Author: VD

Reader HR writes: As a Christian who remains staunchly in favor of our involvement in Iraq, I do want to say that I think you missed the point when you said:”My opinion on the optimal way to wage war on Iraq should no more be considered a Christian position than is my opinion on the likelihood of the Minnesota Vikings finishing 8-8 this season.” Many think that Jesus told us to be pacifistic, whereas most will agree that he did not instruct us to shun athletic prognostication, however worldly that might be. So your two examples aren’t equal, and a stronger case can be made that Jesus would have us oppose war.My own view is that Jesus told us unequivocally to love our neighbors, and I can think of nothing I’d want more, if I were an Iraqi living under Sadam, than for someone to come and free me and my family. I’m glad we could do unto others what I’d want them to do for me.

Of course, Jesus also said that there would be wars without mentioning anything about trying to stop them. But the basic point remains, since nations are not individuals and so Christian principles cannot always be applied to them. Still, I agree that there is a very strong case to be made for the war on Iraq from the “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” perspective. I know if I was living under totalitarian rule, I too would desperately pray for an army of liberation, however flawed its motives. An excellent point.

AT writes: GIVE ME A BREAK… why do you think the statement “runs/throws/hits like a girl” IS an insult. How many women athletes out there could kick YOUR ass? Many, I am sure. Men create these hackneyed phrases to keep women down in every sense. To run, throw or hit like a girl is not in and of itself an insult. It is our society – and specifically men – who make it such. If not – why don’t you put your money where your mouth is and pitch yourself up against some solid female athletes? I am sure you would be the one who ‘throws/runs/hits’ like a girl. Perhaps we should change that last part to throws/hits/runs like a close-minded right wing mania instead?

How many? Zero. I’m a former full-contact fighter and NCAA D1 sprinter. My bench max is 325 pounds. Only Marion Jones or the late Flo-Jo would stand the slightest chance of lasting more than 30 seconds in the ring or the back alley. Unless you have plenty of rounds under your belt, you can’t possibly understand the fullness of how being weaker and slower always equals being toast.

Put my money where my mouth is? Okay, I’ll be happy to meet any woman who’s interested in a full-contact match and willing to put up $1,000. It wouldn’t be the first time I’d beaten down a woman.

See, principles do matter. If you know the truth, then STAND YOUR GROUND.

VDH is always thought-provoking. Now that Dreher’s at the DMN, he and Nordlinger are my favorite NRO writers. I’m definitely picking up Rippes of Battle this winter.

Various people have emailed me to state that Jesus would not use violence to crush the Arabs waging war on Israel, or against the Islamic terrorists who have declared war on the USA. In response, I think it’s important to consider three things:

1) God has crushed invaders of Israel in the past.

2) He has promised to do it again in the Book of Revelations.

3) Ariel Sharon and George Bush are not Jesus Christ, nor is Sharon to the best of my knowledge, even a Christian. Why would either the Israeli or the American governments, both of which are avowedly secular, take a Christian perspective into account even for a second? Not being individuals, they can’t. It’s a nonsensical point.

A broader point is that anyone, even a Christian, can join in a reasonable discussion of which military tactics and strategies are likely to work or not. War is inherently worldly – Jesus said as much. We can either ignore it – which regular readers of my column will note that I generally do – or when we speak about it, speak about it from a worldly perspective. My opinion on the optimal way to wage war on Iraq should no more be considered a Christian position than is my opinion on the likelihood of the Minnesota Vikings finishing 8-8 this season. No one confuses things in the latter case, and it mystifies me that some people do in the case of the former.

From a previous column:

I do not want to hear any more about Islam being a “religion of peace.” It is not, nor has it ever been. In addition to engaging in aggressive wars that conquered reasonable chunks of the Middle East, Africa, India and Europe, Islam has a long history of internal violence dating back almost to its inception.

The second Caliph to succeed Muhammad, Umar ibn al-Khattab, was assassinated, as was the third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, as was the fourth Caliph, Ali ibn Abi Talib.

This history of violence was not inconsequential. The fifth Caliph and founder of the Ummayad dynasty, Muawiyyah, managed to survive long enough to pass the holy mantle of leadership to his son Yazid, who, when faced with a challenge to his rule by Muhammed’s grandson, Husain, did not hesitate to massacre Husain and all his followers, including Husain’s infant son.

The murders of Ali and Husain were the first great grievances of the Shiah i-Ali, better known to us in the West as the Shiite Muslims. And many centuries of similar “pacifism” followed, hence the Abbasid, Fatimid, Seljuk, Safavid, Moghul and Ottoman Empires.

I think it’s also worth pointing out that the first two Abbasid Caliphs, Abul-‘Abbaas ‘Abdullah bin Muhammad al-Saffaah (750 AD) and Abu Ja’far ‘Abdullah bin Muhammad al-Mansoor (754) bore surnames “the bloodshedder” and “the victorious”. Strange titles for the leaders of such a famously peaceful religion.

Apparently some Muslims are still in a tizzy about my strategic solution to ending the latest flare-up in the Israeli-Palestinian war. Let’s put this into perspective here. In World War II, the United States inflicted an estimated 672,000 civilian fatalities on the Japanese as payback for 2,403 casualties at Pearl Harbor.

That’s a rate of 280 to 1, far higher than the 100 to 1 ratio for responding to civilian deaths that I feel would suffice to quickly dissuade the Palestinian leadership from continuing its terrorist campaign. Remember, at the time I wrote that controversial column, the PLO leadership was publicly proclaiming the success of its murderous strategy since it had lowered the Israeli-Palestinian kill ratio from 10-1 to 3-1. If that’s their measure of success, then it’s pretty obvious that any efforts to convince them of the failure of their strategy must be directed at their chosen metrics. As for the 1000 to 1 suggestion, well, there’s a deeper point there. LEAVE THE KIDS OUT OF IT!

No children, Jewish, Palestinian, Christian or Muslim, should be involved in this, or any war. If you believe that murdering children is necessary for your cause, whatever it might be, then I have no problem with the Mossad, the IDF or the US Marines taking you out. The sooner, the better.

I think one reason that the column was controversial, and one of the reasons that the United States has had a difficult time winning wars since the Korean “police action”, is that both the American people and its leadership are unwilling to face up to the reality of what war is.

“Our bravery is too negative. We talk too much of sacrifice, of the glory of dying that freedom may live. Of course we are willing to die but that is not enough. We must be eager to kill, to inflict on the enemy — the hated enemy — wounds, death and destruction. If we die killing, well and good, but if we fight hard enough, viciously enough, we will kill and live.” – George S. Patton

I submit that men like General Patton and the legendary Marines’ Marine, Chesty Puller, know a lot more about wars and how to win them than the politician-generals who have bungled every military action since Korea, including Iraq: Part I and the misnamed War on Terror. If we do not have the will to fight this war, so be it. In that case, we must bring the troops home and hope for the best. I am not entirely opposed to this option as I have my own doubts about the war, mostly due to its deleterious effect on human liberty. But if the people’s decision is to fight a war that has been repeatedly declared against us by our Islamic enemies, (and this is why a Congressionally-approved Declaration of War is an absolute necessity), then unleash the damned hounds and don’t look back.

A leading Saudi government cleric and author of the country’s religious curriculum believes Islam advocates slavery. “Slavery is a part of Islam,” says Sheik Saleh Al-Fawzan, according to the independent Saudi Information Agency, or SIA. In a lecture recorded on tape by SIA, the sheik said, “Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam.” His religious books are used to teach 5 million Saudi students, both within the country and abroad, including the United States.

I wonder what Louis Farrakhan and the black Muslim crowd will make of this? Not much, probably, since the black community is far more interested in whining about Confederate flags and a slavery that none of them, or their grandfathers, for that matter, have ever known, than about blacks being enslaved by Muslims in the Sudan today.

Of course, I’m sure George Bush will set the sheik straight, seeing as he’s such an expert on sharia. The president believes that Islam means peace. If that’s truly the case – and I’m sure it isn’t – then he’s every bit the idiot that his Democratic haters believe him to be.

No matter what your position on the Iraqi war is, this can’t possibly be interpreted as a good sign by anyone. I’m not accusing the soldier responsible of doing anything wrong – if you’re not there, you can’t possibly know – but the mere description is so ironic that it would make you laugh were it not for the fact that a man lost his life.

Tensions between U.S. forces and Iraqis in the Shiite Muslim enclave, Sadr City, rose Monday after the head of the U.S.-appointed municipal council, Muhanad al-Kaadi, was shot and killed by an American soldier guarding municipal headquarters.

CD writes: “If you would pause just long enough to pull your head out of Israel’s ass you’ll see that Israel, by way of it’s policy of grabbing land the belongs to the Palestinian people, is responsible for the state of the world today.”

So THAT’S why Rwanda is such a murderous mess. Not to mention the Sudan, North Korea, Indonesia, Tibet, Chechnya, Bosnia and Zimbabwe etc. It’s all because of a little sliver of land to which a thrice-conquered people have not given up claim. By this cretinous reckoning, German suicide bombers should be blowing themselves up in Danzig – that is to say, Gdansk.

Idiots. Of course, his first question was: are you Jewish? No, I’m not. You don’t have to be Jewish to see that there is far more evil in the world than one tiny ethnic minority can possibly be responsible for. And the fruits of judenhassen aren’t exactly in line with the fruits of the Spirit.