Iraq War – Should we Leave? Part VII
Last time I argued that leaving before the job is done, is not really anti-war, or a push for peace, but really an argument for a more difficult and costly Gulf War III at sometime in the future. Thus, while we are bringing democracy to Iraq, it is not primarily for the Iraqi that we are fighting. Our soldiers are fighting, and dying for the interest of America. They realize that letting the enemy win is never a good idea. As I believe Patton once said it never a good idea to have soldier die for the same piece of ground twice. But a defeat in Iraq would be total disaster, the cost of which would be far higher than anything we have yet seen in this war.
A lost would embolden the terrorist not only in Iraq, but through the world. Not only organized groups such as al Qaeda and Hezbollah, but every little splinter group and terrorist want-a-be would be embolden. Anti-war activists claim that Iraq is a recruiting tool for terrorism, even if true, it would be insignificant next to the number of terrorist created by a defeat of the U.S., just as the defeat of the U.S. in Vietnam was a boon to communist forces around the world.
If this was not bad enough, a defeat in Iraq would almost guarantee that Iran would get nuclear weapons. It has become clear that the rest of the world is not going to do anything, and it is highly unlikely that a weakened U.S., stinging from a defeat in Iraq, could do anything that would force Iran to stop its development of nuclear weapons, short of the use of military force. Yet, having just been pushed out of Iraq, military force would itself be extremely unlikely. Nor is there really much doubt that if Iran had nuclear weapons, they would use them. They have made their intentions to wipe out Israel clear, nor is it likely they would stop there.
The costs of failure in Iraq, are really too high to even risk. We must win, there really is no other option. If, despite the evidence now, the current surge does not work, the question should then be, what will work? Again, unless we want all learn to read Arabic and live under Sharia Law, we will have to fight and defeat the forces of terror some place. If it is not Iraq, then where will it be? The longer we put it off, the more likely it is that terrorist will gain access to WMD’s and there is no doubt they will use them. So how long will we put this off?
Of course if the consequences of leaving Iraq are really so dire, why don’t the anti-war forces see them? There are many reasons. Some are just anti-war on principle. As they seen the world, war is never the option. For others, it is as I described in a earlier post, that they do not see a war on terror, the simply see criminal acts, and what is needed is to catch and punish the criminals. However for many, if not for most, they are so blinded by their hatred for Bush they literally cannot see past it.
For them the war was not a response to acts of terrorism, it was for oil (though if we simply wanted the oil we could have just bought it from Saddam, like we are buying if from Iraq now). In fact, for many 9/11 was planned by Bush as a justification for the war. The Patriot Act was not to make it easier to stop terrorism, it was so Bush could crack down on political opponents. And of course their favorite, even thought virtually everyone, including many critics of the war in Iraq, World leaders, intelligence agencies around the world, and leading democrats believed and said repeatedly that Saddam had WMD’s, somehow Bush, who is supposed to be so dumb, could see and understand what no one else seemed to be able to figure out, that Saddam didn’t have WMDs. So while everyone else was mistaken about Saddam’s WMD’s, Bush lied about them.
In the midst of a political campaign, if the war on terror was not such a serious issue, such laxity with the truth could perhaps be forgiven as simply political rhetoric. The problem is that the campaign is long over yet charges such as “Bush lied” continues to the point that it seems the democrats have so thoroughly confused their political rhetoric with reality that they now really believe it. They are so focused on defeating Bush, that the terrorist and the threat they pose has really faded into the background to the point that it is not even taken seriously. Despite all the terrorist attacks leading up to 9/11, they see the war on terror as a creation of Bush.
For these anti-war activists, getting our troops out of Iraq is important for it would be a failure for Bush. That it would also be a major victory of the terrorist is not even considered; defeating Bush is the only thing that matters. This is why Harry Reid could declare the surge a failure before it was even fully in place. The actually events in Iraq are not what is important, defeating Bush is what is important. This is the reason that the media which for the most part shares the democrats hatred of Bush only reports the negative news out of Iraq; why they report the bombing, but not the schools, the failures but not the success. When the news is that the surge is working, the story suddenly changes to the “political failures.” Anything to portray Iraq in the worst light possible.
Thus the Democratic policies are driven more by what will hurt Bush. It is not that they want the country to suffer, it just that they hate and despise Bush so much that they believe anything that hurts Bush will be good for the country. In short, they are being irrational when it comes to the war on Terror, and it would be very dangerous to let such irrationality to govern our country.
A Review of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion Part III
August 3, 2007, Wausau, Wi — In part II of my review of Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion” I pointed out that atheists, like the educated elites, have constructed a world view based on assumptions that leads them to their conclusions. One can clearly see this in Dawkins description of the atheist’s view. Dawkins writes, “Human thoughts and emotions emerge from exceedingly complex interconnections of physical entities within the brain. An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body, and no miracles – except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don’t yet understand. If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.” (p 14)
Dawkins starts with what seems like a statement of science about human thoughts and emotions, and from there expands it into a view of atheism. Yet this statement about human thoughts and emotions is not a statement of scientific fact, but is at best a statement of atheistic belief or maybe even hope. This is because we do not know how we think and feel, and there are lots of competing views.
In the early days of computers, it was assumed by many that as computer technology grew and developed, before long we would have machines that could really think and would someday be conscious. In science fiction there are many examples of conscious machines such as Hal, the computer in 2001 A Space Odyssey, and Commander Data in Star Trek.
Yet as computer technology developed and programs grew more and more complex, the more we came to realize how little we actually understood consciousness. As a result the hold field of Artificial Intelligence has largely transformed itself away from creating conscious machines, and into simply handling complex decision making processes. While there are still those who hope to one day create a conscious machine, many have grave doubts that it will ever happen.
From this questionable belief about how we think, Dawkins goes on to defines an atheist as “somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world.” This also is not a statement of science, it is a statement of faith. Atheist often try to avoid the fact that this is a statement of faith, by claiming that this is a justified conclusion, because there is no proof that there is anything beyond the natural, and it is irrational to ask them to prove that there isn’t.
As I discuss in my book, Christianity and Secularism, there are several problems with this argument, but a key one is that the whole concept of proof is very subjective and is greatly determined by one’s world view. Notice how in his statement Dawkins insulates his view from problems. He leads in with what seems to be a statement of science to say human thoughts are explained, and thereby implies both that atheism is a scientific view, and that there is no need to seek any further explanation. He then rejects that there is any supernatural, God, soul or miracles. Finally, those things that science can’t yet explain are handled with the “hope” that we will someday figure it out.
As a result, Dawkins’ claim boils down to a claim that the atheist worldview is correct, because within the atheist world view there is no proof that there is anything else. But this is circular reasoning. This problem is not unique to atheist, it is a problem all world views must confront, and why ultimately faith and hope plays a role in all world views, even the atheist’s.
For Christianity, the idea that faith and hope are important parts of the Christian world view is both accepted and embraced. But for atheism they pose a major problem. This is because atheists so strongly identify themselves with science and much of their attacks on religion centers on attacking faith and hope, particularly faith. In fact many atheists will strongly try to insist that atheism does not depend on faith and dogmatically reject any claim that is does.
But dogmatic denials do not change the fact that the acceptance of atheism requires the acceptance of a naturalist world view that cannot itself be proven, but must be accepted on faith. You can see this even in Dawkins statement of “hope” that the issues out there that have not yet been understood, will be eventually be understood in a naturalistic way, when by the very fact that we have not yet understood them means we do not know what the explanation will be. In short, Dawkins has faith that the explanation will be a natural one.
As I point out in my books, while atheist often criticize Christians for having a faith contrary to the evidence, this is actually the case with them in areas such as their claim that the origin of universe does not require something beyond the universe, or their claim that the origin of life was a natural process. In both cases, the evidence is not only strongly against them, it has been getting worse for some time.
So a key component of atheism is faith, just as faith is a key component in all world views. As such, when the atheist like Dawkins attacks Christianity for relying faith, they are also attacking themselves.
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
Iraq War – Should we Leave? Part VI
Last time I discussed how, for many democrats, the war is already lost. For many it was a war that could never be won. Anti-War supporter and retired general William E. Odom who wrote “There is no question the insurgents and other anti-American parties will take over the government once we leave. But that will happen no matter how long we stay,” went on to explain that “Imposing a liberal constitutional order in Iraq would be to accomplish something that has never been done before. Of all the world’s political cultures, an Arab-Muslim one may be the most resistant to such a change of any in the world.” Perhaps, but the alternative is to leave the despotic rules in power, and the continue the conditions that have created the terror threat we now face.
There is a very simple but often overlooked principle in critical thinking, that anything can be defended if you only consider the evidence in favor, and anything can be rejected if you only consider the evidence against. As a general rule there are pros and cons to everything and both must be considered to make any sort of rational decision.
The anti-war activists pretty much ignore this principle, for they focus only on the problems in the Iraqi war as if these problems are in and of themselves an argument for leaving. Problem: Our soldiers are dying. Solution: Remove our soldiers. And that is pretty much as far as they go. They really do not think much beyond this. The idea that their calls for our withdrawn are playing right into their strategy and thereby encouraging the enemy to kill even more of our soldiers is never even given serious consideration.
So if we leave too early, what will happen? As mentioned above, even some anti-war activists agree that the current government would almost certainly fall. If this happens the country will descend into chaos and the number of Iraqis killed would climb (so much for their supposed concern about the Iraqis). In the chaos that followed, al Qaeda would certainly find someplace to make a base of support, and Iran and Syria would also certainly exploit the situation to expand their power and influence. It must be remember that only the first step of the terrorist plans is to “Expel the Americans from Iraq.” Then they plan to establish and Islamic rule “in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans” then “extend the jihad” and “clash with Israel.” Then after removing the “Little Satan” (Israel) they will go after the “Great Satan,” America.
As mentioned before, there are only two ways to end a war, 1) both sides must mutually agree to a truce, or 2) one side must defeat the other. As much as Democrats want to believe in negotiation, there is little chance that those who believe God has ordered them to spread Islam by blowing up those in their way will suddenly decide to ignore God negotiate a peace with the Democrats.
Again there are parallels to Vietnam. Not only were the North Vietnamese emboldened, following our defeat in Vietnam, but communist forces in general were emboldened. As a result, over the rest of the decade of the 1970s many other countries, not just in Southeast Asia, but throughout Africa and central America as well, came under the oppressive domination of communist rule, causing untold suffering of millions. Many have now have forgotten (or never learned) how bad things looked at the end of the 1970s, because of the revolutionary change brought about by Reagan and other leaders such as Margret Thatcher in England, and Pope John Paul II. ‘Morning in American’ was more than just a campaign slogan. In fact things changed so much under Reagan that Paul Johnson’s history of the twentieth century Modern Times which originally ended in 1980 with a very pessimistic outlook, had to be updated and now covers to 1990 to reflect the vast changes.
A defeat of the US in Iraq would not only embolden al Qaeda, it would embolden the forces of radical Islam worldwide. While leaving Iraq will be a defeat for the United State, it will be the loss of a country not the war. The war will go on. Many of the terrorist who went to Iraq to force our withdrawal, will then head to Afghanistan hoping to employ the same strategy there. As casualties begin to rise in Afghanistan will we begin to hear the same cries from the anti-war crowd? With terrorism embolden and with a base to train and plan, the chances of a major attack in the United States will greatly increase. However bad it is now, a loss in Iraq will only cause things to get worse, and probably much worse.
Should we withdrawal from Iraq too soon, it is certain that Iraq will fall into chaos, and become a base for further terrorist attack. So what will a future president do when the United States is attacked again, and the attack is traced back to those who took over Iraq after we left? Follow the example of the 1990s and send in a few cruise missiles? We have already seen how ineffective that strategy was. At that point our only real option will be Gulf War III. But as Gulf War II has been more difficult than Gulf War I, Gulf War III will be even more difficult. Thus those who want a withdrawal from Iraq are not pushing for peace, they are unintentionally pushing for an even more difficult and costly war in the future. It may come quickly, or it may take a few years, but it will come unless we really do finish the job this time.
A Review of Zeitgeist, The Movie Part III
July 27, 2007, Wausau, Wi — In the first two parts of my review of Part I of Zeitgeist, The Movie I showed how the movie’s faulty and at times dishonest use of the evidence is behind their false claims. Towards the end of this part, the movie turns to more standard, though none the less false, attacks on Christianity.
This section opens with an unidentified and unseen speaker ridiculing Christian beliefs about creation and a supposed attempt at defending it. Even if this unidentified speaker’s depiction is accurate, it simply does not follow logically that there is no support, or that Christian beliefs are false. Whether this part of the movie commits the fallacy of a strawman argument or the fallacy of hasty generalization, it remains fallacious.
The movie then returns to parallels once again, trying to link Jesus and Joseph. Again this reveals the problems with such parallels. The movie claims that both Jesus and Joseph had a “Miracle Birth.” That Jesus was born of a virgin certainly qualifies as a miracle, but Joseph was born to Jacob “in his old age.” Yet these are treated as if they were the same. Then there is the stretch that “‘Judas’ suggests sale” to try and make the parallel line up.
From there the movie, attempts to claim that Jesus did not exist. Again while a popular claim during the 19th and early 20th centuries it has now been pretty much refuted. Even Michael Martin, a recent supporter of this view admits that this view “is highly controversial and not widely accepted.” A huge problem is that none of the early opponents of Christianity ever made this argument. As I point out in my book, Christianity and Secularism, after reviewing what the early critics say, “what we see with many of these non-Christian sources is an acceptance of the claims of Christianity, with attempts to provide alternative explanations.”
Even the discussion of Josephus is simplified and distorted. The movie claims “it has been proven to be a forgery for hundreds of years.” The problem is that Josephus has two references to Christ; the first pretty clearly has been changed by Christians because it is too pro-Christian to have been written by a Jew. Yet the other passage refers to Jesus in a derogatory way and it would not have been written by a Christian. So it appears that while Christians did change the first passage, it was a change and not a complete insertion, and thus Josephus did make some reference to Jesus.
After another nameless faceless voice calling Christianity a “Roman story,” the movie begins to make one false claim after another about the history of Christianity. It start with the standard conspiratorial line that the council of Nicaea established the Christian doctrines as a means of social control. Again, as I describe in Christianity and Secularism “the Council of Nicaea did not create any new doctrines, but merely reaffirmed old doctrines as the official position of the church.” This is not a simply a matter of belief or conjecture. All one has to do is read the early church fathers who wrote long before the councils to see this.
From this falsehood, the movie then makes the absurd claim that “for 1600 years the Vatican maintain a political strangle hold on all of Europe.” There are many problems here. For one, at the time of the council of Nicaea, the Roman Bishops had not yet really claimed a primacy for themselves, and it would be hundreds of years before the office of Pope came to resemble what it does today. So to talk of a Vatican stranglehold this early is silly. In fact it is not until 1054 AD that you really get the Roman Catholic Church when it split with the Eastern Church. Another problem is that 1600 year after 325 AD would be 1925. But just how did “the Vatican maintain a political strangle hold on all of Europe” when you had the Reformation? Or what about the Avignon Captivity where the Kings of France so dominated the Church that the popes move had to Avignon for 70 years. The simple fact is that the movie’s history is not just simplistic, it is wrong. Things were much more complex than the movie implies.
Nor do the errors end there, for the movie begins to recite a list of crimes of the Church: the Dark Ages, the Crusades, and the Inquisition. Space here does not permit a complete discussion of these myth and distortions, which are discussed in my books. But for example, historians have long since realized that the Dark Ages never happen but this was a pejorative label and false view of history from those in the ‘enlightenment.’ This period, which is now more correctly called the Middle Ages, was actually a dynamic and complex intermingling of three forces, the failing Roman society, the invading barbarian society, and Christianity; all trying to recover civilization following the collapse of Rome. So to claim that the Christianity brought on the Dark Ages is simply historically false. Likewise with the crusades, and even the inquisition, things are not quite so simplistic as the movie implies. This is not to commit the opposite error of the movie and say that everything the church did was good. It wasn’t and great evil has been done by Christians over the centuries. But if you look at both the positives and the negatives, the church has on the whole been a strong force for good.
In summary, the movie is in the end little more that a series of falsehoods, distortions and faulty reasoning. It does not even hold up to a cursory examination much less a detailed one, and none of it claims can be supported.
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
Note: Part II of the movie deals with how 9/11 was supposedly planned and executed by the US government, while Part III deals with how the Federal Reserve Bank is part of a conspiracy for one world government. Since these parts do not deal with Christianity, I will leave it for others to handle the errors in these parts.
Part I Part II Responses I Responses II
Iraq War – Should we Leave? Part V
Last time I looked at the inconsistency involved in the anti-wars movement’s supposed concern for the Iraqi people and their opposition then later support for sanctions. But this is not the only place where they anti-war crowd has consistency problems. One thing I really find strange about the anti-war crowds calls to leave Iraq now, is that I can remember all the discussions I had with those on the left throughout the 1990s. One of the constant criticisms I heard in those discussions was that Bush’s father left Iraq “before finishing the job.” I remember it very well because even at the time it struck me as strange. While I disagreed with the decision not to go to Bagdad, for I believed that it would eventually mean a second Gulf war with even higher casualties, I at least understood why he made his decision. Still, I would ask these liberals, ok, if Bush didn’t finish the job, should Clinton go back in and finish it? What I normally go back was simply a repeat of the mantra that Bush didn’t finish the job.
This criticism of the first Bush was even voiced during the Presidential debate between Bush and Gore in 2000. During the debate Gore proclaimed “I was one of the few members of my political party to support former President Bush in the Persian Gulf War resolution.” Gore then he went on to say that “for whatever reason, it was not finished in a way that removed Saddam Hussein from power.” But criticism was not enough. Attempting to show how strong a leader he was, Gore when on to say that he wanted “to go further. I want to give robust support to the groups that are trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein.”
Yet now that this President Bush has “gone further” and actually did “finish the job” by removing Saddam so that he could pay for is crimes, many of these same people who complained that his father didn’t finish the job now complain that this President Bush did, frequently with explanations about how they knew all along how unwise it was. Even so, most do not, at least yet, go to the obvious conclusion of their reasoning, i.e. that we should have left Saddam in power. This is because they probably realize that had Saddam been left in power, by now the sanctions would have collapsed, Saddam would have put into action his plans to restart his programs for WMDs, such that we would now be facing both and Iran and Iraq working towards nuclear weapons.
Another place where anti-war activist strenuously avoid obvious conclusions is the fact that their action do encourage and embolden our enemy. Like the North Vietnamese, al Qaeda is encouraged by the anti-war movement. They see the majority of the battle as taking place in the media and are counting on the media and the anti-war movement to undermine public support for the war so that they can prevail. They, it seems, have learned the lessons of Vietnam very well, and in fact it is not at all certain that there strategy will fail. If the Democrats succeed in forcing a early withdrawal from Iraq, the al Qaeda’s strategy will have been vindicated.
When the obvious is pointed out, the Anti-war activist of course object strenuously, normally by raising the strawman that they are being called unpatriotic, or un-American. Like most logical fallacies, the main aim of such strawman arguments is to shift attention away from the real issue. The real issue is how can doing exactly what the enemy is hoping for, not be an encouragement to them? Has there ever been a time in the history of the world when one side in a war was not encouraged when the other side retreated? Anti-War supporters may object to any attempt to portray pulling our troops as “retreat” or “cut and run” but just as the anti-war activist were an encouragement to the North Vietnamese, the anti-war activist now calling for exactly what the terrors are hoping for must be an encouragement to them.
Yet that does not stop those against the war from complaining. Congressman John Murtha, objecting to a statement by Carl Rove about democrats “cutting and running” strangely defended his withdrawal plan by saying “When we went to Beirut, I, I said to President Reagan, ‘Get out.’ … We didn’t cut and run. President Reagan made the decision to change direction because he knew he couldn’t win it. Even in Somalia, President Clinton made the decision” What makes this so strange is that bin Laden has cited our actions in both Beirut and Somalia in his 1996 fatwa as reasons why he believed Al Qaeda could defeat the U.S..
Anti-War supporter and retired general William E. Odom also had a strange defense of the claim that “cutting and running” would “embolden the insurgency.” Odom wrote “There is no question the insurgents and other anti-American parties will take over the government once we leave. But that will happen no matter how long we stay.” In other words, we have already lost so we might has well quit now. This is pretty much what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently said, when he claimed “this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything.” These were strange comments, given the fact that at the time he made his comments the surge had not even reached full strength yet. It was also strange given the opinions of many of the troops, and the statement of General Petraeus a month earlier, that while there was “a long way to go” there were “improvements – major improvements.” One thing is certain. If we decide that we have lost in Iraq and leave, then not only will we have lost, but the terrorist will have won and will move on to the next battle. We will be weakened, they will be strengthened and that will not be good.
