Iraq's Poisoned Babies

From NATIONAL POST: "Iraq's Poisoned Babies have made me a hawk"
When I came to autonomous northern Iraq - which since 1991 has been protected from Saddam's reach by British and U.S. warplanes -- I was intensely skeptical of the wisdom of Washington's insistence on deposing Saddam. Its claims of links between al-Qaeda and Baghdad seemed tenuous. As for the assertion that Saddam will soon have the bomb, well, the evidence was pretty flimsy. Indeed, I could have reeled off a host of counter-arguments. At a time when the Western world is entering a long, drawn-out struggle against Islamist terrorism, it made little sense to fritter away resources to oust a man whose regime was weaker than ever. A war also risked alienating hundreds of millions of moderate Muslims whose support would be essential if the threat of Islamist extremism was to be neutered... But nothing could have prepared me for the odious evil of Saddam Hussein's rule...Thousands of Iraqis are still being executed without trial, and tens of thousands routinely tortured. Millions live in a state of numb fear... One doctor who works in the town told me: "A woman came to see me two months ago. She had given birth to a little girl who had no feet." Who could argue with taking action against the regime responsible for such outrages? Assos Hardi, the editor of the liberal newspaper Hawalati in Sulaimania, was more mathematical in his appraisal. He said: "How many people do you think will die if America attacks Saddam? It will probably be less than the number of people he kills in a single month." As the drums of war beat ever louder, I am still unsure of the strategic wisdom of opening a second front in the war against terror. But of the moral rectitude of such a course, there can be no doubt.

Why Bush isn't Listening to Canada

Mississauga MP on U.S.: 'Hate those bastards'
OTTAWA - The Liberal government faced new accusations of anti-Americanism yesterday after an MP who is an outspoken critic of George W. Bush said she hated Americans and called them "bastards" intent on going to war with Iraq. Carolyn Parrish, the Liberal MP for Mississauga Centre, later issued a statement apologizing for the comments, which came on a day when Jean Chr


Like it or not, who we are is, in large part, a reaction to the previous generation. This is true in the church. The emerging church is shaped not only by a vision of what the church should look like, but also as a reaction against what it has not been in the previous generation. Part of our calling is to deliver a church - not an institution, but a living and organic body that's alive and coursing with Spirit-life - to the next generation. What the emerging church will be in another generation may, in part, be a reaction against the sort of church I'm helping to shape today. What kind of church is that? What is it in my generation that the next generation will react against? My generation is marked by cynicism. Granted, the cynicism is there for a reason. I sometimes wonder, though, if the next generation will view my cynicism the same way that I view the traditionalism of the generation that went before me. Every generation seems to have a fatal flaw. I'm wondering if my generation's fatal flaw is cynicism.

All for Nothing

The possibility exists that my life, my church, my tradition, my denomination, even my Bible will become relics of religious curiosity instead of living instruments of God. Men and women will be ordained, earn Ph.D.s, and launch evangelical magazines, publishing houses, colleges, and seminaries with solid evangelical commitments, and it will all be for nothing. Empty canals. There are specialists who can cite Scripture and verse, who can measure orthodoxy with exacting precision, who can identify the religious speck in someone