0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 01:53 pm
Chaplains Group Opposes Prayer Order
Guarantee on Using Jesus's Name Not Needed, It Says
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 30, 2006; A04

An association that represents more than 70 percent of the chaplains in the U.S. military, including many evangelical Christians, is opposing a demand by conservatives in Congress for a presidential order guaranteeing the right of chaplains to pray in the name of Jesus.

The rising calls for an executive order are based on "confusion and misinformation," because Christian chaplains routinely pray in the name of Jesus, in public, thousands of times a week in military chapels around the world, said the Rev. Herman Keizer Jr., chairman of the National Conference on Ministry to the Armed Forces.

"This has been portrayed as though chaplains are not allowed to pray in Jesus's name, without any distinction between what they do all the time in worship services and what they do occasionally, in ceremonial settings where attendance is mandatory," Keizer said.

Known by the initials NCMAF, Keizer's group is a private, 40-year-old association of more than 60 Christian, Jewish and Muslim denominations. It says it represents 5,430 of the 7,620 chaplains in the armed forces.

The calls for an executive order to protect the right to pray in Jesus's name have originated in large part from a rival association, the International Conference of Evangelical Chaplain Endorsers. Formed two years ago, it says it represents about 800 chaplains, exclusively from evangelical Christian churches.

The Rev. Billy Baugham, executive director of ICECE, said he was surprised by NCMAF's stand.

"It will just lead more evangelicals to leave them and join us," he said.

Prodded by complaints from ICECE, 74 members of Congress signed a letter to President Bush last fall saying that "it has come to our attention that in all branches of the military it is becoming increasingly difficult for Christian chaplains to use the name of Jesus when praying."

In December, Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-N.C.) and three other congressmen unveiled a supporting petition that has since swelled to more than 200,000 signatures. Calls for congressional hearings and an executive order have become a staple on religious radio and television broadcasts, generating protests of White House inaction by conservative Christians, who are usually strong supporters of Bush.

In a letter this month to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Keizer said NCMAF believes that an executive order is unnecessary because the military is "now effectively addressing the current religious concerns."

Keizer, a minister in the Christian Reformed Church of North America, a conservative Protestant denomination, retired in 2002 after 34 years as an Army chaplain. He said the armed services are gradually rolling out guidelines that set a path between "those who don't want any religion practiced in the military, and those who want religion practiced without any limits in the military." An executive order "would just precipitate more litigation," he said.

In a Feb. 21 instruction to commanders, the secretary of the Navy distinguished between prayers given by chaplains at "divine worship services" -- on which there are no restrictions -- and those delivered at "command functions" that people of many faiths are encouraged or required to attend.

"Absent extraordinary circumstances," any religious elements in a command ceremony "should be nonsectarian," it said. Air Force guidelines issued a few weeks earlier made essentially the same distinction, calling for "non-denominational, inclusive prayer" or a moment of silence at military ceremonies.

Keizer said NCMAF sees nothing wrong with a commander asking a chaplain to offer nonsectarian prayers at such events, as long as the chaplain can decline to participate, with no repercussions.

But Baugham said evangelical chaplains must represent the church that endorses them for military duty, and "they are not authorized to give nonsectarian prayers." He also said he does not believe that chaplains are truly free to pray as they wish in worship services.

"There are chaplains who get their knuckles rapped pretty hard, and we have documentation of this, for praying in Jesus's name in chapels," he said.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 06:59 pm
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=49633&d=10&m=8&y=2004
Quote:
US Navy Rescues 12 From Sinking Ship
Mazen Mahdi, Arab News

MANAMA, 10 August 2004 — Twelve sailors were rescued by US naval forces from a sinking ship in the northern Arabian Gulf as the vessel went down late Sunday night.

The sailors — who were not identified — were transported to the USS Seattle for treatment. According to sources, they were not seriously injured and were awaiting repatriation.

A helicopter and a speedboat were dispatched to the Indonesian-flagged cargo ship, Edha II, from the USS Seattle after the US warship received a distress call at approximately 10:30 p.m. Sunday.

According to a statement issued by the US Navy’s 5th Fleet yesterday the master of Edha II signaled for help after the ship began taking on water.

USS Seattle closed in and launched an SH-60S helicopter to locate the ship.

US sailors rescued four crewmembers by helicopter from the deck and eight more from a life raft shortly before the merchant vessel sank.

Neither the cause of Edha II’s sinking nor the nature of the cargo it was carrying is known.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 07:04 pm
http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/may/13navy.htm
Quote:
US Navy rescues 25 Indians

Suman Guha Mozumder in New York | May 13, 2005 09:38 IST


A US Navy ship on Thursday rescued 27 people, including 25 Indians, from the Northern Arabian Gulf after a fire on their vessel forced them to jump into the sea.

The US Central Command said all those rescued were in good health.

"We are not sure at this hour whether those rescued are still on board the US Navy destroyer Mustin or had already been brought ashore," Capt. Alison Salerno, a spokesperson for the US Central Command, told rediff.com over telephone from Florida.

Salerno could not say where the Panamanian flagged vessel Olympias was coming from or where it was headed.

When crewmembers from the destroyer arrived on the scene, they found the Olympias' superstructure burning and 27 people from the vessel hanging on to a life raft.

The Central Command said Mustin, which is currently conducting maritime security operations in the area, responded after receiving word of the distressed vessel from USS Carl Vinson, which is also on similar mission in the area.

Mustin sailors safely transferred 25 Indians, a Nepalese and one Sri Lankan to the destroyer's rigid-hull inflatable boats.

The cause of the fire, Salerno said, has not been immediately determined.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 07:12 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060301/pl_afp/iranusmilitaryrescue_060301163647

Quote:
US destroyer rescues stranded Iranians in Gulf Wed Mar 1, 11:36 AM ET

DUBAI (AFP) - A US destroyer has rescued six Iranian sailors who had been stranded in the Gulf for 10 days after their boat's engine failed, the US navy said in a statement.

...

The USS Gonzalez destroyer was patrolling Gulf waters as part of its mission in support of the US-led war on terror when it spotted the distressed Iranian vessel, the statement said.

The Iranian sailors explained that their boat's engine and rudder had failed on February 18, it added.

The US Navy's Fifth Fleet is based in the Gulf kingdom island of Bahrain.

"Gonzalez's boarding party gave the Iranian crew food and water as they had exhausted their supplies during the 10 days adrift," said the statement.

"Gonzalez then coordinated the mariners repatriation with other members of the coalition conducting MSO (maritime security operations) in the area and the Iranian authorities."

The United States has had no diplomatic ties with Iran since the seizure of US hostages in Tehran in 1979.

The US administration also accuses the Islamic republic of using its nuclear programme to make weapons and has asked Congress to approve 75 million dollars to campaign for regime change in the country, mostly through round-the-clock television and radio broadcasts.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 03:26 am
ican711nm wrote:
McTag,
Your signature, "The masses are driven by irrational forces," suggests a question. Are those "irrational forces" intrinsic or extrinsic?

If intrinsic, might those "irrational forces" be a function of the DNA of the masses? If so, might the elite also be driven by the same "irrational forces?"

If extrinsic, might those "irrational forces" be political forces? If so, are those irrational political forces driven by "irrational forces" intrinsic to politicians?


You could well be right. (This may be a first :wink: )

The genius of politics is, to make most of the people believe what you want them to believe. Politicians hate free media and the Web. Huge sums of money are spent in this control. Some people buy the lie.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 03:30 am
wandeljw wrote:
Condi Rice was in London during February for the Afghan Conference. Were there any protests then?


Blackburn is a textile town with a large immigrant population, mostly from the Indian sub-continent, most of those being muslims from Pakistan.
There are plenty of dissenting views.

Our home-grown suicide bombers came from Bradford, a similar town not too far away.

A headache for the police today.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 03:31 am
Hers what they don't want you to see in the American "free media". Because this is the war that isn't happening. So be a good American and get back into the production line and keep your head down.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/news_web/video/9012da68003dd20/bb/09012da68003deb7_16x9_bb.asx
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 04:25 am
McTag wrote:
"If you start looking at them as humans, how you gonna kill them?"

Iraq veterans interviews


http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1741699,00.html


That veterans' march was the one reported here.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 05:32 am
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/4863262.stm

First BBC report on Ms. Rice's visit

No panic
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 05:34 am
McTag wrote:
McTag wrote:
"If you start looking at them as humans, how you gonna kill them?"

Iraq veterans interviews


http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1741699,00.html


That veterans' march was the one reported here.
That is a very good reputable website. We have to get our news from the U.K. Laughing
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 05:37 am
And in the Indy

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article354865.ece

(Condi visit today)

and in the Guardian

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,1744069,00.html
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 05:49 am
In Iran, the nuclear research establishment (reactor? laboratories?) is supposed to be deep underground, out of the way of a bomb strike (Israel has been known to take part in this activity, hence the caution)

But it's in an earthquake zone, or near one

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1744107,00.html
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 07:43 am
Speaking of earthquakes in Iran

Quote:
Three Quakes in Iran Kill at Least 66

TEHRAN, Iran -- Three strong earthquakes and several aftershocks reduced villages to rubble in western Iran early Friday, killing at least 66 people and injuring about 1,200 others, officials said.

At least 13 tremors jolted the mountainous region throughout the night, Tehran University's Geophysics Institute said.


source
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 07:50 am
Coincidence?
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 07:55 am
Good summarization:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/29/AR2006032902057.html?nav=most_emailed_emailafriend

"Bush Wanted War

By Richard Cohen
Thursday, March 30, 2006; 12:00 AM



It is my firm belief that if, say, a few dozen people simultaneously did an Internet search for the words "Bush lied," computers all over the country would crash and the energy grid would buckle, producing a rolling blackout that would begin somewhere around Terre Haute, Ind., and end in Barnstable, Mass. So common is the statement "Bush lied" that it seems sometimes that I am the only blue-state person who does not think it is true. Then, last week, the indomitable Helen Thomas changed all that with a single question. She asked George Bush why he wanted "to go to war" from the moment he "stepped into the White House," and the president said, "You know, I didn't want war." With that, the last blue-state skeptic folded.

I would not go so far as to say that Bush wanted war from Day One in the White House, but there was plenty of evidence he had Saddam on his mind and in his sights from the very moment he got the news of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We have it from Richard Clarke, formerly the White House's chief anti-terrorism official, that within a day of the attacks Bush was inquiring if Saddam might have had a hand in them. When told no -- "But, Mr. President, al-Qaeda did this," Clarke told him -- it became instantly clear that this was not the answer Bush wanted. "'Look into Iraq, Saddam,' the president said testily," Clarke writes in his book, "Against All Enemies."

Similarly, Bob Woodward says in his book, "Plan of Attack," that not only was Bush fixated on Iraq, but by Thanksgiving of 2001, he already had told Don Rumsfeld to prepare a plan for the invasion of that country. "Let's get started on this," the president said, cautioning the defense secretary not to tell anyone. Rumsfeld said that eventually he would have to take CIA Director George Tenet into his confidence. "'Fine."' Woodward quotes Bush as saying -- "but not now."

As for myself, I was told by a European intelligence official that after flying to Washington right after the 9/11 attacks, he was stunned to discover that talk had already turned to Iraq. This was particularly true at the Pentagon, where Paul Wolfowitz was obsessed with Iraq, and that seems to have been true of the White House as well. And now we know from various British accounts that close aides to Prime Minister Tony Blair recognized early on that Bush was going to go to war -- and that Blair, his poodle at obedient heel, would follow along. More recently we learned -- again from British sources -- that even though Bush went back to the United Nations for yet another resolution condemning Iraq, he was determined to make war almost no matter what.

None of this necessarily means that Bush doctored U.S. intelligence to make a purposely false case that Iraq was seething with weapons of mass destruction. There is plenty of evidence that others in the administration -- Dick Cheney, in particular -- exaggerated such that their pants must have caught fire, but nothing so far proved that Bush knew he was making a false case. Indeed, foreign intelligence sources were in agreement with Bush on Iraq's WMD and so were Clinton administration officials who had seen some of the same intelligence. Even within the Bush administration, critics of the war -- and there were some -- were just as convinced that Saddam had WMD. Colin Powell, you may recall, soiled his stellar reputation with a United Nations speech that is now just plain sad to read. Almost none of it is true.

There remains, though, the little matter of what was in Bush's gut -- not his head, mind you, but that elusive place where emotion resides. It was there, in the moments after 9/11, that Bush truly decided on war, maybe because Saddam had once tried to kill George H.W. Bush, maybe because the neocons had convinced him that a brief war in Iraq would have long-term salutary consequences for the entire Middle East, maybe because he could not abide the thought that a monster like Saddam might die in his sleep -- and maybe because he heard destiny calling.

Whatever Bush's specific reason or reasons, the one thing that's so far missing from the record is proof of him looking for a genuine way out of war instead of looking for a way to get it started. Bush wanted war. He just didn't want the war he got."
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 08:01 am
McGentrix wrote:
Coincidence?


Do you suggest otherwise? Odd remark for a self-professed Buddhist, neh?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 08:09 am
Summac, I read that article the other day but figured it would get dismissed just like, Clark, O'Neil, and Woodwards. Nevertheless, it is one more nail. Bush probably will never get nailed even if by some miracle democrats win the house, but at least it's there for historians. I just keep thinking to myself that everything ends; even Bush.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 08:11 am
This was absolutely hilarious:

Mr. Cohen wrote:
It is my firm belief that if, say, a few dozen people simultaneously did an Internet search for the words "Bush lied," computers all over the country would crash and the energy grid would buckle, producing a rolling blackout that would begin somewhere around Terre Haute, Ind., and end in Barnstable, Mass.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 08:12 am
There will be many organizations and entities that will be damned lucky if they survive until Bush ends.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 08:17 am
Setanta wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Coincidence?


Do you suggest otherwise? Odd remark for a self-professed Buddhist, neh?


Just a passing jab at the conspiracy theorists.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/23/2025 at 12:15:07