Political Debates

[Guy N. Heels]

^ My current "beef" with the Iran issue is if Iran is shipping weapons to Iraq, why is it doing so? If I'm not mistaken, anonymous military briefers are claiming the weapons are being shipped to "extremist groups" which appears to be an intentionally cryptic phrase. Which "extremist groups" are the Iranians shipping weapons to? Shipping weapons to Shia militias is alot different than shipping weapons to al Qaeda or Sunni insurgents.

I think yer mixing up the oysters, crabs, lobsters, and shrimp. In the final analysis they're all shellfish. The only extremist groups in the present-day murder-east that anyone needs to concern themselves with are:

Iranian Shias,

Saudi Shias,

Wahabbis,

Teleban fighters,

Hezballah fighters,

al-quaida fighters,

PLO fighters,

Mahdi army freedom fighters,

Iraqi Sunni freedom fighters,

Lebanese freedom fighters,

Syrian freedom fighters,

Jordanian freedom fighters,

Egyptian freedom fighters,

Iranian Sunnis,

Baath Party freedom fighters,

Iraqi Shite freedom fighters,

Hamas......

I'm sorry, but time has failed me. There must be at least one or 2 groups I've overlooked. So which particular extremist group were you concerned about?

[Dr. Shoe]

Never did the US have a better excuse for going to war with Persia than when they attacked the US embassy and held Americans hostage for almost a year and a half. However, president Carter lacked the will to respond to that act of war.

But as the news article correctly points out, tensions have been running high between the US and Iran (modern-day Persia) ever since. Right now the Persians are pursuing nuclear energy. They claim it's for peaceful purposes, but the fact is, that with almost 10% of the oil in the murder-east, they need nukes about like a whale needs roller skates.

If George Bush and company had not botched the war in Iraq, there's a good possibility that the US would already be involved in a war with Persia. But given America's enormous disatisfaction with both Bush and the war in Iraq, it is highly doubtful that Americans are in any mood to take on another enemy and another war. How things will play out in the coming months will be very interesting.

There were two reasons he didn't:

1. There were no neighbouring countries prepared to allow him space to set up bases.

2. They lacked the military hardware to do the job properly and the loss of life (US personnel) would have been prohibitively high and the whole exercise would have been seen as another Vietnam. Remember that that war had only been over for four years.

...Shipping weapons to Shia militias is alot different than shipping weapons to al Qaeda or Sunni insurgents.

Why's that? They're just as keen to kill our troops as any other group. Al Qaeda are not active in Iraq and never have been. Moreover, they are not insurgents because they are people who live there and just want to be left in peace.

[Guy N. Heels]

There were two reasons he didn't:

1. There were no neighbouring countries prepared to allow him space to set up bases.

2. They lacked the military hardware to do the job properly and the loss of life (US personnel) would have been prohibitively high and the whole exercise would have been seen as another Vietnam. Remember that that war had only been over for four years.

Why's that? They're just as keen to kill our troops as any other group. Al Qaeda are not active in Iraq and never have been. Moreover, they are not insurgents because they are people who live there and just want to be left in peace.

Until you've seen and experienced up-close and personally the awesome power of a single US strike carrier, it's difficult to imagine any nation launching a seaborne war against a mostly inland country. But please consider: One US aircraft carrier carries a combat complement of 5000 men, is over 1/4 mile long and carries 2 fully equipted combat fighter-bomber squadrons. Just one such warship is capable of visiting unholy war against better than 85% of the surface of this planet, and the US has 13 such monsters. Moreover, I haven't said a thing about the 20 or so carrier escort ships that accompany one of those things every time it sails.

I will grant you that land bases in the region would be highly desirable, but not necessary. Just one or 2 carrier groups in the Persian Gulf and a similar number in the Black Sea would be quite sufficent to lay waste to that entire region.

[Dr. Shoe]

Until you've seen and experienced up-close and personally the awesome power of a single US strike carrier, it's difficult to imagine any nation launching a seaborne war against a mostly inland country. But please consider: One US aircraft carrier carries a combat complement of 5000 men, is over 1/4 mile long and carries 2 fully equipted combat fighter-bomber squadrons. Just one such warship is capable of visiting unholy war against better than 85% of the surface of this planet, and the US has 13 such monsters. Moreover, I haven't said a thing about the 20 or so carrier escort ships that accompany one of those things every time it sails.

I will grant you that land bases in the region would be highly desirable, but not necessary. Just one or 2 carrier groups in the Persian Gulf and a similar number in the Black Sea would be quite sufficent to lay waste to that entire region.

Aircraft carriers are great for attacking but you need to complement any air attack with ground forces and these need to be armoured. You also need supply and logistics chains and these are very vulnerable if delivered by air besides, your massive carriers weren't that much of an asset in Vietnam. With all the high tech fire-power you couldn't even rescue the Tehran hostages whereas the Israelis rescued all but one of theirs from Entebbe in 1976, and they had to fly across three hostile countries to do it. I know that the situation was different but it does highlight the need for proper ground bases.

[hoverfly]

Carter was in a tuff position, he took power not long after the Vietnam war, so no American would at all be willing to go to war with Iran 3/4 years later. With Iran taking only a few hostages it was no way enough to get the American people to support such a war. Unfortunately the failer of a rushed attempt in a special forces rescue compounded matters.

[Guy N. Heels]

Aircraft carriers are great for attacking but you need to complement any air attack with ground forces and these need to be armoured. You also need supply and logistics chains and these are very vulnerable if delivered by air besides, your massive carriers weren't that much of an asset in Vietnam. With all the high tech fire-power you couldn't even rescue the Tehran hostages whereas the Israelis rescued all but one of theirs from Entebbe in 1976, and they had to fly across three hostile countries to do it. I know that the situation was different but it does highlight the need for proper ground bases.

It all depends upon the mission objective. I agree that no amount of air or naval forces are capable of taking and holding large land sectors. In order to accomplish that objective, land forces and secure supply lines are necessary.

On the other hand, if the mission is solely punative, one or 2 carriers can generally do the job while standing several hundred miles out at sea.

As for the failed rescue effort in the desert, I personally know one of the Delta Force operatives who was there and he explained to me exactly what went wrong. In the simplist of all possible terms, the biggest part of the failure began with the buck-toothed jerk in the White House. Even Hyman Rickover had questions about Carter serving in the military, and that was decades before he ever even thought about the White House. As Forest Gump said,"Stupid is as stupid does." Carter proved beyond any question of a doubt that no amount of military power can ever make-up for a jerk at the helm. I think we have legitimate reason to question the leadership abilities of any man who claims to have been attacked by a rabbit. But then maybe the rabbit knew something we don't.

[Dr. Shoe]

So carter was actually there was he? He was solely responsible for planning the mission too was he? No, it was a failure because of the planning, logistics and sheer incompetance of the command. Moreover it failed because they went in "too big" it should have been a surgical operation but they tried to hit it with a blunt club. TBH I'm surprised the Iranians didn't start to kill hostages in response. Entebbe was diferent in that the hostages were held in an airport with the exception of Dora Bloch who was under treatment in Kampala General Hospital.

[Guy N. Heels]

So carter was actually there was he? He was solely responsible for planning the mission too was he?

No, it was a failure because of the planning, logistics and sheer incompetance of the command. Moreover it failed because they went in "too big" it should have been a surgical operation but they tried to hit it with a blunt club. TBH I'm surprised the Iranians didn't start to kill hostages in response.

Entebbe was diferent in that the hostages were held in an airport with the exception of Dora Bloch who was under treatment in Kampala General Hospital.

Too big is exactly correct - all at Carter's insistance that all of the services be involved. It's the age-old problem of the guy at the top trying to micromanage everybody instead of calling up the Joint Chiefs of Staff and telling them what he wanted and let them figure out how to do it.

BTW, it was Carter who yanked the rug out from under the Shah, which is one of the main reasons we have the war(s) in that region today. The Shah lent stability in that region and was the main fulcurm used to enforce western stability throughout that whole area. The Shia Wahhabists that rushed in to fill the vacuum left by the overthrow of the Peacock Throne are the very forces we're having to deal with today - only now they have 1000 mile missles and are trying hard to put nuclear warheads on them.

[Dr. Shoe]

Too big is exactly correct - all at Carter's insistance that all of the services be involved. It's the age-old problem of the guy at the top trying to micromanage everybody instead of calling up the Joint Chiefs of Staff and telling them what he wanted and let them figure out how to do it.

BTW, it was Carter who yanked the rug out from under the Shah, which is one of the main reasons we have the war(s) in that region today. The Shah lent stability in that region and was the main fulcurm used to enforce western stability throughout that whole area. The Shia Wahhabists that rushed in to fill the vacuum left by the overthrow of the Peacock Throne are the very forces we're having to deal with today - only now they have 1000 mile missles and are trying hard to put nuclear warheads on them.

...and Sadam Hussain.

[Guy N. Heels]

...and Sadam Hussain.

So far the US has had 2 Bushes in office. Both times they elected to mount a war in that region. Both times Saddam was the focal point.

Saddam was a problem and I had little use for him. But there's an old adage that says: Better the devil you know than the one you don't know. Are we really all that much better off without him?

[Dr. Shoe]

No we're not. He was the only person who could keep the Iranians, Saudis, Syrians and all the bloc factions at bay. He was a ruthless dictator who kept any attempt to shift the area into fundamentalism ruthlessly oppressed. Now we have a situation whereby the control of the entire region is wide-open for the taking by absolutely any faction including the Taliban. We cannot keep our troops there forever and as soon as we withdraw there will be a civil war and the most powerful faction will probably be an Iranian backed group. This will create a fundamentalist Al Qaeda supporting superstate capable of wiping all the surrounding nations off the map with the Iranian nukes and it won't be long before they can reach southern Europe with nukes and hold the entire world to ransome. As plucky as they are the Israelis are the thin red line and if a Iraq-Iran coalition invaded Jordan or Syria then every single Israeli would be within range of artillery, nuked-up SCUDs and any other nasty little weapon they could devise including FAEs. We would be doomed. However, if a Syrian backed group took control and were as ruthless as Sadam then we might have a chance but this would mean that there is a new major power on the oil-producing stage who might or might not hold the world to ransome. Either way we were better off with Sadam in charge whether we liked it or not.

[Guy N. Heels]

No we're not.

He was the only person who could keep the Iranians, Saudis, Syrians and all the bloc factions at bay. He was a ruthless dictator who kept any attempt to shift the area into fundamentalism ruthlessly oppressed. Now we have a situation whereby the control of the entire region is wide-open for the taking by absolutely any faction including the Taliban.

We cannot keep our troops there forever and as soon as we withdraw there will be a civil war and the most powerful faction will probably be an Iranian backed group. This will create a fundamentalist Al Qaeda supporting superstate capable of wiping all the surrounding nations off the map with the Iranian nukes and it won't be long before they can reach southern Europe with nukes and hold the entire world to ransome. As plucky as they are the Israelis are the thin red line and if a Iraq-Iran coalition invaded Jordan or Syria then every single Israeli would be within range of artillery, nuked-up SCUDs and any other nasty little weapon they could devise including FAEs. We would be doomed.

However, if a Syrian backed group took control and were as ruthless as Sadam then we might have a chance but this would mean that there is a new major power on the oil-producing stage who might or might not hold the world to ransome.

Either way we were better off with Sadam in charge whether we liked it or not.

All too true except for the civil war part. Just exactly what do you think is going-on there now? The only two terms that seem to fit are either civil war or anarchy. Either way, it ain't pretty and neither is it readily solvable. To my mind, the main question now becomes: How do we get the maximum number of troops out with the minimal loss of lives? If they're all determined to kill each other over there, then why do we need to be a part of it?

[Dr. Shoe]

The problem is is the fact that Arab politics is more complex than that. One minute they're your best friend and greatest ally and the next they're cutting your throat. Iran and Iraq had a bitter 8 year war and yet when the first Gulf war kicked off only a couple of years later where did Sadam send all his military reserves to protect them from coalition attack? They have a saying: "Same enemy makes makes us friends."

[Guy N. Heels]

The problem is is the fact that Arab politics is more complex than that.

One minute they're your best friend and greatest ally and the next they're cutting your throat.

Iran and Iraq had a bitter 8 year war and yet when the first Gulf war kicked off only a couple of years later where did Sadam send all his military reserves to protect them from coalition attack?

They have a saying: "Same enemy makes makes us friends."

Right you are! "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," is the code many live by. It makes for loyalties about as solid as the shifting sands.

[Guy N. Heels]

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough the first time. My point was that , shipping weapons to Shia militias reflects different intentions than shipping weapons to al Qaeda or Sunni insurgents.

Have you read THIS Newsweek article? You might find this article from the AP similarly interesting.

Iraq President is historically allied with the Quds: Newsweek

"Perhaps no one has benefited from the Quds Force’s patronage more than the current president of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, who is also a close U.S. ally. Talabani’s Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) party was Iran’s main ally in northern Iraq during the 1980s. When fighting broke out between rival Kurdish groups in the mid-'90s, the Quds Force fought on Talabani’s side against Massoud Barzani, whose Kurdish party had asked for Saddam Hussein’s help."

Iraq government invited top Qurds officials into Iraq: Newsweek

"In December, two IRGC officials were invited to Iraq, including a man believed to be the third most senior Quds Force official, Mohsen Chizari. U.S. troops arrested the men, even though they had diplomatic passports. Talabani demanded immediate release of the Iranians and confirmed that they had been invited by the Iraqi government."

"The two officials had come, Ameri told NEWSWEEK, to discuss security issues. Ameri said two top Iraqi government officials, Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih and national-security adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, had asked the Iranian government to help rein in the Mahdi Army, the rival Shiite militia directed by radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr that is believed to be responsible for death squads and other sectarian violence, as well as attacks on U.S. troops. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki “wanted Iran’s help and said you can influence this issue," Ameri said in an interview. “This led to the Iranians sending the group with the diplomatic passports.” He added: “They had a meeting with me and we talked about how to put pressure on the Jaish Mahdi [Mahdi Army] not to attack Sunnis … how to prevent the Jaish Mahdi from working against the government and not to raise their weapons illegally.”

Iraq seeking active support from Quds: Newsweek

"The upshot is that while the American military is blaming the Quds Force and IRGC for all sorts of misdeeds, the highest officials in the U.S.-backed Iraqi government appear to be buying weapons from them and asking for their help on security issues"

It thus appears to me that Iran is helping their Shia allies in Iraq prevail in a civil war which has already begun and seems likely to get worse. In my view, it's likely that Iran is preparing the Shia majority to defend itself when the U.S. pulls out.

It has already been mentioned that the Shia brand of Islam, and particularly the virulent Wahabbi brand of hatred, is what managed to get swept into power in Iran when the Peacock Throne was overturned. That virulent brand of hatred is what the ayatollahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard embrace, practice, and export. Furthermore, this radical doctrine has found fertile ground in Saudi Arabia where it has flourished. (Perhaps the most notable Saudi adherant is Osama bin Laden.) But worse yet, this malignancy is spreading throughout the murder-east and it does seem to have found favorable harborage in places like: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and the Sudan. Naturally, the Shiite Persians are delighted to help out the Iraqis with weapons, bombs, or anything else that will promote the spread of this malignancy, whose main fruits are: death, destruction, pain, suffering, and sorrow. So why do the Shiites in Iraq need to defend themselves from anything when their main goal, apparently, is to propagate the killing until there's no one left to dig the graves? It's called "kill indiscriminately" by any means possible until there's no one left to kill.

But what I can't seem to understand is: With all of the death and destruction going on, exactly what kind of future do they plan to build for themselves and the next generation (assuming that there will be a next generation to follow)? After all, it's one thing to destroy everything in sight, but after the smoke clears away and the dust settles down, what will they have left and what do they plan to do with it?

[JNR]

kneehighs wrote: "but after the smoke clears away and the dust settles down, what will they have left and what do they plan to do with it?" The objective of moslem radicals is complete annihilation of all humanity except "true believers." And, those "true believers" living under the oppressive yoke of Imams and other moslem clerics in strict compliance with the Koran and Ismalic Law. Which means, in fact, life will return to the 7th or 8th century.

[Dr. Shoe]

It's called Sharia law and it isn't guided by the Koran at all. It is based on the code of laws that was in existence in Mohamed's time.

[Guy N. Heels]

It's called Sharia law and it isn't guided by the Koran at all. It is based on the code of laws that was in existence in Mohamed's time.

You are right again about Sharia, a system of "law" that is so cruel that here in the US anyone treating an animal that way would be thrown in jail.

But now I have glad tidings of exceeding great joy! We are presently in a very bad patch wherein we must suffer wars, poverty, and disease for the next few years. But after we get through this present bad patch, we will have peace in our time. Those who are able to survive the next few years will see the greatest Kingdom mankind will ever know established right here on earth. Suffering, famine, poverty, and disease will end and peace will break out all over.

[JNR]

Islamic principels, Sharia Law (That's the word I was thinking of), both are tenets guiding Muslem life.

[Dr. Shoe]

You are right again about Sharia, a system of "law" that is so cruel that here in the US anyone treating an animal that way would be thrown in jail.

But now I have glad tidings of exceeding great joy! We are presently in a very bad patch wherein we must suffer wars, poverty, and disease for the next few years. But after we get through this present bad patch, we will have peace in our time. Those who are able to survive the next few years will see the greatest Kingdom mankind will ever know established right here on earth. Suffering, famine, poverty, and disease will end and peace will break out all over.

Actually Sharia Law isn't actually as cruel as most people imagine. Yes amputation and execution are part of it but Saudi Arabia has executed fewer people in ten years than the US does in a year. Amputation is virtually unheard of because it is such a powerful deterrent.

Sharia is based on desert survival, for example if you are found stranded in the desert, anyone finding you is duty bound to help you to reach civilisation or accommodate you for 72 hours. It is up to you to leave when the 72 hours is up but this is where the legendary Arab hospitality comes from. Another aspect of Sharia is the fact that a man can take a number of wives depending on his status, this is to ensure that he has plenty of sons to support him in his old age. On the other hand if a woman commits adultery (and there have to be 6? witnesses) she would be beheaded so that you don't run into the situation where brothers and sisters are inadvertently marrying.

However, Sharia is outmoded in our world and most of their laws have been superceded with "better" ones but you can walk the streets in total safety in Saudi which you cannot say about the UK. My only criticism of Sharia Law is the fact that it is up to a cleric to decide guilt and you could be executed just because he doesn't like you.

It is worth remembering that the system of laws that were around in the time of Jesus (those he supported) included stoning, amputation, etc and was very similar to sharia. An establishment of "The Greatest Kingdom" will include a return to justice like this. After all, the only way you're going to illiminate suffering is if you make the punishment for causing it so severe that people won't consider the risk worth taking, the same goes for famine and poverty. Peace can only be achieved if you put absolute power in the hand of someone who is totally responsible and make it so that no one would dare to make war. I think that we are already a long way down the path to illiminating disease except that the drug companies are too greedy.

[Guy N. Heels]

Actually Sharia Law isn't actually as cruel as most people imagine. Yes amputation and execution are part of it but Saudi Arabia has executed fewer people in ten years than the US does in a year. Amputation is virtually unheard of because it is such a powerful deterrent.

Sharia is based on desert survival, for example if you are found stranded in the desert, anyone finding you is duty bound to help you to reach civilisation or accommodate you for 72 hours. It is up to you to leave when the 72 hours is up but this is where the legendary Arab hospitality comes from. Another aspect of Sharia is the fact that a man can take a number of wives depending on his status, this is to ensure that he has plenty of sons to support him in his old age. On the other hand if a woman commits adultery (and there have to be 6? witnesses) she would be beheaded so that you don't run into the situation where brothers and sisters are inadvertently marrying.

However, Sharia is outmoded in our world and most of their laws have been superceded with "better" ones but you can walk the streets in total safety in Saudi which you cannot say about the UK. My only criticism of Sharia Law is the fact that it is up to a cleric to decide guilt and you could be executed just because he doesn't like you.

It is worth remembering that the system of laws that were around in the time of Jesus (those he supported) included stoning, amputation, etc and was very similar to sharia. An establishment of "The Greatest Kingdom" will include a return to justice like this. After all, the only way you're going to illiminate suffering is if you make the punishment for causing it so severe that people won't consider the risk worth taking, the same goes for famine and poverty. Peace can only be achieved if you put absolute power in the hand of someone who is totally responsible and make it so that no one would dare to make war. I think that we are already a long way down the path to illiminating disease except that the drug companies are too greedy.

Au contraire. You are speaking in very secular, carnal terms, which is the only thing this present world understands. But God, through the pages of His word, says: "I will make a new covenant with them and My laws I will write in their hearts... I will remove the stoney heart from their flesh and give them a heart of understanding and renew their spirit within them." This not at all unlike what Gen. Douglas MacArthur said when he spoke of mankind having its last clear chance, that there must be a recrudescence of the spirit if the flesh is to be saved.

The new kingdom will not be based upon enforcement of the laws, but rather, a change of heart where everyone will earnestly desire to do right by his fellow man. In short, there will indeed be a recrudescence of the spirit and everyone will be duty-bound to do the right thing by the strongest chains of all - the "chains of the heart".

[Dr. Shoe]

Au contraire. You are speaking in very secular, carnal terms, which is the only thing this present world understands. But God, through the pages of His word, says: "I will make a new covenant with them and My laws I will write in their hearts... I will remove the stoney heart from their flesh and give them a heart of understanding and renew their spirit within them." This not at all unlike what Gen. Douglas MacArthur said when he spoke of mankind having its last clear chance, that there must be a recrudescence of the spirit if the flesh is to be saved.

The new kingdom will not be based upon enforcement of the laws, but rather, a change of heart where everyone will earnestly desire to do right by his fellow man. In short, there will indeed be a recrudescence of the spirit and everyone will be duty-bound to do the right thing by the strongest chains of all - the "chains of the heart".

I really think you should read the Q'Ran you will see that the foundations of the moslem faith is not too dissimilar from Christainity, it's these mad mullahs who are twisting it to suit their own agenda. The problem is is that many of their followers cannot see what's good for them much like some fanatical Christians I know! :-)

The main foundation of Sharia is the desire that every person should want live upright moral lives which is why the punishments are so severe.

[Guy N. Heels]

I really think you should read the Q'Ran you will see that the foundations of the moslem faith is not too dissimilar from Christainity, it's these mad mullahs who are twisting it to suit their own agenda. The problem is is that many of their followers cannot see what's good for them much like some fanatical Christians I know! :-)

The main foundation of Sharia is the desire that every person should want live upright moral lives which is why the punishments are so severe.

While I will admit that I've never actually read the Q'Ran, I hope to do so in the not too distant future. However, my Teacher said, "By their fruits you shall know them." Therefore it is not entirely necessary for me to understand the tenents and doctrines of other faiths when all I have to do is observe the fruits they're producing. I tend to wholesale reject any faith whose main fruits are death and destruction, regardless of what their actual doctrines might be.

[Dr. Shoe]

You mean things like the Spanish Inquisition, the burning of members of other denominations at the stake just because they disagreed on the meaning of a tiny part of scripture. You mean where innocent people were starved to death because they would not embrace Christianity. You mean wars in which hundreds of thousands of people died... All this happened centuries ago but you must remember that all religions go through phases of development and the Moslems are in their Medieval period right now... BTW is this politics? I think it is. LOL.

[Guy N. Heels]

You mean things like the Spanish Inquisition, the burning of members of other denominations at the stake just because they disagreed on the meaning of a tiny part of scripture. You mean where innocent people were starved to death because they would not embrace Christianity. You mean wars in which hundreds of thousands of people died...

All this happened centuries ago but you must remember that all religions go through phases of development and the Moslems are in their Medieval period right now...

BTW is this politics? I think it is.

LOL.

You said it. The scripture says, "By their fruits you shall know them." That still stands. Here in America it was a bunch of religious zealots and do-gooders who got the federal government to ban alcohol. The backlash was underground "speakeasies", and Al Capone style gangsterism. It was an age when the Thompson submachine gun became known as "the Chicago typewriter". Eventually the congress had to repeal prohibition.

Yet anyone with eyes to read could easily find where Christ's first recorded miracle was to convert about 180 gallons of water into wine. God save us all from radical zealots and do-gooders.

[Ozzard]

God save us all from radical zealots and do-gooders.

Amen... or something like that.

- Peter the atheist

[Dr. Shoe]

Amen... or something like that.

- Peter the atheist

LOL!

_____________

[Guy N. Heels]

Amen... or something like that.

- Peter the atheist

Amen is merely an ancient form of affirmation or expression meaning "so let it be", or "truth be spoken". It was actually used quite freely in everyday parlance at one time. You don't have to go around in religious garb with some holy book under yer arm to use it. I would personally like to see it regain usage again outside of religious circles.

[Dr. Shoe]

Amen to that!

[Guy N. Heels]

You mean things like the Spanish Inquisition, the burning of members of other denominations at the stake just because they disagreed on the meaning of a tiny part of scripture. You mean where innocent people were starved to death because they would not embrace Christianity. You mean wars in which hundreds of thousands of people died...

BTW is this politics?...

Speaking of inquisitions, it seems to me that you Britts had a fair go at that yourselves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you folks spent about 100 years burning-down churches, burning people at the stake, throwing people into dungeons and all that sort of thing. Isn't that what happened to Tyndale, Locke, and Rutherford, to name a few?