Bizkitz

The Land of the Combat Vet and the $500 house.

2004-11-19T21:37:00.000Z

Here is something that caught my eye; Bosnian troops are to go Iraq. Two things to note; The unit will be made up of Bosniaks (in other words Muslims) and troops from Republika Srpska (Serbs), which shows things may be working out in that fine country. Secondly, it will be the first time Muslim soldiers will be deployed as part of the coalition.

Their pay should go far when they get back; it seems it's possible to buy a house in Bosnia for $500! I hadn't heard of this town (not as silly as it sounds; I cycled across Bosnia last year) so I checked the map. It is only about ten miles from the adriatic coast and Dubrovnik, which is surely one the most beautiful towns in Europe.

Balancing Acts

2004-11-14T17:39:00.000Z

It seems I have lit a fire of controversy. Or at least a match of controversy. My original post, Unbalanced Power , raised a few comments.

Brad introduced the concept of 'Manifest Destiny' saying, "This doctrine states that the nation has been called by God to promote certain values."

Commenting on Hey, Someone reads this stuff!, Mark countered that with; "The concept of manifest destiny has, in my opinion at least, been pretty much out of favor for the last 75 years." and; "[Americans] want to be left alone mostly but we also want to do the right thing."

I quoted him in Hey, Someone Thinks about this Stuff! , then Brad parried with "[T]he concept of manifest destiny is like a hidden program that is running in the background. Most people are unaware of it but it is a part of the psyche."

Now a reply from Mark;

Manifest Destiny has a fairly set meaning that was tied to a fairly specific time in history.

In any event, it had to do with the sense in the US in the 1800s that the US should take over North America and instil democracy. At the time it was first conceived, over 1/2 of what is currently the US "belonged" either to other countries (Spain mostly) or was "wild" in the sense that Native Americans possessed it. It was a philosophy of conquest.

Contra the US actions today. They are defensive in nature and we don't care to stay there. If some concept of Manifest Destiny were behind the actions in Iraq, then we'd keep Iraq. Instead, we hope to leave someday.

By saying that most Americans want to be left alone, I didn't mean it in the sense that we are isolationist (although there are isolationists here); rather, I meant it in the sense that most Americans would prefer not to get tangled up in international issues, such as war etc. We're no longer naive enough to believe that we can avoid the rest of the world's problems, but we'd like to.

In any event, we're all in it together and Americans are well aware of this.

We're not out to conquer the world, though, despite what many would have you believe."

My comment; I don't expect America to suddenly start a series of blatant wars of conquest, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. Instead, what is concerning me, and many others outside America, is an aggressive projection of American interests. Especially if national interests are seen as being somehow altruistic. I'll refer back to the PNAC's Statement of Principles where it says, "We cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership" (my emphasis). This something that Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and a host of other Republican luminaries have put their names to. I'm sure many American people don't want to get entangled with international issues, but their elected representatives seem to think it is their right and duty to interfere. When it is a country with by far the most money and the biggest military, and the country with a voracious appetite for natural resources, alarm bells start to ring.

Tony Bush

2004-11-13T11:40:00.000Z

Do you think Bush and Blair have the same swaggering coach? They both walk like East End gangsters who are on home tuff. I keep expecting to see a blacked-out Range Rover in the background, loaded with dark suited heavies packing Uzi's.

They are an odd couple, on the surface. Blair, the sophisticated urban lawyer and Bush, the cowboy booted Texan rancher. When you look at Blair's political history, you get some more surprises. Tony Blair claimed to be a Socialist, and the Labour party was far more to the left then the American Democratic party is now. Even now, Blair's voting record is decidedly liberal.

So why the closeness? It may be partly due to Blair's political intentions (whatever they may be!). He has been consistently pragmatic in his political dealings and has always steered away from ideological tendencies. Tony Blair does see himself as a bridge between America and Europe, a rift that the President does seem to want to end. It could be that Blair thinks he will have a stronger position in Europe, and be able to lever out concessions from the EU on behalf of the British people, who are dubious about further EU integration.

But the most intriguing element to their relationship is their shared religious beliefs. Supposedly they are to only two World leaders with a Bible next to their beds. Bush's belief is well known. Tony Blair's is more muted, but almost everyone believes it's there. So what is the truth? Are they simply two believers? Are their stated beliefs just cycnical attempts to win votes? Does one, or both of them, have some sort of heretical theocratic/political ideology, that is being let loose on the World? It's something that I'd like to look into some more.

West Winging It

2004-11-12T20:00:00.000Z

Just watching The West Wing. Boy, amazing dialogue. I wish I could write dialogue that. But then I suppose that if I could I wouldn't be living in a small flat in Lowestoft, I would be living in... I wonder what sort of home West Wing script writers live in?

Armistice Day

2004-11-11T22:35:00.001Z

Today is Armistice Day in the UK. It is a day where Britons remember those who died in the great war of 1914-1918. We also remember all those servicemen who died in active service since then. There is a lot to remember; there is only one year since WW2 , 1968, when a British serviceman has not died in active service.

This year's was poignant. There was a major gesture; a Dakota 'plane dropped millions of poppies on the river thames. But also we remembered those who died, and those who are dying, in the current Gulf situation.

The British people are very aware that their brave soldiers are risking their lives in a situation which is not of their choosing. We are proud of our servicemen, but are dubious as the too the morality of the action they are taking.

Americans should be aware of the sacrifices of professional soldiers like the Black Watch, and how their families view their deployment.

Fallujah

2004-11-11T19:21:00.000Z

Just watching the excellent Channel 4 news with dramatic footage of American marines in Fallujah. Whoaa... I think I can understand what those guys are going through. I've sort of been there, I was in a patrol that was fired at by a Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG). The RPG missed by such a long way we didn't at first think it was aimed at us. But this was the night when Muqtada Al Sadr incited shi'ites to rise up against the coalition. We went from a happy city, pleased to have us, to a city where the gunfire and RPG's were everywhere. I will never, ever, forget being on the back of that Land-Rover, 60 mph through the pot-holed streets of Basra whilst I somehow kept the sights of my rifle focused on the suddenly threatening roof-tops, ready to drop anybody who could take a pot shot at us.

But this is mild stuff compared to actual combat. Those guys in Fallujah will be have their nerves strung out like piano wires, they will have to control a series of emotions crowding in on them. But they will have to subjugate those emotions to carry out the job. They may allow themselves to feel excitement at doing their jobs at the time, but afterwards, perhaps for years afterwards, they will recollect the weariness, the grief and the fear.

Whatever I say about the politicians, or even the military tactics, I can have nothing but respect for the guys who do it.

Hey, someone thinks about this stuff!

2004-11-11T10:29:00.000Z

My visits to Statcounter do reveal that whilst not many folks come to this 'site (yet!), those that do stay to read it. Folks also keep coming back and many have left a comment. So it's encouraging to think that I'm stirring the debate a bit.

This from Sidespot on Hey, someone reads this stuff!;

"[T]he concept of manifest destiny has, in my opinion at least, been pretty much out of favor for the last 75 years. Yes, it was formative for a time, but it had a short run. I would say WWII put an end to it.The truth about Americans: We want to be left alone mostly but we also want to do the right thing. We can debate about whether we actually do the right thing, but generally our motives for what we do are good motives. Most Americans, though, really just want to go to work and come home and be with their family."

This would be true of anyone from any nation and I have the utmost respect for anyone who works hard to look after their family. The problem is that wealthy countries are not self sufficient. Government and business have to interact with other nations in order to meet the demands of their electorate and consumers. For government, that means a foreign policy and in a democracy it is us, the folks just trying to live our lives, who give a mandate for that foreign policy. I believe as Christians it is our duty to live with consideration for all those for whom our decisions effect, to love our neighbor's. In a wealthy democracy that's hard; our votes and our purchases effect so many people we can't see. This is what I was trying to get at in my first post on this blog.

When it comes to the 'Manifest Destiny' ideology, OK, I'm sure that combination of words is not often used. But surely you can see similarities to it with some of the statements made by president Bush and co? It makes the rest of the World deeply uneasy to see the World's only super-power gear up for an 'aggressive' foreign policy whilst it's population seem much more preoccupied with domestic issues.

Hey, someone reads this stuff!

2004-11-10T11:29:00.001Z

The last post generated a couple of very intelligent responses. This from Brad;

[I]f you want to begin to understand the American psyche you have to familiarize yourself with the concept of "manifest destiny" [my link]-- which played such an important role in the formation of our country. This doctrine states that the nation has been called by God to promote certain values -- and ongoing expansion is the only way it happens (an activism). A related theme can be seen in the English Puritans who settled here in the 16th century. They saw America as the "city on a hill" (Matt. 5:14) which would be a light to the world. There is still some of that thinking embedded in the culture. This is especially the case with the Americans who want to take God seriously.In GB you had a similar concept that drove colonization and the Commonwealth. The difference is that you've abandoned the colonization ideals but WE WERE a colony and we developed a more intense grassroots variation of the theme. It was an idea owned by the people rather than the aristocracy."

I've heard people preach on manifest destiny over here, but only as it applies to the Church. I've come to view patriotism and nationalism as highly dangerous, as I've mentioned before, especially when combined with religious sentiment. The comparison with the British Empire is a good one, but for a different reason. Whilst missionaries were highly active, and many colonialists had more vague notions of bringing God to the heathen, the real driving force behind British colonialism was to annex resources for the Empire. It was business interests that led the way. The builders of the British empire were Cecil Rhodes and the East India Company. Christianity became a means of moralising the conquests, but greed was the driving force. And it looks like the same thing is happening today. Who is representing 'God's Country' in Iraq today? Christian missionaries or Halliburton?

It's about time!

2004-11-10T11:29:00.000Z

This is probably what we should have been doing instead of invading Iraq. For the saving of life, for the suppression of cruel tyrants and, yes, for the War on Terror. Also see The Passion for the Present.

Unbalanced Power

2004-11-09T17:05:00.000Z

I've been educating myself about the various strains of thought in America. The Project for the New American Century is probably well known to folks over there, but isn't something that regularly crops up on the media radar this side of the pond. Well, it looks to me that are the people ruling your country. But it doesn't look like that's enough for them, it appears they want to rule the World. The message they give out appears a little confused. They appear to be saying America is the only nation able to act as a global force for good, but put this in their Statement of principles; "we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. " (my emphasis). So which is it? America acting in it's own interests, or in those of the World? At the PNAC they appear to think that whatever is in America's interest is the interest of the rest of the World. How on earth do they make this logical leap? History is all about competing interests. In the past imperial power has been able to maintain a kind of order in the World; the people living under the Pax Romana were arguably better off than their barbarian forbears. But the the people who fought and died in the imperial wars of conquest most certainly were not. Exactly this kind of thinking is going on Iraq; OK, we've killed a few thousand folk but the ones who survive will be a lot better off. Oh yes, another thing about successful empires; they write their own histories.

Where do American Christian voters come into this? Well, they seem to have just voted for this ideology. Accept they didn't of course, they voted against abortion and gay marriage. It's just that the party who promised to deal with these issues also has this other agenda. And would I be right in saying that many American Christian voters don't really comprehend the implications of foreign policy? Domestic issues are much more readily understood.

Here is something to think about; does a polititian have to believe in his own policy? If people want to vote for moral issues, yeah, sure, put them on the statute books. What is there to lose? If it means they can implement a more obscure agenda, so be it. It doesn't mean they are at all Godly in their principles. The Project for a New American Century doesn't mention God in it's principles at all.

The British and their Army

2004-11-08T14:43:00.000Z

If you've read the post below you may be wondering how it is so many British soldiers have been deployed to Iraq, if the war didn't have popular support. Well, one important reason is the current political situation in Britain. Basically, Blair could get away with it (but more on that at a later date.) The other reason the British public allowed the deployment without too much protest are the feelings we have for our armed forces.

The British public are proud of their military and don't mind them being deployed. In fact, I think people quite like it. After all, it is a link to our glorious past when the British navy ruled the oceans, the Royal Air Force saved the nation and the British Army was feared in battle and respected in peace-making. Now our empire has gone. We have now been whittled down to being wealthy but eccentric large nation on the periphery of Europe. But we still have the folks amongst us who put Agincourt, Trafalgar and the Battle of Britain into our history. So when our forces are deployed we British have an excuse to come over all jingoistic. The British tabloids, even those who oppose the war, have all run dramatic accounts of "our boy's" actions in Iraq. Of course this has an effect on even the lowest ranking soldier (like an over-aged infantry reservist private. Umm... That would be me then). Every "squaddie" is immensely proud of his regiment and his army, and will not find many detractors in society at large. Personal point; when I came back off for R&R and the end of my tour I was wearing my desert kit for as long as possible, yes indeedy sir. I didn't mind who knew where I had been.

Any British government can get away with a lot when it comes to deploying it's forces. I think if they didn't the British public would be slightly disappointed. Certainly the British Army would be.

My Comment

2004-11-08T09:46:00.001Z

I found this post from someone calling themselves Sidespot. My reply was too long for the comments box so I've put it here;

"Your comment 'I remain very conflicted by the use of weapons to solve problems' resonates quite strongly with me; I'm a Christian who is a reservist in the British Army and I've spent 6 months in Basra. I'm sceptical about many aspects of the 'Christian Right' movement but your blog is well thought out and makes some good points. However, I'd like to pick-up on a few points. In your third paragraph you appear to associate 9/11 with Iraq. There was never any evidence of a link. In fact many things would point away from it; Bin Laden actually offered to fight against Iraq during the first Gulf War don't forget. He would be much more likely to try and get WMD via Pakistan or former Soviet states. You point to the human suffering in Iraq before the war. Terrible though those things were if it was a matter of using coalition resources to alleviate death and suffering those resources would be much more effectively spent in Sudan, Somalia, Zimbabwe or many other places. Also the west (not just America) could look at the behaviour of it's friends. For example Saudi Arabia and Pakistan; no one really knows what is going on there. Don't forget that a lot of the atrocities committed in Iraq happened when America was giving support during the Iran war. Also, you appear to think that those who opposed the war in Iraq also opposed the war Afghanistan. For most that isn't true. For example both France and Germany have readily deployed troops in Afghanistan. And finally (sorry!) you talk about the large coalition backing the action. It's true that a few national leaders backed America but generally their people were against. I was in Spain and Italy whilst the fighting was taking place, and believe me the people WERE NOT in favor in those countries! Don't forget it's one of the main reasons Jose Ansar is not in power any more. Even in Britain the only time when the people showed anything near majority support was when the government, with most of the media going along with it, were telling untruths about WMD in Iraq.
Anyway, sorry to pick holes, I'm glad I found your blog :)"

Bush Whacked

2004-11-08T09:46:00.000Z

So, the Texan won the shoot out and swaggers back into the saloon. Well, I still have grave reservations but God appoints our leaders over us and He knows what He is doing so lets see what happens. Maybe we are on a path of an all out war of cultures, both of the politized Church versus secular humanism and the western (Christian) World versus Islam. I do have sympathy with Christian American voters concerning the first of these. The Devil is at work in the World, selling bad as good and good as bad. A dogmatic belief in truth, sin and salvation, is viewed as evil whilst un-Godly sexual relationships are seen as healthy. I deplore this thing that is happening and I am so glad that there are so many Christians in America who are prepared to fight it. But I look at some of the reactionary elements to this, the anti-intellectualism and militancy and it's troubling. And all the while nationalism looms behind everything like a dark specter.

Back Again

2004-11-06T13:38:00.000Z

I have missed my place in history. Possibly. The death of my ADSL magic box thing coincided with a whole load of work, which meant I was offline whilst the most important elections in the World were taking place. I could have changed the results I'm sure, I could have beguiled the American public with empassioned and enlightened treatise on why to vote differently. Ah, so often history swivels on the smallest thing. How could things have been different if Muhammed had said "you know, I don't fancy going to the cave today", or Archduke Franz Ferninand's driver had said "hold on, let's look at that map again before we go".

Yeah, right. Isn't it the common mindset of webloggers, especialy political webloggers, to think that thousands of folks are reading their musings? Or is it just me?

Information - How to Get it Without Being on the Internerd

2004-10-16T13:18:00.000+01:00

Due to a dysfunctional broadband box thing (it's started smoking weed and being rude to police persons) I've started coming to the library and using t'internet here. Whilst I've been here I've rediscovered the joys of books. Not that I didn't read books before, but I've realised that I've being getting most of my info-junkie fix on the net. Now I have to get lots of books to fix that (I've just got Hans Blix's book out. That should be interesting). And you know what? It's being really nice sitting down for hours on end reading. It's been a long time since I've read a book form end to end in one sitting and I really enjoyed it. And the book? "The Concise History of the United States". Naturally.

On the Christian Right

2004-10-15T13:09:00.000+01:00

6. NEW WORLD ORDER - I had a work friend who very much a believer. He went to a good evangelical Church, prayed things through in his life and was a good example to the world in his behaviour. His voting habits were dictated by belief and so they should be. However, wouldn't vote for any party that was pro-European Union because he reckoned that the antichrist would come from Europe and lead a one world goverment. He had complete certainty about this and cited several Bible verses that "proved" it. I went and had a look at these verses and I couldn't see how he could say those things with any certainty at all. In fact it was a extremely tenous interpretation. There is a lot of this sort of thing knocking around, over here but I believe more so in America. It does drive people away from supporting international bodies like the EU and the UN, organisations that DO have at there heart the goal of peace. Yes, it is a valid interpretation of the Bible that there will be one world goverment, and that an anti-Christian figure could come from it. But it would be then illogical the try and prevent something the Bibl says will happen! And whilst we resist it non-Christian elements can take push their agendas with the UN without Christians being there to stop them, and we don't use the peace forum to it's best effect,

My ADSL died.

2004-10-15T13:07:00.000+01:00

USA, USA, USA!

2004-10-14T10:29:00.001+01:00

All my readers, both of them, probable think I'm this austere serious guy who wears brown clothes and spends his evenings poring over huge tomes by Marx or Nietzsche. Or perhaps stabbing dolls of George W will needles and burning US flags. I'm not like that at all really, under other circumstances I'd be posting more interesting stuff about long distance cycle touring and life in sleepy Suffolk. And I'm not remotely anti-American at all. I have American friends and have met lots of wonderful people from the states, wonderful Christians as well. It's just that I'd hate to see all those wonderful people led down the wrong road by some guy who is misled himself. Maybe I'm wrong and Bush is doing the right things, but at the moment I can't see that so I'm chucking my two bits worth in. And it's not as if many people are reading this :)

What I definitely need to do is see America. I've never been over there. Last year I cycled around every country in Europe, so maybe I could ride through every state in continental America. That would be a challenge! I don't think I could do it soon, unless I get a sponsor, but maybe in a couple of years.

Abortion

2004-10-14T10:29:00.000+01:00

An interesting post from Chuck Currie regarding abortion. Sometimes over here it looks like Christians in America vote on just two issues; abortion and gay marriage. I totally agree about abortion, I think a Christian president should curb it. It IS the slaughter of the innocents. We should all pray that if John Kerry gets in he realizes what abortion really is. I also pray that Bush actually does what he gets voted to do. He hasn't done that so far.

I can't see gay marriage as being having the same importance. Homosexuality is a sin but gays will still live in sin however their relationship is administrated. It would be good to preserve marriage as is it intended in the Bible but its not as an important an issue as wars.

Back to Iraq

2004-10-13T13:31:00.001+01:00

It's always to here from somebody who is actually there.

Terrorists in Iraq?

2004-10-13T13:31:00.000+01:00

I've noticed a few people are banging on about how before the war terrorists were living in Iraq. Ummm... by that logic that should have invadedGermany, Britain and ,er.... Florida. If Bush invaded Florida would he then impose democracy there?

I wonder how many of those terrorists living in Iraq have been put into custody? Invading countries and using extreme military force to catch terrorists is like trying to kill a smarm of bees with a pistol. It ain't gonna work, bud.

Saddam = Hitler?

2004-10-13T09:53:00.000+01:00

It would be foolish not see a few similarities between Saddam and Hitler. Both the Ba'ath party and the Nazi party were a nationalist movement that had intention to reclaim fomer lands (Kuwait and the pre-WW1 German empire. Both Hitler and Saddam had a desire to get the best possible militaries they could afford. They both engineered a populist personality cult. So surely we needed to do something about Iraq! Well, we had already done so. In 1991 with the first Gulf war and then with sanctions and weapons inspections. In 1939 Hitler was allowed to go unchecked when he annexed the Sudentenland. If there had existed the military might to re-take that area, strip Hitler of his weapons and impose sanctions the Nazis would have been checked. We did check Saddam, he was contained, the UN route had worked. The Duelfer report proves that.

On the Christian right - Part 4

2004-10-12T09:43:00.000+01:00

Part 4. WAR – World War 2 exacted a terrible price on America. Around 300,000 Americans died and each loss was a terrible tragedy. But awful though those deaths were, it was far, far less than those in Europe. 360,000 Britons died but that was also tiny compared to what happened elsewhere. It’s difficult to comprehend the figures, 6.3 million Germans died, 1.5 million Yugoslavs and 20-25 million Russians. Poland lost 20% of its entire population. Even little Hungary lost almost as many civilians as America did military personnel.

Even during the period of the World Wars America had peace at home. Though the country was at war, no military action took place on mainland US soil. Americans didn’t have to live under the fear of bombing, or of having foreign troops fighting in their streets. America had kept its borders whilst many people in Europe were to find themselves living the wrong side of a new border, or as refugees. Americans could rightly look upon themselves as liberators. The American intervention certainly tipped the balance in Western Europe and the Americans were welcomed as hero’s. When the iron curtain came down across Europe, Europeans looked to American for protection and got it, not least because the US felt the USSR was a threat to itself as well. The cold war meant a build up of American might to counter the threat from the USSR. Part of that threat was the communist block taking over the World a piece at a time. So America resisted them; fighting Wars in Korea and Vietnam, supporting Israel over the Egyptians, manipulating conflicts in Central America and helping the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. But still America had never had a major attack on its own soil. Then the communist economies collapsed. America had still had its all powerful military machine, but everything seemed all right with the World. Europe especially breathed a huge sigh of relief; at last, no more war.

People groups do have collective memories. Facts and figures and horrific images do have an affect but it’s not the same as being there, or your grandfather having been there. As you can imagine, Europeans are hugely resistant to war. Wars are seen to be fought after a series of antagonistic national interests get out of control; the “build up to war”. This is more true on the Continent than it is in Britain but the reason we support multi-nation bodies like the European Union and the UN is to prevent war, or at least police rogue states that insist on causing it without provocation. As Harold MacMillan and Winston Churchill put it, “To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war. ”. We also came to realise that despotic leaders and rogue ideologies could spring up anywhere, no nation was immune. Any nation taking unilateral action without consensus could be “leaned on” by the UN, especially by the most powerful countries within it.

I think in America perceptions of war are different. The American intervention in World War 2 is seen as a morally unambiguous campaign of good verses evil. The checking of the Soviets global intentions was seen as the same. The victory in both situations is seen as a vindication of that. The idea of the America being World policeman actually fitted in quite well with bodies like the EU and UN; after all, America’s powerful military was eminently suitable for the job. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia, America was expected to do something about it, and did so. In Somalia and Kosovo America was asked again to provide assistance. The die was set; America and its military machine was a force for good. Not unexpectedly it was much more keen to be a force for good when its own interests were at stake. Usually that meant anything to do with oil.

Fast forward to September 11th 2001. Everybody in the western World was horrified, and most were elsewhere. I don’t think everybody really understood what it meant to America. We had experienced death and destruction like that on our soil during the war. American hadn’t anything like that in its entire history. President George W. Bush announced a “war on terror” and World leaders nodded their agreement. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were acknowledged to be the culprits and plans were laid to occupy Afghanistan and close their bases there. Then Bush did something odd. He announced an “axis of evil”, three states that he appeared to accuse of intent to assist such a crimes. What was he going to do then? Bomb and invade entire nations because they MAY assist some people who MAY be in contact with them? Oh yes, and one of those countries is Iraq, which just so happens to have lots of lovely oil. The rest of the World smelt a rat, it looked like some of that old war producing national self-interest. Prove it there are WMD, said the UN. So the inspectors went back in (notice that they would only prove half the accusation if they found anything). They didn’t find anything. They asked for more time. We don’t have more time, says Bush, we have to move now. Colin Powell brings “evidence” to the UN that Iraq categorically has weapons that can harm America. Many members of the security council object, then France dig their heels in and veto a further resolution. And why shouldn’t they? The whole idea of the UN Security Council is to ensure that there is more jaw-jaw and a balancing of interests amongst nations without recourse to war. Bush, and Blair, went to war with the express disapproval of much of the World. Iraq is invaded, no WMD are found and no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq is found. A thousand American lives are lost, a hundred British and thousands of Iraqi’s. Osma Bin Laden has not been captured and the terrorists are still operating, now with even more hatred of the west. Mission not accomplished. Not even assisted.
Despite all this death and dishonesty millions of American Christians will vote for George W Bush on November 2. Why? Because he has wrapped national interest with religion and stated that, like before, the American military is on a mission of good verses evil. The president is God appointed, he can do no wrong. There appears to be no concept of a rogue ideology, no concept of the need for international checks and balances. He is only responsible to the people he propagandises. Also I think Americans Christians don’t realise how much an evil war is, so they didn’t realise this time it wasn’t the lesser of two. It wasn’t like WW2. It wasn’t the last resort.

Coming up

2004-10-11T20:43:00.000+01:00

To prove I live in the real World, I haven't had time to put all of the next 'On the Christian Right' together because of work. But it will be up shortly. The next one; Part 4. WAR...

An American Anomaly

2004-10-10T13:31:00.000+01:00

'USA: Divided by a common faith" on Religionnewsblog

"I have not found anything comparable to the Religious Right anywhere else on the planet. It is an American anomaly."

"What is new is that evangelicals in the United States are increasingly divided by a common faith from evangelicals almost everywhere else."

"Most evangelical leaders in Britain, Australia, and New Zealand—in contrast to their American cousins—were opposed to the war. "

On the Christian right - Part 3

2004-10-10T09:43:00.000+01:00

3.NATIONALISM – I’ve noticed lots of Christian blogs where people state the love of their country, how American they are and indeed it seems a terrible accusation to be called unpatriotic. George Bush says that America is a Christian country and faith seems to go hand in hand with nationalism. It would be true to say that many Christians in America are patriotic.

OK, here’s my situation. I’m British. Am I proud to be British? Well, what shall at we look at here? It’s a wealthy country, with some nice countryside and historic cities. Britain has an amazing history, with the empire, wars won against tyranny and genius inventors. We have plenty to be ashamed of though; the slave trade, the, er… empire and the class system. So, on balance, I am proud? Hold on a sec! How did that word get in there!? Pride? I didn’t choose to be British! I wasn’t in the womb kicking at the walls saying, “quick, mother, get a boat to Britain, I need to be born British”! Yes, it is a good to be in country safe country with good services, so yes I’m fortunate but I have nothing to be proud about. What has happened in my life is that I’ve become a Christian and joined the Church. Whilst the Lord says we should obey our appointed leaders (BTW, doesn’t this mean that George Bush, as a Christian, should obey the UN?) we are actually “God’s elect, strangers in the World” (1 Peter 1:1.) We, the Church, are “a chosen people, a holy nation, a people belonging to God” (1 Peter 2:9). Do you think that when we come to give an account of our lives, the Lord will want to know how patriotic we’ve been? Do you think he will reward us for thinking that we are a better than others because of the fluke of our birthplace?

Nationalism has a lot to answer for. Nationalism combined with religion, any religion, is even worse. Nationalism lets leaders persuade men to fight because it institutionalises tribal instincts. Then religion is added and people can be persuaded not only to fight, but that they will be fighting on the side of good. There have been many cases of Christians fighting Christians. In the hundred years war in medieval times the English and the French fought each other both with absolute certainty that God was on their side. The World War 1 was sparked by an act of nationalism and then soldiers on both sides would pray to the same God before dealing out apocalyptic slaughter on each other, all in the name of national interest. In the thirties Adolf Hitler was able to use nationalism to win the predominantly Christian Germans over to Nazism and all the horrors that followed. The conflicts in the former Yugoslavia were caused by a whipping up of national fervour with a religion used as a rallying call. We should be very wary of nationalism, that’s for sure!

Can there be any reason for a Christian to associate their faith with the part of the planet they were born or live in? Aren’t we part of a global body, spread amongst the nations temporarily before we go to a place without borders? We are not British, we are not French, we are not Tanzanian, or Russian, or Maltese, or Italian, or European, or Citizens of the World, or American. We are the Church.

Part 5 to follow... I know that the peice above begs some questions; like about the UN, defense and wars. Don't send a huge comment just yet about those subjects, I shall be covering them later.

I'm not the only one

2004-10-09T17:54:00.000+01:00

Although I'm not always a fan of partisan support of any political party, this site makes some very, very good points.

Also have a look at Chuck Currie. It's good to see some American Christians doing some questioning.

Presidential debate

2004-10-08T23:29:00.003+01:00

I think Bush was on the defensive a lot, but Kerry's policies or alternatives weren't always clear. But the president never had a sense of thoughtfulness. He seemed a bit agitated sometimes whilst Kerry could almost be descibed as serene. When Kerry said that Dubya had a $84 stake in a wood company, Bush's response; "I own a wood company?" was an attempt at humour that didn't mask his confusion. I felt a bit embrassed for him, to be honest.

On the Christian right - Part 2

2004-10-08T23:29:00.001+01:00

Reason number two;

2. ECOLOGY - "The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it" (Gen. 2:15). Earlier in Genesis man is commanded to rule over creation and subdue it. In the New Testament we have parables indicating that we have been entrusted with riches and are to improve upon them to return to our master when he returns (Luke 19:11-27)

So we have been given this planet, this creation, to look after. How are we going to return it to our master? A blackened hulk, with drowned low-lands and draught ridden deserts? Are we going to consume its resources, not as a part of a considered management of what God has left us with, but just for our personal material wealth? Or are we going to look carefully at any evidence that we may have damaged our environment and then see if we can do something about it? Is it right that an apparently Christian president refuses to ratify a treaty based on a huge weight of science? And when his country, with 4.2% of the World's population, produces almost 25% of the World's CO2 emissions?

Doesn't the Bible, our Word, tell us about the responsibilities we have for creation? Why do we leave it to eco-warriors and pagans to hi-jack it as their cause? And what do we have to lose anyway?

On the Christian right - Part 1

2004-10-07T10:40:00.000+01:00

I have long been disturbed by what I often read in the UK press about the "Christian Right" in the US. At first I thought a large amount was merely anti-Christian bias in the media. But, whilst the bias does exist, I have read a lot of American Christian blogs and have decided that many American, and some British, Christians have been sucked into a political movement that doesn't reflect Biblical ideals at all. I've thought long and hard about this. Ultimately there should be unity in the Church, and I did really look at whether the Christian right and the Neo-cons they support are the ones to follow. I've decided no. And here is the first of my reasons;

1. STATE HELP FOR THE POOR - From our perspective the Republicans favour lower taxes for the rich and less hand-outs for the poor. Under the Republicans the rate of poverty in the US is rising. But Jesus said "Whatever you did for the least of these brothers you did for me" (Matt. 25:40) So why isn't Pres. Bush, who openly declares himself a Christian, doing more about it? Some people say it's the Church's job. Well, OK, is the Church actually doing that job in any meaningful, co-ordinated way? And anyway aren't Christian's voting for a Christian leader, who is willing to carry out a Christian agenda? If Christian's say things like that, aren't they leaving themselves open to liberals, who will say that if Christians don't want a Christian political agenda on poverty, then why do they want one on gay marriage and abortion? (BTW, I DO want a Christian political agenda on those issues, don't get me wrong). The Bible asks us to bring the good news of salvation to the poor. But will they listen if the people Christian's have voted for bring them nothing but bad?

Part 2 to follow

On Soldiers and Insurgency

2004-10-06T13:38:00.001+01:00

Having a look at the link below made me think about the differences between the experiences of the American and British forces. The area that the British Army patrols, basically Basra and the surrounding area, has seen far fewer casualties and bombings than the north, where American troops are.

The first thing to point out is the differences in the people. In the south the majority of the people are Shi'ites (although everywhere there is a mix). They feel they were occupied by Sadams Ba'ath party soldiers just as much as they are by the British now, and in fact the British are very much an improvement. But it's not just down to that. When Muqtada al Sadr (a radical Shi'ite) started his campaign against the coalition one might have expected the real trouble to be in Basra. After all, it is by far the largest Shi'ite city. Whilst life has got more difficult for British soldiers, there have been many attacks, it has never got to the extent it has in Shi'ite areas in the north. Why is that then?

Ask a British soldier and he will simply tell you that the his army is better then the Americans and that the Yanks don't know what they are doing. Well, he would say that wouldn't he. Every army has to think it's the best. American soldiers say that about us I'm sure. But the fact is the British army has had so much experience in these enviroments. The unit I went out with recieved lots of it's training from a senior NCO who had been to Northern Island. What we really learnt was a softly, softly approach. "Hearts and minds" was a phrase repeated like a mantra. I never worked alongside American troops but we all heard real horror stories. Like US marines who went around saying they were out to kill as many Iraqi's as possible, like soldiers firing into unarmed demonstrators. On TV I've seen American troops do a few things we wouldn't do, like advancing on a demonstration with weapons raised.

I do really feel for American soldiers though. They do really long tours, as long as 15 months whilst the British do only 6. Many now serving are National Guard and as I understand it they don't have the same expectation of call up as our Territorial Army. And I have to be truthful here, Iraqi's can be very difficult to deal with (even when they are being good to you!). So you have a situation of very tired soldiers, many of whom are reservists, having do deal with an unpredictable populace with an alien mindset, whilst their buddies get killed and injured around them. And to top it all, according to Paul Bremner, they were undermanned from he start. No wonder they make mistakes.

Americans in Iraq

2004-10-06T13:38:00.000+01:00

Having been in Iraq, I found this very interesting.

The Secret Rulers of the World

2004-10-06T11:47:00.000+01:00

Maggie is in her people carrier. She's just dropped the kids off at school in Basildon, Essex, England and is now parking at the towns hypermarket to do the weekly shop. Hank is in his Ford pick-up, on the interstate outside Huntsville, Texas, USA. He is on his way to a meeting in a head office in Dallas to explain how his job as a foreman in a refinery is going. Jurgan is in his Audi in the outskirts of Dusseldorf, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany. He is listening to the satnav telling him which turn to take to get to the printing company that may be interested in the paper samples he has in his briefcase.

Maggie, Hank and Jurgan all have things of their minds. They are typical of the busy people in modern society. Honest people, working hard and being productive. Their lives are a busy round of production and consumption. But the one thing that doesn't regularly enter their minds is the thing they don't realise about themselves. The most important thing about them.

They are the rulers of the World.

To be continued...