Sunday, 15 September 2013

The Gentle Wars within the Sanctuary - But we must stand our ground there as well

The Anglican Curmudgeon is quoted :                                                                  :
"...the unbelievable incompetence that is taking this country to the absolute nadir of its long history."
To which an individual, not in accord with the Anglican Curmudgeon's more lengthy and well-reasoned observations, makes this response:

This strikes me as something of an exaggeration. Even if you hate everything the president does, are we really in worse shape than during the Civil War? Than the great depression? Is this almost-attack on Syria really worse than the recent invasion of and war in Iraq whose alleged justification turned out to be false?

Again, I think it's useful for us to pull back from the media viewpoint, which sees everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) in terms of the next presidential election. Is it really a bad thing that we pulled back from so-called "surgical strikes"? Or that the imminence of such strikes led to a diplomatic scheme for a multi-national solution? Would it indeed have been better for the president to have decided that realpolitik required a do-nothing approach to the increasing use of poison gas? Is it the most awful thing in the world that a crafty old KGB man is taking credit as the A-Number-one peacenik? Are we really worse off now than if we had attacked, or stood by?

It does seem a situation that the president and secretary of state muddled into. But somehow I expect that more of history is like that than we know. "I meant to do that."

And, on the side, what's the deal with "American Exceptionalism"? Of course we have some distinctive characteristics. Everyone does. But we are humans, erring, subject to original sin just like Russians and Syrians and Australians. I don't know how a Christian can seriously entertain the idea that some particular contemporary nation is fundamentally different, better, more favored, than the others. Putin, whatever his sins, is absolutely right on that, and it seems to be making our politicians sick, Democrats and Republicans alike, to even entertain such a possiblity. I don't get it.

To which El Gringo Viejo barges in and declares in response, thusly:

Is this almost-attack on Syria really worse than the recent invasion of and war in Iraq whose alleged justification turned out to be false?

It is indisputable that Saddam Hussein had both chemical and biological weaponry. He and his cousin killed as few as 5,000 Kurds, probably five or ten times more than that over the years with artillery delivered gas attacks, frequently just to test their toxicity.
Many thousands more Shi'ite from the Basra area and on into place almost reaching Tikrit were gassed. Untold thousands of Iranian civilians and military personnel were killed or permanently debilitated by gas attacks during the Iraq - Iran 8 year war, in which over 1,000,000 people are thought to have died.
Saddam Hussein also committed a particularly disgusting form of genocide that your side never mentions, and that is the draining and drying of the marshes that had been farmed for many millennia, by the Swamp Arabs. These people farmed and floated in the swamps of the Eastern extremes of Iraq raising the finest date, figs, season fruits, and the most amazingly beautiful and tasty vegetables known. Every morsel was hand cared for by people who had done this work on their floating seedling gardens and their massive floating "farms" was an incredible statement about the success of doing something all wrong for three or four thousand years, and doing it in such a way so as to become legendary. Hussein hated them because they were totally self-suff8icient and did not need some megalomaniac to complete their life's orbit.
I am unaware if in fact those swamps were restored during the American post-liberation administration. But I am aware, somewhat personally, that Saddam Hussein did present a clear danger to everyone within reach, had worked to build a nuclear arsenal, please remember the Israeli strike on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in the 1980s. And Hussein always sent the family of a homicide bomber who would strike western, and Israeli, and civilised Arabs and Muslims and kill indiscriminately all nature of civilians, especially school children in busses.
The invasion of Iraq has been turned into something that it was not by the Obsolete Media and by effete, impudent America-hating intellectual Americans. Bush and his people sought and obtained approval from the UN twice,and from the Congress twice. And the American forces with considerable allied assistance won the war, won the peace, and then watched it all flushed down the anti-American toilet that Barack Hussein Obama keeps handy when he ordered the removal of the last American Combat units from Iraq, long before it was militarily appropriate. He is doing the same in Afghanistan. He is doing it so that, in his mind, Americans will not be able to sayt that they "won" anything. It is the quest of all anti-American Americans who hate their country first.
And, to be sure, I was not in favour of the invasion of Iraq when it was planned and when it began. I also know that the WMDs were in Iraq, and that several huge convoys moved very dangerous material to Damascus in the days before the outbreak of the War. It was then generally assumed to have been gasses and biological being sent to Syria for "safe-keeping". Now we know they are there.

Forgive my ire.
El Gringo Viejo
We urge all OROGs to frequent the Anglican Curmudgeon's blogsite.  Much of it involves complicated canonical law in the murky zones of Orthodoxy versus the "progressives".   It is of great interest to El Gringo Viejo, and the Curmudgeon himself is an indisputed authority about such law and its juxtaposition with the Law of Caesar in this epoch and those before.  This issue is "up" on the Anglican Curmudgeon's blog at this time.
     The linkage is readily available on the right column of permanent matters on this blog.
El Gringo Viejo