Sunday, 25 November 2007

Rowan Williams on US foreign policy

Updated Monday morning

The Archbishop of Canterbury has given an interview to a British Muslim magazine, Emel.

The Sunday Times has a news report on this, US is‘worst’ imperialist: archbishop by Abul Taher and has also published the full text of the interview as a PDF file, which you can read here. The interview is more balanced than the newspaper report of it.

Other British newspapers reported on this:

Stephen Bates Guardian Archbishop thrown into row over US Middle East policy

Auslan Cramb Daily Telegraph Archbishop’s assault on US foreign policy

Ruth Gledhill The Times Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, gets political blessing for his attack on America’s foreign policy

And the BBC reported it as Archbishop attacks ‘violent’ US

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Sunday, 25 November 2007 at 9:03am GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England
Comments

I read the Sunday Times piece and then the interview in “Emel”.

I had to go back and check, thinking: “this cannot be the article referenced by the Sunday Times.”

I matched the quotes, but the “scathing” attack on Christian Zionism is twisted into a general attack on America. Nearly the whole piece was a constructed fiction. This is dangerous journalism, and I fear deliberate – not due to ignorance of the context.

Of course, Dr Williams did not give this journalist an interview – and judging by this perverse reading of the “Emel” piece – Dr Williams, and no other sensible person should ever grant one

Remember the name - ABUL TAHER

Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Sunday, 25 November 2007 at 12:11pm GMT

Okay.....So what does ++Williams not able to understand and parallel the actions of BushCo Inc. and those of ++Akinola & ++Venables?

Probably the same reason he didn't say anything until Prime Minister Brown succeeded Blair and started doing the right thing and by withdrawing from the fiasco resulting from the Iraq invasion.

A bully, is a bully, plain and simple, and a coward is one that waits until safely ensconced until speaking their conscience.

Posted by: choirboyfromhell on Sunday, 25 November 2007 at 12:14pm GMT

I can't access the original article, so can only read the excerpts and won't comment on that, except to say that I am no fan of our current policy and count the minutes until Crawford TX has its very own Village Idiot back permanently.

Still, it would seem that the Archbishop has a crisis nearer to hand, and one he can actully act on, that should be commanding his attention.

Why can he not speak as strongly to the border crossing and attempted property theft going on in the church he is supposed to be the tuitular leader of?

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Sunday, 25 November 2007 at 1:38pm GMT

I agree entirely with Martin Reynolds. It is difficult to recognise the Emel piece (beautiful photographing, by the way) in the Times article.

And I don't for a second doubt it's intentional.

The answer to Choirboy seems to be anti Modernism.

The personal anti Modernism of Dr Williams makes him not see the anti Modernism of the Americans (clergy as well as politicians) into social, economic and legal Anarchy and their supporting Primates for what it's worth.

There are some really strange sayings in this interview.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Sunday, 25 November 2007 at 2:20pm GMT

I concur completely with what Martin Reynolds has to say -- my first reaction was dismay at another tin-eared over subtle statement from the ABC (& the desire to remind him of the Opium Wars -- saving the Empire by forcing the people of the planet's most populous nation to become drug addicts was no better than what the Bush administration has done to the Iraqis, even if less direct) -- but reading the actual interview I found nothing which I could not have said (in fact, _have_ said) myself.

Of course in the USA we have Fox News & are now accustomed to this sort of substitute for actual journalism.

Posted by: Prior Aelred on Sunday, 25 November 2007 at 3:50pm GMT

One wonders whether the Bush/Blair duo would have invaded Iraq if they didn't have strong religious convictions.

The myth that there is a clash between religion and secularism needs to be dispelled: the areas of tension usually lie between those who interpret their faith rather dogmatically for political ends, and the rest of society which does not. The other myth is that there is a Muslim identity, as Ali Eteraz explains quite well in the Guardian:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ali_eteraz/2007/11/mistaken_identity.html

Posted by: Hugh of Lincoln on Sunday, 25 November 2007 at 4:26pm GMT

I am an American who opposes the imperialistic tendencies of US foreign policy. Whether this piece is entirely accurate or not, Rowan Williams has a history of expressing opposition to those imperialist tendencies. It strikes me as decidedly ironic that he is increasingly supporting reactionary movements at the expense of progressive movements that share his views on international political relationships. It seems to me far more fundamentally important to deal with issues of war and peace than worrying about who sleeps with whom.

Posted by: Richard Lyon on Sunday, 25 November 2007 at 4:32pm GMT

Perhaps the Archbishop should stick to trying to govern the C of E: he seems to have been something of an absentee landlord during recent developments.

Posted by: Fr Mark on Sunday, 25 November 2007 at 5:19pm GMT

choirboyfromhell, I've been wondering the same thing for some time now. "So what does ++Williams not able to understand and parallel the actions of BushCo Inc. and those of ++Akinola & ++Venables?"

My guess is that ++Rowan initially saw (or was led to see) the elevation of +Gene Robinson by the Episcopal Church in 2003 as a unilateralist, pre-emptive strike, the same kind of action as the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq in 2002.

It is, however, the charismatic-evangelical breakaway groups within the Episcopal Church that share the Bush Administration's ideologies. (And, of course, it is they who "activated the Primates," and have written the Global South's press releases, trumpet blasts, and communiques ever since.)

Most will remember that there is considerable overlap in membership between the CANA breakaway parishes in Virginia and the senior echelons of the Bush Administration. But the connection is even deeper.

Most British people are unfamiliar with the minutiae of US politics and unacquainted with the phenomenon we call the Religious Right, except in its Islamist form. Consevos in Britain may hold conservative positions on sexuality but also be Christian Socialists.

American "Christianists," however, are hard rightists politically and economically as well as socially. They gave Bush his margin of victory in two presidential elections, not least because his campaign staff openly and viciously targeted gay people for attack both times. The Bush campaign, among other things, promised a Constitutional amendment to deny both marriage and civil union rights to gay people.

(continued ...)

Posted by: Charlotte on Sunday, 25 November 2007 at 6:27pm GMT

(Continued from previous post...)

The American "Christianists" in turn enthusiastically supported the US invasion of Iraq, pronouncing it a new Crusade against Islam, and they continue to support the war in Iraq when almost all others have dropped away.

The Anglican Communion Network has been nourished by this Christianist energy in the US wherever it was to be found, whether in the rural Deep South or the hardscrabble mountain areas around Pittsburgh known as "Pennsyltucky." The Network is strongly pro-Bush, pro-Iraq War, and hard rightist on economic as well as social issues.

Thus the Network has consistently attacked the Episcopal Church for supporting the Millennium Development Goals. That support is, in their eyes, reason enough to denounce the Episcopal Church as "pagan" and "apostate," though some also note that the MDG are supported by the UN -- that organization of Satanic one-worldists.

As to the Network support for the Iraq War, I have witnessed a ceremony that was, at one time, common in Central Florida Network churches. As a part of each Sunday's liturgy, at the offertory, the American flag was ceremonially processed up the center aisle. All stood while the flag went by, and remained standing as it was placed by the altar. The congregation then sang a patriotic song, often "God Bless America." Prayers for our troops were lengthy; prayers for peace almost non-existent.

Some time during the past four grueling years a paradigm shift may at last have taken place inside Lambeth Palace, and the unilateralist label reassigned to the group that truly deserves it, which is not the liberals in the American Church.

Posted by: Charlotte on Sunday, 25 November 2007 at 6:29pm GMT

Prior Aelred commented, "Of course in the USA we have Fox News & are now accustomed to this sort of substitute for actual journalism."

If I'm not mistaken, both Fox News and the Times of London are owned by News Corporation of whom, K. Rupert Murdoch is the CEO and which you can expect only the most right-wing bias in reporting.

Posted by: Mark W. on Sunday, 25 November 2007 at 8:10pm GMT

argh! Tahel should have been MUCH more careful with his quotes. nowhere in the article does Rowan actually use "worst" and "imperialist" together to describe the US. he doesn't even say "imperialist". yes, he's a critic of US and UK policy in Iraq, which is good. but the title was quoted completely out of context, which raises doubts about Tahel's journalistic integrity.

Posted by: Weiwen on Monday, 26 November 2007 at 12:46am GMT

The right wing spin in the Times piece really is appalling, even by Murdoch standards. Having read the actual interview, I don't see anything I would really object to or haven't said before, except for the silliness about trying to spin British imperialism as a charitable enterprise.

Apparently someone tipped off the extra-chromosome right in this country, including the "Anglican" secessionists, because the Times piece is followed by lots and lots of angry comments from the sort who think that the only thing wrong with George Bush is that he still hasn't killed some of the Arabs.

I wish that Rowan would read them and see the "Orthodox Anglicans" he has been siding with.

Posted by: JPM on Monday, 26 November 2007 at 1:35am GMT

Charlotte - Your analysis is wrong on many counts. You seem to equate the reactionary view of the deep South with the Appalachian area around Pittsburgh and environs. They could not be more different. I think the situation in Dio of Pittsburgh has much to do with the establishment of Trinity Seminary, a basically fundamentalist institution.

But when you make remarks such as "Pennsyltucky" which is a very bigoted remark (I bet you think you are some kind of liberal, but you are not) you are trashing people from the Appalachian region for no reason at all. The people of Kentucky, West Virginina, etc., are far more progressive than you.

Right wing fundamentalists are found all over the US, and in fact are less present here in Appalachia than in the rest of the country. We are, you see, not so easily corraled into mass movements.

I hope Charlotte will apologize for her ignorance of the USA. For readers in Britain, I hope you will ignore the simple bigotry of Charlotte.

Posted by: Phylmom on Monday, 26 November 2007 at 3:00am GMT

The interview is quiet and reflective as usual, but even if it were as loud as the Times reports it, it would still be welcome. He has struck a blow against the biggest travesty of Christianity in recent times -- the hijacking of its language for the nefarious purposes of American imperialism. The naivety and genuine innocence of many of the American responses on the Times thread show how deep is the enthrallment of Americans to this idol. The adhominem attacks on the speaker, his church and Christianity itself actually suggest to me that all three are more relevant that is sometimes imagined. The Gospel was surely never more verified nor more clearly needed than in these times where the largest allegedly Christian nation is openly justifying torture and fomenting war. To most Europeans the Archbishop will seem to be pointing out the obvious, though they may be happy that a churchman says it, and to most Americans he will seem to be gratuitously insulting their country. The divide of perception here is vast -- vaster than that between Sunni and Shiite!

Posted by: Joseph O'Leary on Monday, 26 November 2007 at 6:05am GMT

I think the spin is getting out of hand. Invented quotes are used to boast failed policies.

Injust war, torture...

The Campaign journalism displayed in these articles (and in the links to The Times article and in its comments) is really apalling.

The Archbishop is being used and abused for ideological gains. It's not the first time.

You will all have to be very careful about this sort of thing - or Democracy itself is soon dead.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Monday, 26 November 2007 at 9:14am GMT

I agree that the interview is far more thoughtful than it will be portrayed in the press (left AND right, if you think it's only the right wing press who will try to score points off this you are deluded). Still it seems to me in reading the article that Dr. Williams is pandering to the interviewer, often making strong statements after being prompted by a question. He should have known that his statements would be taken out of context and broadcast around the world. I also feel like he should counterbalance his criticism of America and the West with positive statements - the Muslim world does not have an immigration and integration problem the way that Europe does, and there's a reason for that. The human rights abuses that he targets in America occur routinely in the Muslim world, which has zero concept of separation of church and state and a high incidence of violent suppression of dissent and free expression by dictators and unelected officials. This interview is only going to make Anti-Americanism, which is a new socially accepted form of bigotry, more prevalent. You can certainly see examples of it in the posts in this forum.

Posted by: David Hein on Monday, 26 November 2007 at 9:39am GMT

I'm a Yank.

Is it just that The Sunday Times isn't up to the quality of The Times? I often find myself disagreeing Ruth Gledhill's writing, too. Though she often blames the headlines editor.

And then there's The Telegraph (not to mention the Sunday Telegraph). Stories there are very thinly sourced and weasel worded.

The comparison with the New York Times and the Washington Post is really quite embarassing for UK journalism in my opinion. You'd never confuse a NY Sun article with a NYT article. Not so The Times and The (UK) Sun.

For my money I trust the Guardian to get the story out with least bias and most competence.

Posted by: John B. Chilton on Monday, 26 November 2007 at 9:42am GMT

Göran,
I'd like to see some of her answers to the questions in the comment section.

It's a fascinating article and yet I'm not sure I agree with all of it.

To believe in someone is certainly not a mistranslation for to believe someone, the 2 are totally different concepts. Unless she's referring to the (not quoted) Greek original here? Could you confirm that?

Posted by: Erika Baker on Monday, 26 November 2007 at 2:56pm GMT

Wow thanks lots for the Nylund publisher link. Guess Jensen is not the essence of Aussie faith after all, and I rather think Nylund's work will further rock the boats, even while subsequent waves from the New Biology are still whooshing all around us. What an exciting time to be a follower of Jesus of Nazareth. We cannot afford for the conservative realignment fits and starts to cloud our spiritual eyes to see this. An absolutely stunningly revolutionary time to be a follower of Jesus of Nazareth.

Expect lots of attack on Dr. N. For sure.

Then again, probably no time is really a bad time to follow. Lord have mercy.

Posted by: drdanfee on Monday, 26 November 2007 at 4:05pm GMT

I'd need to have a verse...

I have observed a difference in the articles used with pístis, but I don't quite remember what it was ;=)

The word is about trusting basically. So not simple intellectual assent, as per the Scholastic tradition.

But I wouldn't be surprised if Ms Nyland is referring to the conceptual change/difference trust/believe.

Sometimes new concepts are expressed (awkwardly) in old terms - at least for a while.

I've just ordered The Source book, we'll see when it arrives...

The basic problem with translations from Bible Greek is that they are done early on by people who read Academic Greek (and refuse to acknowledge any other "vulgar" kind), and sometimes they don't at all mean the same thing with the same word.

Both may be specialized, retaining (or adding) one out of a dosen meanings - and when the retained meanings are (two) different; misunderstandings galore!

Take epithumía, which in General Greek means (any) desire including "sexual", but in Bible Greek nearly exclusively refers to material desires/selfishness/Greed damaging the collective Community (10th Commandment).

Whereas Academics into Alexandrian Gnosticism/Philosophy tend to read all instances exclusively as "sex", thus changing the direction of large tracts of the text from social to individual and from matter to "Sin".

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Monday, 26 November 2007 at 4:10pm GMT

As folks here know, I have often been highly critical of Archbishop Williams. However, in the context of his interview in “Emel” magazine he makes some very good points. About 70 per cent of Americans want out of Iraq; many have come to the conclusion that we should not have gotten involved there in the first place. That’s hardly an “anti-American” point of view. It’s pretty mainstream today, even in the USA.

Posted by: Kurt on Monday, 26 November 2007 at 4:25pm GMT

I live with and care for someone with an extra chromosone and would prefer "extra-chromosone" not to be used as an insult. JPM, please don't take this personally. From your comment I suspect we are otherwise in agreement. Thanks.

Posted by: lapsang on Monday, 26 November 2007 at 5:00pm GMT

What has happened to the Times? I used to trust it like the BBC for accuracy. I may not of liked what was reported but I expected it to be fair and balanced. Now, its Ruth Gledhill? It's more like Fox News is "fair and balanced" Where is the direct reporting, not derived or spun out of somebody else's blog or press release. Is it because it has become a Murdoch property? Twenty years ago Ruth Gledhill would have been gone after her second errant or misguided story.

I am saddened by how +Rowan is being treated. The predigested spin from the Sunday Times has been the fodder of the right wing blogs in such a manner that is simply shameful.
Above Titus Onenine is mentioned. Please visit Stand Firm and its owner, Greg Griffith words to see adjectives that are truly appalling, and based on the Times' story.

Please now read the actual interview. Can you Brits demand of Murdoch that the Times be what it once was, a beacon of clear, concise reporting, not the purveyor of somebody's else predigested sludge that it has become?

Posted by: EPfizH on Monday, 26 November 2007 at 6:24pm GMT

David Hein wrote:
"The human rights abuses that he targets in America occur routinely in the Muslim world, which has zero concept of separation of church and state and a high incidence of violent suppression of dissent and free expression by dictators and unelected officials."

But one of the few countries in the Muslim world which +did+ have separation of mosque and state was Iraq under the robustly secular Ba'ath regime. One of the less rational decisions of the American government was to react to an attack by Islamist nutters by overthrowing the regime in the Arab world which took least nonsense from mullahs.

On the basis of Stephen Bates's report, I think the Archbishop's got it about right, and my view hasn't changed on skimming the other reports to which Simon has linked. Once again, he seems to be coming under attack from both sides - the expected rants from the American right, and also the criticism by Mr Singh who seems mistakenly to interpret his words as an endorsement of the British Raj.

Posted by: Alan Harrison on Monday, 26 November 2007 at 6:29pm GMT

Goran,
Not to mention that 'metanoia' does not mea falling into a heap of regretful tears at some sin or another, which is what is usually meant by 'repentance', as the word is usually translated, but actually refers to a change of thought, belief, attitude towards ourselves and our place in the Universe. To repent is to try to understand reality as God understands reality, and to try to live according to that new understanding, with grief at the ways in which one has kept one'sself blind to that reality. Seen in that light, "Hallelujah, 'tis done, I believe on the Son, I'm washed in the Blood of the Crucified One" then ceases to be an anthem of joy at redemption, and instead becomes more like rejoicing at getting membership in some exclusive club. That, of course, is the reason for the attachment to the mistranslation.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Monday, 26 November 2007 at 6:31pm GMT

Thanks for the nyland link, I've added it to my favourites :-)

Yes, the article has been sensationalised through a biased filter, but then Christians do that all the time. Look at how we rant at how Christians are being persecuted in non-Christian nations but are quiescent to abuse of children in our own dioceses (unless we might have to open coffers to resolve lawsuits)...

That said, the article provides an opportunity to take a step back and look at what kind of tactics are being denounced. When you go beyond looking at who is throwing what hits at whom, you start to see that was everyone agrees is that certain societal forms and strategies are anathema (particularly if you imagine them being done to one of your own kind).

So we don't agree with religious suppression, we don't agree with persecution, we don't agree with destabilisation of other regimes, we don't agree with assassinations or bombings, we don't agree with slander and misrepresentation, we don't agree with setting up puppet figures and funding them to claim credibility in supporting a more suitable leader (e.g. Hussein), we don't agree with educational institutions being taken over and propoganda machines running rampant to ensure that only the "politically correct" is promulgated (e.g. Stalin), we don't agree with incarceration or mistreatment of the disabled or ethnic minorities, nor do we agree with rampant prostitution or women being perceived as filthy whores or worthless slaves.

We all desire that our children are safe, well-fed, and able to grow up to live mature contributive lives in flourishing sustainable communities. We want the best for our children, irregardless of their hair or whatever limitations God has meted out to them.

Those who agree with these sentiments and who despise selfish imperialism need to recognise that imperialism can not be done only in the name of a state, in can be done in the name of a church or a prophet or an idol.

Sometimes we find it easier to see the problems in "something" else than we do in our own backyard. Yet in describing what we don't like in other circumstances, we can gain an insight to why some are fighting so vehemently against the equivalent manifestations within the Anglican communion.

Rowan has done a lot on inter-faith dialogue, maybe he could try building a communion that is capable of inter-Anglican dialogue.

Posted by: Cheryl Va. Clough on Monday, 26 November 2007 at 7:17pm GMT

Phylmom, sorry I stepped on your toes. But I'm from the region, and "Pennsyltucky" is what we all called it.

Posted by: Charlotte on Monday, 26 November 2007 at 8:21pm GMT

EPfizH
This was the _Sunday Times_.
The newspaper title is separately edited and separately staffed, although (now) owned by the same owner as the [Monday to Saturday] title _The Times_. The two titles also share a common website.
Ruth Gledhill works for the weekday newspaper.

Posted by: Simon Sarmiento on Monday, 26 November 2007 at 9:26pm GMT

I'm from Pennsylvania, too, and the standard line is that PA is a state with Philadelphia at one end, Pittsburgh at the other, and Alabama in the middle.

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Monday, 26 November 2007 at 10:12pm GMT

I'm thinking that if people in the Appalachian mountain regions would rather be treated with respect than otherwise, that's certainly understandable and something one ought to do.

Posted by: Charlotte on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 12:13am GMT

Pat, I grew up in Alabama and lived for a while in central Pennsylvania. The latter makes the former look downright cosmopolitan.

Lapsang, point taken.

Posted by: JPM on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 1:11am GMT

In Anderson’s fairy tale, people took interest in the fact that the Emperor had no clothes, I suspect that few care that the same is true of Dr. Williams.
I quote Williams from the Sarah Joseph article: “it is one thing to take over a territory and then pour energy and resources into administering it and normalising it. Rightly or wrongly that’s what the British Empire did – in India for example. It is another thing to go in on the assumption that a quick burst of violent action will somehow clear the decks and that you can move on and other people will put things back together –Iraq for example.”
Rightly or wrongly is that what the British Empire did – in Ireland for example, “pour energy and resources into administering it and normalising it”? Rightly or wrongly? Please, Rule Britannia and all that, but after having lost all the colonies, don’t the British have any better understanding of why?
The recent American involvement in Iraq is a demonstrably stupid endeavor – anyone with a modicum of intelligence should be able to cobble together a coherent argument against it. But no, Dr Williams has to resort to setting up a straw man. I have never heard anyone, in government or elsewhere ever suggest that the American plan was ever to “move on and other people will put things back together.” The continued American presence in Iraq clearly refutes this.
Honestly, I think that Dr. Williams is indefensible.

Posted by: Ley Druid on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 4:10am GMT

"Honestly, I think that Dr. Williams is indefensible."

It may so be, but what is worrying is not really that a churchman and academic doesn't understand any politicks, but the wilful and unforgivable campaign set up to discredit him, and his church, and TEC and the AC and the Gospel on the basis of forged quotes and outlandish interpretations by dishonest people in The Times (and the Telegraph), formely a grand old lady now prostitute to the Powers that be.

The Foxification of Media.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 10:24am GMT

" One of the less rational decisions of the American government was to react to an attack by Islamist nutters by overthrowing the regime in the Arab world which took least nonsense from mullahs."

That's what comes of having The Decider in office. I suspect that some years down the road a number of the people - like Colin Powell - who served His Bushiness and were decieved or over-ruled by Cheney et alia - may write some interesting and horrifying memoirs. Some of course will be 'don't blame me' written with all the clarity of hindsight, but eventually we'll likely all be even more horrified than we are now.

My prayer is that we can leave as quickly as possible that's consonant with some shred of hope that a general bloodbath worse than the ongoing one does not take place.


Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 11:33am GMT

"The recent American involvement in Iraq is a demonstrably stupid endeavor – anyone with a modicum of intelligence should be able to cobble together a coherent argument against it. But no, Dr Williams has to resort to setting up a straw man. I have never heard anyone, in government or elsewhere ever suggest that the American plan was ever to “move on and other people will put things back together.” The continued American presence in Iraq clearly refutes this."

Actually, that was, indeed, the initial plan of the Bush administration. Some relevant comments from the time: "It will be a cakewalk." "We'll be welcomed as liberators." "The war will be paid for with Iraqi oil revenues." There was no plan for a long post-Saddam occupation because they thought none would be needed. (Probably they thought their hand-picked Iraqi exile--Ahmad Chalabi--could come in, be hailed as the new president, and then take over. Didn't work that way.)

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 12:02pm GMT

Ley Druid wrote:
"Rightly or wrongly is that what the British Empire did – in Ireland for example, “pour energy and resources into administering it and normalising it”?"

Ireland's not a particularly good example. Ireland was, and Northern Ireland remains, a part of the UK. That distinguished servant of the British empire, Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington, was an Irishman. The great author Jonathan Swift was an Irishman. The first woman elected to Parliament, although she did not take her seat, was an Irishwoman, Constance Markiewicz, representing a seat which is now in the Irish Republic.

Irish history doesn't always conform to the "hyphenated American" mythology. James Connolly was far ruder about the Roman Catholic clergy than Ian Paisley ever was!

Posted by: Alan Harrison on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 12:04pm GMT

Ley

One of the reasons they haven't extricated themselves from Iraq is a major credibility issue.

Around a year ago I heard that the US's international reputation is at the lowest it has ever been and the only other time it got that low was during the Vietnam war.

One of the main reasons they haven't been able to extricate themselves is that even in the Whitehouse they are trying to work out how to get out without leaving the mess they left in South East Asia.

Remember Cambodia and its killing fields. For the first 20 or so years after the Vietnamese liberated them Cambodians, both nations faced embargoes at US insistence. The Cambodians were decimated and needed the Vietnamese to protect them, which the Vietnamese did, and for which they gave more rice per head of population to their decimated neighbours than they kept for own people.

The Vietnamese have to go down in history as one of the most stoic and compassionate nations of this generation and whose morality is not based on military strength or wealth self-aggrandisement.

Posted by: Cheryl Va. Clough on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 8:03pm GMT

Just one little doubt about the points made above: surely the setting up of permanent US military bases in Iraq was part of the original plan? They did not realize that the price of putting that plan into action would be to have an army bogged down there on the ground for years. But it seems that this is a price they are still willing to pay.

The British had Amritsars and Bloody Sundays -- shooting into unarmed crowds -- when the Indian and Irish rose up against them; but the US troops had two Amritsars in their very first week in Iraq. There was scarcely any outcry about that.

Posted by: Joseph O'Leary on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 at 3:55am GMT

Joseph

There are local peoples who consider that to be the case. There are also Iraqi's who wonder if some of the bombings aren't done by the US in order to justify their needing to stay.

Such postulations are conjecture and lead to conspiracy theories.

What I do know is that if the US is still foolishly attempting to establish any kind of permanent military base in any Islam nation in the middle east then they have rocks in their heads or a vacuum that the wind whistles through. They just don't get how much of an anethama such a thing would be to the Islamic nations, plus the spread of AIDS and other associated problems that typically follow such bases will simply feed the fires of resentment and hatred.

There are profound lessons needing to be learnt by humanity, it is called growing up. It means accepting that you can not control every aspect of everything that happens everywhere. It means accepting that you have to trust God.

There will be no peace where souls do not believe that peace is possible, there will be no peace if souls are not prepared to bring out the best in both their enemies and their friends.

A husband does not create a happy marriage by depriving his wife of love and gifts, nor by ignoring her, nor by imposing favours upon her by force, nor by putting a price on why he would help her, nor by insulting or disinheriting her children. A husband does not have a happy home if he spends all his time at work or with his mates scheming and bragging about what he has done or is going to do, nor by griping about what he doesn't have or how she has failed him. Nor should such men be surprised if their wives no longer trust them or seek a divorce or take on an alternative lover who is more attentive, considerate and kind than them. Men can not call on their word to keep things together when they have demonstrated that their word means nothing.

The same principles also apply to how churches or nations conduct themselves both within their families and with their neighbors.

Posted by: Cheryl Va. Clough on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 at 9:54am GMT

Well, the good thing about the Archbishop's maladroit comments, however misquoted he may have been, is that he has clearly enraged the conservatives in America now. Over on Stand Firm, they're all calling for his head, which I think is good news for us. There's not much point in the Archbishop bending over backwards to please only the group that hates him, is there? Or does Rowanic self-immolative masochism stretch that far, I wonder?

Posted by: Fr Mark on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 at 4:06pm GMT

"Over on Stand Firm, they're all calling for his head,"

I can't bear to look, are they somehow claiming that opposition to war isn't Christian, or just opposition to the policies of God's Own Party?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 at 5:06pm GMT

Ford: I think it was the Archbishop passing judgment on America that has got their goat. Weirdly, beacuse they want him to pass judgemnt on some Americans, just not their sort.

Posted by: Fr Mark on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 at 6:07pm GMT

Well, Fr. Mark, in some circles in the US, Ithough have no idea if conservative Episcopalians are in those circles, it is publically taught that to vote Democrat is a sin! What's more, when Bush went into Iraq, many of these churches held recruiting drives in the worship spaace of their churches on Sunday mornings! I am not joking, recruiting for the army is bad enough, doing it in church is even worse, but doing it at the time of Divine Worship is beyond the Pale!

Posted by: Ford Elms on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 at 7:12pm GMT

Well, the good thing about the Archbishop's maladroit comments, however misquoted he may have been, is that he has clearly enraged the conservatives in America now. Over on Stand Firm, they're all calling for his head, which I think is good news for us. There's not much point in the Archbishop bending over backwards to please only the group that hates him, is there? Or does Rowanic self-immolative masochism stretch that far, I wonder?

Posted by: Fr Mark on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 at 4:06pm GMT

DO remember he is still a Welshman !

Posted by: L Roberts on Sunday, 2 December 2007 at 1:39am GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.