Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

The politics of intelligence credibility are neither constant nor logical. If Bush was criticized for being provocative after the worrisome intelligence reports in 2005, and the intelligence briefs themselves deemed not credible, then why would he not be praised for letting the intelligence chips fall where they lay in 2007; and alternatively, why would critics suddenly believe reports in 2007, emanating from agencies they had damned in 2005?

Three names from outside the n**c** orbit: Gates, Fallon, Mullen. As someone said, sometimes it takes two admirals to put the crazies back in a box.

None of this would have happened if not for Gates replacing Rumsfeld, which would not have happened if the Dems hadn't taken control of Congress. So, here's to you Nancy.

Why would a country that produces 4 million barrels of oil per day at $90 per barrel not use its windfall profits to expand and refurbish an ailing oil industry to get in further on the obscene profit-making, rather than divert resources in the billions for the acquisition of a reactor that is not needed for power production (natural gas is still burned off at the wellhead)?

National prestige, national prestige, national prestige. And in any case, Hanson shouldn't be trying to read minds, especially of a culture he obviously knows nothing about.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at December 5, 2007 03:16 PM

National prestige? The Iranian leader's egos are already so big they're leaking ego and trouble all over the world.

They want fissionable material to nuke Israel and the U.S. , plain and simple. They need nuclear power in Iran, the same way a cat needs water skis.

Posted by Steve at December 5, 2007 03:27 PM

Why would Iran want nuclear power? For the same reason that the US encouraged and supported Iran's nuclear program in the first place: See IranAffairs.com and click the links

Posted by hass at December 5, 2007 03:43 PM

They want fissionable material to nuke Israel and the U.S. , plain and simple.

Steve, you don't really know this. Just because you've heard this ad infinitum from the same sources (you know the usual culprits) doesn't make it true. You have to consider the possibility that the sources you watch and listen to have conditioned you into believing this.

Posted by at December 5, 2007 03:45 PM

Steve may be considering the source of the President of Iran, and the mullahs who pull the strings there. They are the ones talking about removing countries "from the face of the map" and destroying the "infidels", i.e., us.

Posted by Sigfried at December 5, 2007 04:08 PM

And saying the Islamic world could survive a nuclear exchange with Israel while the small zionist entity could not.

Posted by rjschwarz at December 5, 2007 04:13 PM

Actually ,Hanson being a classicist, whose expertise includes the little matter of the
Persian ahem, encounter with the Greeks back
in the 5th century BC (Maybe you've heard of
Thermopylae, Marathon, & Platea, has a little insight into the matter.

Gates, having been one of the prime movers with
the last attempted outreach to the Iranians, back
in the 80s; has followed his instincts of giving
them the benefit of the doubt. He's been rewarded
this week with a hagiographic profile in NewsWeek. Not surprising as one of their top men,
Michael Hirsch, relishes the advise of former IRCG head turned 'diplomat' Mohsen Rezai; a major
player in the nuclear development program.Fallon, having seen nothing wrong with Chinese maneuvers while at PacCom seems to entertain similar thoughts about Iranian endeavours; despite that little incident with the British destroyer. They both seem to ignore the work of Iranian proxies like Mugniyeh and Feridoun Nezhi Nashad in attacks in Beirut and Buenos Aires; to state two ironclad examples from the recent past. After all Mugniyeh worked for Arafat's security forces, he wouldn't have had a grudge against us. Or as Wilkerson, recently put it find some excuse in our policies

Posted by narciso at December 5, 2007 08:44 PM

Actually, it was Bush who explicitly threatend Iran with nuclear attack not vice versa. It is the Iranians who are threatened with being wiped off the map, not the Israelis (who are busy wiping the Palestinians off the map)

Posted by hass at December 5, 2007 09:32 PM

Obviously there is a lot of opinions and hearsay here..

I don't know who has threatened who with nuclear attacks, but I know two tings:

1) Islam as a religion does not mix well with nuclear weapons! I believe Iran would have the Muslim worlds backing if it decided to kill off the infidels with nuclear attacks, and it wouldn't really matter if the Muslims where killed in the process, cause we would go to hell and they would go to heaven.

2) Christianity as a religion does not mix well with nuclear weapons! I believe that the mixture of religion and politics in the US is almost as dangerous as it is in the middle east.

So this is a request from Europe: Please don't kill us!!!

Posted by Torbjørn at December 6, 2007 12:22 AM

The recently discovered al Qaeda handbook, which is primarily devoted to the organization's strategy for forcing Spain from Iraq, contains a few telling quotes which shows al Qaeda's clear understanding related to the importance of President Bush's efforts in Iraq:

http://www.californiarepublic.org/CROBlog/CROblog200407.html

Made-up of 54 pages in Arabic, the document has been authenticated by western experts of the Islamic radical terror network of Saudi-born fugitive Osama bin Laden.

The document, entitled "the Iraq of Jihad (holy war): hopes and dangers," was prepared by the "information agency for the support of the Iraqi people — office of services for the Mujahedeen (holy warriors)."

It said the US plan was:

"The great troupe and cross bearing sect
will arise in Mesopotamia from a nearby river
the light will come which such a lore or
religion will hold for an enemy."

"to build an Iraqi state as conceived by the United States...and enslave Saudi Arabia politically, fight against Islamic proselytism as a salafist and jihadic movement."

"Where all is good, all well abundant
The Sun and The Moon
Its ruin approaches,
It comes from the sky,
As you sift through your exhausted fortune,
In the same state as the seventh rock."

In other words, while Bush critics have relentlessly labelled the removal of Saddam and the establishment of a Democratic government in Iraq a "distraction," the members of al Qaeda showed with crystal clarity their understanding of the President's strategy. The difference, of course, is that al Qaeda is doing everything they can to stop this strategy while the President pushes it relentlessly forward, hoping to drive a stake straight into the heart of the Jihadist movement.

"Mabus will soon die, then will come
A horrible slaughter of people and animals
At once vengeance is revealed coming from
a hundred hands"

Do you see the fascinating irony of the al Qaeda statement? Al Qaeda is in perfect agreement with President Bush regarding the dire impact that a free and democratic Iraq would have on radical Islam. At the same time, al Qaeda's strategy is exactly that of Michael Moore, Al Gore, and other hard left liberals, get coalition forces out of Iraq at all costs!

http://viewpointjournal.com/archives/2004/07/01/al-qaeda-bush-agree-on-iraq/

"Die dulci fruimini!"

Posted by Dominic Caraccilo at December 6, 2007 12:26 AM

European state intelligence agencies will advise their governments on their findings.

Here is an analytical tool:

Do the Europeans continue to support tighter sanctions?

-----

Here is more food for thought:

Does the NIE and its publicity affect the risk premium on crude oil? If so, by how much will crude prices drop? What are the consequences of such a cash flow crunch on Iran?

What if Saudi Arabia exercises whatever remaining production capacity they have?

The oil glut of the mid 1980's bankrupted the USSR. A lesser price drop could bankrupt the mullacracy of the Persian Empire.

---

Finally: When you are strong, appear weak.

Posted by MG at December 6, 2007 05:39 AM

Jed Babbin, former deputy undersecretary of defense under GHW Bush, said that one of the other members who created the NIE stated:

"It's a piece of crap"

I imagine that is what the Israelis are saying in private, given that they've pretty much dismissed it publicly.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at December 6, 2007 06:17 AM

The trashing of Bob Gates from the right seems to have begun. It was only a matter of time.

Posted by Offside at December 6, 2007 06:41 AM

"I believe that the mixture of religion and politics in the US is almost as dangerous as it is in the middle east."

What mixture of religion and politics in the US? They are still as separate as they have always been. WTF are you talking about?!!

Posted by Jim Breeding at December 6, 2007 07:14 AM

Toast_n_Tea: Wait, it's Nancy who got Gates, Fallon and Mullen where they are now? News to me...

I also like you're reasoning that "It's about national prestige, and you can't answer because you don't know about what Iran's motives REALLY are."

hass: Where did Bush explicitly threaten nuclear attack? Reread the notorious WWIII statement, for one, and you will find that it does not say what Bush's critics say it does.

"I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them (Iran) from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

In other words, a nuclear Iran could (would?) lead to World War III. Nothing about us starting WWIII next week, nothing about Iran starting it next month, nothing about us invading Iran to prevent WWIII next year. Those who say this advocates attack on Iran are WRONG. And besides, I haven't even seen anybody use this as evidence that the US is plotting a NUCLEAR attack on Iran. So you must be using a different quotation - which one?

Also, good job trying (failing) to drag the Israel-Palestine cat in. Irrelevant much?

Finally, you aren't actually saying that Ahmadinejad never threatened Israel, are you? Because he did.

Posted by Math_Mage at December 6, 2007 07:41 AM

Where did Bush threaten to nuke Iran? Long before his statement about WWIII, when he insisted that "all options are on the table".

This may be news to you, but its official. The whole US Nuclear Defense Posture was changed under Bush to endorse the first use of nuclear weapons even against non-nuclear armed states.

Sy Hersch of the New Yorker reported that the Pentagon was instructed to draw up the plans to nuke Iran

And note the following:

“During an impromptu
April 18 press conference,
President George W. Bush
was asked if his assertion
that “all options are on the table” regarding
Iran included the possibility of
a nuclear strike. Bush reiterated, “All
options are on the table. We want to
solve this issue diplomatically, and we’re
working hard to do so.” In no uncertain
words, the president of the United
States directly threatened Iran with a
preemptive nuclear strike. It is hard to
read his reply in any other way.”

FROM: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist Sept-Oct 2006

Incidentally, even planning to launch an attack on another country - with or without nuclear weapons - is a WAR CRIME. Bush has already committed a war crime just by threatening to attack Iran.

Posted by hass at December 6, 2007 08:22 AM

"Incidentally, even planning to launch an attack on another country - with or without nuclear weapons - is a WAR CRIME. Bush has already committed a war crime just by threatening to attack Iran."

Only a complete moron or a pacifist(redundant) would write something like this. Every administration of every nation has had contingency plans for invading their enemies or perceived enemies.

Posted by nobody important at December 6, 2007 08:57 AM

Incidentally, even planning to launch an attack on another country - with or without nuclear weapons - is a WAR CRIME. Bush has already committed a war crime just by threatening to attack Iran.

What a nutty fantasy.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 6, 2007 09:03 AM

Only a complete moron or a pacifist(redundant) would write something like this.

Or a muslim extremist. I could see Admadinejad writing this himself. Bin Laden has made similar claims.

Posted by Leland at December 6, 2007 09:05 AM

From Hess:

And note the following

“During an impromptu
April 18 press conference,
President George W. Bush
was asked if his assertion
that “all options are on the table” regarding
Iran included the possibility of
a nuclear strike. Bush reiterated, “All
options are on the table. We want to
solve this issue diplomatically, and we’re
working hard to do so.” In no uncertain
words, the president of the United
States directly threatened Iran with a
preemptive nuclear strike. It is hard to
read his reply in any other way.”FROM: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist Sept-Oct 2006

OK, Hess, please help me as I'm not the brightest person here. The part above in bold, regarding 'no uncertain terms' - exaclty how is this correct. Nowhere in the quote you posted did Bush say ANYTHING about using nukes. All he said was that 'everything' was on the table. Unless the definition of 'everything' has been changed to 'nuclear attack', I think the writer of the quote took a few liberties and went from factual evidence to suppositions on his/her part. Looks like you just went along for the ride.

Posted by Tom W. at December 6, 2007 09:56 AM

LOL!! Talk about being in denial. Tell me, what if Ahmadinejad had responded positively had he been asked "Is nuking the US on the table"? Would you be in such denial then too?

Posted by hass at December 6, 2007 12:25 PM

Yes, planning to launch an attack on another country is in fact a WAR CRIME

In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace (in Principle VI.a, submitted to the United Nations General Assembly) as

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

Posted by hass at December 6, 2007 12:29 PM

Tell me, what if Ahmadinejad had responded positively had he been asked "Is nuking the US on the table"?

It wouldn't surprise me in the least. As far as he's concerned, it probably would be, if he had the nukes.

Would you be in such denial then too?

I'm not "in denial."

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

That would depend on the meaning of a "war of aggression or a war in violation...etc." wouldn't it? It's not a "war of aggression" to remove the ability of an aggressor to attack you. And in fact, Iran has been functionally at war with us since 1979, even if they never formally declared it. I imagine, in your nuttiness, that you think that removing Saddam was a "war crime" as well.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 6, 2007 12:53 PM

"changed under Bush to endorse the first use of nuclear weapons even against non-nuclear armed states"

This is absolutely astounding, if true. Are you saying that Japan was nuclear-armed in 1945?

Honestly, people who know nothing of world history or world politics should really be silent on such matters while the adults are speaking.

Posted by Ed Minchau at December 6, 2007 01:05 PM

"Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war" against Iran is not "in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances" as the US has no treaties, agreements or assurances in effect with Iran.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at December 6, 2007 01:11 PM

Oh yeah, the US has NEVER had a no first use policy. Nor has the UK or France.

Russia and China do have a no first use policy, and it is worth less than the paper it may be written on.

Posted by Cecil trotter at December 6, 2007 01:15 PM

Hass is a retard. It is self-apparent.

I applaud him. To be as severely mentally handicapped and yet able to muster the minimal cognitive functionality to post on_line. That is a fine line he walks.

Good job my glasslicking, helmet-headed friend!

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 6, 2007 02:36 PM

"Where did Bush threaten to nuke Iran? Long before his statement about WWIII, when he insisted that "all options are on the table"."

I'm sorry, you fail at diplomacy. You also fail at logic. Yes, Bush is keeping the nuclear option on the table. He's not going to say "we're never going to nuke you, no matter what you do." How does this translate into a threat to nuke Iran? Bush's standard policy appears to be "keeping all options on the table" - this is a GOOD THING. If you keep force on the table, the guy you're talking to is more likely to choose an option favorable to you that doesn't involve force. It's called negotiating. You apparently don't understand the term.

"This may be news to you, but its official. The whole US Nuclear Defense Posture was changed under Bush to endorse the first use of nuclear weapons even against non-nuclear armed states."

Yeah, because we never used nukes on Japan. By the way, that link you showed? The guy you quote is completely alarmist. If you're worried about the US having a plan, I'm certainly not - I wouldn't be surprised or angry if I found out the Feds had a contingency plan for invading just about every country of international significance on the planet, and probably more than one for some countries. Plans are not threats. Get some perspective. Have you ever heard the saying "hope for the best, prepare for the worst"?

"Sy Hersch of the New Yorker reported that the Pentagon was instructed to draw up the plans to nuke Iran"

Again, a plan is not a threat. Though if all these things are secret like the Nuclear Defense Posture, I want to know who the heck is leaking all this classified info. That was a crime, once upon a time.

"And note the following:

FROM: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist Sept-Oct 2006"

Oh my god, the President said all options, including that of a nuclear strike, are on the table! Never mind that we're never going to definitively take nukes off the table, nor that he's trying to solve the situation diplomatically, he's OBVIOUSLY advocating a strike on Iran tomorrow! [/sarc]

If this is your idea of a clear threat of nuclear force, the weather on your planet must be niiiiice.

"Incidentally, even planning to launch an attack on another country - with or without nuclear weapons - is a WAR CRIME. Bush has already committed a war crime just by threatening to attack Iran."

Let's see:
1) You're going to have to put up an actual threat of an attack on Iran if you want to get that last sentence in.
2) Making contingency attack plans != planning to attack. Otherwise just about every single nation on the planet would be guilty of this particular war crime.

"Tell me, what if Ahmadinejad had responded positively had he been asked "Is nuking the US on the table"? Would you be in such denial then too?"

I'm sure Ahmadinejad has plans to nuke the US. Again, that's not the same thing as planning to nuke the US. The difference is, Ahmadinejad actually plans to nuke the US, Israel, or a European nation, or at least hold the above countries hostage to his claims with the nukes as backup, just as soon as he gets the capability to do so. Ahmadinnerjacket actually provides a textbook example of why you're wrong. I'm glad you're so willing to look at the evidence against your position...still waiting for some that argues for it.

Posted by Math_Mage at December 6, 2007 11:09 PM

Math_Mage,

Gen. Abizaid for example has said that Iran is NOT a suicidal nation, and that even if Iran has Nukes, deterrence will work.

Your singular focus on either Ahmedenijad or the so-called mad mullahs does not sufficiently examine the complex power and control structure of Iran, which is democratic, albeit not perfect. That structure is clearly the basis why many serious analysts, with no a priori motive, believe that deterrence is quite sufficient to ensure management of even a nuclear Iran. I would rather trust the opinion of Gen. Abizaid over that of John Bolton or yourself in your ill-informed speculation on the matter.

What could make things much much worse is a breakdown in Iran's control structure. That could result in exactly the dangers that you, with what appears to be your obvious agenda, see now. A result that would look much like the current state of Iraq magnified tenfold and within reach of Nukes, achieved through a foolish and ill considered march to war.

Posted by Offside at December 7, 2007 06:38 AM

Offside,
Can you point out any line from Math_Mage's writing that supports your claim that he/she considers Iran a suicidal nation interested in using nuclear weapons? Yeah, Math_Mage was singularly focused on Ahmadinejad (Math_Mage doesn't mention the mullahs, only you do) for good reason, because Ahmadinejad is the person that has voiced the threats that Math_Mage was using to counter the freaking moron named Hass.

Posted by Leland at December 7, 2007 07:48 AM

Iran is not a democracy. It is a theocracy dressed in democratic clothing. Yes, they may hold "elections", the but outcome doesn't change the power structure, Irans Supreme Council.

Gen. Abizid notwithstanding, attempting to project Western modes of thinking onto the Iranian theocrats, ex. that they're not suicidal, is nothing more than what Richard Landes calls cognitive egocentrism. In their way of thinking, taking out Israel with nukes and inflicting damage to the US with nukes is not suicidal, but rather a rational course of events if it ushers in the return of the 12th Imam and Islamic world dominance. Khomeni has spoken clearly on this.

That this wouldn't work and that they would be utterly devastated is incidental.

Posted by nobody important at December 7, 2007 08:34 AM

"Die dulci fruimini!" "I believe that might have not needed for opening-and losing-another embassy in the n**c** orbit: Gates, having seen anybody use its logic on crude prices drop? What if it does. Here is a piece of oil industry to nuke Israel while the little insight into the process, cause we would write something like this. options are busy wiping the strings there. They want to you talking about what Iran's motives REALLY are." I imagine that al Qaeda is more food for the same reason that produces 4 million barrels of a war crime just by western experts of the last few telling quotes which shows al Qaeda is a Steve may be news to state for letting the NIE stated: Listed below are the United working hard to nuke Israel and you aren't actually saying that is not be praised for power in Teheran?

Posted by Mark V. Chaney at December 7, 2007 05:15 PM

"Die dulci fruimini!" "I believe that might have not needed for opening-and losing-another embassy in the n**c** orbit: Gates, having seen anybody use its logic on crude prices drop?

[rest snipped]

Wow.

Surely you meant to write something more coherent, and grammatical, than that? Is English not your first language? Or do you need to adjust your medication?

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 7, 2007 05:57 PM

Offside, you lost me three times.

First you lost me when you said Iran was democratic. But this is true only insofar as the people in power let it be, and given that basically the same bunch of people have been in power since 1979, somehow I'm not seeing democracy painted on the walls.

Second, you lost me when you said that because Iran's government is not suicidal/MAD-immune because it goes deeper than Ahmadinejad. I was talking about what Ahmadinejad was planning to do, not what Iran was planning to do, and I was doing it in order to make a point. And given the words of Ahmadinejad himself, I believe I'm justified in saying that's the gist of what he intends to do.

Third, you lost me when you talked about a foolish and inconsidered march to war. Or rather, you didn't - I understand perfectly how a rash rush to war could be disastrous. Which is why my entire post to hass was about how we WEREN'T marching to war, let alone doing so foolishly or inconsideredly.

Posted by Math_Mage at December 7, 2007 06:38 PM

"What mixture of religion and politics in the US? They are still as separate as they have always been. WTF are you talking about?!!"

Well, have you ever heard Bush speak publicly without mentioning God? I haven't. It's probably as it's always been, a good mix.

To us on the outside it's pretty obvious that Christianity has a major influence on your legislation, judges, politics, and public opinion in general. You're the one living in a country where 35% of the population believes that the Bible is without error and to be taken literally. 120 million US citizens believe the age of the material universe is measured in a few thousand years.

Again, in my opinion (and in the opinion of Americans like Sam Harris), there isn't that much difference between the Muslim world and the US-of-A. It just so happens that Christianity isn't aggressive to the same degree as Islam (today that is).

That is how a lot of us see it from the outside at least... Let me nail it home with a quote from your dear H.W.Bush:

"I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

Posted by Torbjørn at December 10, 2007 03:00 PM

Yes, we were founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

Again, in my opinion (and in the opinion of Americans like Sam Harris), there isn't that much difference between the Muslim world and the US-of-A.

Here's where you go completely off the rails, and demonstrate that you don't understand America at all.

In this nation, we believe in separation of church and state (hint: the president "mentioning God" in a speech, or in all his speeches, is not the same as having a state religion). In Muslim countries, there is no distinction whatsoever--it's all one. As you naive Europeans will find out when you "democratically" gradually take on Sharia law, because you never assimilated your Muslim immigrants, and never offered (or required them to accept) any civic religion with which to replace their fanatical beliefs.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 10, 2007 03:10 PM

"In this nation, we believe in separation of church and state (hint: the president "mentioning God" in a speech, or in all his speeches, is not the same as having a state religion)."

In Norway we actually had a prime minister a couple of years ago who was a priest. But even he refrained from mentioning anything about God in his public speeches. In our country it's impotent to be absolutely clear that you separate your religion and your job. It's not so in your country.., Bush uses Christianity as an argument for his policy.

"In Muslim countries, there is no distinction whatsoever--it's all one."

Yes, sure, in the Muslim world it's turned up to eleven, and they don't bother hiding it.

"As you naive Europeans will find out when you "democratically" gradually take on Sharia law, because you never assimilated your Muslim immigrants,.."

Here you might actually have a point. I don't think we will actually take on Sharia, but our inability to assimilate immigrants is a bit scary.

Posted by Torbjørn at December 11, 2007 12:30 PM

In our country it's impotent to be absolutely clear that you separate your religion and your job. It's not so in your country.., Bush uses Christianity as an argument for his policy.

Really? Do you have an actual...you know...example of that...?

I'd worry about that if Huckabee got elected, but I've never seen Bush do it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 11, 2007 12:38 PM

Only a complete moron or a pacifist(redundant)

Well, in the spirit of the season, perhaps I should point out that Jesus Christ, the (ahem) Prince of Peace, is apparently a moron in your mind.

Well done - off to Hell with you.

Posted by shubber at December 11, 2007 06:17 PM

Hi Torbjørn, a fellow Norwegian here - your name did have me wondering if you were Norwegian or Danish when I glanced through the comments a while ago (and kind of pigeon-holed you as a typical leftist either way... although that's unfair considering the general level of BDS across the political spectrum in Norway).

Still it's funny how I disagree with you on your perception of the US vs. christianity and then when you start talking about integration of muslims in Norway I still disagree with you.

I don't usually correct Rand or others on the topic in relation to Norway because after all they don't live here (and for all our riches we are a tiny fairly unimportant population in a spacious country) and their sentiments are generally correct for Europe as a whole.

But when a Norwegian comes along the deal changes... ^_^

I would claim Norway is doing pretty well with most muslims and that most Norwegian muslims are doing pretty well with the rest of Norwegians as well. Compared to the US with CAIR and such nonsense I would say we're doing better but our smaller population helps a lot. There are issues in both directions but they are far weaker than in Sweden or Denmark although we probably lose out to the Finns whom I'm not aware has any problems at all (the language barrier might explain that, all that applies to tiny Iceland as well).

Luckily (like in Denmark and Sweden but they seem to have fewer of them and far more of the extreme ones) we have vocal muslims arguing against islamic fanatics either as politicians, journalists, community leaders and representatives of organizations, or as individuals (one of which is currently studying journalism in the US - I hope her attitude survives it ^_^).

In regard to your typo: the lack of mentioning God in Norwegian politics is "impotent" indeed. I'm not a christian (although I used to be) but there's no reason Kjell Magne Bondevik (the former prime minister who actually was a minister - excuse the droll humor) shouldn't have been able to talk about God in his official capacity; it's political correctness gone mad. What happened to tolerance of his religious views and opinions? Personally I wouldn't mind if some day in the not too distant future we get a (quite likely female) Pakistani-born muslim US-lovin' capitalist-libertarian prime minister representing Frem*skrittspartiet** (literally translates into "Progress Party" - eat that US Kossites!) and if we get one like that she better be tough enough to invoke God if she feels like it (BTW I'm a FrP-voter, to the non-Norwegians that's a party situated somewhere close to the GOP if transplanted into US politics - it's not a minuscule party either).

What makes the absence of talk about God by Norwegian politicians even more absurd is that:
1. Norway, unlike the US, actually has a state church (lutheran).
2. a certain percentage of elected officials must be members by law.

I'd like to see our state church disbanded for the sake of both christians and non.christians alike, if that means we get someone similar to Bush as prime minister that's even sweeter in my opinion ^_^ (boy you must absolutely hate me by now lol).

* Asterisk inserted because the site software balked at m s k - guess that's some drug?

** However it's more likely that Afshan Rafiq could eventually get the leadership position of Høyre (literally translates "Right" - it's the conservative party). That's pretty close all thing considered.

Posted by Habitat Hermit at December 13, 2007 08:26 AM

Post a comment