Scattered, sometimes intense sectarian fighting broke out last week in the wake of the destruction of the Askariya shrine (also known as the Golden Mosque) in Samarra at the hands of suspected al Qaeda terrorists. While the fighting appears to have abated, the Washington Post is now reporting that officials at the main Baghdad morgue put the toll at more than 1,300 dead. This is more than three times previous estimates, and should prove sobering to both those who would brush this off as a minor hurdle already overcome.

While the loss of life is tragic, the series of skirmishes and ambushes of the past few days in Iraqi are far from the "civil war" many news outlets and pundits were all too eager to declare.

Civil wars tend to end with catastrophic losses and destroyed cultures after prolonged, drawn-out conflicts. This was decidedly not a civil war, but more than a riot. It was a "not quite" war where the best planning of al Qaeda and the most emotionally charged of targets failed to ignite an escalating conflagration that would spiral out of control.

Instead, al Qaeda is faced with the Golden Mosque strike that was a tactical success, which may yet turn into a strategic defeat. Terrorists succeeded in initiating a short-term sectarian struggle that while intense, lasted mere days.

The conflict ended with Sunni and Kurdish leaders pledging money and support to rebuild a Shia shrine. It drove politicians together for the good of all their peoples and a shared if not completely agreed-upon future.

The surprising number of dead may even force the Iraqi government to address the growing concern of religious militias and rogue interior Ministry forces that seem to have been responsible for the bulk of the reprisal killings in Iraq.

It was not quite war, but close enough to one, hopefully, that it forces sober thought to overcome bluster, and perhaps hard lessons will be learned.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:40 AM | Comments (53) | Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.

You were warned.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:38 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Here via phin to say congrats! Great interview!

Posted by: Theresa at February 27, 2006 07:45 PM (EBrPa)

2 Man, those MSM'ers have no shame at all. Here's to an increased hat size for Bob!

Posted by: Jason at February 27, 2006 09:32 PM (TwSjW)

3 Pretty cool, Bob! To heck with those Duke, NCSU, and Chapel Hill grads. ECU Rules!

Posted by: William Teach at February 27, 2006 10:00 PM (V5vwb)

4 Here via phin. Congrats!

Posted by: seawitch at February 27, 2006 11:52 PM (5jn+e)

5 Congrats in person! Glad to find out phin isn't one of the enemy! (Please see my humble apology and lame explaination.)

Posted by: Lone Pony at February 28, 2006 08:08 AM (dI4NX)

6 Longtime reader in Raleigh says "Atta' boy!" Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Locomotive Breath at February 28, 2006 09:15 AM (W7Snj)

7 Congrats to sir!! The Washington Post, my, my.

Posted by: Barry at February 28, 2006 06:51 PM (6US6t)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

As they want to protest illegal occupations by performing an illegal occupation, I guess we should be thankful they are not protesting the clubbing of baby seals.

UPFJ:

Storm the White House
Multi-Day Event, Beginning March 15, come when you can and stay as long as you can - we are taking over the White House until they leave. Torture, Occupation, Genocide - Must End Now.
Wednesday, March 15th 2006 12:00 AM
Washington, DC USA

TAKE THE WHITE HOUSE BY STORM - Stop Genocide, Torture and Occupation

U.N. SOS - We need your help to end the reign of international criminals.

It is our duty and the duty of the United Nations to rescue the people of the world from the U.S. dictators. Murder for occupation and theft of land is illegal. Murder of journalists is criminal. Remove the traitors who have stolen the U.S. budget and used it to commit international crimes against humanity.

If we were being bombed and our journalists were being murdered here in the U.S. by a foreign country's military, we would hope that the people of that country would stop what they are doing and go to their president's office and demand that it was stopped. If we were the ones burying thousands and thousands of our family members and watching the destruction of the homes, schools, churches and offices that we had worked for decades to build, we would hope that someone, somewhere would care enough to do something for us. We must stop the criminals in our government NOW. There is no meeting with Congress that is going to change what they are doing. We must put the power of the people into action and stay there until they leave!

Inviting everyone to the White House for a protest rally to show that we do not accept the criminal government, illegal wars and the permanent occupation planned for Iraq and Afghanistan. For Nat Turner, For Martin and Coretta, For all the Torture and Assassination in Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti and many others - We will not allow the Slave Holders that Still Prevail in this Country to Rule us any longer. Imprisonment and torture based on race, religion, resources or region is no different than the slavery we sought to abolish years ago. The Administration is Criminal and if they will not step down, we must storm in, show them how many of us do not accept a criminal government. How can we stand by and watch them kill our brothers, sisters, journalists and friends for their dollars?

We are calling on all citizens and governments in every country to stand with us. We are calling on all Member Nations of the U.N.; All Representatives and Justices in the World Court and International Criminal Courts; All Human Rights Advocates; All Soldiers and CIA agents and government officials who have been blackmailed or are in fear of the dictators to join us in ending this reign of corporate terror in our government. The World Criminal Courts need to incarcerate Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for admitted crimes and known crimes of international scope. The Political Cooperative will put a new, temporary government in place that is comprised of people from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and all the organizations that have finally made us aware of the truth of the savage practices and illegal policies of our government in assassinating our own officials as well as people throughout the world who oppose their criminal activity. We need all of you to save U.S. victims and global victims from their ongoing criminal activity. We are calling on the military, police, citizens and religious organizations to stand with us and help us to bring democracy back to the United States and by doing so, free the world from the wrath, occupation, theft, torture, blackmail and assassination by the Criminals in the United States Government. What they have done all over the world is much worse than what Saddam Hussein has done, so why are they not in jail too? They have admitted to international and national crimes, so why have they not been taken to Court too?

Location:
White House, Washington DC Starting March 15th, come for as long as you can and bring signs that say U.N. SOS and "Leave Now" or whatever you would like to say. Ride Share and Room Share Plans can be made here: http://www.citysites.com/travel/tiki-view_tracker.php?trackerId=3 1600 Pennsylvania Ave Washington DC 20500

Contact:
Darrow Boggiano
admin@politicalcooperative.org
415.409.2611

Sponsored By:
We are requesting participation from all members of the United Nations, PFAW, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Code Pink, police, soldiers, ACLU, CIA, NSA and International Courts of Justice/World Court.

Sweetness and Light notes UFPJ is a Teresa Heinz Kerry-supported organization calling for the illegal overthrow of the duly-elected government.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:23 AM | Comments (74) | Add Comment
Post contains 808 words, total size 5 kb.

So much for the "civil war" in Iraq the media and American anti-war demonstrators have been all but hoping for:

Iraq lifted an extraordinary daylight curfew in three governorates on Sunday as the wave of violence that followed Wednesday's destruction of a Shia shrine appeared to ebb outside the capital.

But the ban on traffic in Baghdad – which last night suffered a mortar attack that killed 15 and wounded at least another 30 people – remained in place. In other sporadic violence on Sunday another seven people died, including two US soldiers.

The apparent absence of organised reprisals at the weekend, however, suggests that while the destruction of the dome of the al-Askariya shrine and the ensuing wave of Shia attacks on Sunnis has brought the country the closest it has come to sectarian civil war, key religious and political leaders on both sides have this time been both willing and able to de-escalate the crisis.

The attack on the al-Askariya shrine was probably al Qaeda's last best hope of triggering a sectarian civil war in Iraq. Instead of ripping the nation apart however, it seems to have had the opposite effect, driving the leaders of Iraq's various ethnic groups closer together in a conflict against a common enemy.

al Qaeda, already growing unpopular with the Sunni tribes that once supported them, can be expected to start falling in greater numbers, as seen in the death of Abu Asma, the Al Qaeda Military Emir of Northern Baghdad three days ago.

al Qaeda had only a slim chance to prevail in this conflict when it started. Continued strategic and tactical blunders such as these exacerbate their problems.

Faster, please.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:37 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

Paper elephant and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter is showing more of his hand than he knows regarding the NSA program created by President Bush's executive order to conduct terrorist communications intercepts, as he presents a baffling new set of rules:

The federal government would have to obtain permission from a secret court to continue a controversial form of surveillance, which the National Security Agency now conducts without warrants, under a bill being proposed by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).

Specter's proposal would bring the four-year-old NSA program under the authority of the court created by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The act created a mechanism for obtaining warrants to wiretap domestic suspects. But President Bush, shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks, authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on communications without such warrants. The program was revealed in news reports two months ago.

Specter's plan could put him at odds with the administration, which has praised a rival proposal that would exempt the NSA program from the surveillance law. Specter's proposal would also require the administration to give a handful of lawmakers more information about the program than they now receive, such as the number of communications intercepted and a summary of the results.

Self-appointed FISA expert Glenn Greenwald, like many liberal commentators, is utterly baffled by Specter's proposal:

It is, of course, so disorientingly bizarre to hear about a proposed law requiring FISA warrants for eavesdropping because we already have a law in place which does exactly that. It's called FISA.

Actually Glenn, you are quite wrong. Again.

The Justice Department, the FISA Court of Review, and quite a few other learned folks have explained both in public and apparently in more detail in front of closed congressional hearings on the matter, FISA does not cover this NSA program (though it does cover others). Glenn has never been able to get his head around the fact that FISA is not all-encompassing.

After the confidential review of the program that silenced the majority of congressional Democrats and Republicans, Specter must have also ultimately come to the same conclusion that current FISA law does not apply to program of this nature.

Read the nature of Specter's proposal again:

Specter's proposal would bring the four-year-old NSA program under the authority of the court created by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

This one sentence tells us that this program is currently legal outside of the control and competencies of FISA. Specter wants to expand the reach of FISA with new rules so that the program created by Bush would fall under a Congressional sphere of influence.

From the beginning, the President, White House Counsel, The Justice Department and NSA lawyers familiar with the intimate details of this program have all maintained that the program was well within the Executive's Article II powers (and outside of FISA's domain), and they also maintained that the AUMF also granted a statutory exemption to FISA as well.

If I am interpreting this properly, the deal Specter appears to be trying to make is offering the Executive Branch a far broader range of available actions in exchange for more direct Congressional involvement. ”We'll let you do more,” the words slither forth, ”but we want to be involved, too…”

This would appear to be a tremendously bad deal, all the way around.

Liberals and libertarians alike may complain about an “imperial presidency,” but President Bush has not used any more of his Constitutionally-mandated Commander-in-Chief authority than any other previous wartime executive, and the powers granted to him by Article II to capture foreign intelligence are well-established. Specter would make a deal to expand powers that don't need expanding, as long as he can have greasy Congressional fingers in the proverbial pie as well.

The founders would not be amused.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:14 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 640 words, total size 4 kb.

Here's an interesting screenshot comparison from the front page of the Washington Post.

The captures are of the exact same stories, one story by Dana Hedgpeth and Neil Irwin, the other story by Jim VandeHei and Paul Blustein. The screen captures were made just minutes apart.

 

The image of the left appears to an innocent mistake where the wrong image and associated byline were called up. The image on the right was intended to go with the Dubai Ports World stories.

The same two stories are present in each screen capture, but the startling contrast in images between a violent riot and a comparatively sedate seaport conjure up far different gut emotions about the "uproar," don't they?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:52 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

CNN issued this hysteric report late Friday:

The only Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support has been downgraded to a level requiring them to fight with American troops backing them up, the Pentagon said Friday.

The battalion, made up of 700 to 800 Iraqi Army soldiers, has repeatedly been offered by the U.S. as an example of the growing independence of the Iraqi military.

The competence of the Iraqi military has been cited as a key factor in when U.S. troops will be able to return home.

Not surprisingly, the lefty blogs were ready with their vast suppository of knowledge about military operations. You can read what they have to excrete via memeorandum.

A representative sample is provided by Daily Kos diarist Susan G:

So much for fearless leader's repeated recounting of how great that training of Iraqi forces is going...

Funny, just last month, Bush said, "Today, 125 combat battalions are fighting the enemy, and 50 of those are in the lead. That's progress."

What he forgot to tell us in January was that only one of those battalions was capable of fighting without U.S. support.

And as of today, there are zero.

Somehow I don't think our troops will be coming home for Christmas ... even Christmas 2008.

Of course you don't sweetheart. You never miss a chance to try to lose, do you?

What Susan G. and the rest of the omni-impotent left either isn't bright enough to know (or honest enough to admit) is that this unit is still afield, still fighting terrorists, and still winning even while undergoing what appears to be a major shift.

CNN provides a hint as to the level of transition:

Though officials would not cite a specific reason for downgrading the unit, its readiness level has dropped in the wake of a new commander and numerous changes in the combat and support units, officials said.

It is not uncommon in our own military for units to be temporarily downgraded when similar changes in force structure, support, and command are made. In many instances, a recalibration of a unit to this level will not even occur in the field, and so the fact that they had enough faith in the ability of the unit to keep it deployed while undergoing such a transition speaks to its strength and professionalism, not to any real or lasting weaknesses.

Buried far down in the CNN article is this bit of information that you won't find liberal blogs discussing:

According to the congressionally mandated Iraq security report released Friday, there are 53 Iraqi battalions at level two status, up from 36 in October. There are 45 battalions at level three, according to the report.

17 Iraqi battalions went up a readiness level, and the media focuses on the top Iraqi unit's ability to affect a battlefield reorganization as if it represents failure instead of a high level of confidence in their abilities.

I wish the news media could display a level of competence on par with the Iraqi military, but of course, that would be hoping for far too much.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:01 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 527 words, total size 3 kb.

It must be Bush's poll numbers:

Just 17% of Americans believe Dubai Ports World should be allowed to purchase operating rights to several U.S. ports. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 64% disagree and believe the sale should not be allowed.

Just 39% of Americans know that the operating rights are currently owned by a foreign firm. Fifteen percent (15%) believe the operating rights are U.S. owned while 46% are not sure.

From a political perspective, President Bush's national security credentials have clearly been tarnished due to the outcry over this issue. For the first time ever, Americans have a slight preference for Democrats in Congress over the President on national security issues. Forty-three percent (43%) say they trust the Democrats more on this issue today while 41% prefer the President.

Bush may very well have had valid questions with his versions of "If not them, who? If not now, when?" when discussing the pending Dubai Ports World deal, but that time is now passed.

At this point, opportunistic Democrats and some reactionary, uneducated congressional Republicans have painted those who would be more reflective into a corner, creating a situation where a serious, logical discussion of the situation is not longer possible.

As Joe Gandelman notes:

Polls reflect perceptions and mood, not necessarily the validity or worth of an issue or policy. If the White House had done better prep with the Congress and public before the news of this deal came out the poll numbers — and controversy — would probably be a bit different.

Dubai is one of our better Arab allies, and if we can't work with them, it seems to send the message we are unwilling to work with any Arab countries, at least when it directly affects us. Instead of having them literally buy into America, we sell them what our enemies have been whispering the entire time, "See? They will not accept you. Come back to us..."

I have no stake in Dubai. I know some there have had their hands in terrorism, and I know that some still may. I know they don't recognize Israel, and that bothers me.

At this point, there aren't a lot of good "outs."

If Bush stands his ground, then most rest of the Republican Party will break with him to chase the polls in what has become a surprise election year turkey. If Bush backs down, we could lose some of the fragile trust we've tried to develop in Arab countries since 9/11.

Thanks, Congress.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:15 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 428 words, total size 3 kb.

It looks like events are conspiring to bring us a "theme post."

First, the bad:

The Army has charged seven members of the celebrated 82nd Airborne Division with engaging in sex for money on a Web site, authorities said Friday.

Three of the soldiers face courts-martial on charges of sodomy, pandering and wrongfully engaging in sexual acts for money while being filmed, according to a statement released Friday by the military.

Four other soldiers, who were not named, received nonjudicial punishments.

The Army has recommended that all be discharged.

"Of course, where they were discharging was part of the problem to begin with."

*rimshot*

Thanks folks, I'll be here all week...

I have always supported the idea that any able-bodied American willing to serve their country should have the opportunity. It is unfair to exclude gays from the armed forces or make them hide who they are, while simultaneously telling them they should be proud of the character the military is supposed to have helped them develop. It was and is an intellectually dishonest position.

American soldiers who have the mettle to handle withering enemy fire can handle the sexuality of their fellow soldiers. I suspect it's the generals and the politicians who aren't mature enough to handle cope.

It is important to note that the seven soldiers in this story disgraced in their uniforms not by being gay, but by participating in pornography and prostitution. They also embarrass the homosexual community as well, reinforcing a horrible stereotype held in some minds. They deserved to be branded with a dishonorable discharge, though odds are that anyone willing to whore themselves for petty cash on camera doesn't have much honor to loose.

* * *

In other news, Ohio Democratic State Sen. Robert Hagan is looking for a co-sponsor to his bill that would ban Republicans from adopting:

Hagan said his "tongue was planted firmly in cheek" when he drafted the proposed legislation. However, Hagan said that the point he is trying to make is nonetheless very serious.

Hagan said his legislation was written in response to a bill introduced in the Ohio House this month by state Rep. Ron Hood, R-Ashville, that is aimed at prohibiting gay adoption.

"We need to see what we are doing," said Hagan, who called Hood's proposed bill blatantly discriminatory and extremely divisive. Hagan called Hood and the eight other conservative House Republicans who backed the anti-gay adoption bill "homophobic."

Hood's bill, which does not have support of House leadership, seeks to ban children from being placed for adoption or foster care in homes where the prospective parent or a roommate is homosexual, bisexual or transgender.

To further lampoon Hood's bill, Hagan wrote in his mock proposal that "credible research" shows that adopted children raised in Republican households are more at risk for developing "emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities."

Holding up the flashing neon "I don't get it" sign is Matt Margolis at GOPBloggers:

For Hagan to even suggest there is any parallel between political orientation and sexual orientation is beyond absurd. Principled Republicans are trying to hinder the efforts those who seek to redefine marriage and family, and all Democrats can do and whine and accuse them of being homophobic. Hagan has taken things a step further by trivializing the debate with a ridiculous mockery of a bill.

What Margolis doesn't to be able to grasp is that any attempted parallel between sexual orientation and good parenting is far more absurd than any comparison between sexual and political orientations. Hagan's bill rightly mocks the stupidity of a handful of small-minded homophobes that would rather children end up in a series of foster homes or in an orphanage than be adopted into an atypical but loving and supportive home environment.

Quite frankly, I'd like to see several of Ohio's Republican senators cross the aisle and sign on as co-sponsors for Hagan's bill, as there are clearly at least eight Republican senators in Ohio that are more worried about the image of parenting than the substance of it. We should stand for family values, whatever the family looks like.

Perhaps Hagan's bill, applied selectively, isn't such a bad idea after all.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:28 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 729 words, total size 5 kb.

1 I support gays in the military, specificaly gay men. MAYBE legislative acts on the part of the congress, or political pressure by a presidents base might be able to ram open gays down the throat of the military, as it did with women, but I think it is best done from within, as was done with blacks. Blacks now, though once hated, are not different in any way from the rest of the military, they are equals, and they are equal for one reason, and one reason only. The Blacks, stood, fought, and proved themselves in segregated units, and their valor could not have been argued. There are still minute tensions, but those tensions are meaningless, cuz everyone has learned from history, and personal experience that they can stand with any or above white man against any enemy. Homosexuals have already served, and still serve, and I think it is important for them to come out to their fellow servicemembers, and recruit the "breeder" servicemembers to come out with them. If you have entire platoons, companies and batallions standing up and saying "I don't care if he takes, or gives it in the ass, I want him in my fighting hole(FIGHTING hole ." you will see a drastic change in popular culture. The fact that in the Service, especially the ground services (Marine Corps and Army) you spend so much time with your fellow servicemember, if this happens, ESPECIALLY in the Marine Corps, the attitude of the nation will change. In my short time in the service I had ONE argument against gays serving, and it had nothing to do with the gays, it had to do with the little dicked hicks who are willing to bash gays, even though every gay man I knew who wore a uniform (I knew a couple) was much better at their job than them. I'm worried FOR those who come out, not because they come out. It will be an unpleasant start, but I think it is time that distinguished servicemembers of alternate sexual proclivities come out, and I think it is LONG pass time for those distinguished servicemembers who aren't gay, to support them. Truth is, who you Fuck doesn't make you a Marine (I turn everything into Marine, cuz I was) It's how you ACT as a Marine. REAL Men, know that, REAL Soldiers know that, and Real Marines know that.

Posted by: wickedpinto at February 24, 2006 11:42 PM (QTv8u)

2 But army members who do straight porn, that's perfectly legal and ok, right???? Please explain that one for me. How about all of the army men who hire prostitutes? Should we crack down on them. Last time I checked - sodomy is no longer a crime. Neither is pornography. Seems like the army has zero problem with pornography. They just have a problem with gay pornography. I call bullshit.

Posted by: Downtown Lad at February 24, 2006 11:54 PM (bOeAD)

3 Obviously, DTL, you're reading what you want to, not what I said. Anyone who does porn and/or is guilty of prostitution while in the uniform services deserves to get tossed out, regardless of orientation or partner. Is that clear enough?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 25, 2006 12:04 AM (0fZB6)

4 Actually, a few years ago there were several discharges for the "SandWrestling" party. The idea behind these discharges is that to DISPLAY hedonism be it Gay, or hetero in nature is unimportant. The FACT, is that if you have ever taken the Oath, you know that you stand for something VERY big, in fact, When you take the oath? You SWEAR! to stand above The President of The United States of America. The US Military MUST swear, a willingness to stand against all enemies of the Constitution foreign and domestic. To live up to that call, you need a certain set of personal dicipline, dignity moral certitude. It is NECESSARY to LOOK for the great man, within every private, because it takes Good men to do the horrible things necessary in war. If you can't keep your crank in your pants? fine, as long as noone knows. That is why Adultery is still a prison offense. CURSING AT WOMEN can land you in the brigg. PUNCHING! a fellow servicemember who is guilty of adultery with YOUR wife, still lands you in the brigg. It is impossible to achieve perfectly, however, it is absolutely necessary that the willingness of the US military make an honest, and cognizant effort to be above all others moraly. Otherwise, they are just highered killers.

Posted by: wickedpinto at February 25, 2006 12:07 AM (QTv8u)

5 In Addition, one more thing that I have learned from every successful individual, at least the Good/great Marines that I knew while I was in, was a sort of Startlement. Even if you leave after 4 years, or get into trouble, everyone is proud of being a Marine, Hell, even the washouts still talk about being Marine, even though they never were, but the ability to re-enlist, to earn a boatspace, to succeed enough just to move on to 4-6 more years, is a point of pride that EVERY Marine holds close to the heart. Those who make it pass 16 years (pretty much guaranteeing a "Career Marine" retirement) are so euphoric, that they grow greater than many priests who are accepted by god into their cloister/covey, whatever they are called. Marines, who make 20 years as enlisted, are more zealottous than Simon.

Posted by: wickedpinto at February 25, 2006 12:13 AM (QTv8u)

6 These are not rules that I have created; but they are values I hold dear, because they are founded upon truth, not my feelings. First and foremost, I am a Christian who believes the bible is the inerrant word of God. I believe in the trinity; God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. I believe Jesus was born of a virgin and died an atoning sacrificial death. I do not condemn sin; God does through His righteousness (not through hatred, because God does not possess that attribute). I cannot undo His condemnation. I can choose to accept what society accepts; but that does not change God’s judgment or pronouncement. I want to address this black person / homosexual analogy. Can a black person choose his/her race? Is homosexuality a race? If the answers are “no”, then any logical relationship between them is broken and so is the analogy; so drop the argument. Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle that for many centuries was viewed by society as deviate behavior that was outlawed much like theft. I know, there have been great societies that have condoned and practiced homosexuality; like Rome and Athens, and before them; Sodom and Gomorrah. (There is a lesson there about great societies and the decay of morals.) As I said, I do not condemn homosexuality, but I do not condone it, either. Am I a homophobe? I do not consider myself one. Would I avoid contact with known homosexuals? No. Would I treat them differently? Subconsciously, I might, but not intentionally. (How would you treat a person you knew to be a thief?) They are human beings who have made an immoral choice; it is not my place to judge. As for homosexuals in the military; I do not agree with allowing known homosexuals to serve in uniform. That statement is based solely upon my adherent to the fact that homosexuality is a chosen immoral and deviant behavior. (If necessary reread my first paragraph.) Thievery in the military is punished. Disobeying an order in the military is punished. Murder in the military is punished. Conduct non-becoming in the military is punished. Why, because discipline in the military is an absolute necessity for success. Our military chooses to live in a caste society that is much more restrictive than society in general. Society is changing and is much more accepting of homosexual behavior now than in bygone eras. Is that change for the better? Not in my estimation. Frivolous lawsuits are way up; crime in general is way up; entitlement programs are way up; personal responsibility is way down, blame others is way up; and I believe morals have declined, too. All of that is generally accepted in today’s society. Does it make it right? I want to reiterate; I DO NOT condemn homosexuality; but I REFUSE to be made to condone it.

Posted by: Old Soldier at February 25, 2006 10:50 AM (owAN1)

7 Old Soldier, You "chose" to be a Christian. I didn't choose to be gay. You "chose" to believe in a stupid cult, that believes some stupid fart was actually "resurrected". Hey - that's ok. If you want to "choose" to believe in a bigoted religion, one whose sole focus is based on bigotry and hatred of gay people, and anyone who doesn't choose to believe your "hocus pocus" that is your choice. But don't ask me to respect your ignoramous choice. I believe in science and reason. You choose to believe some "story" just because your parents told you its true. Anyone who actually studies history knows that Christianity is based on lies, and was only spread through violence and threats, i.e. evil. Sorry - but I refuse to "condone" Christianity. It's pure evil.

Posted by: Downtown Lad at February 25, 2006 01:42 PM (bOeAD)

8 Confederate Yankee, Where does it say that people in the military cannot be in porn? I'm really interested in seeing that rule. Pornography is NOT the same as prostitution. Otherwise - the government could easily arrest anyone who is doing porn for a living. I'm not saying I approve of what these guys do for a living. But then again - unlike stupid Old Soldier, I'm not trying to enforce my viewpoint on others. People have liberty. As long as they are not breaking the law, you can't prosecute people for something you morally disagree with. Sodomy might be a "crime" as the military defines it, but the Supreme Court has already ruled that be unconstitutional in Lawrence V. Texas. And according to the Supreme Court, pornography is protected by the First Amendment. They can bring up whatever charges they want against these guys. I expect the courts to find them innocent. What's next? Court martialling soldiers because they're Jewish?

Posted by: Downtown Lad at February 25, 2006 01:47 PM (bOeAD)

9 Downtown Lad, boy, you sure make a strong argument for accepting the behavior of a homosexual, don’t you. At least you delayed to your third sentence before the attack started. Your perception of Christianity is warped at best, but I’ll not engage you there except to say Christianity is NOT based upon bigotry or hatred of homosexuals. If you are upset by the precepts of Christianity, that is your problem, not mine. Perhaps your conscience is speaking to you. I will admit that some professing Christians confuse the sinner with the sin – that’s not biblical. ”Sorry – but I refuse to “condone” Christianity. It’s pure evil.” Do you have any idea how juvenile that statement is? ”…unlike stupid Old Soldier, I’m not trying to enforce my viewpoint on others.”> You’re the one that gave me an authoritative position in that statement; however, I’m not trying to force my opinion on anyone. I have no desire to change your or any other homosexual’s behavior. Where in my comment did I state that homosexuals must stop their behavior? Where did I advocate persecuting or prosecuting homosexuals? I merely stated my opinion, which I believe is similar to what you did (only I did not use ad hominem attacks). ”I did not choose to be gay.”<i> Unless you have been homosexual under threat to your life, you “chose” the behavior. Denying a decision was made only serves to avoid responsibility and thereby avoid consequences and sooth a conscience. Yes, I chose Christianity. Yes, I chose to serve in the U.S. Army for 31 years. Yes, I chose heterosexuality (although that one was easy for me). Every waking moment of your life you make choices; some good, some bad – but they are your choices. To deny that is dishonest and is your problem, not mine. One more time; I do not condemn homosexuality or homosexuals – but I refuse to condone the behavior. And I resent the attempt to force me to accept the behavior. ” Where does it say that people in the military cannot be in porn? I’m really interested in seeing that rule.” CY doesn’t have the background to answer that question but I do. Google the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and look up “Conduct.”

Posted by: Old Soldier at February 25, 2006 10:24 PM (owAN1)

10 ”…stupid Old Soldier…”all citizens of this great nation; not just those that agreed with my ideology or theology. You made not one statement that supports your opinion that your homosexuality was not by choice. Instead you said Christianity was: ”a stupid cult, a bigoted religion… based on bigotry and hatred of gay people, a “story”, based on lies, evil,” and it was ”spread through violence and threats…” You even called Christ a ”…stupid fart…” I responded to CY’s post with my opinion backed by reasons for said opinion and you responded to me with crass vitriol; absent of any supportive reasons or logic. I still support your right to make whatever choices you desire. However, your actions bear consequences and if you are not prepared to take responsibility and accept them; then perhaps you should rethink your choices.

Posted by: Old Soldier at February 26, 2006 09:53 AM (owAN1)

11 Don't be upset OS, You have the respect of many of us around here. His comments were out of line, they weren't discussion type, they were inflamitory and didn't do his side any good, just the opposite as a matter of fact.

Posted by: Retired Navy at February 27, 2006 06:24 AM (PJ4Iq)

12 I certanly must agree with Retired Navy and Old Soldier; Downtown Lad's comments were far out of line and discredited him. Politeness and temper are a must in any discussion, whoever strongly you feel about the topic. * * * I find it quite fascinating that people keep on and on about Christianity being a homophobic religion, just as I do about people who even mention the posibility of choosing to be homosexual or not and choosing to BEHAVE homosexual... I'm heterosexual myself, but I can assure you it was not an intelectual decision made by me at a certain turning point in my life, I simply like women from the begining. I very much doubt anyone here chose to like or dislike anything (be it music, food, paintings,...). I must thank my Christian breeding for the moral bases it's provided me. Saying Christianity is based on hatred for homosexuals is ridiculous, it's just about interpretation of the Scriptures made by certain people. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that homosexuality is wrong (no, it doesn't; Genesis-19 talks about LUST, which is a Capital Sin, while homosexuality isn't cited by God anywhere as a Sin. Interpretation also applies to Levitic, which is a code of conduct only to be followed by the Tribe of Levi (historically the second tribe of priests in Israel and the dominating tribe when this text was written) -from where the text gets its name- if it weren't, we should apply all its rules to ourselves and give up, for example, eating rabbit. And I can't remember Jesus saying a word about homosexuality... you'd think God's son would have been a bit more explicit talking about such a horrible Sin if it were so). Science (for the ones who, like me, ALSO believe in it) has already brought light upon how "liking" and "disliking" work on our brains, and it's just a chemical reaction to outside stimula (which, let me remind you, you cannot control, much as I'd sometimes like to). Now, this should make some here understand that there's no moral wrong in being homosexual, so why should it be morally wrong to behave homosexual? At what point do you assume it is morally or physically wrong and on what basis? * * * Going back to the main topic. Anyone who's seen the army from inside must admit that there's a lot of hypocrisy in court-martialing the kids for "engaging in sex for money"... unless, of course, the wrong act is recieving money for sex, as we all know that giving money for sex isn't condemnable (or hasn't been so until now). If it's a new posture of the executive to keep the Army clean of prostitution, whatever the nature of the sex trated, I must applaud it heartfully; if it proves to be an attack on homosexuality... how sad and un-constitutional. I wonder what would happen if all the gay military quit at the same time.

Posted by: Daniel Kushrenada at March 01, 2006 07:54 PM (vFb6W)

13 DK Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 1 Corinthians 6:9 1 Timothy 1:10 The bible is quite clear about ANY sexual immorality. Humans with the aid and assistance of Satan are beginning to accept as normal many sexual immoral activities. That doesn't make them right. I'm sure God hasn't changed His mind about what He called wrong. It is up to Christians to love sinners and lovingly witness to them about the love and forgiveness of God, regardless of the sin. I believe any sexual activity is by choice. Yes it is pleasure driven, by there is a decision made; an exercise of choice. To proclaim otherwise exonerates the actor of the act. To say the homosexuality is not of choice exonerates the homosexual of any responsibility for the choice. With no responsibility, there is no consequences that have to be accepted. Without responsibility we are reduced to an animal of instincts and pleasure; which we are not. When we were created we were given the ability to make choices and decisions. The services are a caste system that requires better morals than the general populace, partly because the general populace demmands that of service people. Additionally, it amplifies the exercise of discipline which is extremely important to a military organization. The services are governed by the Uniformed Code of Military Justice as well as local and federal statutes. It is in essence a doble jeopardy system. The highest standard of conduct is expected among the military. A breakdown of that conduct is a breakdown of discipline. Sooner or later homosexuality will probably be forced upon the military services because it is receiving less consternation from the public and is becoming more widley accepted as "normal". When the day arrives that homosexuals may openly serve in the military it will not be the leaders that will be resistant; it will be the young infantry soldiers in the squad rooms that will have to accept the new norm. One more time; I do not condemn homosexuals; however, I do not condone the behavior, either. I do resent attempts to force me to accept the behavior as normal.

Posted by: Old Soldier at March 01, 2006 09:00 PM (owAN1)

14 Yeah, Leviticus is a very complete set of rules of which we ALL mainly ignore except when it does not concern us. Leviticus also sais, right BEFORE getting into inmoralities, that you cannot eat anything with blood (and I very much doubt you haven't eaten any steak with not a drop of blood unless you eat kosher), rabbit, and some other commonly eaten animals. How terribly inmoral and impure I must be after having eaten a delicious bood-pudding. Why do some people apply only the rules that fit them and ignore the rest? In fact, why does anyone apply rules not made for us. Do you belong to the Tribe of Levi? I don't, I'm quite sure about my ascendency, so I would certanly not apply rules made for priests to myself, just like I don't keep chastity. Talking about inmorality; I can depict Jesus standing in front of a mob that was trying to throw stones at an adulterer and saving her. Do you think what he was trying to tell us is: "Mind your own business and don't dare you jugde what God considers inmoral or doesn't. HE will be the one to judge when HIS time comes"? Corinthians and Thimothy are letters written by the Apostles, not God's word (thank God... if we had to follow St.Paul's line of thought we would still be in the Dark Middle Ages, just like our radical muslim friends). Don't try to tell me their words are more important that Jesus' actions. So, it's all Satan's work... hmmm... what a terrible little creature. That, of course, explains it all. I wonder why God set him free, let him walk all over Earth corrupting us. Furthermore, I wonder if you might not be Satan's agent trying to corrupt us and make us think that some of our fellow humans are second rank humans that don't deserve the same rights we already have. Yes, I do agree that actions depend on choices, but if the basis of the choice is not bad and the action hurts no one, there's nothing you can condemn about it. So, homosexuality is NOT a choice, but having sex with men IS; up to that, we have an agreement... I still can't see why or how that make homosexuals second rank people. Agreed, also, that public service demands highest standards of honour, courage, rectitude,... but what are BETTER morals? WHO'S better morals? Moral is something created by each culture, in a period of time. In Europe, not long ago, death penalty was OK, now it's highly inmoral and they look upon us just like we would look upon the cavemen. If you are refering to God's moral, He will judge us all in due time. And not only do you, as you say, not condemn homosexuality, but you must, following Jesus, condemn, forgive and love those who BEHAVE homosexual. Have to be going... I'll follow this line of thought later when I can get back online and will try, not to convince you, for that is just as impossible as your convincing me, but to refute your arguments.

Posted by: Daniel Kushrenada at March 02, 2006 02:13 AM (vFb6W)

Hide Comments | Add Comment