Michael Welch wrote on Dec 31, 1969 6:00 PM:
" And everyone 'cherry-picks' the Bible as Rick indicates; no one could actually live a 'normal' life if he didn't. Both Jews and Christians discount ('reinterpret') most of the commands in Leviticus, Numbersreligions really rather sophisticated attempts to explain the psychology of a people, their times and places. Christians for instance are 'desperate housewives' of sorts in need of ultimate salvation, i. e. to be 'saved' from the very reality that humans are NOT 'gods' or 'God' and therefore not 'perfect,' whatever that is to be. Read though the Bible and one sees Yahweh is irascible, unfair, whimsical, even decidedly murderous -- 'a Man of War' indeed! My own sense, this Yom Kippur, is that the Jews have actually been 'better,' certainly more loyal, to their God than their God has "
Michael Welch wrote on Sep 22, 2007 12:00 PM:
" I'm also still mesmerized by that ever-present 'Dec 31, 1969 6 PM.' Marc tells me he's puzzled too and doesn't really know the reason why. I suppose we could imagine some 'god' of the cyberspace or some 'djinn,' mischievous spirit, as the Muslims posit, monkeying with my 'blasphemous' posts. This time I AM 'permitted' the full post (below) but it's also been conflated into that hovering 'New Year's eve 1969.' Magical? Portentous? Mocking my seriousness of purpose -- You absurd little man!? You think you 'know it all' eh?! Add a dash of humility yes... "
Michael Welch wrote on Sep 22, 2007 11:51 AM:
" Literalism is the bane of religions though it can be persuasively argued -- Why else would one 'believe' if it weren't all true? I think the gods so to speak are more projections of a society's culture and religions really rather sophisticated attempts to explain the psychology of a people, their times and places. Christians for instance are 'desperate housewives' of sorts in need of ultimate salvation, i. e. to be 'saved' from the very reality that humans are NOT 'gods' or 'God' and therefore not 'perfect,' whatever that is to be. Read though the Bible and one sees Yahweh is irascible, unfair, whimsical, even decidedly murderous -- 'a Man of War' indeed! My own sense, this Yom Kippur, is that the Jews have actually been 'better,' certainly more loyal, to their God than their God has been to them. Startling? But perhaps the essence of 'belief'?... "
rick harsch wrote on Sep 22, 2007 6:34 AM:
" The difference between the Old and New Testaments can indeed make a difference in interpretation, as I found from the following OT passage, quoting Pharcasus of Saka, 'It is easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than for a camel to defeat a centurion at dice'. You see that has been transformed in the NT. "
Michael Welch wrote on Sep 21, 2007 1:22 PM:
" I'm not certain what's being disputed below re: scripture. I'm not talking about alcoholism but about what the Bible relates. Obviously there are 'contexts' and equally obvious is the need for interpretation but there are hundreds of Christian denominations -- why? Because they can't agree on how certain things deemed important are to be interpreted. What does that prove? That the Bible's a difficult book written after all two millennia and -- re: part one, the biggest part -- a half ago. The Jews have a lengthy set of interpretations called the 'Talmud' because so much is so difficult to discern as time has gone by. You don't say what I wrote below is inaccurate BUT by YOUR interpretation OR your church's. You can't take the texts 'literally' all the time? Yes I agree... "
Michael Welch wrote on Sep 21, 2007 1:10 PM:
" Can Marc remove the posts that hover above in a perpetual 'Dec 31, 1969 6 PM'? Yet I wonder WHAT WAS I doing at then?! I must have been at Ft Lewis on New Year's eve; I may have been having a beer at the PX across from the company area. I doubt I left for Seattle or Tacoma as I was not 21 and couldn't legally drink in Washington. Thinking of that war I knew and my three years in the army I can say that I obviously survived, without a wound or a mental trauma so I was 'lucky,' one could observe. But many thousands died and millions of Vietnamese; it seems such a waste, an irretrievable waste. Wars are not 'glorious' -- unless you've never participated in one. Soldiers mainly think of home and friends, of surviving and not letting their 'buddies' down; they are NOT 'ideologues'... "
patrioticamerican wrote on Sep 21, 2007 12:56 PM:
" Michael and Rick, I don't dispute any single passage of scripture. It in itself is true but when one comes upon another passage that appears to be in conflict or mitigates the sentence, one has to look at the message and the context. Some have come to believe that drinking alcohol is sinful, yet it appears that many folks in the Bible drank alcohol and at the same time the Bible speaks against drunkenness?? It becomes apparent that scripture doesn't consider drinking alcohol to be sinful but does make clear that drinking alcohol can lead a man to sin. The least of which could be drunkenness. BTW, the OT is as relevant as the NT. The OT explains our need for Salvation within an historical context and the NT explains Salvation. "
Michael Welch wrote on Sep 21, 2007 11:50 AM:
" Biblical believers obviously have had two millennia to 'straighten out' the texts in their rationalizations but the Bible is a 'big book' and hence it has something for everyone like all successful religions. Church institutions depend on some wealth and power and so denunciations of the rich are uh counter-productive; also recall what I wrote that wasn't addressed -- the apocalyptic Jesus. As I said, once it became clear to early followers (like Paul even) that 'the end of the world' was NOT at hand then (see the Timothy letters) you have to start having bishops, priests, elders, i. e. 'authority' and the practice has to be regularized and adjusted to the rhythms of the 'real world,' not the fantasy one... "
Michael Welch wrote on Sep 21, 2007 11:38 AM:
" It's tiresome to write one's post (and then have to re-write it) and see it appear in a truncated form; I hope something can be done about that. As one can see I was saying that in the Jewish scriptures weaugh the eye of a needle than for a camel to defeat a centurion at dice'. You see that has been transformed in the NT. "
rick harsch wrote on Sep 21, 2007 5:58 AM:
" PAmerican,
You also choose your narrative. You can't but agree that Jesus was as egalitarian sort, so you harken back to the wealthy Old Testament gents. That's a rather desperate manouver that begs the question: why does this guy like rich people so much? But the narrative follows my favorite theological quote, from Radhakrishnan: 'In the nature of things a priesthood is always demoralizing'. And so a religion develops an establishment, is drained of energy, and along comes the stable cleaner, in this case Jesus, who galvanizes the aggrieved, fights corruption, breathes new life into the religion. "
patrioticamerican wrote on Sep 20, 2007 3:41 PM:
" Michael, which is why when your children detect any hint of contradiction, they "cherry pick" one word or sentence and tell you what "you said". Much the way you tell your children not to "tattle" on someone yet you hope they come to you and "tattle" on someone when it comes to them doing themselves harm. The Bible, while ambiguous at times, is actually fairly consistent if read in context. "
patrioticamerican wrote on Sep 20, 2007 3:11 PM:
" Michael, Rick, you prove my point. No one should "cherry pick" the bible. It needs to be read in its entirety. While Jesus does appear to be quite hard on the rich as are many on the left today, one need only look at the stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to realize they were all quite wealthy. God "blessed" them as his chosen people. As most realize today, the wealthy are quite beneficial to society. Being involved in several non-profits, we would not exist without their generosity. The government could not perform at the level it does without them. Businesses could not be started without them. People would not have jobs without them. While I do believe that those whom have been blessed, much is expected, I also thank the wealthy for all that they do, intentionally or otherwise. "
rick harsch wrote on Sep 20, 2007 2:32 PM:
" phil, you forgot wrenches, screws, nuts, bolts, nails, hammers and of course, step ladders. "
Michael Welch wrote on Sep 20, 2007 2:17 PM:
" 'Michael Welch, aged 58, enjoying posting on what he thinks is the La Crosse Tribune blog; but what he DOESN'T KNOW is that Michael Welch is posting to -- the Twilight Zone!' Dunt dunt dunt dunt, dunt dunt dunt dunt, dundundunDUH!!!!!! "
Michael Welch wrote on Sep 20, 2007 1:57 PM:
" Well that Dec 31, 1969 post -- at 6 pm. Apocalypse then? I'm fascinated but it IS bizarre. Marc? Marc? Where are you? I was attempting to say that ALL Christians (and Jews for that matter) pick and choose what they 'follow' in the Bible. I noted that only someone who believed he was St Francis would obey the commands of Jesus to 'give to whomever asks you' and 'If someone wants your coat give him your cloak too' -- the commands must be mitigated for 'real life' and the reason they are is that there was no apocalypse after all and in order for the religion to maintain followers it needed to adapt to that 'normal' life. Now let's see what happens when I click this -- BBBOOOOMMMMM! IT'S ALWAYS 'DEC 31, 1969 AT 6 PM'!!!!!!!!!!.... "
Michael Welch wrote on Sep 20, 2007 1:23 PM:
" Yes I may as well stay on the 'Jesus' topic; it's refreshing to talk about religion again. Jesus one can observe was an 'apocalyptic' preacher -- see what's called 'the little apocalypse' of Mark for example -- as were for instance the Essenes, the cult which preserved the 'Dead Sea Scrolls.' In the apocalyptic sense of course wealth, family, societal obligations (Jesus says 'He who doesn't hate his family and love me is unworthy of me') -- what Hindus call 'dharma' -- mean nothing as 'the end of the world is coming!' Literally! Jesus even remarks that 'some who are alive now will be alive' when the final confrontation between God and the forces of evil (Romans et. al. mainly) occurs. He turned out to be wrong but the book of Revelation continues the idea in literalist Christianity especially...
"
Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 20, 2007 1:12 PM:
" Do you think WE should just give them arms? JEEZ my computer keys are sticky!!! "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 20, 2007 1:10 PM:
" Brian, why do you think selling $4 Billion dollars worth of arms to Iraq is evil? Do you think would should just give them the means to protect their country from Iran? Do you think they should buy there weapons of protection from China or Russia instead? Or do you think that no one should give them weapons to protect themselves? The last option I mentioned would be evil, but selling them arms is not evil. (As a side note it would be beneficial to know what all is in that 'arms deal.' How much is weapons, how much is ammo, how much is spare parts, how much is delivery systems {Humvees, helicopters, forklifts} etc.) "
rick harsch wrote on Sep 20, 2007 1:07 PM:
" mostpatrioticamericanever, I believe all the main posters here besides myself have read the bible more than once, and I know first hand the depth to which Michael Welch has studied it. It's very easy to accuse someone who quotes it to accuse him of quoting what pleases him, but what else would one quote? The eye of the needle is a very small space thesee days, but granted it may have been bigger in Christ's day. Still camels have always been pretty big. I think your narrow understanding of the passage betrays a fear of its meaning--not that Jesus was a socialist, but that he would be now, or simpler, that today's grotesque maldistribution of income is certainly un-Christian. "
Michael Welch wrote on Sep 20, 2007 1:03 PM:
" No no I'm not saying 'Jesus IS a socialist' but there was a strong Christian social movement in the latter 19th and early 20th century that advocated socialism as a humane Christian ideal. Eugene Debs the first great American socialist leader often quoted the Bible and Norman Thomas, his successor and the most popular socialist of the 1930s, was an ordained Presbyterian minister. MY POINT is not to insist that such a reading of the gospels MUST be everyone's understanding -- interpretations of the NT mitigate EVERYTHING Jesus said to fit societal norms -- but Jesus prefers the poor obviously and for those who want a 'literalist' reading, well his words are pro-poor, anti-rich. See the Lazarus the beggar and the rich man story -- Jesus goes after the rich again and again... "
Michael Welch wrote on Sep 20, 2007 12:55 PM:
" Sometimes I recommend movies; I shall this time recommend the excellent 1972 BBC series 'War and Peace' based of course on the famous Tolstoy novel. A quite youthful-looking albeit appropriately 'chunky' Anthony Hopkins plays 'Pierre'; the little-known unfortunately but absolutely FINE actor Alan Dobie (of the Victorian-era 'Sergeant Cribb' series) is 'Prince Andrei'; a Welsh actress Morag Hood is the vivacious 'Natasha'; Frank Middlemass is a great 'General Kutusov'; and David Swift is a peppery and arrogant Napoleon. The series FINALLY comes to DVD next month and is better I think than even the 1968 8-hr Soviet version. It's an extremely wise (Tolstoy's to credit) presentation of what is 'important' in life -- the 'big picture' (war etc.) or the supposedly mundane daily life of family and friends ('peace'). It is anti-war in the most practical as well as philosophical way but with a Hinduish-Buddha-like acceptance of 'it all'... "
patrioticamerican wrote on Sep 20, 2007 12:48 PM:
" Michael, the analogy concerning the camel going through the eye of a needle being easier than for a rich man to go to heaven is not supportive of Jesus being a socialist. He certainly isn't encouraging the rest of us to take the rich man's money and distribute it to everyone else. He is merely explaining that many people who become rich begin to lust after wealth and money in itself becomes an idol for them. Jesus is being very clear that you can't buy your way to heaven yet those that have money can most likely have anything they want on earth may begin to think they can buy their way into heaven. Read the Gospel and just don't pull out one passage to support your point. Religious zealots often do just that to support whatever cause they support. "
Michael Welch wrote on Sep 20, 2007 11:38 AM:
" Okay I've taken BSG's advice and I shall as below post on whatever strikes me in your comments or I'll just say something I think of and stop lecturing you'all on 'debating' etc. I do object on reflection to BGS's characterization of my posts as 'spraying the room' however; upon re-reading them they really are quite specific in the points they make and not appreciably llllooonnnnger (re: 'PO'B') than anyone else's but one may pick one's fights and as Rick notes 'useful information' does get discussed. I might note that re: the vote in the US senate yesterday to block the Webb proposal limiting the length of deployment of individual troops to time 'in garrison' the war is certain to continue until 2009 and perhaps beyond... "
Michael Welch wrote on Sep 20, 2007 11:27 AM:
" 'Jesus was not a socialist' -- I stated that of course not, as no one had contemplated a socialist system as we know it, yet the Gracchi brothers in the 2nd century BCE were murdered for their preferential proposals to aid the Roman poor pushed off their lands by wealthy landifundia. And Julius Caesar was also assassinated in 44 BCE as a 'radical' really and the verboten topic for Roman polite society was the Spartacus revolt of 73-71 BCE in which a 'Sun City' on the southwestern coast had been briefly established as a refuge for escaped slaves and model for what might indeed be called a 'proto-socialist' society. Jesus was steeped in the religious perks for the poor and said you'll recall: 'It's easier for the camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.' Pretty 'socialistic'... "
patrioticamerican wrote on Sep 20, 2007 9:52 AM:
" Brian, I have no problem paying taxes for a whole host of items especially in support of our Armed Forces in Iraq. I have no problem with everyone including the super rich (defined as?) paying for it. I support a balanced budget. The top bracket is 35%. Reviewing the numbers, the top 50% of income earners pay 96-97% of all income taxes collected. I'm not even going to get into the economic benefits let alone libertarian arguments about taxation. I think we are taxed more than enough; I think we need to review our priorities. You'll argue the war in Iraq shouldn't be one of them. I disagree and note that the military is one of the few items specifically mentioned in the constitution that Congress is required to fund. "
BrianGSmith wrote on Sep 20, 2007 5:30 AM:
" Dear Phil...Egytp, India...Pakistan....all vote against the US over 70% of the time in the UN but our gov't and Pentagon doesn't have a problem selling them each a few BILLION worth of state-of-the-art weaponry.....almost neutralizes your points I believe....now we have over $4 Billion worth of weapons ready to sell Iraq...a Nation that can't even tie its shoe or zip up its fly !!! That's evil my friend....pure evil. "
BrianGSmith wrote on Sep 20, 2007 5:26 AM:
" Dear patriotamerican....We have bills to pay. Have you seen the National Debt? The cost of this pre-emptive war? Pay as you go. The folks and businesses that flourish behind the protection of the US military should pay the most for those services. We paid over $400 Billion last year to pay the INTEREST on our National Debt alone!!! The INTEREST!!! Money paid to China, Japan and South Korea. If half of Bush's absurd Tax breaks for the super rich were reinstalled the war would be paid for.....so lets do it. It's those folks who push for US intervention worldwide....they can therefor pay for it. Is this too radical for you? "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 19, 2007 3:17 PM:
" rick, if you want an interesting developement of Arab hatred of the formation of Israel and the UN's role, you should focus on UN resolution 242. It called for two basic things. 1)Withdrawl of Israeli armed forces from occupied territories. Now what was intentionally left off of that was the phrase "all occupied territories." That is because the UN recognized part 2 of the resolution 2) Israel had a right to live inside safe borders. It is this resolution that Arab nations hate the most. Now I don't know if all those votes against the US are dealing with Israel, but even so, it shows that we give huge sums of money to countries that don't have our interests in mind. That is a waste of money and possibly a paying off of our own enemy. "
patrioticamerican wrote on Sep 19, 2007 3:09 PM:
" Brian, so if some people don't give to charity, then we have the right by law to take it?? I would argue that people in the US are some of the most charitable in the world. Unfortunately some have come to believe "they gave at the office" as a result of them paying their taxes whereby Government takes care of the charity for them. "
patrioticamerican wrote on Sep 19, 2007 3:05 PM:
" Brian, you brought up Jesus, not me. Where in that thing called a constitution does it give Congress the authority to spend money on individuals as part of a social welfare program? Providing for the COMMON Defense and GENERAL Welfare are pretty broad. I don't believe the constitution gives Congress authority for corporate welfare either. However, I don't call reducing their income taxes welfare. I don't believe letting people keep more of their own money is government charity.
"
BrianGSmith wrote on Sep 19, 2007 2:32 PM:
" Dear Phil...Funny, most of those on the UN list you provided are the US's biggest weapons buying regimes. Most votes against the US are in regards to Israel. We stand by her right or wrong, and that is wrong. "
rick harsch wrote on Sep 19, 2007 2:25 PM:
" Michael, If you examine the posts carefully you will see that the 'dissenters' are not up against much. How do we debate, when so quickly the 'dissenters' are called anti-American and allies of terrorists. When that happens, that becames the debate, and in a way is just as important. did you see the video of the U of Florida student getting arrested and tasered? Free speech, somehow, remains a real issue, and if that is one of the places the blog goes then so be it. Still, I think you'll find plenty of good information here on this post. For instance, I mentioned the need for war reparations, as proposed by Kucinich and later by Scahill, author of a book on Blackwater. I think it's an important point to discuss. "
patrioticamerican wrote on Sep 19, 2007 2:22 PM:
" Michael, Rick, Brian...Jesus wasn't a socialist...not that you believe Jesus is the Son of God worthy of following his teachings. Jesus implores us to help the poor, sick, and to forgive. He says we should give with a cheerful heart and not for recognition. Jesus doesn't condemn the rich. There is nothing wrong with being rich and it may offer someone the opportunity to do great things for their fellow man. However, he does caution that the love of money can lead men to sin and damnation. While Jesus does say "give to Caesar, what is Caesar's...", he doesn't say how much should be Caesar's. Nor did he say, give your money to Caesar so that Caesar can help the poor. Besides, part of the joy of giving, is seeing personally how your gifts are needed and utilized. "
rick harsch wrote on Sep 19, 2007 2:19 PM:
" Phil: Voting against the U.S.? What are they running for. I thought votes were for or against something. Can you see the arrogance of viewing UN votes as being for or against the U.S.? And are you suggesting that the U.S. should be able to buy votes? "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 19, 2007 2:14 PM:
" Michael, in my case consider it's a mild compliment. I only have limited time right now and limited space so I'm trying to hit the biggest misconceptions and problems. You post alot of stuff which would take alot of space to cover. By and large though, when I rank your ideas up against those of Brian and rick, yours are less urgent in commenting on. So, for now I'm just skipping your looooong comments. Oh, I do find it interesting that you 'know' why I post and what I get out of it. I'm sure if I was more edukated I'd have a big word to summerize your presumption of me, but I don't. I post because I believe in standing for what I know to be true. It doesn't make me feel superior, but it does feel good to take a stand for what is right. "
Michael Welch wrote on Sep 19, 2007 2:13 PM:
" Re: BGS all I can say is -- enjoy yourselves! I'll leave for now and of course like MacArthur 'I shall return!' Perhaps I AM expecting too much -- an 'academic' discussion? (I obviously CAN 'mix it up' but I must tell you I do PREFER a more what seems to me 'reasonable' rather than 'partisan' exchange -- again I may be just wanting it 'my way'...) "
Michael Welch wrote on Sep 19, 2007 2:08 PM:
" I can admire BGS's passion but I think one ought to avoid throwing words like 'treason' around. Being provocative CAN facilitate discussion true but then it often gets stuck on the dime -- yelling at each other about 'treason': Bush! Clinton! I can hear it now! Bringing up Blackwater is commendable though because while Americans are aware that the withdrawal program recently presented by Bush and Petraeus has most to do with overextension and exhaustion of forces, they don't know that Blackwater is a mercenary provider EXEMPT from military law and has been involved in a number of instances that have lost lives as well as 'hearts and minds.' Blackwater acts essentially as a 'black ops' unit, a quasi-CIA fun-'n'-games. I admit though it does have a 'treasonous' aspect at that -- it has no doubt recruited a number of Iraqi al-Qaeda through its uh 'misbehavior'... "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 19, 2007 2:06 PM:
" To Brian and rich, I just saw these figures and thought you would like them because of your love of the UN and all. Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States in the UN, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid. Jordan votes 71% against the United States And receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid. Pakistan votes 75% against the United States Receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid. India votes 81% against the United States Receives $143,699,000 annually. This has been verified on snopes (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/unvote.asp) Using your reasoning, if the people don't like us, let's stop giving them money for support. Maybe there's some common ground yet. Get US out of the UN!!! "
BrianGSmith wrote on Sep 19, 2007 2:05 PM:
" Dear Michael Welch.....No one is pummeling me, thank you very much. If you want to 'join in' I suggest you single out a phrase or issue from someone specific and then address that issue in a post to someone specific. Your wide ranging diatribes often spray the room rather than hit any targets. Sadly there is little energy for online debating, it seems. There was a time when one could respond directly to ANY letter to the editor and there was a vigorous debate daily.....I recall you debating back then... Keep up the good fight. "
BrianGSmith wrote on Sep 19, 2007 1:59 PM:
" Dear 'patriotamerican'.....leave Jesus aside for a second. The Congress is tasked with raising funds thru taxes to pay for the Defense and Social Welfare....it's in that Constitution thing. The welfare of the Nation includes taking care of the poor and the losers just as much as it means subsidizing sugar, corn or milk producers and defense contractors.....why should my money subsidize Industry? The pittance it takes in US tax dollars to help the poor makes a mockery out of your whimsy principaled stance....really. Jesus is a great character and imagining His actions in a world like today is great mental exercise. Howevr, waiting for this freaking 'charity' you speak of to solve real problems is a losing bet and hasn't succeeded in over 2000 years of effort. "
BrianGSmith wrote on Sep 19, 2007 1:51 PM:
" Of course....I am 'over the top'....as if your views that a few thousand jihadi's threatening the civilized world isn't. RE: Blackwater.....their lawlessness has been long documented. They're simply a necessary cog in the strengthening fascist state the US is becoming. They've defrauded Taxpayers during war......that's treason and carries a high punishment. Maybe you guys like treason as long as someone makes a buck, right? "
Michael Welch wrote on Sep 19, 2007 1:13 PM:
" It's easier to keep this exchange 'cartoonish' -- Clinton! Bush! Patriotic! Anti-American! It's easier to demonize each other and engage in schoolboy taunts than to suppose one actually DEALING with the issues as if it were one's RESPONSIBILITY, not just an avenue to call names. Just as per the religious arguments I have wished a thorough debate on the war, it's REAL not propagandaized nature, the pluses and minuses and I find NO ONE wants to talk about those things either; they want to play the old tired game of 'conservative vs liberal' modeled on some O'Reillyan-Coulterish idolatry. It strikes me that 'the kids are having fun' perhaps but I didn't think this blog HAD to be a playground... "
rick harsch wrote on Sep 19, 2007 12:26 PM:
" Michael, If you want us to stay on task, don't leave for 24 hours. We simply can't have it. While you were gone, both Mr. Smith and me have been called allies of the terrorists and Mr. O'Bates has had terrible problems with the 'e' on his typewriter and keeps having to substitute 'i'. As for the lack of direct responses you notice, I wonder as well, for I find your posts the best written and factually concise as well. The easy conclusion is that they can't respond because they can't understand what you write of that they can't argue against what you write because you are right. But I am sure there is some more plausible explanation. "
rick harsch wrote on Sep 19, 2007 12:20 PM:
" On the presumption of guilt: when civilians are killed by a militia, I assume the militia is guilty of killing civilians. But Phil and themostpatrioticamericanever can relax becasue this would hardly be the worst atrocity committed by America since the first bomb dropped on Iraq. My vote, in fact, would go to the massacre of 18 Pakistani villagers by missiles fired by predator drones in an attempt to kill one Al Qaeda leader who wasn't there--just families, men, women, children, the usual. "
Michael Welch wrote on Sep 19, 2007 11:39 AM:
" Also I think the pro-war complainers very much enjoy complaining about Smith and Rick; they say those fellows' remarks are only provocative and that they write nothing specific. If you scroll down a bit both rightists can clearly that I have stayed on the topic of the war, the situation in Iraq and the political consequences here in the US as well and yet neither of them have a comment! Actions are ALWAYS louder than mere words as they say and certainly 'ampat' and 'P'OB' really like pummeling Rick and BGS because it makes THEM feel 'superior,' a charge they level at others. But they write virtually NOTHING about my arguments which ARE substantive. Odd I'd observe... "
rick harsch wrote on Sep 19, 2007 11:34 AM:
" Well, Phil, that is more convenient than reading a report and examining ITS sources, especially such a damning report. Never mind if it's true or not. Never mind the war crimes, the injustices. Never mind what is really going on. "
Michael Welch wrote on Sep 19, 2007 11:30 AM:
" I'm gone from this scene for about 24 hrs and always return wondering where will the 'arguments' have wandered? I did mis-write the other day 'ALL but a tiny fraction' of folks' kids serve in the military when I meant 'NONE but a tiny fraction' -- not that anyone appears to have noticed. I am somewhat surprised by the post that Jesus opposed socialism! Why he had no idea what the concept meant nor did anyone else in his times! His attitude toward government in the gospels is wary but cagey: 'render unto Caesar etc.'; 'he who lives by the sword [as governments mainly do; see ours] will die by it'; 'MY kingdom is not of THIS world' which includes the Roman hierarchy and its temple collaborators. But his favoritism of the poor and repeated denunciations of the rich of course are VERY 'socialistic' indeed... "
patrioticamerican wrote on Sep 19, 2007 11:12 AM:
" Brian..while it's pointless to dispute this...as someone who has studied the Gospel, nothing irritates me more than someone who attempts to tell me what Jesus said. You have already made clear that you don't understand his message. I wholeheartedly agree that Jesus directed us to help those in need and the danger to one's soul to those that put earthly wealth or possessions above faith in God. Where your argument fails, is Jesus was speaking to us as individuals and to the Church. Jesus wasn't speaking to Caesar and demanding social benefits for the poor. He demanded that we help those less fortunate out of love. It is not charity when the government takes money from you and gives it to your neighbor. BTW...Name one World Leader with whom Jesus spoke or instructed. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 19, 2007 11:05 AM:
" Brian, like patrioticamerican points out, you are so over the top, it's hard to take you seriously and respond to your over-exageration. I already responded to you in a different opinion article on Al Queda in Iraq today in a different post. Your "$2billion to fight AlQ" is grossly misleading. $2 billion or whatever is spend on MANY things including building infastructure, maintenance, and personel pay. It's not surprising that you automatically assume Blackwater guilty until proven innocent. Just like the Haditha Marines who were assumed guilty based on flimsy testimony. If you have been following the Marines case, you would know that their defense has shreaded the lies brought against them. I suspect the same will happen with Blackwater. I'm also sure that the 'most Iraqis' that you refer to, that want us out are the Iranian backed ones. "
patrioticamerican wrote on Sep 19, 2007 10:26 AM:
" Brian...I have a hard time responding to your posts because they are so over the top and you rarely actually respond to what someone else writes. You respond to a shadow of what you perceive the "evil conservative" meant. Regardless, I more than anyone revere the greatest generation and their accomplishment of defeating Fascism and Totalitarianism. I really don't link them and the UN the way you do but you have that right. I do agree the UN would be a perfect vehicle for humanitarian aid but nothing more. It does provide a platform for American hating dictators so I really don't see that as a plus. I don't think we need the UN for us to communicate with anyone we choose. "
BrianGSmith wrote on Sep 19, 2007 10:23 AM:
" Hey Phil....back so soon? We hardly missed you. Welcome back. Can you tell me why we can't whip 1500 jihadi's in Iraq? Why we are spending $2 Billion a week to battle Al Qaeda in Iraq and they only represent 5% of the total insurgency? Most Iraqi's want us out, now, lawless Blackwater is in the microscope and reveals more of the horrific hubris our blatant oil grab brings to the common citizen of Iraq. We have no right to their oil and could easily have Alternative energies fueling this Nation is a few short years if smarter leaders put their minds to it. "
BrianGSmith wrote on Sep 19, 2007 10:13 AM:
" The UN, 'patriotamerican' was forged out of the ashes of WWII by the GREATEST GENERATION. They saw the wisdom. You insult their memory and honor. You and your UN-hatin' ilk are simply spoiled rotten from the comforts and free time the greatest generations victory and POLICIES have afforded you. The UN has wiped out numerous global diseases and is a forum for all the world to speak. Christ would listen to world leaders, why can't you? Oh, and regarding Christ.....He preached a holistic Socialist way of life and spent the great majority of His time arguing for economic justice. Or haven't you read His own words? "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 19, 2007 9:53 AM:
" Well rick, I did some looking at Global Policy Forum, and was not surprised to find it a very left wing avocate. Here is a sample: from its own website "GPF focuses on the United Nations – the most inclusive international institution, offering the best hope for a humane and sustainable future." From wikipedia "GPF holds that free markets are not enough to ensure global prosperity, and therefore is opposed to libertarian groups such as the Cato Institute." Sources on GPF website New York Times, Code Pink, and Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom to name a few. Just like you would disregard out of hand a Liberty College study on the validity of the Bible, because you think they are prebiased, I disregard anything GPF puts out.
"
rick harsch wrote on Sep 18, 2007 6:22 PM:
" I think you're extrapolating egregiously. "
patrioticamerican wrote on Sep 18, 2007 5:35 PM:
" Yes, but I fail to see how it applies here. Are you arguing that I can't apply Jesus' message to today's society because government didn't exist then as it does today?? "
rick harsch wrote on Sep 18, 2007 4:26 PM:
" sorry: anachronism "
rick harsch wrote on Sep 18, 2007 4:21 PM:
" patrioticamerican: Do you know what anachronoism means? "
patrioticamerican wrote on Sep 18, 2007 3:48 PM:
" Rick..I merely stated that I don't think most people have any reason to fear Bush. I can understand an Islamic Fascist fearing Bush because they should. I suppose a communist atheist may have reason to fear Bush because he isn't going to advance your cause. Let's be honest though, there truly aren't that many of you in our country. On another note: do you realize how at odds your statement was? You were moved by those Jesus' stories when you were young, yet you are an atheist. Besides, Jesus didn't preach communism or socialism. If you took that away, you need to do some more studying. Jesus was very much against socialism and was actually speaking to us as individuals to help the poor and the needy. Not governments. "
rick harsch wrote on Sep 18, 2007 1:58 PM:
" dear patriotic american, What I fear is what you represent with your either/or mentality. If I fear Bush more than al qaeda then I am an Islamic fascist. I fear nothing personally, but I fear that Bush does more damage on this Earth than al Qaeda or anyone else. I am an atheist and some kind of left of communist political thinker. I became a leftist largely because I liked all the Jesus stories I was told when I was young. I like the idea of people being peaceful and earning a fair living and sharing and all those things that seem quaint. I was stunned by Vietnam and later by Reagan's attacks against Nicaragua. I'm repulsed by hypocrisy and unfairness in general. "
rick harsch wrote on Sep 18, 2007 1:51 PM:
" Well Michael and Brian, that guy was a real mook, but I'm going to miss him. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 18, 2007 1:17 PM:
" Oh and Brian and rick and Michael, as much as I love reminding everyone of the truths behind 9/11, Iraq, etc. I have other work to do, so I'm going to sign off for awhile. You guys can now get togather and pat each other on the back (after you get your last word in) and celebrate your self annointed 'victory' over all of us pro-America, pro-Bush patriots. C-Ya. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 18, 2007 1:13 PM:
" Brian, patrioticamerican got you pegged on the UN. You too want to select the resolutions that fit your agenda. The thing is that the UN is not only a huge waste of money, it creates more problems then it has ever solved. Personally, I think the US should kick the UN out of America, and take itself out of its membership. America should only be aligned with similar thinking governments, not dictators. The only reason I bring up the US inforcing UN resolutions is that one of the whines from the leftees is "Bush's illegal war." Well, you leftees recognize UN resolutions as law, therefore, I simply point out that by a leftees own standard, Bush intered the US into War legally. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 18, 2007 1:06 PM:
" Brian, you are an elitist because of your attitude and ego. It has nothing to do with money or schooling or having information. While you are largely right about Bush's privileged life, you somehow neglect to point out that both parties are represented by people steeped in priviled. Think of Gore, Kerry, Kohl, Edwards, etc. Unfortunately, not too many common folk get approved to run for office, so you vote for who they set up. "
Michael Welch wrote on Sep 18, 2007 12:44 PM:
" Re: the United Nations the US certainly requires it in order to handle 'less important' interests (NOT having to do with oil etc.) like Darfur so conservative contempt is out of place and simply archaic. The UN functions only as well as the major powers permit it to; US imperial ambitions have been advanced at times by the UN (see the Gulf war of 1990-91) and at other times (the invasion of 2003) the UN has been 'reluctant.' Looking back on the results of March 2003 however it seems the UN as a whole was correct in its assessment... "
patrioticamerican wrote on Sep 18, 2007 12:02 PM:
" Brian...conservatives supported invading Iraq because it's in our country's best political, military, and economic interest. Considering almost 1/3-1/2 of the world's proven oil reserves are in this region and since our economy does run on oil to a great extent, it only makes sense that we have business being there. The fact that history is on our side with the failure of Sadaam to comply with UN resolutions is only the icing on the cake. Most conservatives don't give a rip about the UN as for the most part it is merely a forum for petty dictators. It is you who's being hypocritical as you do believe in the UN, yet don't recognize the legitimacy of enforcing UN resolutions in this one instance because it isn't convenient for you. "
Michael Welch wrote on Sep 18, 2007 11:59 AM:
" The question will be whether the US eventually maintains just an 'advisory' contingent (50,000 say?) and confines itself to 'training'? But politically as I said below the problem of national unity remains -- can the country be re-built as the British first constituted it in 1920, as a sunni-dominated-divide-and-conquer entity? I think it's obvious it can't. The Kurds will insist on continuing their de facto 'state' and the US WILL be expected to guarantee it -- against the Turks. The shi'ites (the al-Maliki government in Baghdad remember is SHI'ITE-dominated) though MUST contend for their control and their REAL ally in this is Iran -- which is tremendously ironic nes pas?... "
Michael Welch wrote on Sep 18, 2007 11:49 AM:
" Remaining in Iraq is problematic. Obviously public patience has been exhausted but remember the observation of President Kennedy re: the Bay of Pigs fiasco that if the US were a British parliamentary system HE would need resign but since it wasn't others would have to go -- hence Bush chopped Rummy and the other architects of disaster but he's 'allowed' to stay. Only impeachment or congressional courage can block his commitment to the war so the public, uneasy about the constitutional alternatives and with all but a fraction of their children at risk to serve in the war, is going to wait to elect another president who WILL engineer a withdrawal -- of sorts but what 'sort'?... "
Michael Welch wrote on Sep 18, 2007 11:41 AM:
" I have declared more times than once or twice that I believe the United States acts primarily as an 'imperial' power much the same as was the Roman empire and the British one. However I agree with the British historian Niall Ferguson that the US is a not-very-successful imperium compared to the other two. Unfortunately, as Rick has alluded, the US has tremendous, even ultimate, power in its nuclear capabilities and its militarism is usually quite adept at out-and-out conquest but not very good at counter-insurgency and very poor at the social work of 'hearts and minds.' US history has always I think bent toward that imperial model but at the turn of the 19th it 'went abroad' rather than remaining largely confined to north America. And it has proved far more successful 'from sea to shining sea' than in the jungles and deserts of foreign entities... "
patrioticamerican wrote on Sep 18, 2007 10:32 AM:
" Brian...while I do truly fear Al Qaeda, it would seem that you and your friends have the greatest fear of George W. Bush. Now to me that seems irrational as I can't see any personal harm from Bush. However, if I was an Islamic Fascist, I would understand being afraid of Bush. Are you telling us that you are really just an Islamic Fascist? You too can enjoy your paranoia. It seems that perspective is truly a matter of one's own perspective. "
BrianGSmith wrote on Sep 18, 2007 4:52 AM:
" Phil....The UN has literally dozens of resolutions against Israel, so when do we invade them for their defiance? Funny how 'you guys' demean the UN....but hold up some of its resolutions as justifiable proof action, like a pre-emptive war, should be taken. The immense hypocrisy is not lost on the elite. "
BrianGSmith wrote on Sep 18, 2007 4:51 AM:
" Phil....The UN has literally dozens of resolutions against Israel, so when do we invade them for their defiance? Funny how 'you guys' demena the UN....but hold up some of its resolutions as justifiable proof action, like a pre-emptive war, should be taken. The immense hypocrisy is not lost on the elite. "
BrianGSmith wrote on Sep 18, 2007 4:47 AM:
" Phil....Elitist???? Hilarious. There is no group or organization more elitist on this planet than the Republican Party. Proof is on K Street and on the huge pork barrel budgets Republican led Congress passed and a Republican President signed. Bush, the Yale and Harvard grad, served in the Champagne Company of the Texas Air National Guard, awol for 2 years, given jobs and titles because his Daddy was famous...you support the most elitist President we've ever had the misfortune to have. I AM INFORMED...if that makes me elite, so be it. "
BrianGSmith wrote on Sep 18, 2007 4:41 AM:
" Dear 'patriotamerican'...Fighting for the other team? Who the &%*& are you to accuse me of that? I can't think of anyone helping the 'other team' more than teamBush. And now, the oily cat is out of the bag....we are in Iraq because we covet their oil. Now everyone knows the hyperventilating and weeping about a "Caliphate" and the end of Western Civilization was pure hyperbolic skirt wetting fiction. I pity you and others who 'fear' al qaeda, they represent a miniscule threat and they feed off your fear. Bush mentioned al qaeda nearly 20 times in his speech to the Nation even though they represent less than 5% of the insurgency...1500 jihadi's. You have no sense of perspective, enjoy your paranoia. "
rick harsch wrote on Sep 18, 2007 3:50 AM:
" Instead I will give you an example of a UN failure: They correctly determined that there were no WMDs in Iraq yet failed to prevent the slaughter there. They could not stop the US. Tremendous failure. Now answer this question: what in the Global Polica Forum report is false? (By the way, there are some typos, but that's not what I mean, we all make them, including your 'descentors' which I hope was meant to be funny. It was.) "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 17, 2007 7:19 PM:
" rick, I'm not surprised that you put your faith in Global Policy Forum. They are for strengthing the UN which means weakening the United States, or any other independant countries. Please Name any UN success stories. Oh, I know...Iraq. After Saddam failed to follow the 14th resolution, the UN would then really, really teach him a lesson with a 15th resolution. (Which by the way, Kofi Anna profits in the Oil for food scandal.) Which questions haven't you answered? Well, what is sin? for one. Two you could explain how abandoning Iraq now would show empathy. Now to your question as to who is anti-America? That would be you rick. Just read your silly post at 1:04pm to remind yourself. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 17, 2007 7:08 PM:
" Brian, you and rick are sounding more elitist every post. "Inarguable facts" yeah right. That's what you wish. "Quit my groveling"? Your ego is amazing. It's also funny watching you stand up for Nixon. I'm sure when I look up his administration, I'll find alot of the same stuff that hampered Reagan...Democratic controlled Congress. Should America pursued our own oil sources/refineries? Absolutely. But I know of one president that axed that...Carter. Your rantings would be funny if they didn't aid America's enemies. "
patrioticamerican wrote on Sep 17, 2007 5:17 PM:
" I can see now why we "lost" Vietnam. People like Rick and Brian are always fighting for the other team. It appears to me you both would be proud Americans if only you could convice our Government to surrender to the latest bully. In your eyes, the Soviets had it right, Sadaam wasn't a threat, Hitler would have mellowed out eventually, we somehow provoked Osama, and North Korea just wants peace, but George Bush -now there is a terrorist and as "peace loving and gentle people as you are", you think we should impeach him. Yeah, I can see why you are so indignant when people question your patriotism. "
rick harsch wrote on Sep 17, 2007 4:52 PM:
" Quote O''Bates: 'Yes, I do believe you wish I would either agree with you or be silent.' Half paranoid then. Of course when one argues, they want the other to agree. But I have never given the slightest indication I would like you to be silent. You, however, have called Brian G. Smith a terrorist ally, and certainly then must consider me as such. That's disgraceful. Who is anti-American? "
rick harsch wrote on Sep 17, 2007 4:44 PM:
" Phil O: what is the hard question I haven't answered? By the way, dissent is supposed to be American. I guess I am very pro-American because I feel so much disgust at American policies. When Argentines threw people out of planes I felt some horror, some disgust, but not to the degree I feel it when America commits atrocities in Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia. Again, as I posted elsewhere, please look up War and Occupation in Iraq by the Global Policy Forum. It is very well documented. "
BrianGSmith wrote on Sep 17, 2007 3:07 PM:
" Greenspan said it was for oil...so did Kissinger. Many on the Left and center have said it as well. Now, Republigans are saying it openly as well. We are in Iraq for OIL....not mushroom clouds...pull Grandma from under the sofa!!! Yuck!Yuck! We were kidding on the WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION line......we want $3.00 a gallon 4-ever. Treason has been purveyed upon the Nation at the highest levels and with an agriedious amount of the National Treasury fraudulently lost. Will we properly straighten out this once superior land with swift and severe justice upon the War rofiteers and pushers? Hope so. "
BrianGSmith wrote on Sep 17, 2007 2:58 PM:
" Dear Phil O'Bates...Once again, when confronted with inarguable facts you resort to unrelated accusations. Football Coach? Dude, if Bush were the coach he'd have been fired 4 years ago. This is WAR ......you don't get DO-OVERS.....quit the pathetic groveling. RE:Control of global OIL..Hey, it ain't under our Sovereign States....it ain't ours. Now, if you want to steal other people's riches then say so up front. If we'd followed Nixon's lead on Alternative fuels we'd be beyond this phissing match. I find the idea that other people's resources are ours REVOLTING and worthy of scorn. Sad, you are. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 17, 2007 2:24 PM:
" Oh and rick, I wish that you would answer a few hard questions. You and BGS and Michael all like to assume the position of superiority and have anyone who disagrees with you explain themselves. Now, I have answered most of the questions or comments thrown out there, but I see no return from you guys on my questions or rebuttals. What I get from you guys is sophisticated name calling or just non answer dismissals like 'that's just tripe.' Maybe you don't have to explain your position to your students, but in life you don't get off that easily. (BTW I'm not angry, mad, or wild, just using colorful language when I throw the ball back into your court.) "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 17, 2007 2:16 PM:
" Rick your posts are getting funnier and funnier. "In fact, I am not anti-American, I just believe that it is the most frightening and successfully bloody empire in the history of the world." So you would say that you are pro-America? The mental gymnastics you do to get from point A to B is truely remarkable. Survival of the fittest is a Darwinistic/Evolutionary/atheist approach to the world. Maybe your atheism isn't that complete, but the former Soviet Union in their atheistic beliefs sure loved that aspect to excuse their brutality. You think BGS posts without hate!? That's truely funny. Now I do have a healthy dose of paranoia. If Hillary gets in, exspect conservative oppinion to be hushed through government standards. Yes, I do believe you wish I would either agree with you or be silent. Neither will probably happen. "
rick harsch wrote on Sep 17, 2007 1:04 PM:
" Also, Phil, could you try to debate without resorting to cliches? Anti-American, for instance. Clearly, from his posts, Smith is not Anti-American. In one of my posts you could guess that I am, but since anti-American is a cliche, it means nothing. In fact, I am not anti-American, I just believe that it is the most frightening and successfully bloody empire in the history of the world. I am of America, though, and so I wish that would not be the case. I wish the power structure would change, the social and economic situation would reflect a greater humanity--but mostly I wish Americans would stop feeling superior and stop supporting imperial foreign policies. Oh, and I wish they would give the environment a chance. "
rick harsch wrote on Sep 17, 2007 12:58 PM:
" Phil, you are disentegrating. Your posts are getting wilder and wilder. Survival of the fittest? How strange. Lack of empathy? Hatred? I think even Brian G Smith posts without evident hatred. And though accusing me so wildly of hatred you feel I would like you silenced. Is that paranoia or self-pity? There has never been a suggestion on any of my posts that I would like you silenced. I do wish you would answer the hard questions with something better than 'now we have a new enemy, Saddam changed to become a threat...', tripe like that. That requires, as I have written, astonishing naivete or something less flattering. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 17, 2007 12:29 PM:
" Ok Michael, I owe you an apology. Your post after patrioticamerican did not exude the anti-American or anti-Reagan hatred that BGS and rick displayed. Maybe I should have said for you 'ant-conservative politics hatred.' You have a different view of what you want America to stand for, and I disagree with alot of what that view is or how to get to that view, but that does not mean that I love America and you don't. I am sorry for slandering you. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 17, 2007 12:22 PM:
" Brian, you would make a lousy commander, football coach, or any kind of leader for that matter. You would keep the same stategy for all your enemies or opponents, regardless of the situation. Of Course you are comparing apples and oranges. First off, apparently you would be happy if one country had a monopoly on the control of M.E. oil exports. A high school Senior could tell you the problems with just that senario. Second, during the Reagan years the primary threat to America was the Soviet Union, so we did partner up with less then savory leaders to pin in communist expansion. It worked. Third, Saddams behavior toward the US changed making him a threat. You know, if you just say that human rights violations didn't trump national security during the Cold War, I could agree. But your cut and paste of history is incomprehensible. "
Michael Welch wrote on Sep 17, 2007 12:10 PM:
" I always liked Ronnie personally, even after I stopped 'believing' in him; and why would I 'hate America'? That's an offensive, stupid accusation because if one cares for one's country (or loves one's friends and family) that doesn't mean that whatever action taken is to be excused? If your friend was a drug addict or an alcoholic would you think that your 'love' for him precluded intervention? At least a word of warning? You can disagree with me of course but do you know my heart? What characteristic arrogance! 'PO'B' claims he divides his religion and politics but he doesn't -- he is as judgmental in both. You can write that I 'hate' my country -- the Trib's freedom allows it -- but it is a vile charge nonetheless and vilely stated... "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 17, 2007 12:08 PM:
" No rick, it is your 'empathy' that is bizarre. You feel for the suffering that the Iraqi's that are suffering under the brutal oppression of Muslim extremists, that you want us, their primary source of protection, training and arms, to just go away. Yeah, you are so sympathetic to the plight of defenseless people who want an equal voice in their own government, that you would allow the brutal to kill and silence the weaker. I suppose that kind of thinking goes hand in hand with being an atheist. Survival of the fittest, huh. I can see why you wish the Soviets had won the Cold War, then people like me could be silenced. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 17, 2007 11:59 AM:
" See patrioticamerican, I told you. These people are so blinded by their hatred of America or Reagan or both that they can't see straight. "
Michael Welch wrote on Sep 17, 2007 11:31 AM:
" Russia and China are now, politically at least, both de facto FASCIST states of a sort so MY posit would be that HITLER 'won' the cold war. Actually I think a real detente was burgeoning during that last 'fatal' year of the problematic Kennedy administration and indeed Kennedy's determination to ratchet down, even end the cold war, led to his murder, not by Lee Harvey Oswald but by an interior 'coup d'etat' dedicated to the preservation of that infamous 'military-industrial complex.' With millions of dead and tyrannous states the result who 'won' is really a meaningless and hollow boast. (Frankly I think a Soviet state, if it yet existed, would behave far more responsibly than the fascist adventurer Putin...) "
rick harsch wrote on Sep 17, 2007 11:21 AM:
" phil, you can at least take the time to write a separate argument here, or on the faith page, whichever came first. But as you see, your 'empathy' argument is bizarre. I think Brian G Smith gives you an accurate idea of the situation. Or do you believe that the U.S., though empathetic, did not want to go to war using that humanitarian guise and so invented other reasons? Could you be so disassociated? "
rick harsch wrote on Sep 17, 2007 11:16 AM:
" Actually, I am pretty sure that history will suggest it would indeed have been better for the Earth if the Soviets had 'won the cold war'. "
BrianGSmith wrote on Sep 17, 2007 5:35 AM:
" DearPhil O'Bates....Let me remind you how lavishly Reagan and Republicans supported Saddam Hussein for over 9 years....weapons, loans (BCCI scandal), satelite imagery....you name it.....Reagan was there for him. Of course those alleged torture and rape rooms didn't cloud our vision...SADDAM was our guy. We supported his war with Iran....while simultaneously selling weapons to Iran also...!!! DOH!!! This ain't FOXNews, we deal with the ugly facts here so you need to come thru with better arguments. The US supported Saddam, with or without raperooms (believable as WMD's and 'shroom clouds). "
BrianGSmith wrote on Sep 17, 2007 5:29 AM:
" Dear 'patriotamerican'....Well golly jiminy....ain't you a funny one!!! D'ya think? Great strategy you have there...babble inane and unrelated gobbledy goop at those lefties and sit back and chortle....hee-haw. What evidence do you have, besides infantile fantasy, that even remotely demonstrates moveon.org, Dem's or lefties hope the Soviets won the cold war? Do you guys get paid to utter such goofy rubbish? It was the Pope, the Poles (Lech Walesa) and numerous US Administrations that wore down the Soviet scurge with freedom, heavan and french fries. Gorby played a big role, bigger than Ray-gun for sure...but that doesn't diminish the few speeches Ray-gun read with determined vigor. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 16, 2007 8:19 PM:
" " Rick, empathy is defined as "the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner;" Empathy is precisely one of the reason we are in Iraq. Under Saddam there was not freedom but tyranny. Under Saddam torture rooms and executions without trial were everyday events. Under Saddam, hundreds of thousands (~300,000 I last heard) were killed either through genocide or just Saddams paranoia. Did you not read of Saddams sons and how they abused and killed elementary age school girls, or tortured soccer players if they lost a game? Christians empathized with the Iraqi's and sacrificed to give them a chance at freedom. " "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Sep 16, 2007 7:59 PM:
" To patriotamerican, no you are wrong. They don't secretly think that the Soviet Union won the Cold War, the openly believe that Gorby won it. These people have always been around though. Look at what Samuel Adams had to say to the same lot back during the American Revolution. "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
"
patrioticamerican wrote on Sep 16, 2007 5:48 PM:
" From the postings, it looks like a meeting of moveon.org folks who secretly felt the Soviets should have won the Cold War. "
Michael Welch wrote on Sep 16, 2007 2:16 PM:
" There's an old observation about the Vietnam war that contends (correctly it seems) that the US never lost a major engagement, campaign, even battle, but 'counterinsurgency' is indeed focused on 'hearts and minds' and that's a nebulous and often secretive valley to travel. 'In the beginning' Americans expected the liberation of Paris and when they didn't get it they staged it; then they switched then into the 'Ahnold' tough guy 'Hasta la vista baby' mode and that only made hearts turn darker and minds vengeful. We played 'Hue' (see Kubrick's 'Full Metal Jacket') in Fallujah and that only recruited still more enemies. The US is it seems ALWAYS declaring 'victory' as if the declaration on its own equaled the reality it wishes... "
rick harsch wrote on Sep 16, 2007 10:09 AM:
" Traditional family values? Belief in God and Country? Balls? Is America Islamic now? "
postmon wrote on Sep 16, 2007 10:03 AM:
" Yes i want my countries Constitution's integrity restored. Yes I want America's credibility restored. Yes I want our children removed from that nightmare called Iraq. Yes I want our infurstructure restored. Yes I want a fair days pay for a fair days work. Yes I want affordable health care for everyone, including dental for all. Yes I want Bush impeached. You see Mr. Goure I have never had a problem with the concept of "yes". "
Terminus wrote on Sep 16, 2007 9:56 AM:
" Liberals at it again. Guilty of undermining what makes our country great: traditional family values, a belief in God and Country, and the fact that we are the only nation that has the *alls to stand up and fight for what is right and just, and for those people in Iraq who are powerless to do it for themselves. I ask you Who's side are you on? You are either with America's enemies or you are with America, there is no middle ground. "
blogger wrote on Sep 16, 2007 8:28 AM:
" Yes, we have demonstrated to the world the consequences of failed leadership and inept execution of political and strategic goals (was invading Iraq REALLY in our national interests?-no, not in my opinion). Yes, Osama and those responsible for 9/11 are STILL AT LARGE, and we dont seem to be doing much about it. He is still a danger to us, if for no other reason of being a symbol to jihadists of "heroic" opposition to occupation of Muslim lands. Yes, the political divisions this war has caused makes us weaker and prevents leadership and compromise necessary to deal with major issues facing this country. The singlemindedness of this administration thankfully is at an end. "
Slider wrote on Sep 16, 2007 8:23 AM:
" This whole report when it was given sounded like it was practiced over and over again. And why did Mr. Bush make an unexpected landing in Iraq just prior to the report deadline? Was it because he advised the General what needed to be said instead of the reality of things? This kind of sounds like the Iran-Contra deal to me. Bush and Cheaney seem to be all high and mighty but in reality where were they when they were called to serve their country during the Viet Nam War. Maybe this is their way of officially serving, by sending our young and not so young troops over to a war that they are making money hand over fist over with no end in site. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, remember that speech on the aircraft carrier. "
blogger wrote on Sep 16, 2007 8:06 AM:
" Yes,yes, yes... Yes, Mr Bush foolishly invaded Iraq and since has twisted and turned on the reasons why, none of which had anything to do with the "War on Terrorism". Yes because of the instability created in Iraq, due to inept handling of the war (remember the chaos,looting, and anarchy in Baghdad while our troops stood by? How about those weapons stockpiles that were looted and turned into IEDs?)- we have created a breeding ground for terrorists. Yes, as Colin Powell stated, you break it, you own it. I have come to the reluctant conclusion that we need to stay long enough to ensure stability after we leave - how many more will die to fix our mistakes? "
rick harsch wrote on Sep 16, 2007 7:19 AM:
" The idea of paying reparations should provide some clarity to those anti-war people who have recently been seduced into wonderinng whether the U.S. should remain in Iraq precisely because of the damage done (that will lead to more damage upon withdrawal). It should also speak to those who can no longer stomach accepting the lies that led to the war but speak about spilt milk, when what was spilled was an extraordinary amount of blood--for no humane reason. The problem is that almost everyone accepts the notion that there is no way the U.S. can admit that what it did was criminal, inhumane, devastating, etc., and go on to actually admit the mistake and fix it--with an acceptance of guilt followed by an extraordinary rendition of repairs. "
rick harsch wrote on Sep 16, 2007 7:13 AM:
" Incididentally, I saw a part of an interview with Kucinich the Candidate for president, who actually had the honesty to speak about war reparations the U.S. should pay. I was rather stunned by the simple honesty from a Washington figure...while such frontrunners as Clinton and Obama cntinue to balance their postions to appease the most voters, they suppose, blaming Iraqis (the installed Iraqi government) for not making sufficient progress. "
rick harsch wrote on Sep 16, 2007 7:09 AM:
" The rhetorical trick of this propaganda reveals its bankruptcy. Just say yes should have been the headline. The anti-war folks simply refuse to say yes...Then he lists a number or unconvincing, arguable, and sometimes false assertions. Meanwhile, figures regarding the actualy number of dead in Iraq are emerging. Obviously no one can count every one of them (some of them melted in Fallujah from white phosphorous, for instance), but the figures given by the U.S. government are transparently and grotesquely low. Independent assessments now range from 600,000 to twice that figure, with the higher number appearing more likely. That's not something any human being should say yes to. "
BrianGSmith wrote on Sep 16, 2007 5:31 AM:
" Mr. Goure and General Petreus, as well as pResident Bush and the right wing noise machine have been hyperventilating this unfounded babble ever since the US occupation of Iraq began 4 years ago. Petreus's recent testimony in front of Congress was nearly identical to his 2004 pre-election Op-ed in the New York Times. It sickens me how dishonest Goure and his ilk are to the American public. How Goure and his conservative think-tank expect the US public to continually buy their long discredited line of bull is beyond me. They want US soldiers to stay and die until the new Iraqi Oil Law is realized. "
Advertisement
