroy its al-Samoud missiles within the next two days to meet a deadline set by chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, an Iraqi official said Thursday.
As I expected would happen, it seems Iraq is preparing a last-minute acceptance of the missile destruction order, likely via a multi-page, condition-laden, diatribe-spouting letter. Just the timing of such an acceptance, after a week of posturing, reveals plainly that the move is nothing more than a bid for time, and calculated to further exacerbate already divided World Opinion.
The French/Russian/German camp will laud this as a "Significant Breakthrough" and tout it as justification for further inspections, while The US will dismiss it as too little, too late. In my opinion, it will have little impact on warplans.
timber
Wrote a decent, reasoned response to you guys, Blatham and Steve, and then the phone line went dead. Thought it was my modem at first, "restarted" the pooter, lost the cut 'n' paste. Dang! Will now to looking for NPR stuff for Blatham...
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/international/middleeast/27NATI.html
"A career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan resigned this week in protest against the country's policies on Iraq...."
Shakespeare used comedic relief, and it wouldn't hurt us. Therefore,
The Saddam and George show
Ignoring the fact that George Bush declined
Saddam Hussein's challenge to a televised debate,
Tim Dowling exclusively reveals what could have
happened had they met
Tim Dowling
Tuesday February 25, 2003
The Guardian
Tony Blair, moderator: Welcome to the first
televised debate between George W Bush and Saddam
Hussein, live from United Nations headquarters in
New York. We will begin with a brief opening
statement from each of you.
Bush: First of all I would just like to welcome
my evil friend to the UN, one of the great
American institutions for the propulsion of
freedom throughout the world.
Saddam: Thank you, Great Satan. I hope that in
today's debate we may find some common ground
between the Iraqi people's commitment to peace
and human progress and America's desire to
destroy the Middle East.
Bush: Do I answer that?
Blair: No. The first question is quite simply
this: do you have any links with al-Qaida?
Bush: I do not.
Blair: The question is for President Saddam.
Saddam: As I told Mr Tony Benn clearly and
simply, if I had links with al-Qaida and I
enjoyed those links then I would not be ashamed
to tell the world, but since I am ashamed to tell
the world of this, it follows that I have no such
links.
Bush: Neither do I.
Blair: The second question is for Mr Bush. Mr
Bush, if America and Iraq were to go to war
tomorrow, who would win?
Bush: That's easy. America, right?
Saddam: Even I knew that one.
Bush: That's because the great United American
States of America are on the side of rightliness
and Americanity, against an evil Axis of Evil
made up of Iraq, North Korea and... how many are
in an axis? Three?
Blair: I think you're allowed as many as you
like.
Bush: OK, Iraq, North Korea and France.
Saddam: I will tell you frankly and directly that
Iraq is not part of any Axis of Evil.
Bush: Who am I thinking of then? Irania?
Blair: Let's move on. Saddam, are you willing to
destroy your stockpile of Samoud 2 missiles in
accordance with UN weapons inspectors' orders?
Saddam: I explain to you now that if Iraq
possessed these so-called weapons, we would never
destroy them, but since we do not have any such
weapons, we are happy to comply, even though
these non-existent weapons certainly do not
exceed the proscribed range of 150 kms. I've
tested them myself, and we don't have any.
Blair: The final question is for George Bush. Mr
President, is there any way that Saddam Hussein
can avoid war, and what steps must he now take in
order to reach a negotiated solution?
Bush: Listen to me. It's very simple. First
Saddam must compile 200% with the UN
inspectorers, and I mean activated compilation,
not passivist compilation. Second, he must disarm
fully, in keeping with UN revelation 1441 and the
next one coming, 1441B, which will require him to
disarm even more fully that. Then he must destroy
all Samoud missiles and any other weapons of mass
destruction he is found, or not found, to be
possessive of, without being asked. Finally,
there is one more task he must perform, which I
am not at liberty to revulge. And even that will
not be enough.
Blair: The translator would like to take your
answer home with him and work on it over the
weekend.
Bush: Fine, but we require nothing less than
total disarmature.
Saddam: OK.
Blair: Sorry, but I'm not sure that "disarmature"
is a word. I defer to the UN Keeper of the
Dictionary, Mr Richard Stilgoe.
Stilgoe: Yes, you can have disarmature. It means,
"the action of disarming" according to the OED.
Bush: Exactly. He must cut his own arms off.
Saddam: If it means peace, I will do it.
Bush: Too late.
Stilgoe: Did you know that Saddam Hussein is an
anagram of 'Demands a Sushi'?
Saddam: Yes, I've heard them all.
Bush: I don't eat sushi. Is there a fish option?
Blair: I'd like to remind everyone at home that
the Monica Lewinsky-Tonya Harding fight follows
after the break.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited
2003
sumac
Brilliant!.....thank you ever so much.
sumac,
Very good laugh. And I agree with Kara.....those lines are the best part.
um was it not Jeffrey Dahlmer that was convicted of selling "arms" to Iraq?
Quote:A good reason, Tres, why liberals are so insistent in our opinions is that we saw this coming and said so. And for two years we've watched as our predictions have been borne out in the administration's actions. I think we might oughta get a little respect for paying attention all this time, staying informed, exploring all the angles, and calling a spade a spade. Why do you scurry around to find new phrasings to defend Bush and war? Why is it that anyone as intelligent as you are can't see the scrim upon scrim of deceit the administration has thrown over everything it touches? You completely flummox me.
You attribute a downturn that began under Clinton to Bush, and wish to be congratulated for that questionable stance, then you refer to my support for my opinions "scurrying", and wonder why so little credence is given your position.
The funny thing is, you probably don't think you insulted me. You wer just "stating a fact" right?
sumac, Well done! So true, so true. c.i.
Sorry, Tres -- As I noted after that post, I wrote in "Tres" for "Timber." That post wasn't about you.
Another beaut. Ah, DeLay.
