Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Unstated Truth - False Power - and "My Pet Goat"

The Mideast is such a mess that I have not wanted to have an opinion about it. I have been waiting for other WatchBlog authors to solve that problem. But it continues, so none of you have solved it. Do you think I can?

First the unstated obvious truth:
Obviously, the Israelis have the right to defend themselves.
The Bush regime practically chortled when the Israelis went into Lebanon.
Condi says days, not weeks - Israel says weeks not months.
Israel will not leave until a U.N. Peace keeping force acceptable to them takes over.
Realistically no U.N. peace keeping force will be acceptable to Israel unless it has a mandate to defeat Hezbollah.
Realistically U.N. member nations are not going to send their troops into such a hornets nest after Israel stirs it up.
Hezbollah's heroic stature grows with each day of successful resistance to Israel.
Protecting oneself from rockets within 20 miles of the border does not equate to bombing an entire country into the stone age.
Our policies vis-a-vis Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and Israel are uniting our enemies and dividing our friends.
Occupying the West Bank and Gaza might be militarily justified in self defense. Building settlements in occupied territory is not called occupation. It is called conquest.
Giving back part of a conquered territory is not an act of generosity.
Books, Buildings, and Land are not Holy - God is.
People form their tribal connections through their family, religion and culture.
The more desperate their life circumstances are, the stronger their tribal connections will be.
Desperate life circumstances can lead groups of people to martyr themselves for their "tribe" / religion / "Father Land" / "Mother Land" / "Holy Land."
Bombing people into the stone age creates desperate life circumstances.
Settling in occupied territories so that people have to go through military check points just visit Grandma creates desperate life circumstances.
Conquering Iraq with "just enough troops to lose," and creating a power vacuum in the middle of a violent sectarian situation, creates desperate life circumstances.
Talking to Syria and brokering a peace deal between Syria and Israel that leads Syria to join other "moderate" Sunni states like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt could pull the teeth out of Hezbollah, garner influence over Hamas, stop the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, and counter balance Iran.
So far, the Bush Regime self righteously refuses to talk 'turkey" with Syria.
"Every strength conveys a weakness."
Israel and America have tremendous military strength.
Tremendous military strength negates the need for compromise, consensus building, and diplomacy.
Violence begets violence.
Jesus lived in the Mideast and was probably thinking about the endless cycle of tribal retribution when he said "Turn the other cheek."
Real peace will happen when "ancient hatreds become a present love."
Bombing children and shooting missiles at children does on produce "a present love."
War, especially asymmetrical war, is dynamic - the number of militia / terrorist / freedom fighters / insurgents is not a fixed quantity. Killing one creates two or more.
A massive old fashioned "classical" military machine like ours is impotent against militia / terrorists / freedom fighters / insurgents which are deeply ingrained in an urban civilian population.
Using a massive old fashioned "classical" military machine like ours in such an asymmetrical situation shows our enemies that it is impotent.
Our asymmetric enemies can plunge the Mideast into chaos for the price of a couple left over free bullets and bring us to our economic knees.
Vietnam was easy compared to Iraq. At least our enemies engaged us in the relative "open" of the jungle, then hid among civilians.
Vietnam was unwinnable.
Vietnam did not need to be won.
We do need a solution to the crisis in the Mideast.
Texan gunslingers think all problems can be solved with enough bullets, a quick draw, and good aim.
Bush has plenty of bullets, and he is quick to draw, but "policy-istically speaking" he can't hit the broad side of a barn.

False Power:
FEAR - THE FALSE POWER
The Difference Between Responsibility and Authority. True and False Power.
False power; the idea that you can force someone to be free with "just enough troops to lose."
False power; a grandiose belief in invulnerability. "They will never change our way of life," then immediately passing the Patriot Act.
False power; a grandiose belief that might makes right. The U.S. is rich and powerful, therefore we must be good. This is based on "optimistic wisdom" from the Bible - Proverbs - live right, good things will follow. This neglects good things happening to bad people - overlooks the Book of Job.
False power; a grandiose, self righteous belief in our own superiority. The U.S. is a great nation - yes - but intrinsically better than other great nations, more entitled, more empowered, "special" or merely; unique, lucky / blessed, and different.
False power; being a bully. John Bolton at the U.N comes immediately to mind for some reason. It is like a Texan gunslinger's barn "Hoe Down" dance. You can grab your "partner" and drag her around the floor, but you can't make her like it - or truly be your "partner." That takes a little more nuance. You have to lead - work with your partner - instead of push, bully, drag, and step on her toes...
False power; more faith in bombs than humanity - build the military up, neglect diplomacy.
False power; loyalty to the President. The Bush Regime -(and Republicans generally) - emphasizes, demands, and obtains extreme loyalty. It allows them to present a strong, unified "front" - no chinks in the armor - relentless - invulnerable - powerful - - - - - - not. Consult any introductory Organizational Behaviour text. Companies do not want charismatic leaders. Charismatic leaders inspire loyalty. Their loyal followers will do anything for them - including work against the best interest of the company. Companies want their employees to be loyal to the company, not a leader. The same thing applies to politics. The White House staff should be loyal to the United States of America - not the President. Colin Powel was apparently opposed to the Iraq war, but the old soldier was loyal to his commander and chief, (lower case, in this case). His loyalty was misplaced. He should have been loyal to the U.S. of A. He should have resigned in protest. He probably could have prevented the Iraq war. He could have prevented his President and our country from becoming bogged down in an unwinnable quagmire. That is the difference between true power and false power. This power mad Regime demands and obtains loyalty. This power mad Regime is based on false power.

"My Pet Goat":
Nero fiddled while Rome burned - Bush reads "My Pet Goat." At least Nero had culture and did not need remedial reading.

So, have I solved the Mideast crisis? Not even. BBC News But at least I took the lid off from this can of poop that Bush created. It stinks and he has worms. But that, and the menage a trois with Condi and Laura do keep him thin. I am green with envy (about him being thin, I mean). I always like to end on an upbeat note - praising and affirming our Presidente..

This article was supposed to be posted last weekend, but I managed the estimable feat of getting myself locked out of Movable Type, so it here it is. Things have developed since I wrote this. The "freedom fries" French are willing to attempt to save our butts and send troops, but even though it is their troops headed into harms way, the Arrogant Pushy, Authoritarian, Bush Regime does not want to give the French what they want on the resolution. The French wanted a cease fire already, Bush wanted to give Israel more time to bomb Lebanon into the stone age (false power). France thinks that is making the situation worse. Whether they are right or wrong makes no difference - it is their troops headed into harms way. They should get what they want and live with consequences. When the situation is reversed, we certainly expect to get our way. Without talking to Syria or negotiating with Hezbollah a positive outcome remains unlikely. See: BBC News.

Posted by Ray Guest at August 7, 2006 11:00 PM
Comments
Comment #173931

I would just like to state that I am in no way anti-semitic, and believe that Israel has the right to defend itself. I would just like to know why Israel was established and given UN recognition after WWII in the middle east instead of annexing a part of Germany as penance for the holocaust and forming Israel in Europe? Wouldn’t all this mess have been avoided if they did it that way?

Posted by: bushflipflops at August 8, 2006 12:02 AM
Comment #173937

Jeez,
I think you might be suffering from clinical lunacy, Coony. Your rants bring to mind a quote from the film classic “Billy Madison” “…at no point in your rambling, incoherent statement did you make any sense. Everyone here is dumber for having heard it.” (apologies to “Billy Madisons” writers for paraphrasing)
No doubt I will be sentenced to a cage fight with the American Military for mocking your unmitigated imbicility.

Posted by: tk at August 8, 2006 12:47 AM
Comment #173940

bushflipflops,
Your suggestion makes obvious sense, but it was never going to happen. The Mideast is “Holy” to Christians, Muslims, and Jews and that is where the Israelis wanted their homeland to be - it is the promised land. The fundamentalist Christians want the Apocalypse there. Of course it is not Holy. It is just a bunch of pointlessly bloody sand.

Thanks for your comment. It is the only articulate comment that I have received so far.

Posted by: Ray Guest at August 8, 2006 12:54 AM
Comment #173941
why Israel was established and given UN recognition after WWII in the middle east

Well, at the time the area called Israel by the 1949 accords was inhabited mostly by jews…

By the end of World War II, the number of Jews in Palestine was approximately 600,000.

This is a result of many ‘waves’ of immigration into the area starting in 1881. By the beginning of WWII jews made up about 30% of the population following influxes after WWI and other persecutions. Land was purchased by ‘zionists’ who looked to legally take back the land for the Jewish people. After the further persecution of WWII the UN decided (mainly led by Britan who wanted out of the area thinking this would ‘solve the problem’) to establish Israel and Palestine. The Jewish authorities agreed, the Arab League refused and the 1948 war of independance ensued….

It’s all very interesting, but I hope that explains why it was done where it was and not in Germany where I’m sure many Holocaust survivors would rather not want to see again, I would think…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 8, 2006 12:55 AM
Comment #173942
The fundamentalist Christians want the Apocalypse there

Well, technically, it IS there and has been for a while… It’s not an event, it’s a place. But many ‘christians’ are too wrapped in believing what their told and not what the truth is in order to understand that…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 8, 2006 12:57 AM
Comment #173943

Jeez Coony,

I was really asking a serious question as to why Israel was ever established in the middle east? Your answer to that seems to be because that’s where God wants it. So I guess the looney radical christians were in power back then as they are today, and put Israel in the middle east to fulfill some crazy prophecy written by stupid humans thousands of years ago. I hope you get your Armageddon.

Posted by: bushflipflops at August 8, 2006 12:59 AM
Comment #173947

Ok, coonjay, prove that god exists and I’ll conceede your point.

Until then, please quit discussing fantasy on a political blog.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 8, 2006 1:31 AM
Comment #173948

Sorry, Coonyjay. I hate it when people misspell my name and I apologize for accidentally doing it to you as well.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 8, 2006 1:34 AM
Comment #173949

coonyjay,

Seriously, you need to stop drinking the kool-aid. I just think we’d all be much better off if our governments didn’t use fairytales to decide matters of state.

Posted by: bushflipflops at August 8, 2006 1:35 AM
Comment #173952

Sorry, Coonyjay, but you’re just repeating yourself from your fantasy novel.

I take it you can’t prove that god exists? Agreed? Good, then using someone who does exist as a basis for anything political is safely ignored.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 8, 2006 1:44 AM
Comment #173953

Sorry, Coonyjay, but you’ve proven nothing. Perhaps if you try a little harder? I am really wanting to ‘believe’ but don’t think I can do so without any proof.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 8, 2006 1:46 AM
Comment #173955

coonyjay,

Did God really give them their “promised land” back, or did wealthy zionists, England, the US, and the rest of the UN give it to them? I don’t seem to recall a voice from the sky or the parting of the red sea happening 60 years ago to give them their land. Why is it God only made his presence known thousands of years ago, but now he is silent? Is he like some sort of spoiled child who didn’t get what he wanted and is now giving us all the silent treatment? Your God is such a PU**Y!

Posted by: bushflipflops at August 8, 2006 1:49 AM
Comment #173957

Coonyjay,

God may or may not exist, but Jesus didn’t have magical powers, he was just a man and not the son of God. Prove that he was and I’ll give you a cookie.

Posted by: bushflipflops at August 8, 2006 1:52 AM
Comment #173959

So, if your ‘god’ is all powerful and can do this thing you claim, please explain Ezekiel 29:17-19. I don’t think anyone ever noted Nebuchadnezzar receiving Egypt…

Or is it selective prophecies? If one prophecy of that god is false, what does that make that god?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 8, 2006 1:57 AM
Comment #173961

“The Mideast is such a mess that I have not wanted to have an opinion about it.”

Ray (and all),

I voiced my opinion on the 8/5/06:

“Unfortunately I believe that’s what it’s going to take now to slow the growth of Radical Islamic terrorism. I have given this great thought and I truly believe that all of those who desire peace must take a very hard stance and hit the terrorists wherever they are.

If any country is either unwilling or unable to root out the terrorist cells within their own boundries then what’s happening in Lebanon might very well happen to them. Those who are “unable” to crush the terror cells within their midst must be able to request the help of a true “peacemaking” force that can and will get the job done.

Groups such as Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah must know that they CAN NOT survive as long as they employ violence as a means to their end. Those who preach violence as a means to eliminate an entire religious or ethnic group must know that they are only inviting their own demise and that of their followers.

What we in the USA should be concerned about is the current ability of our own National Guard, Army, and Marine’s. All of the recent reports I’ve read indicate that we have very few, if any, troops ready to deploy for action if needed. Iraq, while being low on the list of threats to America, has pretty much depleted our resources to fight an effective war on terror.

If we were to face an all out conflict with Iran and Syria simultaneously our ground troops in Iraq would be nearly disseminated. We would have no recourse but to “blanket bomb” or “nuke” Iran and Syria! If that should happen how many other Islamic nations will think they’re next? What will their response be?

You always want to prepare for the worst and at the same time try to prevent it. Bush & Co. have done neither.”

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at August 8, 2006 2:00 AM
Comment #173962

Coonyjay,

Behold a miracle!

I guess the fact that the US has been arming them with the most advanced weapons, and that we have backed them their entire existance had nothing to do with it.

Posted by: bushflipflops at August 8, 2006 2:01 AM
Comment #173963

“Give me any name in history, ANY name that comes close to inspiring the amount of love or hate that Jesus does.”

PTSD!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at August 8, 2006 2:03 AM
Comment #173964

I’ve got a name for you Coony:

Muhammad Ali.

Posted by: bushflipflops at August 8, 2006 2:04 AM
Comment #173967

Coony,

So your God said it was OK for the colonialists and early US citizens to exterminate the natives in order to create the USA we know today? I guess slavery was OK too since it helped build this great nation? I take it back your God isn’t a PU**Y, he’s an A**HOLE!

Posted by: bushflipflops at August 8, 2006 2:19 AM
Comment #173968

Ray,

Maybe I missed it, but what solution did you offer? It seems you simply restated the problem.

Rhinehold,

You said Israel was a majority Jewish in 1949, but only 33% at the beginning of WWII. Are you sure of those figures?

Posted by: gergle at August 8, 2006 2:19 AM
Comment #173970

“Give me any name in history, ANY name that comes close to inspiring the amount of love or hate that Jesus does.”

POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER!

When you kill someone they are dead forever!

When your friends die they are dead forever!

When you realize that there is only life on earth then you’ll respect the lives of others.

Or you’ll be an animal and continue to eat the flesh of your enemy!

Should you progress far enough you’ll locate new sources of “flesh”!

There is no GOD CoonyJay! There is only “animal instinct” and we animals have obviously not progressed very far beyond canabalism.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at August 8, 2006 2:25 AM
Comment #173971

Oh Coony, your leaving before I could tell you the news about a glorious man who came to this earth and died for all our sins. His name was L. Ron Hubbard, and for a small fee of $5,000 you too can be saved. Now many people don’t know this, and I’ll probably get in trouble from the elder thetans for telling you this, but L. Ron had a son. His son is our savior, and if we follow him we will be able to defeat the evil Xenu and return to the Galactic Confederacy. Would you like to know who the savior is? It’s Tom Cruise!

All hail Tom Cruise!

Posted by: bushflipflops at August 8, 2006 2:33 AM
Comment #173972

“I’m not giving up on any of you guys. I will scrap until I can’t walk and then I will crawl into battle. It’s the way I was created.”

CoonyJay,

And just what “god” taught you to “scrap until I can’t walk”? Your type of reasoning is just exactly the reason people are dieing day in and day out. When beliefs in imaginary gods outweigh the wisdom of science we are doomed!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at August 8, 2006 3:10 AM
Comment #173973

Ray, good article and sincere attempt at breaking the subject down into it’s many and various segments. Well done. Too bad that the brutal/idiotic/religious rants courtesy of coony have effectively derailed your topic in very short order.

False power? Grandiose beliefs in invulnerability and superiority? Bullying? Militarism? A demand for an unwavering and truly thoughtless loyalty? Absolutely. It’s like the Neocon playbook in a nutshell.

Personally I don’t think America should feel forced to choose sides in this Israel/Hizballah/Lebanon insanity. All we should be doing is to keep trying to negotiate a ceasefire, and work toward peace — just like we’ve always done prior to this stupid, black and white, with-us-or-against-us administration.

Toward the end of making peace, I honestly think that the city of Jerusalem needs to become a entity much like the Vatican. But instead of being owned by a single religion the way that Vatican City is, or a country, Jerusalem should be owned by the whole World — held collectively by every and all of the religions who see it as the spiritual center of their faiths.
An entirely war free zone, where belligerence or violence is a persons one way ticket out, with no chance of being allowed to ever return again.
I think that if no one “owned” that city, it would be easier for these people to talk to each other, And perhaps they’d even one day find a way to broker a lasting peace.
Many others have no doubt suggested this solution before — maybe because it truly makes sense.

As for us, we should begin pulling our troops out of Iraq, of course. We should then follow that up by assuring the world that the Madness of King George W. Bush will soon be coming to an end, and we can all look forward to sanity and diplomacy reigning in America once more.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 8, 2006 3:13 AM
Comment #173975
Are you sure of those figures?

About as sure as anyone can be I suppose, I checked them out just before I posted with Wikipedia, since they checked out with what I had read before I went ahead and posted.

If you have some contrary figures I would love to see them.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 8, 2006 3:44 AM
Comment #173976

Nice of you to bring Jesus into it. Given the parable of the Samaritan and “loving thy neighbour”, we should force Israel to provide help to the hundreds of thousands of Lebanese civilians displaced by bombings and the destruction of ALL basic infrastructure. Isn’t that what Jesus is supposed to have taught our Leaders? Israel just bombed the last remaining road for emergency supplies to be carried to Southern Lebanon to smithereens. Guess they aren’t avid followers of the teachings of Jesus are they?

While the people of Israel overwhelmingly support their government in the genocide of the Lebanese people, Muslems all around the world are rallying to show their support of Hezbollah, reaching astronomical heights.

I guess we got wat this Administration asked for by not standing up for reason and using our extremely strong geopolitical position solely for our own (political) interests, driving the world further and further to extreme extremism.

Perhaps many Muslems are simply stunned by the fact that the large majority of Israelis now support a disproportionate application of force (supported by the U.S.) and support the Likud-led government. Perhaps they recall the nice things the first Likud Prime Minister of Israel, Menachem Begin, used to say…

“Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.”

This Israeli administration, cfr. our current Administration, does not build bridges. It deepens the rivers.


Posted by: Josh Grant at August 8, 2006 4:02 AM
Comment #173977

Rhinehold

Your description of the series of events that lead to the establishment of Israel is a little off. While it is agreed that the approximate Jewish population of Palestine just prior to the 1948 war was approximately 33%, there are no hard figures of the Jewish population prior to this.

The British prior to WWII had hoped to limit the population of Jews in Palestine to 33%. After the war, a surge of Jewish migration took place, which the British tried to stem. The British did want out of Palestine, but while they had hoped to establish a Palestinian and Israeli State, they were against the UN proposed solution. This resulted in the British abstaining, during the voting of the non-binding UN Resolution, known as Resolution 181. The British found the proposed solution deficient and they recognized that the majority of the affected population (Arab) opposed it. After Resolution 181 was passed, the British refused to implement it.

The Arabs in the region rejected the plan, and the Jews declared independence. The 1948 war broke out and eventually ended with the 1949 Armistice. This was only an armistice, which was signed in order to stop the fighting, but there was no recognition formal or otherwise of Israel contained within it.

Posted by: Cube at August 8, 2006 4:15 AM
Comment #173979

coonyjay,

I am sure you mean very well. You have a lot of energy and apparently have studied the bible rather well.

However, I suspect you are doing far more harm to Your Side (Christians, Patriotism, …) by the way you post and the way you argue. You may be really turning others off, and pushing them further into opposing camps.

As you might suggest to others who are new to social circles in which you are very accustomed, maybe ‘When in Rome, Do as the Romans Do’.

Maybe make fewer posts, which could be less off-the-cuff and more intellectually rigorous and thought provoking.

Maybe make the posts less focused on other respondents personally, and more in response to the ideas of the original post.

Finally, since few of those whom you are trying to influence take the bible as ‘gospel’ … maybe don’t assume others accept the bible or your interpretation of it as premises for your arguments.

Maybe read more of others’ writings until you are fairly sure you can write something that others will respect and find compelling.

Try to win both the minds and the hearts of those whom you argue against.

Posted by: Brian at August 8, 2006 4:20 AM
Comment #173981

Okey-dokey! Has anyone watched Bush’s news release/interview today?

I hadn’t until just now on C-Span, but I can tell you, as a former probation officer, Bush displayed nearly every sign we were taught to look for indicating intoxication.

If anyone out there knows a good forensic psychologist I’d just die to know what their opinion is. My opinion is that the man had a few shots before that interview.

KansasDem
PS: I’m biased and obviously at least 90 degrees past reality at this point so no one need mention that, but I am serious about this.

Posted by: KansasDem at August 8, 2006 4:37 AM
Comment #173983

Cube,

Don’t stop there. I want to hear about the French manipulation of Lebanon.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at August 8, 2006 4:44 AM
Comment #173984

Josh,

I believe Menachem Begin’s early life as a hothead and traditional terrorist is well accepted (and Moshe Dayan, and some other Israeli founding fathers).

However, the quote you attributed to him is so incredibly extreme, crazy … nearly unbelievable. Can you offer a reputable source(s) re:

“Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.”

Posted by: Brian at August 8, 2006 4:57 AM
Comment #173987

The quote comes from Texe Marrs, though he does not credit it to anyone he does ‘infer’ that it was a quote from Begin retold by President Carter.

I have yet to find a credible reference to attribute this quote to Begin definitavely. It does get quoted quote often on some of the most rabid anti-Israeli sites, however.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 8, 2006 5:22 AM
Comment #173990

History has taught us that you can not negotiate with fanatics/marxists/communists/fascists. There are only two paths to a lasting peace: total destruction OR taking the enemy to the point where they understand that they can not win, so they learn to live in “peace”.

Egypt and other “moderate” Arab states learned, after triying to destroy Israel in 1967, that they could not win and would most likely lose a war, so they opted for the second path - living in “peace”.

With the Iranian/Syrian-backed crazies, it looks like they’ve chosen the first path and until Iran and Syria feel the heat, they will continue to back these groups and peace will never be attained.

Nice rambling article with absolutely no new ideas for resolution of this problem. No President has been able to broker a Middle East peace - and that includes this one. It’s also nice to see that the Democrats don’t have any ideas either.

Sometimes I wish that if we (US/Isreal and Arab nations) could just agree to leave each other alone that would solve or problem. But, that’s not going to happen. These Muslim fanatics have declared a “Holy war” and will not stop - and we can’t afford to. It’s in Israel’s and our best interests to finish off these fanatics and press on to Syria. Then, maybe, Syria/Iran will understand our resolve and actually start behaving like civilized nations.

Posted by: mac6115cd at August 8, 2006 5:58 AM
Comment #173991

As Rhinehold stated, Begin’s quote was provided by former Pres Jimmy Carter.

“In his memoirs of his years in the White House, former President Jimmy Carter wrote that there could have been peace between the Arabs and the Israelis had it not been for the bigoted, Nazi-like racial views of Israeli’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin.”

This quote is but one example. He was one of the core ideologists of Likud, first Likud Prime Minister and still has a significant extremist following in Israel. Recent actions completely follow the Begin-doctrine and are supported by an overwhelming majority of Israelis.

Posted by: Josh at August 8, 2006 6:26 AM
Comment #173993

Palestine/Jewish population in Israel (1914-2000)

http://www.israelipalestinianprocon.org/populationpalestine.html#graph1

Until the Jewish state was formed, the population was far more Palestinian… and then they were given less than 1/2 of their previous land (and the Jewish population got their jerusalem… and the Palestinians did not.) Ever wonder why they had issue with this?

Posted by: tony at August 8, 2006 7:24 AM
Comment #173994

Is the Hebrew self-agrandizement (the Chosen) so different from that of Christians who believe that only true believers will be accepted into Paradise forever, while us non believers will be burn in the fires of hell forever? The Protestants take it one step further by adhering to John 3:16 which gives them the freedom to act without conscience, comforted in the belief that regardless of the atrocity their acceptance of Jesus safeguards them a place in heaven.

Karl Marx was wrong… Religion is not the opiate of the masses… it is the PCP of the masses, inducing them to behave wrecklessly, violently and irrationally without fear of pain.

Posted by: Thom Houts at August 8, 2006 7:30 AM
Comment #173997

The crux of ALL major religions is that they honor and worship their trinkets of their past (buildings, books, artifacts, stained glass, etc.) far more than the actual tenets that their religion is based on.

You can break any basic principle and say you’re sorry - and you will go to heaven. However, you put a plastic cross is a cup of piss, and you deserve nothing short of a painful immediate death. I doubt too many Christians would see the irony in that.

Posted by: tony at August 8, 2006 7:51 AM
Comment #173998

Idd Thom, religions have been misused and abused by those in power (/looking for power) to rally populations into war for decades, up to the present.

Israel is doing it.
The Muslem extremists are doing it.
Bush telling Palestinian Ministers that “God told me to invade Iraq”.
Etc.

Current strategic policy only strengthens the hold of the non-US extremists on their “constituency”, weakening the position of all moderates around the globe.

Posted by: Josh at August 8, 2006 7:52 AM
Comment #173999

The problem in the Mid-East is that both sides of the conflict are cultures whose personal spiritual beliefs were created from the same ancient mythological literature, are fighting each other and killing G-d over the same piece of land because their fantasies have branched in different directions but are still based on the same territory. Does anyone else see how insane and how far way from G-d it puts these cultures/countries/religions.

The U.S. should not be supporting either side in that insane conflict. They are trying to start a world war because their mythology predicted it and that it is their foretold endtimes when they will all be saved and carried off to the land of eternal life and endless sexual gratification (how else would you describe a culture that wants to get virgins in Paradise/Heaven/Never Never Land). That belief is so far away from real spirituality that I consider it anti-spiritual. No one will be a victor, because no one is willing to compromise. When two people want a single item, and they aren’t willing to share, there is no solution. Both sides are materialistic, selfish are as far away from G-d as you can get.


Posted by: mem beth at August 8, 2006 7:57 AM
Comment #174000

2 rules of thumb:

Never get into bed (politically) with anyone crazier than yourself.

Anyone waving an AK-47 in the name of God has no concept of religion. Don’t try to negotiate with them, work with their neighbors - you probably have much more in common.

Posted by: tony at August 8, 2006 8:04 AM
Comment #174001

I see a lot of Bush-blaming here, which only reminds me of the Democrat luxury of short term memory.

I believe all but one Senator voted to authorize war and before the chorus of “faulty information” arises, I would question what democrats were reading while Bush read “My Pet Goat”. It certainly wasnt the body of evidence provided to all of our representaives.

Secondly, being a young whippersnapper, I can only go back to the 70’s where I remember Jimmy Carter using the Middle East as his personal diplomatic sandbox…specifically orchestrating the strategy to use Afghanistan in hedging against the Soviets. How uncomfortable it must be for do-gooding Democrats to consider their role in creating the Taliban…and therefore having a direct hand in the events leading to 9/11. Ouch, very uncomfortable.

And dear Clinton….a great smile, a tender touch and always willing to share a fine cigar with the lady…yet, so desperate top create a legacy that didn’t involve the memory of chubby young girls, he singlehandedly setback the peace process with his meddling, starting a riot in Haiti, gave the Koreans a nuclear reactor and China missile launch technology all the while aseemingly helpless to deal with the terror acts against the United States, instead choosing to drop bombs on a sovereign nation promising humanitarian utopia and a 5 year withdrawal. Anyone care to review?

Add that to the 50+ seperate military escapades under his watch…more than any other president mind you. (The key here is to bomb very small groups of minorities and/or christians so the international community can look the other way)

Granted, the Republicans generally play the same game of global busybody, but curiously do not enjoy the forgiveness of liberals. They really should learn to play the utopian humanitarian card more often!

Meanwhile, the same Democrats who oppose our interference in other countries’ affairs, routinely have no objection to the U.S. government censoring our speech, confiscating our wealth and income via taxes, generally running an auction of stolen goods to people who didnt earn them in return for a vote, and fiddling with the economy to pacify the uneducated masses.
And you wonder why fewer americans eagerly present themselves as democrats.

Personally, I’d like to bring the military back home and put them on the border to screen everyone coming in or out, sign a bill ending the governments 40% tax bounty on gas, remove the ridiculous refining restrictions, shove a lump of coal into the mouths of socialist environmental wannabes who’ve never slept in a tent and tell the rest of the world, including Israel, “You’re on your own”.

Not likely. The Democrats wouldn’t be able to afford filling uo their private jets and Escapades without supplementing our energy with dreaded nuclear!

Posted by: Matt Goldseth at August 8, 2006 8:16 AM
Comment #174003

“Secondly, being a young whippersnapper, I can only go back to the 70’s where I remember Jimmy Carter using the Middle East as his personal diplomatic sandbox…specifically orchestrating the strategy to use Afghanistan in hedging against the Soviets. How uncomfortable it must be for do-gooding Democrats to consider their role in creating the Taliban…and therefore having a direct hand in the events leading to 9/11. Ouch, very uncomfortable.”

The Soviets didn’t invade Afg. until Dec. 26, 1979. Basically, any and all efforts to thwart the Soviets in Afg. came in the early to mid 80s. When did Carter leave office?

Do you remember this: Bush gives $43 million to Taliban in visit to the White House: May, 2001. Do you think any of that money might’ve been used to plan and prepare for 9/11? If not, do you think we ever asked for that money back?

Posted by: tony at August 8, 2006 8:35 AM
Comment #174004

coonyjay-
Israel has a right to defend itself. That is no protection from screwing up said defense, which many others and myself think they are doing.

Very rarely are wars, defensive or not, won by complete annihilation of the enemy. There are often forces resisting the destruction of the forces, and by targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure, they have set processes in motion that prevent them from fully destroying the forces in question: recruitment, and the will of the people to harbor and aid hezbollah.

However much you dislike the fact, these things aid Hezbollah, make it harder to destroy. Organizations are more than the sum of their parts. There are forces at work that can feed or starve a group like that, elevate them, or ensure their fall. It’s not as simple as just intimidating Lebanon into giving them up, any more than 9/11 was as simple as scaring us out of the Middle East as planned. Flight is only one of two responses when people are faced with fight-or-flight situations. The Lebanese, like us, want to stand up rather than kneel in the face of those attacking us. Unfortunately, Hezbollah was the main choice available.

Israel has rewarded Hezbollah for its provocation.

On the subject of Israel’s divine mandate, I believe what God gives, he can surely take away. He’s taken Israel from the Israelis several times in their history, and handed it over to others. The Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Ottoman Turks, and Europeans all have had their turns, and as much as some would like like to believe that Israel is theirs for good now, for purposes of apocalyptic fulfillment, we must remember that God has told us that the end times will come like a thief in the night, and that we do not know the hour or the day.

In speaking of the promised land, we must remember that the land is theirs only under a covenant. There were many Orthodox jews, maybe still are a few, who believe that the founding of the modern Israeli state was an affront to God, a rejection of God’s punishment for Israel’s previous wickedness. This is not to say that this is not the case, but we must recognize that no miracle gave Israel back to the Jews, no divinely led reconquest. In fact, many of the Jews who founded the modern State of Israel were not even believers. Many Zionists were atheists and agnostics.

The return of the Jews to Israel was a man-made event. Maybe its God’s will, maybe it’s not. Personally, I’d like to see them remain there, living in harmony with their Arab neighbors. I believe in their right to self-defense, but I think their methods give all too much validation to the foolishly maintained anger against the Israelis that is harbored in the Middle East.

There is a reason that the one whose name you’ve declared as awesome said “blessed are the peacemakers”. We men are a foolish lot, and many who fight in the name of God end up fighting in the service of his opposing rival. In peace, wounds can heal and grudges can be forgotten and forgiven. In war, the instinct to survive and eliminate threats to survival prevail, as does the spite, anger, fear, and other feelings that drive us to lash back at our foes. I real war strategy seeks to end the war as quickly as possible. As Sun Tzu said, nobody ever brilliantly protracted a war. Keep in mind, the last incursion into Lebanon lasted around twenty years.

Warmongers like Hezbollah win by provoking war and unrest. Others within the Israeli cabinet itch to do the same, to settle old grudges, to prove once and for all that Israel is a force to be reckoned, that it’s here to stay. Set against each other, they perpetuate their mutual thirst for war by fear and appeals to patriotism. They starve the peacemakers of the consent to consider other options as they exploit the frustrations of their populations as fuel for their conflict.

This went on for a long time last time. There’s no reason to believe that Israel will succeed any more now than it did before.

Ultimately, it will not make Israel safer. Only when, as Isaiah relates, the sword is beaten into a plowshare, the spear is turned into a a pruning hook, and the ways of wars are taught no more (or at least not over the ways of peace) will Israel have peace with its neighbors, and they with Israel (Israel is not the only place that needs to heed that advice)

America thrives because it has no natural enemies on its borders. It’s been quite some time since we’ve been attacked from Canada or Mexico. We have made our peace with our neighbors, as the nations of Europe have made peace with one another. Peace should not be sought at any cost, but the price of forsaking it should not be underestimated.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 8, 2006 8:35 AM
Comment #174007

I hate it when someone pulls some verses out of bible, and see it is the end of the world, and my pastor/preacher/rabbi/priest says so. We can all look into a bible/torah or whatever and pull out a verse to fit what we are trying to say.
“Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called the sons of God”(Matthew 5:9). This leaves bush out because he started the war and now and at the pearly gates he will have to account for it and for all those who died on his FOLLY.

On Iraq, have you seen the latest where the new Prime Minister has complained about the joint US-Iraq military operation in Bagdad. Now the government that gb and cr got elected is now starting to complain about trying to stop their civil war. Well sounds like a good reason to say screw you and your camels too and pull out.

Posted by: KT at August 8, 2006 9:18 AM
Comment #174011

Hey Coony

Religion is the number one reason for the murder of humans in all of history. Your god is great, isn’t it.

Posted by: Juan Zorro at August 8, 2006 10:07 AM
Comment #174018

Rhinehold,

Thanks for the history of Israel. My earlier point was that the Jewish people moved their in droves because they considered it to be the promised land.

P.S.: It was coonyjay’s comments that I was referring to earlier as lacking articulation. coonyjay may indeed have some valid and interesting points to make but I would rather not waste my time responding unless he / she takes the time to articulate his position intelligibly. I think his comments are bordering on complete troll ism.

gergle,

You wrote:

Maybe I missed it, but what solution did you offer? It seems you simply restated the problem.

Exactly. You get the joke. I offer no solution. It is a mess. The only solution that I see is the fascist “final solution” of nuclear “glassifying” the whole region. Of course, that won’t work either. I was attempting to frame the problem. It is a tangled up ball of yarn and I was just pointing at some of the threads and stating my own faith based belief the Bush Regime is bound to be pulling the wrong threads. On the other hand threads do need to be pulled.

Of course Israel has to respond when rockets are fired into their country. I think that our failures often bear the seeds of our future success - but so too - do our successes bear the seeds of our future failures.

One of the things that I was trying to get at in this article is the problem of not being able to see the forest for the trees - of looking at these situations in the microcosm - in isolation from the bigger picture. You have to respond somehow, once rockets are being fired into your country - but how did you come to this state of affairs. To not learn the lessons of your previous failures… To not look at the effect of turning a necessary defensive military occupation into a conquest through the building of settlements in occupied territories… To fail to understand your real strengths and weaknesses, including how your strengths produce weakness… These things will lead to future failure. These things will lead to future situations in which you have no choice. Once you come to the brink of war, war becomes inevitable, so you need to understand how you came to the brink. I largely agree with KansasDem here. The terrorists do need to be confronted. But how? In this case it probably would have been better for Israel to go in only with ground troops and only use close air support. It would have been far more surgical and kept the fight between them and Hezbollah. I believe that what they are doing is unifying the Arab world, weakening moderate Arab Regimes, and strengthening Hezbollah. I did however suggest one possible solution: Talking to Syria. I believe that is the one thread that could untangle this whole ball of yarn and transform Bush into a truly great President. I have little hope for that.

Posted by: Ray Guest at August 8, 2006 10:40 AM
Comment #174019

Has anyone seen the latest issue of NewsWeek yet? It seems bush is trying to give himself an “out” …

“President [b]ush will move U.S. troops out of Iraq if the country descends into civil war, according to one senior Bush aide who declined to be named.”

Wouldn’t this be just when they would need us most? By our reckoning, anyway? Probably not, though… they don’t “need” us to do any more pushing and shoving. But it is convienent for bush to establish a way to cut and run without agreeing with his opponents in order to do so.

Reckon his $PON$ORS had a hand in this? No more $$$ for you - you’re getting a bit out of hand!

My blog has a little more about this, or the whole article is linked above.

BTW, Coonyjay, you sound all-knowing in the ways of the bible - Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Thanks ;)


Posted by: myles at August 8, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #174020

I disagree with KansasDem on one point. If our military has to go into Syria and Iran they can do it. We were prepared to fight the Soviets. We can still take Syria and Iran and now, we may have to, but what kind of a mess will that make? I do think it is time for a draft. They are willing to accept 42 year olds - there is hope for me yet - not.

Posted by: Ray Guest at August 8, 2006 10:48 AM
Comment #174021

I disagree with KansasDem on one point. If our military has to go into Syria and Iran they can do it. We were prepared to fight the Soviets. We can still take Syria and Iran and now, we may have to, but what kind of a mess will that make? I do think it is time for a draft. They are willing to accept 42 year olds - there is hope for me yet - not.

Josh Grant,
You wrote:

“Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.”
What a great quote Did Menachem Begin actually say that. It would put poor hapless Gibson in perspective. I thought that I remembered that begin had been an old terrorist - but this quote is good. It shows the karma of this situation.

Posted by: Ray Guest at August 8, 2006 11:00 AM
Comment #174022

Sorry, I forgot to close my blockquote up there.

Posted by: Ray Guest at August 8, 2006 11:02 AM
Comment #174023
Until the Jewish state was formed, the population was far more Palestinian… and then they were given less than 1/2 of their previous land (and the Jewish population got their jerusalem… and the Palestinians did not.) Ever wonder why they had issue with this?

Tony, a couple of problems here.

First, there is a ‘gap’ in the chart between 1941 and 1950. In the mid-1940s there was a very large influx of Jewish people into the region, so much so that the Arabs were complaining and asking the British to stop it. They instituted policies to limit the immigration of Jews to 75,000 per year, but most people agree that they did a poor job of it and many more than that, per year, immigrated into the desert area in the south of the region.

As for the Jews getting their Jerusalem and the Arabs not, that’s just wrong. The original mandate called for Jerusalem to the UN controlled and not belong to either group. A ‘free city’, as it were. The Arabs rejected this proposal and a war ensued instead.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 8, 2006 11:09 AM
Comment #174028

mac6115cd,

You wrote,

It’s in Israel’s and our best interests to finish off these fanatics and press on to Syria. Then, maybe, Syria/Iran will understand our resolve and actually start behaving like civilized nations.
Just like driving in a car, each fork in the road that we take leads us closer to our inevitable destination, so that may indeed be our inevitable destination, but where would the other forks have took us?

Thom Houts,
You wrote:

Karl Marx was wrong… Religion is not the opiate of the masses… it is the PCP of the masses, inducing them to behave wrecklessly, violently and irrationally without fear of pain.
Absolutely true. But let us not forget that there are millions of Christians who are deeply spiritual and try to quietly live God’s grace, love and forgiveness in balance and moderation but the fanatics are more visible interesting and fun.

tony,
You wrote:
The crux of ALL major religions is that they honor and worship their trinkets of their past (buildings, books, artifacts, stained glass, etc.) far more than the actual tenets that their religion is based on.

I used have tape, Meditations on Buddhism by ??? I will try to think of the name and post it later. It is right on the tip of my tongue. Anyway, I always liked what he said, which I will attempt to paraphrase here: “Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Islam are like fingers pointing at God.” If you look where the finger points, you will see God. Many religious people become obsessed with and look at the finger. They turn the finger / dogma into a craven image of God. They practice idolatry with their own religious dogma.

tony,
“2 rules of thumb” Couldn’t agree more… … and never go to sleep when your first wife is standing over you with a knife… I violated that one.

Matt Goldseth,
You wrote:

I believe all but one Senator voted to authorize war and before the chorus of “faulty information” arises, I would question what democrats were reading while Bush read “My Pet Goat”. It certainly wasnt the body of evidence provided to all of our representaives.

I am out of time and will respond to the rest of your post and others later, but good point here. The Democrats in general, and myself in particular, let us down here. I was opposed to the war - but stood relatively mute - only quietly attending a few small anti-war protests.

Posted by: Ray Guest at August 8, 2006 11:41 AM
Comment #174030

Tony,
The policy to undermine the USSR by funding the Afghan mujahideen started with Carter.

Matt,
The mujahideen included Osama bin Laden, Pushtun tribesmen, Uzbeks, Tajiks, and others. Once the USSR withdrew, some mujahideen went on to become leaders of the Taliban, such as Mullah Omar. Others went on to become warlords & leaders of ethnic factions.

In the chaos of the failed state of Afghanistan, the Taliban arose in the south among the Pushtun. For most of its history, Afghniastan has been ruled by the Pushtun majority, and the Taliban represented a continuation of this.

Your confusion of the mujahideen with the Taliban sounds impressive, but is actually ill informed and misleading. It is an attempt to make a political point by misrepresenting the truth.

Time does not permit debunking the numerous other inaccuracies. Are your misleading statements intentional lies, or misleading statements based on honest ignorance?

Posted by: phx8 at August 8, 2006 11:51 AM
Comment #174035

Matt,
Nothing like a high fastball on the first pitch- I came across a little strong in an effort to be provocative-

“… the same Democrats who oppose our interference in other countries’ affairs…”

Interference? What are you referring to? Does this have anything to do with a pre-emptive invasion based on lies, like in Iraq? Any chance of offering an example for an apples-to-apples comparison?

“… (The same Democrats) routinely have no objection to the U.S. government censoring our speech…” What are you referring to? People like Lieberman are on the cusp of being ejected from the Democratic party by the liberal wing. Route for the liberals, Matt. We are the ones riding the white horses.

“… confiscating our wealth and income via taxes…”

You receive nothing in return?

I am not going to continue. There are too many vague, unfounded accusations, sloppy summaries of recent history, and other inaccuracies.

Posted by: phx8 at August 8, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #174036

phx8 -

Thanks for the correction… I dug a little deeper, and you are correct. Carter was suspected on funding this a full 6 months prior to the USSR invasion.

Posted by: tony at August 8, 2006 12:35 PM
Comment #174040

phx8,

I’m looking forward to your ‘debunking’ of Tony’s original comments because most of them look pretty dead-on to me and I would like to know of any innacuracies I may have about these topics.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 8, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #174041
“… confiscating our wealth and income via taxes…”

You receive nothing in return?

phx8, just because you get something back from a thief doesn’t mean the theft didn’t happen.

violating our rights to personal property through the use of force is unforgivable, even if the mob who voted for it was well-intentioned.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 8, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #174050
Religion is the number one reason for the murder of humans in all of history. Your god is great, isn’t it.

While often quoted, I believe this is not only wrong, but that the converse is truer.

- Except for some Jihad in the 20th/21st centuries, can you think of many people killing in the name of god?

- I believe ~all of history’s mass murderers were atheists (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Genghis & Kublai Khan, probably Saddam, Rwanda (ethnic war), …

Does anyone have a pointer to a more definitive study?

Posted by: Brian at August 8, 2006 2:05 PM
Comment #174056

Brian,

- Except for some Jihad in the 20th/21st centuries, can you think of many people killing in the name of god?

Inquisition

The Crusades:
First Crusade
Second Crusade
Third Crusade
Fourth Crusade
Albigensian Crusade
Children’s Crusade
Fifth Crusade
Sixth Crusade
Seventh Crusade
Eighth Crusade
Ninth Crusade
Crusades in Baltic and Central Europe

Protestant vs Catholic deaths and persecutions in ‘Merry Ol’ England’.

Salem Witch Trials

European Witch Trials

Abortion Clinic Bombings

IRA vs England

Spanish Catholic killing native Americans

….

I could go on, I haven’t even gotten to the Turks, the Eastern religions and Africa yet…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 8, 2006 2:44 PM
Comment #174057

Rhinehold,

You are right that Abortion Clinic killings are presumably done in the name of god. HOWEVER, I was asking if you can think of many killing in the name of god in the 20th and 21st centuries (besides jihadists)(*).

However, while I do not know the exact number of Abortion physicians/nurses killed, it may not come very close to the ~60M by Stalin, the ~30M by Hitler, +Mao, +Pol Pot, +…

And even going back to the much older Crusades you mentioned (there were 3(?) main ones), the 10s of thousands killed may not cover even small-time Saddam’s ~300,000 killings.

I happen to be agnostic myself. But I want to be accurate in stating the/we non-religious seem to be history’s biggest killers.

But does anyone have a pointer to a more accurate study?

(*) while IRA/England conflict was divided denominationally, I don’t think much killing was in the name of god. Still, the numbers seem very low compared to the major modern atheist killings.

Posted by: Brian at August 8, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #174058

Brian,
How about scaling those numbers as percentage of the human population of the times? How do they stack up then? (I don’t know the answer, just curious)

Posted by: Dave1 at August 8, 2006 3:23 PM
Comment #174059

In the last half of the 19th century, the British Raj instituted a strict interpretation of capitalism according to Adam Smith. Storage of grain for times of famine was forbidden, as were charitable shipments; they would have affected the free market price of grain.

By destroying traditonal systems for getting through times of drought, tens of millions died in southern Asia.

It rivals the deaths caused by religion, communism, or any system you care to name.

Rhinehold,
There is a difference between arguing against taxation by government, and the tax policies of political parties.

Matt is trotting out a version of “Democrats and Republicans are the same,” and “the Democrats did it first.”

The Buddha once engaged the smartest debator in India. The debator asked a traditional paradox, and the Buddha replied with a question to define the terms. The debator immediately conceded.

Demanding a Definition of the Unit is unassailable. Really, though, it belies the more important point. Democrats are not the same as Republicans, and no amount of squirming will shift the Republican blame elsewhere. The Republicans, under Bush and fellow conservatives, screwed up big time almost right across the board, and they have no one, no one to blame but themselves.

Posted by: phx8 at August 8, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #174060

What about the current fiasco going on in Iraq - from our President, who was told by God to invade Iraq?

The current Lebanon conflict & Palistinian conflict, religionon both sides…

I wonder how many women were burned at the stake for being witches…???

The colonization of Africa…

The was a very strong base of religion in the extermination of the Native American population.

Posted by: tony at August 8, 2006 3:38 PM
Comment #174061

Hilter used Christianity (and the forces there) to leverage people’s suspicion of the Jews…

Posted by: tony at August 8, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #174064

and I think Stalin was educated at a seminary… right?

Posted by: tony at August 8, 2006 3:53 PM
Comment #174066

And no one expected the Spanish Inquisition.

Posted by: Rocky at August 8, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #174067

I have not seen a quote by Bush that he (and Congress) went to Iraq to kill in the name of God.

Suicide Bombers and Hizbollah I suppose are killing mostly in the name of god. While I don’t agree with all Israeli acts, I doubt the Israelis are generally killing to please god, but I don’t know what is in their leaders/solders hearts when they do.

Burning those loosely accused as being witches seems rightly remembered as one of the most stupid and abominable acts ever … but I doubt this was ever a major cause of death, outside Salem, Mass for those few months(?).

Africa and America were colonized to different degrees (and by different races and at different times). But I am unaware of widespread killing in the name of god.

I am curious to know what percent (as Dave1 suggested) and absolute number of people were killed due to religion versus:
- all deaths
- all un-natural deaths
- active killings

Posted by: Brian at August 8, 2006 4:10 PM
Comment #174072
Democrats are not the same as Republicans, and no amount of squirming will shift the Republican blame elsewhere. The Republicans, under Bush and fellow conservatives, screwed up big time almost right across the board, and they have no one, no one to blame but themselves.

1. While the Republicans screwed up the running of this war, I don’t see how the Dems can try to lay ‘the getting into it’ at the hands of the Republicans when they went along with it. They are both on that side of history (one I happen to agree with mind you).

2. I think he was trying to point out that the Democrats have screwed up their fair number of things as well and for them to act as if they are smarter than the republicans (This wouldn’t have happened if we had been in power…. yeah right) seems to rely a bit too much on voter gullability.

The reality is that our government shouldn’t HAVE this much power. We should let the government do what they are best suited to do and let them focus on doing those well instead of the multitude of things that they are involved in on a daily basis, perhaps then they might actually have time to read the few bills that pass their desk and be able to make educated votes on them…

Just a thought.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 8, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #174085

TONY:
“The Soviets didn’t invade Afg. until Dec. 26, 1979. Basically, any and all efforts to thwart the Soviets in Afg. came in the early to mid 80s. When did Carter leave office?”—————————————

The Soviets invaded in 1979, Carter left in 1981

TONY: “Do you remember this: Bush gives $43 million to Taliban in visit to the White House: May, 2001. Do you think any of that money might’ve been used to plan and prepare for 9/11? If not, do you think we ever asked for that money back?”———————-

No. The planning had been going on for years, the most expensive of which was flight school training starting far earlier than May.
Plane tickets: $150
Rental Car: $75
Boxcutters: $1.99
Endless conspiracy theories: priceless!

TONY: “Your confusion of the mujahideen with the Taliban sounds impressive, but is actually ill informed and misleading. It is an attempt to make a political point by misrepresenting the truth.
Time does not permit debunking the numerous other inaccuracies. Are your misleading statements intentional lies, or misleading statements based on honest ignorance?”————————————————-

I wasnt attempting to specify the differences between all factions. I merely alluded to the fact that a Democrat had a huge hand in the events which led to the formation of the Taliban. (Ironically, you missed the overall point I made about our middle east meddling—Im just a bit more sane and blalanced in my approach)
I admire your attempt to obscure the actual point with details outside the scope of the thread….as well as the tried n true tactic of calling someone a liar while excusing yourself from substantiation. ;-)

Posted by: Matt at August 8, 2006 6:34 PM
Comment #174092

PHX8: “Interference? What are you referring to? Does this have anything to do with a pre-emptive invasion based on lies, like in Iraq? Any chance of offering an example for an apples-to-apples comparison?”
——————————————————————-

#1: You say pre-emptive like its a bad word. While I dont agree with the overriding policy in engaging the middle east, pre-emptive is simply a liberal code word used to bias the issue right from the start.

#2: The insistence on using the phrase, “Bush lied”, generally tells me that Im dealing with a hopeless myrmidon of the democratic party who has little regard for accuracy or honesty…or both.
Bush was wrong.
Bush may have exaggerated…knowingly or not.
There is little proof that he explicitly lied.
You really should try a more balanced approach to your study.

#3: You want apples to apples?
I opposed the bombing of Yugoslavia because it was based on humanitarian lies for the sake of political distraction. There was a civil war that in no way effected the United States and our involvement there was unconstitutional, one sided and didnt achieve the claimed end. Yet most democrats supported it. Democrats generally supported the numerous military expeditions of the Clinton administration.

Now, the real point I was making was this:
Democrats whine about the questionable virtue of military impositions on sovereign nations.
However, in our own country, democrats generally support the confiscation of our right to bear arms.
They generally support censorship of what they deem to be offensive speech.
They generally support the oppressive marxist tax code which confiscates and redistributes private, earned income under the threat of imprisonment.
They generally support coersive price fixing, wage fixing, tariffs and other tyranical interference in the economy. (And I am amused by your sad justification for such immoral taxation—that its okay because of the pittance I receive in return)

They generally support a destructive, immoral drug war which harms innocent americans while creating black markets/gangs and results in crowded prisons which by necessity allow murderers and rapists back on the streets.

Democratic virtues generally REQUIRE forced, coercive tyranical imposition which they are only too happy to support under the guise of good intention…yet when such impositions occur elsewhere, they strike up the Holy, Holy…..

You avoided the actual merits of the point because the Democrats have just as much blood on their hands. I laid blame at the hands of Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush 2…for continuing the domino effect, but your irrational hatred for Bush/GOP combined with your emotional attachment to your political religion do not allow much room for reasoned reflection.

Posted by: Matt at August 8, 2006 6:55 PM
Comment #174095

“TONY: “Do you remember this: Bush gives $43 million to Taliban in visit to the White House: May, 2001. Do you think any of that money might�€™ve been used to plan and prepare for 9/11? If not, do you think we ever asked for that money back?”———————-

No. The planning had been going on for years, the most expensive of which was flight school training starting far earlier than May.
Plane tickets: $150
Rental Car: $75
Boxcutters: $1.99
Endless conspiracy theories: priceless!”

OK - so you dismiss Bush giving a known terrrorist state $43 million less than 4 months before 9/11 attacks (obvious connection) with “conspiracy?” Cute, but worthless.

The last quote had nothing to do with me, so you can make that attempt again - but make sure you look at who posted this…

(The issue with Carter - I stand corrected…but that was covered earlier in this post. )

Posted by: tony at August 8, 2006 7:14 PM
Comment #174102

George W. Bush is the President of the United States of Armageddon.

Over the past months, the White House has convened a series of off-the-record meetings about its policies in the Middle East with leaders of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), a newly formed political organization that tells its members that supporting Israel’s expansionist policies is “a biblical imperative.” CUFI’s Washington lobbyist, David Brog, told me that during the meetings, CUFI representatives pressed White House officials to adopt a more confrontational posture toward Iran, refuse aid to the Palestinians and give Israel a free hand as it ramped up its military conflict with Hezbollah.

The White House instructed Brog not to reveal the names of officials he met with, Brog said.

If you want to read the rest of this depressing article:
Birth Pangs of a New Christian Zionism

Christian, yeah sure they are. What a bad f*cking joke.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 8, 2006 7:34 PM
Comment #174107

Re: bushflipflops,Rhinehold,tk, and KansasDem,

Especially Rhinehold:

How could you guys get so drawn into such a senseless battle with Coonyjay? Arguing about religion with a fundamentalist Christian is a no-win proposition.

They are excellent at pulling out the Bible verses even if one thinks they’ve just backed them into the corner.

How on earth could you spend so much energy arguing about the existence of God? He is not fighting on one side or the other.

I firmly believe that He is simply sitting back, possibly laughing at everyone who thinks they have all the answers. Those who believe if one doesn’t accept Jesus one automatically goes to hell; to the Israelites, the “chosen ones”; to the fundamental views of virtually every religion; and to those who don’t believe in Him.

I can imagine in my mind’s eye that He is simply d waiting for the next lunatic thing mankind does. He doesn’t have to worry about the end of the world. We are doing a great job all by ourselves.

Do you guys realize you spent 3 hours trying to make him defend himself - and to what purpose?

The discussion didn’t even have anything to do with religion.

Ray, I enjoyed the original post you made.I thought you raised some very valid points. I am only sorry that your post found itself taken over by the discussion of religion. However that seems to be the norm these days.

Brian, I appreciate the first post you made to Coonyjay. You wrote very nicely, and even offered some very useful suggestions.



Posted by: Linda H. at August 8, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #174109

Adrienne,
Thanks for your articulate perceptive comment.


mac6115cd,
You wrote:

Nice rambling article with absolutely no new ideas for resolution of this problem. No President has been able to broker a Middle East peace - and that includes this one. It’s also nice to see that the Democrats don’t have any ideas either.
I wouldn’t go quite that far - we got some ideas.

Stephen Daugherty,
As always, an excellent insightful post.

KT,

Well sounds like a good reason to say screw you and your camels too and pull out.
Thanks for comment and I love this turn of phrase.

Rhinehold,
You wrote:

I could go on, I haven’t even gotten to the Turks, the Eastern religions and Africa yet…
Thanks for answering Brian although his point is well taken too. It all depends on how you define it. Virtually all sides in all wars claim God is on their side - killing in the name of God - or using God’s name to justify your killing - dead people are still dead. Whether people are killing in the name of God or not, the worlds major religions certainly are a major part of this crisis. The good thing about religion is that it is one kind of the “glue” of tribal connections. American patriotism and Christianity for example. Tribal connections are important. We need to surround ourselves with allies and friends that we can trust. But tribal conflicts of this nature are intractable and faith in God fuels all three sides.

Posted by: Ray Guest at August 8, 2006 8:32 PM
Comment #174112

Matt,

Well Said! I’m glad to see someone like you posting here on the blog.

They are excellent at pulling out the Bible verses even if one thinks they’ve just backed them into the corner.

Linda,

I generally hope they do because as a former preacher and biblical student I can usually out ‘verse’ them. Once you squash their verse strategy and make it clear that you won’t allow fantasy to be involved in the debate they usually slink off. If you don’t engage them sometimes they get the feeling that they are ‘stumping’ you and will hang around to try it again and again.

Sometimes it IS best to deal with a threat when it first appears instead of letting it fester until it become more than a minor annoyance.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 8, 2006 8:58 PM
Comment #174113

Linda H.,
Thanks for kind comment. I agree that fighting over religion is pointless. It is an article of faith. Either you have it or you don’t. But religion is a big part of this problem as highlighted by Adrienne’s last post. So will I thought coonyjay was troll ish, discussion of religion was inevitable. If we had more constructive solutions to the crisis, the discussion probably would have taken a different track. We seem to be on a one way street headed into a bad neighborhood. It is late. We are almost out of gas and all of the gas stations are located in the bad neighborhood. There is little else for us to do, other than pray. I am a mostly part time atheist, part time agnostic, part time new age metaphysical, mystical Buddhist eclectic Christian ish. Lately, mostly atheist, but this mess has praying, to what - to nothing - to what end - but praying.However, in our own country, democrats generally support the confiscation of our right to bear arms.
They generally support censorship of what they deem to be offensive speech.
They generally support the oppressive marxist tax code which confiscates and redistributes private, earned income under the threat of imprisonment.
They generally support coersive price fixing, wage fixing, tariffs and other tyranical interference in the economy. (And I am amused by your sad justification for such immoral taxation—that its okay because of the pittance I receive in return)

Posted by: Ray Guest at August 8, 2006 8:59 PM
Comment #174115

Ray Guest, stop cutting Bush so much slack, you are almost as bad as Michael Moore. The point about My Pet Goat was that a plane had already hit The World Trade Center, which meant nothing to him, since it is not in Texas, when he went in to see if our children is learning.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 8, 2006 9:05 PM
Comment #174120

Matt,
You wrote:

Democrats whine about the questionable virtue of military impositions on sovereign nations.
However, in our own country, democrats generally support the confiscation of our right to bear arms.
They generally support censorship of what they deem to be offensive speech.
They generally support the oppressive marxist tax code which confiscates and redistributes private, earned income under the threat of imprisonment.
They generally support coersive price fixing, wage fixing, tariffs and other tyranical interference in the economy. (And I am amused by your sad justification for such immoral taxation-that its okay because of the pittance I receive in return)
How many guns have been confiscated from law abiding citizens? Many of us are for gun control - licensing - in order to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I assume that you are referring to censorship of hate speech. If hate speech were permitted, nothing would prevent Wahhabist clerics from coming here and inciting Jihad against us on our own soil. Marxist tax code? I presume that you do not count the military as part of the pittance that you receive in return. The government is here to create the greatest good for the greatest number. There are real differences about how to do that. Many of us believe that the policies that you seem to implicitly suggest would create the greatest good for the smallest number.

Posted by: Ray Guest at August 8, 2006 9:39 PM
Comment #174122

ohrealy,
I thunk our childrens is lernin.

Posted by: Ray Guest at August 8, 2006 9:41 PM
Comment #174124

Heres a win-win. Lets give the Isrealis Texas. Or maybe we give it to the Palestinians. Either way we get mid-east peace and we get rid of…..

Posted by: BillS at August 8, 2006 9:48 PM
Comment #174127

Posted by: Ray Guest at August 8, 2006 08:59 PM

Part time, part time, part time…..

But a full time victim of the corporately sponsored Republican marketing scam if you really believe what you have posted.

Just the Deomocrats are a threat but unchecked corporate political is okay with you…….right?

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at August 8, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #174128

Coonjay: If God is taking care of Isreal maybe we could save the billions in aid we send them?

Posted by: BillS at August 8, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #174132

expat,

Why does it have to be one or the other? Can’t it be both?

two-party politics… *sigh*

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 8, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #174138

“How uncomfortable it must be for do-gooding Democrats to consider their role in creating the Taliban…and therefore having a direct hand in the events leading to 9/11. Ouch, very uncomfortable.”
Posted by: Matt Goldseth at August 8, 2006 08:16 AM

Uhh, I hate to break it to ya… George H.W. Bush was the Director of Operations who oversaw the creation of al-qaida (Arabic for “the base”) and the taliban. The CIA needed to unite the muhajideen tribes to fight Russia.

Posted by: ChristianLeft at August 8, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #174139

expatUSA_Indonesia,

I don’t understand your post, but worse I don’t understand my own post from 8:59 PM today - and that is bad. I must have accidentally copied something from Matt that I was thinking about responding to on the bottom just before I posted.

Posted by: Ray Guest at August 8, 2006 10:59 PM
Comment #174142

TONY: “OK - so you dismiss Bush giving a known terrrorist state $43 million less than 4 months before 9/11 attacks (obvious connection) with “conspiracy?” Cute, but worthless.”
————————————————————————-

Dismiss, no.
I don’t support government taxation of any kind wthout direct representation. But again…giving old people free drugs by stealing my income every week is no better or worse than stealing my income to send some PR cash to Islamic wackos.
It’s still tyrannical theft of private property.

I just don’t see any connection with the long term infiltration of Islamic goat-f?cking wackos who
later killed American citizens. Please…make the connection for me.

Posted by: Matt at August 8, 2006 11:41 PM
Comment #174145

I know its my right, no…in fact, it is my duty to BEAR ARMS aginst those who seek to minimalize my inalienable rights, among which is the right to bear arms.

I live in Florida…close to both Orlando and Jacksonville which have seen record homocide rates this year. While Jacksonville officials deusche themselves with town hall meetings and ulticultural services, I simply call for the execution of those who kill other human beings. I also would carry a firearms and bestow a death nap upon any thug who dares threaten the safety of my wife or child.

Such simple common sense rings true in almost all American, while dedicated liberals usually deny their agenda with questions such as yours:
“How many guns have been confiscated from law abiding citizens? Many of us are for gun control - licensing - in order to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.”

Confiscated? of course none.
But then again…common sense moment here…how many CRIMINALS are willing to abide by gun control simply because it is made LAW?
Moment of clarity please?

Rather, the libherals impose legislation and taxation making it far more difficult for citizens to legally OWN those guns. High prices due to the restrictions on “sat night specials” along with the fees and inconvenience of conceal and carry laws.

Sure, you want your powerful white politicians to own guns easily, while the rest of America, through legislation, actually lives among the thugs and finds more obstacles to self-defense.

No thanks.
God grants me the right to self-defense, not some irrational, do-gooding liberal kook.

———————————————-
RAY GUEST:
“If hate speech were permitted, nothing would prevent Wahhabist clerics from coming here and inciting Jihad against us on our own soil. Marxist tax code?”
____________________________________________-

Thats been covered. If a Muslimm wants to share their pedophiliac, child raping faith, so be it…however, threatening the rights of others is not acceptable. No different than fag-burning Fallwell.

——————————————————-
RAY GUEST:
“Marxist tax code? I presume that you do not count the military as part of the pittance that you receive in return.”
——————————————————-
No…as I have already made clear, I believe the military has been abused. However, please note that our Constitution states that “SECURING THE BORDER” is the main priority….something the Democrats certainly wont take seriously as they recruit hispanic votes.

RAY GUEST: “The government is here to create the greatest good for the greatest number.”
—————————————————————
Wrong.
American government was created to protect the inalienable rights, granted by God, from precisely that mob mentality you propose.


Posted by: Matt at August 9, 2006 12:11 AM
Comment #174158

What do the critics of Israel expect them to do when attacked?

Does anyone really believe that Hezbollah wants peace with Israel?

How many times has the Muslim world tried to wipe Israel off the map?

If the Muslim world has any interest in peace with Israel why does the leader of the most powerful Mulsim nation continue to call for Israel to be wiped off the map?

Since a home land for the Palestinians is so important to the Muslim world tell me about the home land for the Palestinians that the Muslim world created while they controlled that area?

Is there any name in the history of the world that creates a stronger reaction, positive or negative, when you hear it than that of Jesus Christ?

I guess if the creation of Israel was not the doing of God and if it isn’t part of prophecy then you would have to think that at some point the combined size and might of the Muslim world will be able to destroy Israel. Rather amazing that they haven’t been able to do it on their previous attempts.

Posted by: Carnak at August 9, 2006 2:20 AM
Comment #174162

STEP AWAY FROM THE KOOL-AID, MATT, YOU’VE HAD TOO MUCH.

The American government was created TO GOVERN AMERICA. Those ‘inalienable rights’ you mention were an afterthought to the constitution which named the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of all Americans’ rights. If you don’t like the way our country is run, let me suggest you go somewhere else!!!

Why is it that no discussion of the War in Iraq would be complete without some asswipe spinning the vote to authorize bush to invade Iraq as Carte Blance? Remember, at the time, bush was batting 1000 for his invasion of Afghanistan which almost EVERYBODY supported. They did not know they had been decieved by cherry-picked intelligence and they based their votes on the assumption that bush would ONLY use that authority as a final resort. They did not know that a month BEFORE the vote, bush had redirected $700 Million earmarked for the war in Afghanistan. They did not know that all the weapons inspectors in the world would not have kept bush from invading Iraq. THEY DID NOT KNOW THAT IT WAS A WAR OF LIBERATION, A WAR THE IRAQIS WERE UNWILLING TO FIGHT FOR THEMSELVES. And then, in March of 2003 when congressional democrats DID realize that bushes war was inevitable, the congressional republicans denied an up or down vote to rescind that authorization. Just as the American UN representation precluded a reconsideration of the implied “serious consequences” of UN resolution 1441 that same month.

Sorry republicans, America just any buyin’ those same ol’ lies anymore.

And as for those of you who feel we should stay out of the Israeli-Hezbollah situation, I beg you to reconsider. Hezbollah is the MAJOR LEAGUE version of Al Qaeda. They are better armed, better trained, better funded, more organized and more far-reaching than Al Qaeda ever hoped to be. THIS is the war America SHOULD be fighting, not the one in Iraq.

Posted by: Thom Houts at August 9, 2006 2:58 AM
Comment #174166
Those ‘inalienable rights’ you mention were an afterthought to the constitution which named the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of all Americans’ rights.

Wrong.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 9, 2006 3:35 AM
Comment #174169

well rhiney I just don’t know how to respond to that. Obviously you spent a lot of time considering it. Many hours researching it. what your response lacks in depth it certainly makes up for in brevity.

For all it’s rhetorical beauty, the declaration of independance, with it’s flowery talk of inalienable rights and nature’s god, certainly was NOT a legal document and it was certainly NOT binding upon those who declared themselves independant much less upon those from whom they declared themselves independant.

There’s a reason why the Constitution doesn’t mention ‘inalienable rights’… because the Constitution IS a legal document, binding on all citizens and members of government. There was no room for poetic allusions to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ in the document that specified the government’s role in our lives. You won’t even find mention of inalienable rights in the BILL OF RIGHTS or any of the succeeding amendments.

The goals of the Constitution are pretty well spelled out in the pre-amble “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

I don’t see anything about ‘inalienable rights’ in there, do you? Certainly a religious person might argue that he has the ‘inalienable right’ to hold a prayer meeting in the public school… but he’d be wrong. And if that religious person pushed long enough and hard enough, he might find that his ‘inalienable right’ to liberty wasn’t all that it’s cracked up to be, either.

Go ahead. Tell me I’m wrong. Then take a flying run at the entrance to the White House in your ‘inalienable right’ to pursue happiness and see if some secret service agent doesn’t end your ‘inalienable right’ to life.

Posted by: Thom Houts at August 9, 2006 4:27 AM
Comment #174173

“I don’t support government taxation of any kind wthout direct representation. But again…giving old people free drugs by stealing my income every week is no better or worse than stealing my income to send some PR cash to Islamic wackos.
It’s still tyrannical theft of private property.

I just don’t see any connection with the long term infiltration of Islamic goat-f?cking wackos who
later killed American citizens. Please…make the connection for me.”

Wow - I don’t even have a clue as to what you are taalking about. This is not whacked out conspiracy - bo idea why you think it might be. Bush gave the Taliban $43 million, 4 months before we were attacked by Taliban-supported Al Queda. If you think the Taliban was innocent in all this, then why do you think invaded Afg.?

The $43 million was to encourage the Taliban to crack down on opium trade - and it took the grand total for that year (2001) up to roughly $125 million.

You tell me why you would excuse this aid, especially in light of the known intelligence about the Taliban and Bin Laden.

Posted by: tony at August 9, 2006 7:02 AM
Comment #174180
STEP AWAY FROM THE KOOL-AID, MATT, YOU’VE HAD TOO MUCH. The American government was created TO GOVERN AMERICA. Those ‘inalienable rights’ you mention were an afterthought to the constitution which named the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of all Americans’ rights. If you don’t like the way our country is run, let me suggest you go somewhere else!!!

Wow. You, my friend, are certainly a product of government schools…and got it all wrong.
Go back and read the Declaration of Independence:
“That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Those “inalienable rights” were hardly an after-thought as you can see. They were precisely the reason settlers left Europe in the first place…and the Declaration makes that pretty clear. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights was added to EXPLICITLY clarify the limitied power of government’s tendency to infringe on those rights. And the Supreme Court certainly wasn’t meant to be a “final arbiter”…they were merely to SECURE those rights against tyrannical legislators who think like you and would trample those rights when convenient.
Unbelievable.
Instead of ranting about Bush and denying the accountability of your own party, you should backtrack and undo the ignorance of government education. It took mer a long time, so you better get started.
(And again, you seem to miss the whole point I’ve made…that I generally oppose this “spreading of democracy” pipedream, but don’t hold Bush as the sole evil culprit.)

Posted by: Matt Goldseth at August 9, 2006 8:19 AM
Comment #174182

Once I read: “Obviously, the Israelis have the right to defend themselves.” I knew what your article was all about. Not Anti-Israel but anti-Bush. You made muslims look like innocent victims. Why is it that liberals can understand that radical muslims dont like us? Can you picture in your head having negotiations with Hitler in the 1940s? one word…Russia.
It is easy to see that the neocons are evil and liberals keep repeating it, but extreme muslims we have to talk to them. They hate you!! They love their women and look how they are being treated.

Posted by: elephants are not cute at August 9, 2006 8:30 AM
Comment #174212

Matt,
Interesting, and radical conservative agenda. You should move up here to Michigan. The Michigan Militia would love you. I could introduce you to the right people.

But - The Mideast going down the toilet. Anyone?

AH… Carnak,
You wrote:

I guess if the creation of Israel was not the doing of God and if it isn’t part of prophecy then you would have to think that at some point the combined size and might of the Muslim world will be able to destroy Israel. Rather amazing that they haven’t been able to do it on their previous attempts.
Not amazing at all. Israel has a very large bull dog on a leash. The name on his spiked collar is the U.S.A. But Christians want their Armageddon. With a little luck they might get - lets hope. They can finally be raptured, and the rest of us can finally live in peace…

Good debate all. What strikes me here, is that while we fight amongst ourselves about who is to blame, we are in broad agreement about the problem and that someone is to blame. The prophesy fulfilment folks excepted. Some of us think that the Bush Regime is entirely at fault. Some of us, like me, think that the Bush Regime is mostly at fault, but that liberals failed to fight as hard as we should have. Some of us seem to think that the fault is equally balanced. Some of us think that the liberals are mostly at fault. Most of seem to agree that the Bush Regime screwed up. That broad agreement is good. But every strength conveys a weakness. In this case, very few solutions have been offered. We should be fighting over solutions. The fact that we are fighting over blame, and Revelations, is an indication of just how bad this situation is.

elephants are not cute,
Great name. They are not cute, but they are hung like… well… elephants… Maybe that is why Condi and Laura are so happy. Anyhow, I digress.
You wrote:

It is easy to see that the neocons are evil and liberals keep repeating it, but extreme muslims we have to talk to them. They hate you!! They love their women and look how they are being treated.
Good point - but. I think that it was Thom Houts who pointed out that Hezbollah is like Al Qaeda on steroids. This is true too. But I think that there is a possibility that they could be transformed like the P.L.O. or the I.R.A. They sort of suffer from the same problem that plagues the Michigan Militia. They have a choice. They can be a tiny radical extremist fringe group or they can grow into a large mainstream organization. If they grow, the group will become polluted / diluted with relatively moderate, relatively reasonable mainstream people - and relatively reasonable mainstream people are the kiss of death. There may eventually be a possibility of negotiating with Hezbollah. More importantly, there is a real possibility of negotiating with Syria. I think that is the most important thing that the Bush Regime seems to be ignoring. You have got to give those elephants credit. They have kahunas the size of basket balls. They are staring 100 years of war and instability in the face and not even blinking. As I see it, the world has three choices. Negotiate. Attack in a limited surgical fashion that does not exacerbate. Total war. Kill em all. Take no prisoners. We self righteously refuse to negotiate with the people that we could negotiate with. So strike that option. The current war is anything but surgical and is sowing the seeds of endless war. It radicalizes the already radical Arab mainstream which helps Hezbollah and Al Qaeda avoid the plague of the Michigan Militia. They can go mainstream and remain extremist. I fear that we are on a one way road leading toward option three.

Posted by: Ray Guest at August 9, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #174213
Interesting, and radical conservative agenda.

Radical? Well, these are the views of our founding fathers and they were pretty radical for their time I suppose… but I don’t see how Classic Liberalism can be considered Conservative.

Perhaps there is a misconception about the 9th and 10th amendments, their purposes and the worry of what you suggest actually happening when the idea of a ‘bill of rights’ was being discussed.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 9, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #174248

Ray, terrific post.
You wrote:
“More importantly, there is a real possibility of negotiating with Syria. I think that is the most important thing that the Bush Regime seems to be ignoring.”

Actually the entire regime isn’t ignoring it. There is a split occurring here presently, with Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Hadley on the one side, and Condi who is as mad as hell about their stance on the other.
Check out this article: Bush and Condi clash over Israel; president overrules her for the first time

Posted by: Adrienne at August 9, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #174265

I apologize for the lenght of this reaponse, however I do still belileve there is hope for our political system, assuming the people actually use their heads - which I frankly doubt.

Rhinehold, and Ray
It just appears to me that more and more time is being spent arguing about religion on this blog lately than than I have have ever seen.
Someone new could come upon the first few posts, and never realize that this is supposedly a political blog.
________________________________________________
Ray,

(And I am amused by your sad justification for such immoral taxation�€”that its okay because of the pittance I receive in return)

I don’t understand the above reference.
______________________________
Ray,
I tend to disagree with your points about the Democrats.

democrats generally support theconfiscation of our right to bear arms.

Just maybe Democrats are not as afraid to REGISTER their arms, because they general have nothing to hide, or perhaps now that the government has started to invade our homes (see Wiretapping) maybe they are afraid to Register them now. With good reason.
They generally support censorship of what they deem to be offensive speech.

I know a lot of Democrats whose language would make one blue in the face -
They generally support the oppressive Marxist tax code which confiscates and redistributes private, earned income under the threat of imprisonment.

Bush, Sr. ran on the “I will not raise taxes” platform, and then raised them.
I have never been aware of the Democrats supporting imprisonment for tax payers, except for those who don’t-Mostly big buisness, as far as I can tell.

Nixon was big on freezing just about everything.
Yes, it was the Democrats who blocked the minimum wage increase, because most of them know more about the cost of living than Big Business supporters will ever know. The amount is too low!

And it is the Republican party that seems to be trying hard to legislate morality - trying to shove their views of RELIGION, SEX, TAXES, etc. down everyone’s throat. And at the same time lying through it’s teeth - as least where Bush, Jr. is concerned.

I still want to know why we invaded Iraq, and now that Bush has said “Mission Accomplished” (exactly what mission was that anyway- removing Saddam?)why we are still there? What happens if we can’t force Democracy down their throats? Anyone ever thought that maybe they don’t want it?

Republicans pretended to be upset about the wiretapping, now they want to make it easier to do (see Terrorists Surveillance Act of 2006.

As for money being spent wisely, I think that the high deficient can speak for itself.

No, I do not blame Bush for the hurricanes,high heat,or the high prices of gas,etc. but I do and can hold his administration for their screwed up reactions regarding all of the above.

Have any of you been in New Orleans lately? I have. FEMA trailers, (which are extremely small, STILL sit in the swamps, sinking into the marshes. They are totally unusable, and I’d hate to know how much money was spent of our tax dollars to simply drop them into a swamp.

Bush’s gas break seems to have stalled into the wastewater, unless someone knows more about what is going on, and is basically worthless anyway. Unless you own an airplane and want to use your very high portion to gas it up and fly to another country for the weekend.

So far, I haven’t seen any movement regarding the deaths from from the high heat across the nation. Something like helping people buy fans or even air conditioners?

Maybe if instead of funding the Iraqi War, we could have better used that money to hunt for better fuel and energy resources, actually helping the hurricane areas, and the states that have taken in the victims, built a huge moat on the border of Mexico ((put the sand in the levees of New Orleans or something for protect our borders, etc.I’m joking for those of you who think I was serious about the moat.

Posted by: Linda H. at August 9, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #174278

Coonyjay-
You need to stop giving people relationship advice.

As far as the Middle East goes, the real problem here is not with Israel. Israel is catching flak for years of colonialist policies on Great Britain and Frances part. Israel is a convenient target, that’s all.

There are plenty of people on Earth who could stop this fighting. God gave them the free will to do so.

As far as getting into heaven goes, I think we should be careful about denigrating good deeds too much. Works by themselves won’t get you into heaven, but I believe the bible is clear that faith without works is dead. The tree has to bear fruit; actions must follow words and beliefs. I think God will let anybody into heaven who is willing to meet him halfway, regardless of what religion they claim. Christianity is just the more direct, the surer way of doing things. You have more teachings and writings at your aid, with fewer distractions and half-truths in your way.

Carnak-
1)Act more maturely and responsibly

2)No, but they can be cut out of things, if only Israel wouldn’t make their continued involvement so attractive to people there.

3)Arab Nations have tried it quite a few times, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a Muslim imperative. You underestimate the degree of secular politics, nationalism and other issues that make things contentious in the Middle East.

4)Ever heard of a Paper Tiger? Iran’s leadership is much more radical than its people.

5)For the same reasons why many in Houston are not too enamored of Katrina refugees.

6)Consider that many people use the Lord’s name in Vain without even blinking, I think people’s reaction to his name is not necessarily that good of a method to guage his importance.

7)Nobody miracled Israel into existence. You can say God guided Israel’s creation, but he can oversee its destruction once more, as he has done time and again before. I think it’s dangerous to presume the will of God in this situation. I think it was Lincoln who said that we should not pray that God is on our side, but that we are on his. Looking at the Israeli’s actions so far, I don’t think their response is having the intended effect.

The unfortunate fact here is that the Neocons are much better at starting wars than they are at finishing or winning them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 9, 2006 3:24 PM
Comment #174303

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
George Orwell (1903 - 1950)

Posted by: Russ at August 9, 2006 4:38 PM
Comment #174309

Ray
You said
I think that is the most important thing that the Bush Regime seems to be ignoring. You have got to give those elephants credit. They have kahunas the size of basket balls. They are staring 100 years of war and instability in the face and not even blinking.

You give them the wrong credit
It is more along the lines of “Ignorance is Bliss”
Ignorance of their enemy together with their own arrogance is what has put this country in the position we currently “enjoy”

Posted by: Russ at August 9, 2006 4:57 PM
Comment #174312

Matt wrote
Now, the real point I was making was this:
Democrats whine about the questionable virtue of military impositions on sovereign nations.
However, in our own country, democrats generally support the confiscation of our right to bear arms.
They generally support censorship of what they deem to be offensive speech.
They generally support the oppressive marxist tax code which confiscates and redistributes private, earned income under the threat of imprisonment.
They generally support coersive price fixing, wage fixing, tariffs and other tyranical interference in the economy. (And I am amused by your sad justification for such immoral taxation—that its okay because of the pittance I receive in return)

They generally support a destructive, immoral drug war which harms innocent americans while creating black markets/gangs and results in crowded prisons which by necessity allow murderers and rapists back on the streets.

You avoided the actual merits of the point because the Democrats have just as much blood on their hands. I laid blame at the hands of Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush 2…for continuing the domino effect,

And then had the audacity (?? too nice a word??)
to write
but your irrational hatred for Bush/GOP combined with your emotional attachment to your political religion do not allow much room for reasoned reflection.

Wow and Matt offers such an example of “reasonsed reflection”!!

Besides the FACT that your generalization of some mythical “Democrats” that you have created whole cloth out of FICTION” (fevered brain??)
The Drug war is more a tool of the Religious Right (and their righteous indignation at “Druggies”)than of anyone who might be liberal (let alone democrats)
ya can’t have it both ways, either Democrats are pot-smoking drug crazed idiots — or somehow they support this Stupid Drug War.
(and that is only addressing ONE of you STUPID generalizations)

Posted by: Russ at August 9, 2006 5:18 PM
Comment #174374

You know, I love how you liberals/Democrats are so hypocritical and can’t see it.

First let me say that I do not consider myself a Christian or even a religious person, nor do I consider myself “spiritual” (whatever that nonsense is supposed to mean). I am merely coming to the defense of Christains because as I see it, this blog contains what amounts to a concerted attack on Christianity and Christians, in essence blaming them for all the ills that have ever befallen the world.

So many of you, when presented with quotes, newsclips, magazine articles or other examples detailing how the radical Muslims want to destroy the West and America and anything remotely American, will immediately resort to the old refrain about how Islam is really a religion of peace, and the deeds of the radical minority do not reflect the beliefs of the majority of peace loving Muslims.

But then you turn around and lump ALL Christians into one bunch and go on and on about how much wrong has been done in the name of religion, conveniently leaving out the Muslim aspect at all, in favor of criticizing Christianity exclusively.

I have no doubt that there are just as many decent, caring, forgiving, loving, Christians out there as there are Muslims, but somehow you all only see how mean and nasty Christians have been throughout history and ignore anything about anyone else.

ALL religions have had their zealots and radicals…all have been guilty of perpetrating evils and atrocities upon their fellow man in the name of their “god”. Christians aren’t the only “bad guys”.

But sometimes it seems that you liberals, in your agnostic/atheistic zeal, can only focus your energy and efforts and hatred on Christians. You forget that the majority of radical Muslims terrorist organizations and people have been spurred on by their OWN religious leaders, amidst promises of martyrdom, a spot in heaven and the attentions of dozens of “virgins”, to commit their atrocities.

DaveR

Posted by: DaveR at August 9, 2006 8:13 PM
Comment #174376

mem beth—

Are you really so shallow and wishy-washy that you can’t type the full name “god” when talking about god? What exactly is the point of leaving out the “o”? Does that name offend your delicate sensibilities? That is like when someone says they aren’t “religious” but they ARE “spiritual” (whatever the heck that nonsense means)…
both are copouts!!!

If you are going to have discussion about God, whether you are a believer or not, have the decency and respect, in deference to those who do believe, to actually type the name and not be a wimp about it.

DaveR

Posted by: DaveR at August 9, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #174378

Linda H.,
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your intelligence and insight. We have clashed a couple of times in the past, but I always thought that you made really strong arguments that led me to reconsider my position if not change it. In this case I am in total agreement with you. I think that you are mistakenly attributing a couple of quotes to me that were not mine. I was arguing against those positions.

I don’t know whether there is too much discussion of religion or not. This is not a place to proselytize and some people do seem to be doing that, but religion does affect politics, especially since the Repubs have learned to use it to good effect. I tend to allow discussions of my articles to range far and wide as long as they remain substantive. I don’t like it if someone is just using a tangential issue to distract from an argument that they are losing, but other than that I don’t care, as long as they have something real to say. The Mideast crisis is based on a religious tribal conflict, so religion affects politics and is fair game. However, I think I hear what you are saying when we get off into discussing whether God exists, or the validity of any particular religion. I think that I even discussed my own eclectic non-religion religion up there, but I think I was using it to make another point - that the Mideast was a real mess. I have an e-mail friend who is a liberal fundamentalist Christian. I have been as critical of fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalist politics as anyone, but I think that it is important to take a balanced view and not “throw the baby out” - so I try to reflect that in my comments. So it is my intent to consistently make clear that I understand, appreciate, and respect the deeply held meaningful faith beliefs that these people hold. I do that in order to distinguish between my criticism of their politics and respect for them and their faith - otherwise I will alienate the very people that I hope to reach. I especially agree with your last paragraph. In which you wrote:

Maybe if instead of funding the Iraqi War, we could have better used that money to hunt for better fuel and energy resources, actually helping the hurricane areas, and the states that have taken in the victims, built a huge moat on the border of Mexico ((put the sand in the levees of New Orleans or something for protect our borders, etc.I’m joking for those of you who think I was serious about the moat.
If we had spent the money that we have spent on the Iraq war on alternative energy and / or conservation, we could be much less dependent on foriegn oil today and in a much stronger position. Gas would be $1.30 per gallon. Iran would be counter-balanced and with less money in their pocket, their nuclear program would be contained. If Israel was in Lebanon, they would be the only inflamatory factor. As it is they are a match to a billion gallons of gasoline.

Adrienne,
I couldn’t get your link to open completely - the sitet must be busy right now. But I get your general point anyway. I have been pretty critical and disrespectful of Condi. Maybe I have been wrong. It would not be the first time. Maybe she is carrying on the tradition of Collin Powel. Maybe she is the one voice of reason in the Regime. I will try to open your link again later. If she is a voice of reason, I will need to back track - eat a little well seasoned crow meat and start supporting her. God only knows - the world needs a voice of reason. Anyhow, as always, thanks for your insightful comments.

I see Dave R. has arrived - welcome.

Posted by: Ray Guest at August 9, 2006 8:33 PM
Comment #174380

Dave R.,
You wrote:

ALL religions have had their zealots and radicals… all have been guilty of perpetrating evils and atrocities upon their fellow man in the name of their “god”. Christians aren’t the only “bad guys”.
At last we agree. The rest of your post was over generalized and hyper-critical. But at least on this we agree.

Posted by: Ray Guest at August 9, 2006 8:39 PM
Comment #174382

Rhinehold and bushflipflops—-

Do you guys purposely go out of your way to try and offend people (re: your remarks at the beginning when R called God a pu—y, and later an a—hole and both of you referred to the bible as “fairy tales”).

I am by no means a Christian, nor do I consider myself religious, “spiritual” (whatever that bulls—t is supposed to mean), or even a believer at all. But I have enough respect for the beliefs of others to treat them fairly and with careful consideration when having a discussion with them. You two seem to have this serious hard-on for anything remotely Christian.

As a man trained and educated in the biological sciences, having received the usual education in evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest and so on, I certainly find the existence of “God” unlikely. However, I am skeptical of being too skeptical, because there is still no concrete “proof” that evolution is what put us here, just as there is not “proof”, as you two were demanding from Coony and others, that God exists. And before you go off on a tangent, EVIDENCE of something DOES NOT constitute proof!!

I have accepted the idea that, until we die, we will never really know for sure, and I remain optimistic that there is indeed a God after all, because otherwise all of our moralistic postering about war and murder and the rights of the person is all just a waste of breath.

Consider this…if there really is no God (or whatever name one chooses to call their Supreme Being), then what is the point of treating people nice, avoiding war, defining and defending human rights, etc? I am in no way advocating that we all go out and start killing anyone who looks at us crosseyed, but when looking at things from a purely logical standpoint, why should we be worried about how well or badly we treat each other if, after death, we all cease to exist anyway? Like I said…what’s the point?

SO I guess my point is this…regardless of your own religious beliefs (or lack thereof)…try showing a little respect for the beliefs of others. For good or bad, religion and the actions of religious people have been instrumental in shaping history, and religion plays a very important role in MANY people’s life…in this country and around the world.

Furthermore, you cannot dismiss the effects of religion on the world political scene because, as I noted in an earlier post, religious zealotry and the promise of martyrdom is the primary driving force behind the actions of the radical Muslim terrorists factions in the world today. You should show some respect for, or at least deference to, religion, if for no other reason than because your “enemy” does.

DaveR

Posted by: DaveR at August 9, 2006 8:54 PM
Comment #174385

Ray—

You recognized my arrival…how touching. Did you miss me or something? LOL

Just kidding man…a little humor and no discussion of politics, religion or anything else. OK? Kewl.

All—

BTW…just for the record…I have a job which is not particularly time consuming or difficult, and which allows me to spend many hours on the computer. I also work 7 days on, followed (usually) by 7 off. That is why folks, as you may have noticed, you see me posting and participating for days, followed by days of blessed silence (LOL).

I enjoy the discussions and it helps the time pass more quickly (especially at night), but I am not so dedicated that I will spend any of my off time blogging. Sorry, but you guys just aren’t THAT interesting!! LOL

Anyway, just a brief explanation of why I seem to come and go so intermittently.

See, no politics at all.

DaveR

Posted by: DaveR at August 9, 2006 9:06 PM
Comment #174386

Rhinehold—

-“…perhaps then they might actually have time to read the few bills that pass their desk and be able to make educated votes on them…”

I do have to agree with you on that one.

No doubt there…or even better yet, write bills which are short, sweet and to the point, and avoid all of this legalistic mumbo-jumbo they tend to use. They have a unique ability to say in 250 pages what they could say in 25, if they would just say it in English instead of Politicalese!

DaveR

Posted by: DaveR at August 9, 2006 9:16 PM
Comment #174387

Stephen,

Since you find my comments so disagreeable maybe you can enlighten me by telling me exactly what you think it would take for the Muslim world to accept the existance of Israel. In your rather long post earlier you pontificate about the futility of war but you never realy offer any viable alternative.

Posted by: Carnak at August 9, 2006 9:16 PM
Comment #174434

Dave R.,
Thanks for the comments. I have been very critical of Christian politics, some Christians, and perhaps sometimes even some of the dogma. I am not sure if I have done that here or not. As Linda has pointed out this a political site. But I try to make it clear that I maintain respect for the people and their faith. In other words even if I were to criticise some aspect of dogma, I would try to make it clear that I understand that their belief brings them into a closer relationship with God as they understand God - that it works for them. I don’t know if I am expressing myself clearly here, but I don’t really want to spend that much electronic ink on it, so I will let it go at that. Now, I do disagree with you on the idea that “spirituality” is baloney or whatever you called it. It is simply a matter of semantics. But semantics can be important. It is like jargon. Sometimes if you don’t have adequate words to express a concept, you either have to create new words, or create special definitions for existing words. For example, I define religion as the belief system that leads people into a relationship with God as they understand God. But one could have a belief system without much or any relationship. I define spirituality as the personal relationship with God, the experience of God’s presence in ones life. It is existential. In the case of a part time atheist like myself, I define spirituality as my experience of pure unconditional LOVE / PEACE / ACCEPTANCE and so on. So when I am an atheist, then atheism is my religion, but whatever existential experience happens to give my life some meaning, is my spirituality. So, presumably a person could have an experience of God, without any belief one way or the other - in other words no religion. Or a person could have a religion with no experience of God. I also do not believe that a lack of belief in God necessarily leads into nihilism which if I understood you is what you were describing - it does not necessarily lead there. In my life at times it has lead there. In my life at times it has not. So that is why some of us prefer to use the term spirituality. We have gotten a long ways from the Mideast. Not to worry. It will not go very far away from us. I think I am going to write another article on that subject.

Posted by: Ray Guest at August 10, 2006 1:04 AM
Comment #174450

Stephen,

Since you find my comments so disagreeable maybe you can enlighten me by telling me exactly what you think it would take for the Muslim world to accept the existance of Israel. In your rather long post earlier you pontificate about the futility of war but you never realy offer any viable alternative.
Posted by: Carnak at August 9, 2006 09:16 PM

Carnak, if you really want to know the answer to that question, then I sincerely urge you to watch the film - Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land. It was made principally by Jews, Israeli and American or Israeli/American. It is available at -
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696%20&hl=en

It is a long film, running to approx 80 minutes. Now I know that’s a long time out of many peoples day. I know it’s a lot easier to just go along with the received wisdom that is presented to us day to day. However, in my life I have met personally many Americans, both at home in my country, and on my travels abroad. I think I can honestly say that without exception, they were wonderfully open, friendly and clearly saw themseves as good guys in the world. They also exuded a desire to see their country act in the world in a way that contributes to international peace and harmony. Rightly or wrongly, that is my perception of the vast majority of American citizens. It is not enough however for citizens of a democracy, especially those of the most powerful and influential country in the world, to have a vague desire to do what is right and good. Their is a duty also to apprise themselves of the facts regarding their countrys role and action in the world. This duty stems from their responsibilities both as citizens of a democracy, and to whom it applies, as Christians to do justice to their neighbours. It probably also applies to members of the Jewish faith, but I don’t know enough about that to state it categorically. Nevertheless, there are many Jews, both inside and outside Israel, who live up to their responsibility as members of the human race, to observe and to speak to what they see.

Isn’t it strange how Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular are largely presented in our western world, as fanatical religiously inspired terrorists? As unreasonable people who only want to see the destruction of the west? This puts me in mind of the way the Nazis sought to portray the Jews. In order to destroy people, you have to first dehumanise them, make them out simply as cyphers who are considerably less human than ourselves. In doing so, you lessen the vileness of what you seek to do to the target people you seek to exploit. It is not confined simply to the Jews, or the Palestinians, it was done too the the people of Africa as a justification for slavery, and by extension to those places where slavery was practised. It was done too to the Irish people. It is done to make virulent imperialism acceptable. If you’re not doing it to real people, or to a sub human species, an untermensch, then it’s not really too bad. It may even be your duty to civilise savage natives.

I implore all Americans of goodwill to please take the time to watch this video. That great American Thomas Jefferson is attributed with the quotation that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. We cannot afford, as democrats, to fail our duty to take what is served to us by the powerful with a large dose of salt. What you will see in this video, is something that you will not see in the mainstream media. I don’t ask you to believe everything that you will see and hear in this work, simply to examine it, and use your critical faculties which nature has endowed you with, to ask yourselves, could this be true? Only the truth shall make you free.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at August 10, 2006 5:56 AM
Comment #174498

Dave R.,
I slept on my last comments to you and Linda H. and realized that I left out a major piece of the whole truth. I do sometimes playfully persecute Christians. Their faith is based on persecution / martyrdom. The crucifixion, feeding the lions, it is what their religion great, so they should enjoy it. So I do poke sticks in their cage. Persecuting them is both more fun and less fun than persecuting conservatives. Conservatives are biters, and that is no fun. You have to be careful and keep your fingers back away from their cage, but they shriek louder and spit tooth picks back out at you, and it just doesn’t get any better than that.

Paul in Euroland,
Thanks for the comment. I will try to watch the video. Thanks all, for the comments. I am going to leave this discussion and try to write another article.

Posted by: Ray Guest at August 10, 2006 10:52 AM
Comment #174707

Ray Guest:
Seeing that you couldnt bother to make any substantive points relevant to my post, its also no suprise that you reflexively assume Im some “radical conservative”. Im a libertarian (or more accurately, a classical liberal…since socialists have hijacked the meaning of the word liberal) and had you actually read the thread, you’d see that I hardly spared Bush 1,2 or Reagan from criticism.

Russ wrote: “Wow and Matt offers such an example of “reasonsed reflection”!!

Besides the FACT that your generalization of some mythical “Democrats” that you have created whole cloth out of FICTION” (fevered brain??)
The Drug war is more a tool of the Religious Right (and their righteous indignation at “Druggies”)than of anyone who might be liberal (let alone democrats)
ya can’t have it both ways, either Democrats are pot-smoking drug crazed idiots — or somehow they support this Stupid Drug War.
(and that is only addressing ONE of you STUPID generalizations)”
Posted by: Russ at August 9, 2006 05:18 PM

Of course I generalized.
And generally speaking, my depiction of Democrats is right on…socialists who use the force of government to impose the DESIRES of some citizens, under the guise of some imagined RIGHTS, upon the whole populace in return for votes.

Therefore it is ludicrous for liberals/democrats to pontificate on the GOP crime of imposing force upon sovereign peoples. Should you care to debate the tyrannical nature of the Democratic platform, please invite me to an appropriate thread.

As for the Drug War, I find both parties equally willing to impose morality on free people, and you’re simply fooling yourself if you want the GOP to take that burden themselves. While many Democrats are indeed idiots, completely ignorant of economics and history, so are many Republicans and some libertarians. Not sure which party has more drug crazed voters…although I’d bet on Democrats if pressed.

Another post flush with emotional undertones, yet lacking relevant substance.

Posted by: Matt at August 10, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #174741

Ray,

Thanks for the kind words.
I appreciate the compliments.

Since you appeared to have left this particular subject, I do not expect a reponse. If you happen to wander back and read this well… that’d be nice too.

Posted by: Linda H. at August 11, 2006 1:40 AM
Comment #174808

Linda H.,
I will at least monitor until it drops into the long sleep of the archives.

Matt,
Sorry for putting labels on you that you don’t like. Labels are hard to define anyway and I may not have fully understood you, but your ideas seemed radical to me. Peace and love my hippy friend.

Posted by: Ray Guest at August 11, 2006 11:10 AM
Comment #174983

Hi Ray

Born again christian libertarian wacko. That might be an accurate label if you need one. :-)

I understand that my values seem radical to you and many, if not most, Americans.

Personal responsibility, self-reliance, God-given free will, personal and community charity over government welfare…yes, these are radical concepts to an increasingly socialist populace.

Posted by: Matt at August 11, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #175282

Matt,
You are probaly done with this thread, but thanks for your comments.

Posted by: Ray Guest at August 13, 2006 9:57 AM
Comment #176993

KansaDem

Read rules of participation.

Squarex20AC does not mean anything to me. Talk English

Posted by: Michael Kelley at August 22, 2006 4:06 PM
Post a comment