It comes as no surprise that the Liberals would ally with Vlad "the Impaler" Putin and Saddam Hussein given that during the last Democratic Administration 5,000,000 persons of African, Asian, Polynesian/Micronesian and South American ethnicities were killed by their own governments while the US did save Indo-European culture.
After Warren Christopher's now famous "off-the-record" remark about letting the Rwandans die as long as Americans didn't have to, I left the Democratic Party because I knew it no longer had the ideals I believed in. It is not coincidental that the genocide in Rwanda, April 1994, came scant months after Clinton tucked tail, chased tail and ran from Somalia. Were you aware some of the Rwandan leaders point to that very incident as teaching them Americans had no stomach for a fight? Were you aware that UBL and Saddam Hussein pointed to Somalia and said America would never prevent violent dictators and terrorists from killing?
So here we are. Having been a cataloger of mass graves in Iraq, I know what was going on. Marsh Arabs ethnically cleansed coupled with environmental degradation. Genocide against the Kurds and crimes against humanity in Iran and Kuwait. Let's face it, one side wanted to reward Saddam for having murdered 1,400,000 people in Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia by letting him continue to kill 5000-6000 annually. We now have the 2 Russian generals that moved WMDs from Iraq to Syria in Vlad's hands. We now have documentation of Saddam's financial and conversational connection to terror training camps. What is it about the Arab, Pashtu ethnicities that the Democrats say they aren't worth dying to save?
The truth is in looking at who they have said weren't worth sending troops to protect in the past 10 years: Peruvians, Chileans, people from Chad, Sudan, Rwanda, East Timor, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Tibet, Palestine, Borneo, Somalia, Eritrea, Chechnya, Khazakstan to the tune of 5,000,000 dead. But when white folk were being ethnically cleansed in the Balkans, the people were worth fighting to protect.
Whether the Democrats mean it or not, the policy they advance promotes genocide, ethnic cleansing, ethno-centrism, ethno-phobia, sexism, ageism and religio-phobia. Now I am not suggesting such thoughts guide EVERY Democrat, but that is the product of the policies they advocate will get.
At some point the colonial and cold war powers have to assume responsibility for the evil, brutal leaders they equipped for power. But that's enough for now. Let's have a good, fun chat about this absolutely serious issue.
Posted by glassman on :
Having been a cataloger of mass graves in Iraq, I know what was going on. Marsh Arabs ethnically cleansed coupled with environmental degradation. Genocide against the Kurds and crimes against humanity in Iran and Kuwait. Let's face it, one side wanted to reward Saddam for having murdered 1,400,000 people in Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia by letting him continue to kill 5000-6000 annually. We now have the 2 Russian generals that moved WMDs from Iraq to Syria in Vlad's hands. We now have documentation of Saddam's financial and conversational connection to terror training camps. What is it about the Arab, Pashtu ethnicities that the Democrats say they aren't worth dying to save?
you are going to have to do better than make these hollow claims.. for starters? provide links to: 1)the 2 Russian generals that moved WMDs from Iraq to Syria
you may feel obliged to save the world by inviting the "New World Order" to take over complete control of your life...
why don't you just move into a monastary... you can have peace there..
Posted by glassman on :
Saddam Hussein pointed to Somalia and said America would never prevent violent dictators and terrorists from killing?
i'm sorry to point this out to you but Somalia happened after the Gulf War...
Posted by Johnwayne on :
Hey my B-52 is here. Griffon is my brother Glassman. I feel like a one man recon platoon assessing the situation than calling in an air strike,in the form of my brother. Just kidding. Have fun Griff. I didn't know you already started posting. I am taking the boys to X- men and will formally intro my brother to the board later. Oh and Glassman, prepare yourself, I'm sure that link you requested is coming!
Posted by glassman on :
good...
i'm always interested in finding out what's really goin gon... if it is really going on...
funny how none of that made it into the GOP senate report huh?
somalia after gulf war tho?? not gonna hold my breath... sounds more like another fascist to me... parading as a peacenik... those are the worst...
Posted by glassman on :
i hope he isn't planning to use John Loftus as a source...
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Historically, the democrats and republicans have both "supported" genocide.
Posted by glassman on :
so what?
as long as the ammo is paid for in cash?
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Yeah....
Posted by glassman on :
seriously? what are we supposed to do?
it's not like we really are the Rulers of the Universe...
Nietszhe was right about fighting monsters... you can't kill 'em all..
Posted by Griffon on :
To my new friends, I will try to answer all your questions and comments in brief. Sorry to have posted and ran, but you know how the call to serve can be sudden and unexpected.
Regarding the "hollow claims" check out HRW's website for the documentation of meat grinder and plastic shredder usage in Saddam era Iraq. That's simple ancient history.
Just as the comments about the two Russian Generals:
As to Somalia being after the Gulf War, I apologize if you were led to believe that was what I was suggesting. If that is your assumption it is poor word choice on my part. I was refering to the increasing display of bravado that in effect led to the second War and consequent occupation. The most recent action and toppling of "the Butcher of Baghdad" is the conflict I meant and its roots go back to Clinton's declining resolve to confront violent leaders of a different ethnicity than his own.
More will come.
Posted by glassman on :
so? lemme see if i get you griffon?
you say it's a good thing to invade other countries and kill people so they won't kill other people?
just like killing doctors is OK so they won't perform abortions?
Posted by Griffon on :
Glassman, you are arguing my point with one small exception: you misunderstand my appreciation of the "New World Order."
I have to say, as a person who goes to places in the world in conflict to bind wounds and work for peace, you wound me in suggesting I am a facist posing as a peacenik. After all I told you I am not a Democrat. I renounced the facism of political parties a long time ago: 1996 to be exact.
See, there is a difference between saying the Western powers that raped and pillaged colonies and minor allies for 450 years have an obligation to those suffering nations (to remove brutal dictators that the West too often sponsored) and what you suggest I am saying.
I am saying we have an obligation to those nations we exploited and oppressed to end the tyranny they have been victimized by under evil leaders we imposed upon them. You suggest I have a plan to bring them into a grand Western schemata.
If you would like to hear my thoughts on a true peace plan to implement as we fight this wretched war let me know. It is going to be a Doctoral discertation some day.
Posted by glassman on :
If you would like to hear my thoughts on a true peace plan to implement as we fight this wretched war let me know.
what are you waiting for? a written invitation?
Posted by Relentless Despot. on :
Ahhh.. yet another idealist.. this one does seem bright however.
Posted by Leo on :
Finally
Posted by Griffon on :
"so? lemme see if i get you griffon?
you say it's a good thing to invade other countries and kill people so they won't kill other people?
just like killing doctors is OK so they won't perform abortions?"
In response Glassman: I presume then you advocate letting the genocide continue, better to let their own leaders kill them than us getting our hands dirty. Hey, if we could have just bought Saddam off, then great, but what happens when the next tick on the neck of some nation asks for that much more?
What you're saying is that it's okay for the knuckle-head we foisted off on a helpless population should just be allowed to keep killing his/her own people as long as Americans don't have to get their hands dirty. That is certainly a rather self-righteous perspective. We put the monster in place but unless the natives throw the monster off, it's not enough for us to bother with. Sounds rather ethnocentrist.
Posted by Relentless Despot. on :
I truly suspect we are about to hear a thousand words strung together in an effort to convey a message of desired reclusiveness. I do enjoy these messages. It is a nice departure from the constant Bush hating we so regularly witness here.
Posted by glassman on :
you wound me in suggesting I am a facist posing as a peacenik. After all I told you I am not a Democrat.
i've listened to a lot of fascists posing as peaceniks.... they mostly started off this way....
Posted by Leo on :
Here here RD.
Posted by glassman on :
We put the monster in place NO!
we choose which monster is going to be in place... because that's who always ends up there anyway..
Posted by Johnwayne on :
Told you guya my brother has an IQ of over 180. Did you think I was joking. Now what happened to my brains damnit! Glassman sweet Marine insignia. How can I get hold of that?
Posted by Leo on :
And then we throw money at them
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Johnwayne: Told you guya my brother has an IQ of over 180. Did you think I was joking. Now what happened to my brains damnit! Glassman sweet Marine insignia. How can I get hold of that?
Joe Tracy, Commercial Artist made it... heres his page..
(i stole it, ahem PG? no i mean i er uh borrowed, yeah i borrowed it for a little while)
Posted by Relentless Despot. on :
What these young souls fail to realize is that there is nothing to be done which can stop this train wreck. It has been the increasing mental laziness of the people who muster the energy to vote 2.5 times every decade that has doomed us to this fate we now barely see infront of us. There is no number of hugs that can stop this now. There is no evil dictator once supported that can be killed to stop this. It is all youthfull exuberance that leads to such notions.. Notions that any problem can be solved. Notions that here on this day we need concern ourselves with saving as many as possible.. Notions that those we plausibly save would enjoy our chosen life of mediocrity. We have nothing to offer those we save but our own imprisonment. We wish to save them from quick death so that they might know long torture in this governed exsistence. I think not. I say we save no one but ourselves as we should soon see it is time again to fight. I will not fight to save you. I will only fight to save my treasure. I will trust as few can that you will fight for that which you hold dear.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Johnwayne: Told you guya my brother has an IQ of over 180. Did you think I was joking. Now what happened to my brains damnit! Glassman sweet Marine insignia. How can I get hold of that?
cool...
get it going...would love to see some real debate around here...
Posted by glassman on :
What you're saying is that it's okay for the knuckle-head we foisted off on a helpless population should just be allowed to keep killing his/her own people as long as Americans don't have to get their hands dirty. That is certainly a rather self-righteous perspective. We put the monster in place but unless the natives throw the monster off, it's not enough for us to bother with. Sounds rather ethnocentrist.
not at all...
i am a realist..
Iraq has no patriotism.. why?
because it is a synthetic country comprised of diverse ethnic groups.. Kurds (who i am ashamed to say Bush SR abandoned after the gulf war) Shia, who are affiliated with the Iranians... need i say more?
and the Sunnis who we allowed to become a nukular par in Pakistan...
i know i'm leaving out somebody but...ma AHQ is down to 179 tonight...
as a matter of fact? there are few places in the world that even have the US concept of Patriotism in their national genome...
Posted by glassman on :
i am totally interested in hearing a rational peace plan... as long as it doesn't involve one world government or Faces in the Sky....
Posted by Relentless Despot. on :
No such thing as a peace plan. Peace either exsists or it does not. Peace has yet to ever exsist on this planet. It will not for a long time to come. Either fight now or delay it.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Johnwayne: Told you guya my brother has an IQ of over 180. Did you think I was joking. Now what happened to my brains damnit! Glassman sweet Marine insignia. How can I get hold of that?
180?
shoot, JW--we didn't discriminate re your IQ, right? No reason to hold your bro' back based on low IQ....
Posted by glassman on :
i forgot the Bedouins... isn't that the Marsh Arabs that Sadam hated so much he drained their swamps?
Posted by Griffon on :
To answer your question about waiting for an invitation: I am new to this site and unsure of its etiquette so "Yes" I was waiting for your invite. I am writing this freshly because I need to edit out the academic jargon.
At the crux of my "idealism" is the firm belief, confirmed in the field, that we must come together and see the humanity we share. Is that a problem for you so far?
I propose that the principle factors of destabilization are found in the systemic flaws in the human institutions of mercantilism, colonialism and Cold War. These political and economic systems degraded relations between "tribes" and/or nations. This exascerbated primal ethnocentric/ethnophobic tensions between tribes and/or nations.
In the ensuing colonial conflicts, tribal identity was supplanted by the "superior" Western model of successful culture. Loss of indigenous identity led to competing powers striving to give identity.
This is a root cause of instability because identity is a ground up, not top down function of tribalism/system. Thus, people who have lost their inherent identity are vulnerable to a sense of being culturally orphaned. This in turn makes the indigenous peoples susceptable to a charismatic movement claiming (sometimes genuinely) to recapture their "authentic" identity. More in a minute
Posted by glassman on :
am writing this freshly because I need to edit out the academic jargon.
gorsh, yew'd do dat jes fer widdle ol' moi?
Posted by glassman on :
This in turn makes the indigenous peoples susceptable to a charismatic movement claiming (sometimes genuinely) to recapture their "authentic" identity. More in a minute
you mean like Ghandi and his hobby of spinning and weaving his OWN cloth even tho it was outlawed by the Brits?
Posted by Relentless Despot. on :
You are a bit early.. Words or intents the likes of yours will fail to hold sway for atleast another century. You do not live in a world that is ready for peace of any sort other than brief.
Posted by Relentless Despot. on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: am writing this freshly because I need to edit out the academic jargon.
gorsh, yew'd do dat jes fer widdle ol' moi?
Posted by glassman on :
don't be too harsh on him DQR... if he's been to the mass graves? he's seen the devil's footprints...
but i think the numbers are a but high... the most i can find coroboration on is about 140 thousand....
sadam is more like a mid level demon than a real devil...
Posted by T e x on :
"mercantilism, colonialism and Cold War."
weee...
textbooks!
Posted by Relentless Despot. on :
Don't be harsh? I know not these words you say as they are quite foriegn to me... LOL... I thought I was being nice?
Posted by bdgee on :
I'm sort of partial to academic jargon.
Posted by Relentless Despot. on :
Ahhh hell here we go.. who let bdgee out?
Posted by glassman on :
I propose that the principle factors of destabilization are found in the systemic flaws in the human institutions of mercantilism, colonialism and Cold War. These political and economic systems degraded relations between "tribes" and/or nations. This exascerbated primal ethnocentric/ethnophobic tensions between tribes and/or nations.
in other words? when Alexander decided to advertise his "potency" by puttin' his face on gold and silver coins to advertise his leadership abilties (pretty face) around the coutryside, he destroyed the trust built up over millenia within local barter systems...
Posted by Leo on :
lol
Posted by bdgee on :
Oh, I forgot, some are not up to it.
Sorry.
Posted by Johnwayne on :
Tex- yeah well my brother got all the brains but I got all the..... I got all..... all the a ......... Hey I didn't get a dang thing!!!!!
Posted by glassman on :
nobody thinks you are hydraulically challenged JW Posted by Griffon on :
This underlying vulnerability is causitive of the instability we label "terrorism." Let me offer a helpful solution that has worked in Palestine and Lebanon for Hamas and Hezbollah.
My suggestion is that Western powers (France, Britain, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Japan) enforce the long-served notice that the world community will not tolerate murdering and torturing the nationals you are responsible for. Our tuck tailed approach to Somalia has emboldened thugs around the world to kill and maim population groups. The US and Russia would have to supply financial resources too. In short, Western powers have to address the wounds and especially the leaders that have exploited tribes and we must provide the economic means, not labor or design assistance, for those nations to develop indigenous structures and cultural awareness that is faithful to who those particular ethnic groups are.
No more fake countries of conflicting ethnic groups compressed together until hatred boils over: Yugoslavia, Iraq, Kashmir, Rwanda and Burundi to name a few(Though the ethnic intolerance in the last two is based on a fabrication of Belgium to keep the "natives" in line).
In order to effect this transfer of intellectual power, using Iraq as a model, I suggest the West provide the means for Iraq to build infrastructure, schools, hospitals. Because there are in effect four primary people groups, (Shia, Sunni, Kurd and Marsh Arab/Pashtu) I suggest four cultural centers are established with the purpose of helping those ethnicities explore and self-define who they are as a people, even if it means the dissolution of the nation state that is the present artificial construct.
I would go further but I think this is enough to chew on at present.
Posted by Relentless Despot. on :
LOL...
Posted by Griffon on :
Guys I have to say, my brother is way too modest. Blessed with a great family, two kids I am proud to call my nephews. He puts up with all my whacky ideas. And he is an excellent fishin' partner. What more could a preacher ask for?
Posted by glassman on :
chomp spit... nothing left..
you are saying cut Iraq up into four states...
have you asked Turkey or Iran about that?
Turkey calls on U.S., Iraq to crack down on Kurdish guerrillas By Selcan Hacaoglu ASSOCIATED PRESS
11:20 a.m. July 17, 2006
ANKARA, Turkey – Turkey called Monday for Iraq and the United States to crack down on Kurdish guerrillas based in northern Iraq, and issued a veiled threat to attack the rebel bases if there is no progress.
The U.S. ambassador to Turkey cautioned against a unilateral attack on the insurgents, who are based in remote mountains in one of the few stable parts of Iraq.
look, i love mankind too.. it's people i can't stand....
Posted by Johnwayne on :
I played college baseball with a guy that was bad at everything he ever tried but one thing. He could spit with unbelievable accuracy. He could spit the length of the dugout, probably close to 40ft, and hit you right on the dot of the i on our jersey's. And he could do it over and over again. Is there any money in that skill? He is now the voice of the Peacocks, play by play announcer for Upper Iowa University.
Posted by bdgee on :
I think someone skipped too many of their writing classes. The idea is to transfer ideas, not to abuse the language with gross exuberant over expression so you think you sound intellegent, yet have failed any chance of providing information.
Posted by Leo on :
You're forgetting Bdgee, it was rewritten so we could understand.
Posted by bdgee on :
Yep, imagine what was there to begin with!
Posted by glassman on :
sheeeesh, i should link that article for you:
The guerrillas, who want autonomy for Turkey's Kurdish-dominated southeast, have killed 15 Turkish security personnel since Thursday in ambushes, roadside bombings and shootings.
The guerillas killed seven Turkish soldiers and a village guard Saturday in an attack Turkey said was launched from northern Iraq.
Two Turkish soldiers were wounded Monday near the southeastern town of Tunceli, the private Dogan news agency reported. U.S.-made Cobra helicopters pounded suspected rebel hideouts, while Turkish commandos were airlifted to strategic points along the Iraqi border.
Turkey has hinted before that it could launch a cross-border offensive if Iraq and the United States do not take on the guerrillas.
and i support the Kurds... in Iraq... Turkey is a Nato ally now, and we are gonna let them join the EU.... the EU... LOL get it? WE? let them join? oh never mind...
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless Despot.: Ahhh.. yet another idealist.. this one does seem bright however.
ya...refreshing
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
I received this note from Relentless, The Realist.
LOL
"You said yesterday I seemed almost gleefull about the coming world war.. I am actually.. but not because I want death for millions, and not because I'm a war monger.. But because of what will result from this war. You as a commie and me as a facist pig want pretty much the same thing.. A new government. Ours has become way too strong... Not because of bush or any of the others.. but because of our laziness as a people.. The problem now is there is no way votes will correct our government's dirrection.. but a third world war will. This thing is going to go nuclear and when it does those of us who survive will have a chance to reform into a nation with a small government. A nation where the key ideals that define a liberal and a so-called conservative are embraced."
quote:Originally posted by T e x:
quote:Originally posted by Relentless Despot.: Ahhh.. yet another idealist.. this one does seem bright however.
ya...refreshing
Posted by Relentless Despot. on :
Words I STILL stand by you witless imposter of anything bipedal.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Griffon: Guys I have to say, my brother is way too modest. Blessed with a great family, two kids I am proud to call my nephews. He puts up with all my whacky ideas. And he is an excellent fishin' partner. What more could a preacher ask for?
lol, you shoulda seen 'im when he first radared...
Duke? tell your bro about DVFN thread?
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
And you call others "idealists?" LOL
quote:Originally posted by Relentless Despot.: Words I STILL stand by you witless imposter of anything bipedal.
Posted by Leo on :
Well, we HAD a good debate going.
Posted by Relentless Despot. on :
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Bennett: And you call others "idealists?" LOL
quote:Originally posted by Relentless Despot.: Words I STILL stand by you witless imposter of anything bipedal.
I do.. glad you caught that... Shocked.. but glad none the less.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
(Utopian National Anthem plays) "....A nation where the key ideals that define a liberal and a so-called conservative are embraced...." (music swells)
LOL
Posted by Johnwayne on :
Your awful muted tonight Bdgee. Where's your usual warm hearted enthusiasm mixed with mutual love and respect that you sprinkle through out your posts?
Posted by Relentless Despot. on :
Yep leo it's over now..
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Yeah Relentless Despot tends to ruin things with his childish ranting, doesn't he?
quote:Originally posted by Leo: Well, we HAD a good debate going.
Posted by Griffon on :
Wow, I find it sad the education system let you all down. And Glassman, are you suggesting we perpetuate a myth that oppresses and negates four people groups? What I am suggesting is that the four ethnic groups may in the end discover they are better trade partners with their own identity intact.
Bdgee, I fail to see what is difficult to understand: development of market systems, colonialism and Cold War are well-known historical events, much like the genocide President Clintoin accepted in Rwanda, another contrived state.
Posted by Leo on :
Posting that PM over and over is getting as tiring as Monkey reposting BS analyst reports over and over on the GZFX thread. lol
Posted by glassman on :
Griffon welcome to Allstocks.. i mean that.... i hope you figured out that we don't reallty have any ettiquette 'round here...
if ya have an idea spit it out...
we'll tell you what we really think...
and most of us here know we aren't always right.... but we act like we are never wrong so the newbies will have faith that somebody really does have a clue what's going on in the markets and the world in general....
if you really are studying for the ministry? my hat's off to you... unless it's rabbinical? then my hat is ON to you... even there? people will look to you for answers you don't have, and it will really dispapoint them if you actually admit that, so don't... Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Bennett: I received this note from Relentless, The Realist.
LOL
"You said yesterday I seemed almost gleefull about the coming world war.. I am actually.. but not because I want death for millions, and not because I'm a war monger.. But because of what will result from this war. You as a commie and me as a facist pig want pretty much the same thing.. A new government. Ours has become way too strong... Not because of bush or any of the others.. but because of our laziness as a people.. The problem now is there is no way votes will correct our government's dirrection.. but a third world war will. This thing is going to go nuclear and when it does those of us who survive will have a chance to reform into a nation with a small government. A nation where the key ideals that define a liberal and a so-called conservative are embraced."
quote:Originally posted by T e x:
quote:Originally posted by Relentless Despot.: Ahhh.. yet another idealist.. this one does seem bright however.
ya...refreshing
gordon?
you've posted and reposted... over and over...
perhaps nobody values your rant?
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Sorry, I just find it shriekingly funny and enjoy sharing it. Gleeful about WWIII, can you imagine? It's so Hitlerian!
quote:Originally posted by Leo: Posting that PM over and over is getting as tiring as Monkey reposting BS analyst reports over and over on the GZFX thread. lol
Posted by bdgee on :
Griffon,
I don't have any difficulty understanding, in spite of your over generous use of adjatives and adverbs.
Posted by Griffon on :
My point is very plain: self-determination of who they are as an ethnic group within the larger system of ethnicities, the building up of infrastructure, education systems, culture centers and hospitals.
Through developing market forces, colonialism and Cold War, we destroyed indigenous cultural identities. The re-claimation of those identities is necessary to end the violence that poisons so many cultures. It is not an immediate solution, but it is a forward-looking process driven answer to the present situation.
Posted by Johnwayne on :
Tex- DVFN- was that one of RCA Analysts stocks? Might have been just a wee bit off on assessment of him. God what a mess that stock was. And I was so sure that puppy was gonna shoot to the moon. I really drank the cool aide on that one.
Actually my brother does not play the market Tex. Thanks for the warning you tried to give me. Fortunately many of the great people here took me under their wing and wised me up a little. Yes for those that can't believe it, I used to be even dumber.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Griffon: Wow, I find it sad the education system let you all down. And Glassman, are you suggesting we perpetuate a myth that oppresses and negates four people groups? What I am suggesting is that the four ethnic groups may in the end discover they are better trade partners with their own identity intact.
Bdgee, I fail to see what is difficult to understand: development of market systems, colonialism and Cold War are well-known historical events, much like the genocide President Clintoin accepted in Rwanda, another contrived state.
no, i am all for getting the truth out...
but? you are gonna have to accept that the consolidation of power always draws a lot of people .. bad people...(not all but mostly)
they are everywhere, and you need to be like Caine (the kung fu grasshopper ) studying at master Po's Dojo so you can whoop their buts when they try to step on you...and if you have anything worth having? they wil....
Posted by bdgee on :
The violence that poisons most cultures it built on religious teaching.
Sorry if you choose to think otherwise, but it is a fact.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: The violence that poisons most cultures it built on religious teaching.
Sorry if you choose to think otherwise, but it is a fact.
comeon bdgee...
it's really the love of money that poisons, religion is just the opiate of the masses...
Posted by Leo on :
religion loves money, and vicey versee
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Griffon: My point is very plain: self-determination of who they are as an ethnic group within the larger system of ethnicities, the building up of infrastructure, education systems, culture centers and hospitals.
Through developing market forces, colonialism and Cold War, we destroyed indigenous cultural identities. The re-claimation of those identities is necessary to end the violence that poisons so many cultures. It is not an immediate solution, but it is a forward-looking process driven answer to the present situation.
we have no culture to build upon, so why should they? there... nah..
our culture here is about? what? 5 years old? and getting younger every day?
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Johnwayne: Tex- DVFN- was that one of RCA Analysts stocks? Might have been just a wee bit off on assessment of him. God what a mess that stock was. And I was so sure that puppy was gonna shoot to the moon. I really drank the cool aide on that one.
Actually my brother does not play the market Tex. Thanks for the warning you tried to give me. Fortunately many of the great people here took me under their wing and wised me up a little. Yes for those that can't believe it, I used to be even dumber.
lol, not when RCA tries the "gap n trap" -- sorry, JW... nothing to do with your bro--as far as I know--but that's a sorry-azz play to make, here...
we just simply don't do the gap n trap...
period.
Any questions?
Posted by Johnwayne on :
Not following you Tex.
Posted by Griffon on :
Thank you Glassman for the welcome.
I throw ideas out to generate discussion. Actually I finished seminary last year so the doctorate is a way off, but my thesis involves "peace-building through shared story in life." I am convinced of projects like Mar Elias Educational Institute where people come together to share stories from diverse ethnicities and theologies as they live life together. To me, this is the future of peace-building: shared experience from diverse backgrounds. Do you see then how I would advocate for people groups finding their own cultural identity amidst and alongside the many other cultures they could be exposed to?
And do you know what is at the heart of this approach's effectiveness? You learn to see the humanity in others in part because your own identity is not in question. Let me offer an excerpt from my major MDiv project:
"Thursday, 4 p.m. February 17 Today has been hugely exciting. I did not make much progress on windows, only 6 or so, because I was invited to speak to a 7th grade technology class. The teacher wanted me to use English so they could practice conversational English. “Jerry” asked me to speak to them about what it means to be a “good person.” The day actually began with me trying to get pictures for Rev. Don Griggs and the Pilgrims of Ibillin. He wanted pictures of the elementary school. The Head Mistress gave me a tour and invited me to lunch with the faculty. That was where Jerry the technology teacher invited me to his class. I did not expect to be there for the whole class, but it was a great time.
They asked profound questions. “If you want to help Palestinians, why come to MEEI instead of going to the West Bank?” “You talk about prayer and love being answers to the Palestinian situation, but we pray and children still die. Prayer isn’t enough then is it? How can we love when it doesn’t work?” You know the best thing about the conversation with the class was that the girl who asked about prayer came up after to say she was glad I came to Mar Elias and asked God to bless me.
It is interesting addressing a room full of 13 year olds with 4 faiths represented: Islam, Druze, Christian and Judaism. I tried to be sensitive to these diverse worldviews especially pertaining to God language. The teacher later told me that everyone has a religion in the class and they are very tolerant of references to God. Think about what this says about MEEI though, that the students feel safe enough to talk about Palestinians elsewhere."
Do you see how my own naivete was beginning to be shed simply by coming into contact with these kids? It's when we are brave enough to let people search for their own identity, to "find" themselves, they can become comfortable with "other."
That is the lesson dictators and colonial powers learned very quickly and that is precisely why they destroy cultural identity and play ethnicities off against one another: to perpetuate their own power by inducing impotence among conflicted ethnicities.
Posted by glassman on :
griffon... i'd like to recomend three books to you..
read this first... Guns Germs and Steel by Jared M. Diamond
it's been around a while now, but the guy has the ethnic division thing down pretty good...
then? 1491 by Charles C. Mann.. that will show you how nothing is really in our control even tho we think it is...
after that?
Big Cotton: How A Humble Fiber Created Fortunes, Wrecked Civilizations, and Put America on the Map by Stephen Yafa
that will illustrate how the industrial revolution led us into the current world situation ...
after you read those? you should be able to breeze thru your dissertation, (just kidding) if you really want to write about what you've been telling me...
i admire your love for humanity... wish i STILL had all that i had in my earlier years...
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Jesus and Bush are apparently quite an item.
quote:Originally posted by Leo: religion loves money, and vicey versee
Posted by Griffon on :
"The violence that poisons most cultures it built on religious teaching.
Sorry if you choose to think otherwise, but it is a fact."
It's a wrong-thinking fact but accept it if you will. See, the truth is the violence that poisons most cultures flows from atheism manipulating religion for its own end. Consider Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse Tung, Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein (a masquerading Muslim but not a real one), the Rwandan leaders, the Sudanese leaders. There is no religion in what they do except secular humanism gone amok.
Now, I am not intolerant or ignorant, so I do not suggest the religions of atheism and secular humanism are to blame the way others pretend to assume about the peaceful religions of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism and hinduism. I support the free expression of religions like atheism and secular humanism as well as the other traditional religions. But I cannot accept your assumption that people aren't guilty because religion made them do violence. It is people manipulated by evil people using horrific weapons that commit violence. To believe otherwise is religio-phobia.
Were you aware that more people have died in the last century at the hands of their own governments than in all the wars.
Posted by glassman on :
It is interesting addressing a room full of 13 year olds with 4 faiths represented: Islam, Druze, Christian and Judaism. I tried to be sensitive to these diverse worldviews especially pertaining to God language.
this can help. but the cure is going to take generations, not a few years...
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Atheism is not a religion.
There was a thread a while back debating Hitler's Christianity. It seems he was, in fact, a Catholic.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Johnwayne: Not following you Tex.
really? ok...take it up later...
Posted by T e x on :
quote:But I cannot accept your assumption that people aren't guilty because religion made them do violence.
missed that part...
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
That goes for Israel as well.
Posted by T e x on :
"you tried to give me"
note to self...
lol, JW/RCA
Posted by Johnwayne on :
I remember now Tex. Gap and trap was the deal where he said to set all of your buys for like .80 when the stock was at .15 causing it to gap to .80. Then he claimed it would screw the mm's somehow. I never figured out how that plan was feasible because my Scottrade will not allow me to set an order that far from the ask. Yes I am sorry to have defended him but at the time I had made some good $$$ on that pick and was not really fully understanding how someone got trapped when a stock gapped that much. Nor do I really understand how it would have screwed the mm's. I think I got in another pick of his after that then figured out most of his mad claims of 1000% gains were a little optimistic. But he really had me under his spell for a while. I wondered why some of your responses to me seemed to have a little edge. Understandable now I guess. I think if you go back and read some of my more recent stock posts you will find I'm pretty harmless, as opposed to being a little too easily lead in the stock arena like I was in my earlier posts.
Posted by Griffon on :
Glassman, We all struggle to love as we are created to love. I have read the three books you suggest. In fact, one does play a role in my developing understanding of nation-state/colonialism. "Big Cotton" should be required reading at some level. I find part of the struggle to love as we should is the fear of truly getting away and renewing. The drive to succeed implants in us a view of relationship that is warped because it is based on competition, a microcosm of the nation-state if you will.
In that model, relationships are extrinsic to being. If relationships are not constitutive of being the old addage used after someone has done some terribly uncaring thing: "Nothing personal, it's just business." But to love is to allow relationships to be intrinsic, or constitutive of who we are, a part of our very being, as modeled within the Trinitarian relationship; how we treat others can never be just business because it is intimately personal.
See that view that it is okay to do things to each other in business that we would not do outside of business is at the heart of our difficulty to love fully and freely. Isn't it amazing and tragic that we are taught in our very competitive system to "kill or be killed?"
That very philosophy, not a Christian, Jewish or Muslim philosophy mind you, led to global domination and it's an utterly morally-bankrupt and relationally-stunted philosophy, literally a religion unto itself. And we must undo it, must have the courage to relearn, if the world is ever to survive.
Posted by glassman on :
See that view that it is okay to do things to each other in business that we would not do outside of business is at the heart of our difficulty to love fully and freely. Isn't it amazing and tragic that we are taught in our very competitive system to "kill or be killed?"
OK? who created that kill or be killed system? look at the animal world..
Kids are naturally suspicious of things they don't "know"... food is the perfect example... anybody who has kids will tell you they don't like to try new foods...
there is a simple evolutionary 'splanation for that too... the ones that did try too many expirements died... there's a lot of poisonous plants/weeds in the world.. they need to be poisonous or they will be eaten.. and so on and so forth...
i argue that discrimination is in fact an evolved and instinctual trait... whether it's other people or food or insects? it's an instinctual survival tool that must be overcome by POSITIVE experince... creating those positive experiences actually requires great wealth, like enough food for all for starters...
Posted by Griffon on :
"the cure is going to take generations, not a few years..."
sadly true and if you believe the Biblical view, we will need dramatic intervention, but the Bible also says we must never give up working for peace and love. The first step must be to work to get us beyond the "need" to kill, I actually refer to it as an insanity but my degree isn't in psychology so I can't officially say that.
"Atheism is not a religion.
There was a thread a while back debating Hitler's Christianity. It seems he was, in fact, a Catholic."
Since we both know atheism (a=non, theism=personal God belief) is a belief system it is most certainly a religion, just a non-personal God religion. Hitler, who killed Christians as well as Jews, was not a Christian. If he claimed Christianity, he did not practice, thus he was not Christian. If he was baptised, he rejected the means of grace and massacred millions, so he was not a Christian. Lip service and ritual practice do not make one Christian.
Lest that seem unfair, Saddam Hussein is not a Muslim either because his practice of the religion he professed was and remains patently false.
In the same sense that 80+% of this nation profess evangelical Christian faith. I say that is mistaken because this country would be radically different if that were actually the case. First, there would be no hunger, homelessness or poverty. I'll end with this from James, "Show me your faith without works and I will show my faith by what I do." Hitler demonstrated in every way he was not Christian. None of us demonstrate Christian holiness perfectly, but genuine Christians grow in love for God and neighbor. Again, Hitler never demonstrated that.
"That goes for Israel as well."
That'll preach brother! It applies to all nations and ethnic groups.
Posted by Griffon on :
"there is a simple evolutionary 'splanation for that too..."
Sure! There is no contradiction between faith and evolution. Our fallen-ness allowed for the "instinct" to be corrupted to be sure. It was not God's intent.
"i argue that discrimination is in fact an evolved and instinctual trait... whether it's other people or food or insects? it's an instinctual survival tool that must be overcome by POSITIVE experince... creating those positive experiences actually requires great wealth, like enough food for all for starters..."
Preachin' to the choir friend. But see, the world produces enough bio-mass to feed the world, our fallen-ness means we can have the capacity and the capability to feel the world, but we lack the moral will to share. Nietzsche argued from the humanist/atheist religion perspective for the "will-to-power." Christians on the journey recognize God's gracious gift is transformative "will-to-relationship."
I am saying you are right, left to our own devices, we are by nature, selfish, avaricious and a host of other obnoxious, non-relational things. We Christians don't get it all right by a long shot. But Christ makes us able to do something more than accept our greed.
Posted by Griffon on :
Thank you all for the generous conversation. I have to turn in to prayers, study and bed because I have a 6am Bible study tomorrow morning. Be blessed and at peace! May it be that we get to know each other better in coming days!
Posted by Griffon on :
I guess I'll leave you with one more glimpse of that trip to Israel since one of you commented on the country. I hope you enjoy it.
Friday night, February 18 Today has been busy, full, wonderful and sad. I started out a little grumpy, tired, and stomach-achy; suddenly everything changed. Sanding can be a very tedious job. Shoulders and neck ache and there was a definite chill in the air as I began the day. However, sometime before lunch the sanding turned into a devotional work. It became a deeply sacred moment. I started to get into it. Ammar and I had a few nice, though sad, conversations. I hope it helps him to talk things through. The pain of being separated from family for long periods, the hurt of going home to 6 children upset at his absence with a two year old daughter calling him “uncle,” is intense. Police intimidation, in the form of threats to take him from this job and thus the means to support his family, have him greatly anguished. He talks about the shooting of children by Jewish police and military for target practice. Prayer for guidance, prayer for peace, may be our first step, but advocacy and action must follow. In between our two conversations, Marie and I went to the Melkite Church of Shfar’am for the Prayer Service of the Theotokos. I understood virtually nothing but it was inspiring to hear the antiphonal singing for 90 minutes combined with the iconography and incense. I will inquire about pictures if the opportunity to visit the church comes up again. The crowd was big, over 300 in the sanctuary so people were outside in the courtyard as well. We had to set up chairs inside. The youth dress up very dramatically for each other and there is considerable commotion, but it is a majestic worship event! Saturday, 6:30 a.m. February 19 I had a difficult night sleeping. My body still wants to cling to an internal clock. Ammar has an interesting way of determining who good leaders are. Do they eat while the Palestinian people go hungry? So he doesn’t think much of Bush, Rice, Powell, Arafat or Sharon because they do not give up something to come here and help the Palestinians. On the other hand, Ammar likes the American people because he sees their generosity and likes the volunteers that help build and maintain MEEI. He liked the one sentence President Bush said the other day, “Israel needs the Palestinians.” I was also thinking of what Bush said and that needs to become the reality we work for. Ammar also asked me to return to visit him in Jenin in “month 7.” We have the same calendar but different names for the months so we count them off instead of using names. He wants me to come back when the black grapes are ripe. Of course that depends on Israel opening the city up again. Unfortunately, I will be settling into a new parish then so I will not be visiting again this year.
Saturday night, February 19 It seems rest finally caught up with me. After a thrilling trip to Akko, I went to bed for a few hours. The Pryors have arrived even as Father Matthew and Sister Christina left for Tiberias. They were only here for one night and I would have dearly loved to have more time to chat with them “en francaise.” They are charming Belgians building a spiritual community of Roman Catholic and Orthodox monks in the Romanian village of Adunatii Copaceni. They have invited me to visit sometime and Romania is in my heart as a place to serve God and humanity sometime.
Once free of the responsibility and distraction I surrender to so often, I am once again more attuned to spiritual life. I am also aware of my family as I visit Akko. Mom and dad are used to my spiritual “wanderlust” but this is the first time I will return home with souvenirs. The incredible thing about this trip to Akko is who invited me along: Abuna Elias Chacour, Micah and I went. We talked about the Palestinians of America and the Indians of Israel. We spoke of integrated faith; personal experience must be coupled with social action. There can be no divorce between personal and corporate salvation. He asked about me and Iowa as well.
It was just an incredible moment in my life. I actually sat and talked with a three time Nobel Peace Prize nominee who is also the recipient of the Niwano and World Methodist Peace Awards. What struck me so profoundly is Abuna’s deep spirituality in a strong and gentle spirit. It’s incredible the demands of time he has and yet he still finds time for a two week volunteer who is hoping to get windows sanded in time for the church dedication on April 2. On returning to Ibillin he offers me citrus fruit from his garden. I have never seen streets so packed with people and vehicles as in Akko. The wall in so many pictures is the seawall built in the 1700s.
I asked Abuna if Lebanon still has a reputation for cedars and he says it has mostly sycamores now. Micah and I talk of a mutual love of water and the ocean/sea. He used to dive for oysters on this very corner of the Mediterranean. On the return from Akko, Abuna points to the traditional meeting place of Naaman and Elijah in the hill country outside Shfar’am. I rested on the return from Akko and later met the Pryors, Bob and Marylou. It has been a truly delightful evening in conversation with everyone at the Guest House. Bob and Marylou were Presbyterian missionaries serving in Iran for 23 years before the revolution forced them to depart. We talked about the decline of tourism really hurting both the region and MEEI’ ministry. We talked about why the Palestinians struggle and why everyone has the impression that there is a bomb on every corner and a gun in every house here. The Galilee is safe for a pale American to walk around at night. Not that everyone has the warm-fuzzies, but everyone is committed to peaceful resolution and they know tourism is crucial to the economy. There is hope – but the school needs money to keep going.
Posted by Johnwayne on :
Tex- Oh you think I am RCA? I am definitely not. I'm not sure what you would base that assumption on. Did he used to post in off topics a lot? Bob can look that type of stuff up can't he? Look I mistakenly defended a guy who made me money a few times, bad choice on my part I guess and I learned the error of my ways. But I am a loyal person that way. He was the main poster on my first real runner. Now I am much more apt to look to the likes of Juice who I feel is a very straight shooter. I think if you compare RCA's posts to mine you will see a huge difference. He was all chart talk and I'm still not convinced of there effectiveness. Maybe you should ask for Juice's thoughts on this issue.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk. Posted by Sasquatch on :
Seems to me this is neither a symptom of either Democratic nor Republic modes of thought. To me this is a symptom of a problem with no true solution.
First rule of being a leader. You are not going to be able to make everyone happy. If you spend all your time attempting to do so you will accomplish nothing.
Extend that thought to restoring peace in a nation. In this scenario you have a people killing each other over ideas. How do you come in and set an entirely new set of ideals into the mix and make everyone happy? Already pointed out above that this is impossible.
Therefore, by going into such a situation you must be aware that you are committing yourself to forcing ideas that will be unpopular to some into an area that has already proven itself to have a deadly violent reaction to conflicting modes of thinking.
The only true way to be successful in such an endeavor that I can see is to do this:
1) Send in an overwhelming military force with the goals of A) Securing and controlling the entire border of a country. Only allow pre-approved emergency aid through the borders to ensure outside influences do not disturb the process. B) Quickly go across the country and completely disarm the nation of all materials that could be used to create weapons of any kind. Set up strong policing bases within every population center.
2) Take over all media sources and use these to foster the ideals of tolerance and community. Monitor all religious/political/ and large gathering areas. Immediately shut down any and all resistance to these ideas and discredit the leaders who espouse other ideals.
3) Send in top intelligence and government building experts to force a democratic election process without media to create city governments around population centers. Provide coaching as to how to create a governmental system that is sustainable and uncorrupted. This means all new leaders will need a personal coach. Provide all previous leaders with military escorts to ensure their safety and compliance.
Then next year force another election of the populous for city governments to ensure majority confidence in the elected leaders. The next year have the city representatives vote from within their body to create regional governments and hold a special election to fill vacant spots on the city level. Allow time for the process to work out the kinks. 3 years later repeat this process to create a country wide governmental body. At this point start allowing free press and media to resume within the country.
4) While the military controls the nation and the government is being reformed the country needs to be restored and updated. This cannot be done by outside companies without creating an inevitable conflict of interest due to the conflict ideas of for profit business and a humanitarian mission of restoring peace. Approved NGO's will be allowed to enter the country and use the countries own existing wealth and resources to train the country's populous how to work within the environmental, fiscal, and cultural limitations of their country to provide 1st world services to their people. Once the country government has been installed for three years and has shown itself resilient to the forces of corruption the NGO's can step back and allow the government to oversee as is fit depending on their constitution.
The whole of the process described above is horribly simplistic to the true nature of the task involved to actually create peace. The whole of what is described above would take by that timeline 9 years to accomplish. Afterward the process of stepping the peacekeeping force down and reintroducing the country to the world would take at least another five.
To be fair to the country in question you could only use their economy to support their governmental processes and the economy building processes handled by the NGO's. All other military and non military actions must be paid for by the Humanitarian country(s) providing the reconditioning process.
This to my mind is they only way you will truly ever be able to stop conflicts as a third party. This is tyrannical nation building in the extreme. This would cost billions on billions for any country involved and anything less would only be a band aid on a severed limb.
I would never support my government attempting this action.
I support going into a country to stop the worst of the atrocities from being committed and providing a safe zone for those who have no part in the conflict to escape to. I support defending our allies and fighting those who have taken actions to destroy our democracy or the democracy of our allies.
But I do not for one minute fail to understand that these actions are nothing more than a stop gap that will not ultimately solve the conflict of differing ideologies and very likely violence will erupt again in the future
Sasquatch
Posted by Griffon on :
"1) Send in an overwhelming military force with the goals of A) Securing and controlling the entire border of a country. Only allow pre-approved emergency aid through the borders to ensure outside influences do not disturb the process. B) Quickly go across the country and completely disarm the nation of all materials that could be used to create weapons of any kind. Set up strong policing bases within every population center.
2) Take over all media sources and use these to foster the ideals of tolerance and community. Monitor all religious/political/ and large gathering areas. Immediately shut down any and all resistance to these ideas and discredit the leaders who espouse other ideals.
3) Send in top intelligence and government building experts to force a democratic election process without media to create city governments around population centers. Provide coaching as to how to create a governmental system that is sustainable and uncorrupted. This means all new leaders will need a personal coach. Provide all previous leaders with military escorts to ensure their safety and compliance."
You are correct in suggesting your above quoted solution is a short term fix. History is replete with examples of this failed doctrine. It does raise a question I will pose in a new thread though: Is war ever good?
Your solution will not bring lasting peace because this approach has always given way to freedom fighters and terrorists. To quote a fictional story that gets to the heart of the dilema your solution causes:
The ambassador of Narn on finding his world smashed into dust and subjugated for dubious reasons says, "Though it take a thousand years, We...WILL...BE...FREE! It strikes at the heart of why the policy you suggest has always failed: a people group's identity is a stronger binding force than we like to accept. Someone on here chided me saying other countries don't have patriotism, nothing could be further from the truth. Look at France and Russia (two nations with leaders whose electoral campaigns are accused of having benefitted from oil-for-food money). They appealed to national dignity to justify their decision not to cut the financial umbellical cord from Saddam.
The only way to undercut that, the only way to save money and lives, if that is the order of priority you suggest, is to help indigenous peoples find out who they are and then empower them to live out that identity as they see fit within the bounds of the world community. It is demonstrated in our own nation to be successful and it has been successfully demonstrated in Western Africa.
Posted by glassman on :
Griffon? you lost me here... History is replete with examples of this failed doctrine
and it just went downhill from there...
Posted by glassman on :
The ambassador of Narn on finding his world smashed into dust and subjugated for dubious reasons says, "Though it take a thousand years, We...WILL...BE...FREE!
sheesh man... G,Kar is plastic...
Posted by glassman on :
what sasquatch posted is more or less the practical way to to accomplish what you proppose..
if you create an Utopia somebody must pay the bill....
nobody wants to be the guy who has to take out the trash....
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Johnwayne: Tex- Oh you think I am RCA? I am definitely not. I'm not sure what you would base that assumption on. Did he used to post in off topics a lot? Bob can look that type of stuff up can't he? Look I mistakenly defended a guy who made me money a few times, bad choice on my part I guess and I learned the error of my ways. But I am a loyal person that way. He was the main poster on my first real runner. Now I am much more apt to look to the likes of Juice who I feel is a very straight shooter. I think if you compare RCA's posts to mine you will see a huge difference. He was all chart talk and I'm still not convinced of there effectiveness. Maybe you should ask for Juice's thoughts on this issue.
NO, I don't think you are RCA--the only time I had a question was during "the heat of battle" that afternoon, on that one thread... iss all good Posted by Griffon on :
It may be that I missed his point Glassman, after all, as you could say last night, we all need to be able to admit we can be wrong. Tell me if I heard him right: What I think I hear him saying is destroy a nation's infrastructure and leave them to fix it up and pay for it themselves after. My point is if we have destroyed and damaged colonial people groups, it is our obligation as nations that claim social maturity to provide the means and resources for the victims of colonial rule to find themselves. Another word for what I advocate is: reparations for the damage we wrought during the colonial and Cold War periods.
Very cool G'kar pic. My point is that bombing people into the stone age only creates underlying resentment that will invariably manifest itself in identity repression and violence which we see in the present war on terror. I am suggesting we fight this war on another front: socio-economic, as Hamas and Hezbollah did to win adherents. We have the financial and logistical means to do so at a far less expensive cost to our nation in lives and dollars than a protracted war. Let's empower victims of cololialism and Cold War to re-establish their own indigenous identity as we fight this war, so the number of "fronts" will gradually shrink. In this all the G-8 and the other colonial powers must get involved. I have to leave but thanks all for the dialog. I hope we chat, argue, agree and disagree more on this interesting topic later.
Posted by Johnwayne on :
Tex- No problem Big Shooter. All good here. I'm getting ready to throw a rib-eye on the grill. Nothing could ruin my day.
Posted by T e x on :
I got some prime beef coming Wisconsin
can hardly wait....mmmmm
Posted by Johnwayne on :
Tex- My brother can set you up with some top of the line Iowa steaks can't you griff?
Posted by Sasquatch on :
Griff,
I posted that very early in the morning...perhaps I was not clear. I was not saying bring em down to the stone age and leave em to rebuild. Quite the contrary.
What I am saying is that these conflicts will not subside until the authors decide to change their thinking. No outside party can force that short of taking away all freedoms of the country, all weapons of a country, and all contact with the outside world.
Strike quickly before a defense could be mounted and secure the entire country. Enforce a non-voluntary governmental restructuring from the ground up. Wash them with images of why such actions are wrong headed, suppress any contrary points of view. In ten years or so once they begin to see the benefits of the enforced education and infrastructure building with 1st world tech they just might start to believe that what you say is right just might be true.
Everything else in the post above is descriptive and unnecessary.
A third party can temporarily halt a conflict. A third party cannot change other's points of view so that the conflict doesn't reoccur.
Sas
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
You simply can't force democracies (or any ideal) on anyone. As soon as you set 'em up, they'll just knock 'em down.
Posted by Griffon on :
Sasquatch,
I think we are suggesting similar things, I was just giving too hurried a read so it's my bad. I think where we differ is that I have a more grass-roots approach that begins possibly even before armed conflict to lay a groundwork of relationships.
Gordon is right, though that's not what I was suggesting. We must finance the development of infra-structure that enable indigenous peoples to choose their own system of governance and cultural expression, with one caveat: all sovereign nations must abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and leaders who violate that declaration must be forceably removed BY THE WORLD COMMUNITY. That threshold would have to be established yet but a line must be drawn. Cultural development involves meeting basic needs: food, clothing, water, shelter, community, access to medical care and religion. Then they will be allowing self-determination in the establishment of identity. True, this is on a micro level, a human level, but affecting change takes place on that level. Now this may seem to go far afield (something we idealists are known for anyway).
Consider the startling suicide statistics surrounding recently retired men. Did you know that a big part of the despondancy comes from lack of identity in retirement. We define/label people so much by what they do it becomes their adopted identity. They struggle for self-identitification once they retire and for some it is too much.
It is necessary at this point to explain the difference between the concept of self-esteem and self-identity. Self-esteem asks, "How you feel about yourself?"; self-identity asks, "Who are you?" Do you see the more basis/essential nature of the second question? They are related, but the second question is about who the person is.
Now people answer that in a variety of ways: I am a child of God, I am mom or dad, son or daughter, I am Christian or Muslim or Jew or atheist, etc. See the relationality expressed in these statements. But because of the paradigm of the man or woman as provider (though for the generation that sees this suicide phenomenon at such a seemingly strange time the data is largely men), many people define themselves by what they do: I am an accountant, a preacher, a counselor, a business-person, a chef, a teacher, an investor, an attorney, etc. Do you see the discontinuity implied in that "I'm a do-er" model? Once you stop doing, you stop being.
Despite the potential pitfalls though, we still insist on finding meaning and/or purpose in life. And the personal dilema is quite profound unless identity can be found once again, this time focused on fulfillment of being. That is the nature of the change I advocate applied in the individuals to affect the macro level.
Now of course this will take alot of time, generations in fact, but it will lead to a tapering down of hostilities and loss of life. The central question then becomes: which has greater inherent value, human life or power?
Posted by Griffon on :
We have wandered away from my initial question: why do Democratic policies, intentional or not, cave to genocide? Why has the party fallen so far from a Human Rights based foreign policy? We know the founder of that policy, President Jimmy Carter, involved the US in the morally precipitous arms dealing relationship with Iraq after the hostage crisis in Iran began. We know he pushed Iraq to topple the Iranian regime in its infancy. But oh the cost.
We see in these articles that both parties supported "the Butcher of Baghdad." Though one thing I would say: the Republicans were up front about their mistake and Republicans put political fortunes on the line to address the nightmare their mistake caused for Iraq.
On the other hand, why did President Carter, a person I greatly respected for his stand on human rights, so willingly support Saddy? For mere political gain, to win an election. President Carter supported a war in order to win re-election. I was absolutely devastated to hear that and coming in the aftermath of Rwanda, it got me thinking about the foreign policy of the Democrats. As I look back at the lives lost over the last three decades, directly and indirectly, because of US foreign policy, I want my country, the nation I love, and pray for each day, to cleanse its collective conscience.
When I consider that roughly 6.5 million people have been killed in genocidal and/or ethnic cleansing circumstances when a Democratic president was in 12 years holding the high office and another 3.5 million died in the 18 years Republicans have held the presidency, I weep that our great might couldn't have done something for some of those 10,000,000 people (these figures taken from Human Rights Watch website but you have to search because it's spread out).
That's what led me to write this thread. Not so much to put the blame on one side or the other since both have been complicit. But one side, to which I used to adhere, claimed to put human rights high on the priority list in terms of foreign policy. Both should have but one claimed it as their birthright. They should be held under scrutiny too.
Posted by glassman on :
i answered your question:
cuz the position will be filled by one fascist or another... we chose this one...
and? in a few years after we leave, IF we leave? there just will be another... and if we don't leave> we'll simply be trying to "keep 'em separated"
Posted by glassman on :
When I consider that roughly 6.5 million people have been killed in genocidal and/or ethnic cleansing circumstances when a Democratic president was in 12 years holding the high office and another 3.5 million died in the 18 years Republicans have held the presidency, I weep that our great might couldn't have done something for some of those 10,000,000 people (these figures taken from Human Rights Watch website but you have to search because it's spread out).
you are just another Republican for God....
your stats are misleading... neither party is "good" in your sense of the word... Rumsfeld and Cheney and Oliver North were all playing with both sides of the fence in Iran and Iraq.... and i am a Republican, but i am also a realist...
people are mean...
Posted by Griffon on :
"you are just another Republican for God...."
Not in the least other than the "for God" part. It is interesting that you would suggest I have a political affiliation but I have to admit I am surprised at your choice. Usually my liberal friends call me fascist and my conservative friends call me communist. So thanks for moving me to the center...er ah...relatively.
"your stats are misleading... neither party is "good" in your sense of the word..."
Never suggested either party is good. Thats why I am an Independent Conscientious voter. The stats are not misleading in the least. They represent the people who were killed by their own governments in actions that could have been classified genocide or ethnic cleansing had the climate of the times been willing to use that language. Both parties are guilty, my point is the Democrats policies have carried a hidden-ness to them. Like President Carter's initiation of that Saddy relationship, which Republicans were all too ready to exploit. Check my documentation; highly critical of Republican involvement with Saddy. I am not hiding anyone's villainy. I am merely shining new light on the event that left me disillusioned with my former party.
"Rumsfeld and Cheney and Oliver North were all playing with both sides of the fence in Iran and Iraq.... and i am a Republican, but i am also a realist...
people are mean..."
Absolutely agreed! Those guys and others in the Republican camp did nothing to reign Saddy in. I thought the documentation I offered demonstrated this is not a one sided affair. It's just that one side wants to make us think they are clean.
Left to our own devices, human beings are corrupted by evil. Your cynicism about how world events turn out is consistent with the Christian worldview, but we must, as Dylan Thomas wrote, "rage against the dying of the light!"
I apologize if I am not articulating my contention well. Sixteen hour days at staf meeting, in hospitalcalls and in-home visits, in counselling sessions and VBS wear on my clarity at times. The reason I point to Democrats in this thread is only because they claim no responsibility for Saddy. He's a monster we are all responsible for and the victims were the Iraqi, Iranian, Kuwaiti and Saudi people primarily, though not exclusively.
Posted by Girls Gone Docile on :
This seems like the wrong crowd to have such sympathy for impoverished peoples. Oh how I so wanted to be a Socialist in youth, and look at me now. A scummy Capitalist pig, exploiting so many to make a quick buck on the stock market.
Posted by Griffon on :
That's okay "girls" we all struggle to keep the idealism of younger days.
Posted by T e x on :
"A scummy Capitalist pig, exploiting so many to make a quick buck on the stock market."
lol, chances are? exploiting nobody, unless you're front-running PnD scams...
Posted by Griffon on :
Just a reminder, Clinton lied and Rwandans died.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
If that isn't okay with you, Griffon, how can you support Bush lying us into Iraq?
Posted by Griffon on :
I don't. I do support the removal of a person who committed genocide. As I feel the world community must do in Sudan. Personally, I would have prefered the Western powers and Russia that empowered Hussein buy him off into exile. Support for the war in Iraq became necessary once troops were on the ground. But all the powers that armed him should have taken up the burden: England, France, Germany, Russia and the US. It was a Cold War relic that we just abandoned the people to their fate.
The sanctions would never have been lifted as long as Saddy was in power. Children and women starved to death while people profitted from oil-for-food. Something had to be done for that reason alone. I think WMDs can be contained. I think terror links have to be out-foxed. Neither of those arguments was compelling to me. What happened in 1988 was and the continuing killing was to me made it necessary to remove him.
I would say, knowing the lesson of Somalia, that killing Americans means we will run, led quickly to the Rwandan and Sudanese genocides while intensifying the crisis in Srbenica. At some point a model for the removal of a brutal leader had to be presented or we invite more genocide. The US facilitated Papa Doc's regime departure in Haiti financially. I would have prefered that mechanism. But...President Bush chose another option. The troops have performed admirably with a few nototious exceptions, but I am troubled by GITMO.
Posted by jordanreed on :
would jesus support ANY war?
Posted by john wayne on :
I don't really know Jordan. But I can post what the methodist Church says about it.
"We also acknowledge that many Christians believe that, when peaceful alternatives have failed, the force of arms may regretfully be preferable to unchecked aggression, tyranny and genocide. We honor the witness of pacifists who will not allow us to become complacent about war and violence. We also respect those who support the use of force, but only in extreme situations and only when the need is clear beyond reasonable doubt, and through appropriate international organizations. We urge the establishment of the rule of law in international affairs as a means of elimination of war, violence, and coercion in these affairs."
Posted by Griffon on :
I think Jesus opposes war as the greatest of sins, but the United Methodist principles posted in my bro's post pointed to the human brokenness that puts us in the present quandry. It's really an age old question. It cost Dietriche Bonhoeffer his life for opposing Hitler in WW2. Jesus would always oppose war. But humanity is inadequate in relationality to eliminate war, so we struggle with situations like genocide. To be inactive allows evil to flourish. It's a quixotic dilema
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Me too! Genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group, is wrong. Bush must go!
quote:Originally posted by Griffon: I don't. I do support the removal of a person who committed genocide.
Posted by Griffon on :
"Me too! Genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group, is wrong."
Since no American president commits(ed) genocide while the Iranian backed Sunni in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon (though hopefully not for much longer) do engage in deliberate, systematic destruction of persons in a way that violates both the UN Declaraion of Human Rights and the Convention against Genocide, You and I are in full agreement in this statement.
But let's put the Convention's understanding on the table to see what genocide has been/is being committed:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.
Article 1 The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
Article 2 In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Article 3 The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide. Article 4 Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.
Article 5 The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3.
Article 6 Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.
Article 7 Genocide and the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition. The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.
Article 8 Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3.
Article 9 Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.
Article 10 The present Convention, of which the Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall bear the date of 9 December 1948.
Article 11 The present Convention shall be open until 31 December 1949 for signature on behalf of any Member of the United Nations and of any non-member State to which an invitation to sign has been addressed by the General Assembly. The present Convention shall be ratified, and the instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
After 1 January 1950, the present Convention may be acceded to on behalf of any Member of the United Nations and of any non-member State which has received an invitation as aforesaid.
Instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Article 12 Any Contracting Party may at any time, by notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, extend the application of the present Convention to all or any of the territories for the conduct of whose foreign relations that Contracting Party is responsible.
Article 13 On the day when the first twenty instruments of ratification or accession have been deposited, the Secretary-General shall draw up a proces-verbal and transmit a copy of it to each Member of the United Nations and to each of the non-member States contemplated in Article 11. The present Convention shall come into force on the ninetieth day following the date of deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession.
Any ratification or accession effected subsequent to the latter date shall become effective on the ninetieth day following the deposit of the instrument of ratification or accession.
Article 14 The present Convention shall remain in effect for a period of ten years as from the date of its coming into force. It shall thereafter remain in force for successive periods of five years for such Contracting Parties as have not denounced it at least six months before the expiration of the current period.
Denunciation shall be effected by a written notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Article 15 If, as a result of denunciations, the number of Parties to the present Convention should become less than sixteen, the Convention shall cease to be in force as from the date on which the last of these denunciations shall become effective.
Article 16 A request for the revision of the present Convention may be made at any time by any Contracting Party by means of a notification in writing addressed to the Secretary-General. The General Assembly shall decide upon the steps, if any, to be taken in respect of such request.
Article 17 The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall notify all Members of the United Nations and the non-member States contemplated in Article 11 of the following:
(a) Signatures, ratifications and accessions received in accordance with Article 11; (b) Notifications received in accordance with Article 12; (c) The date upon which the present Convention comes into force in accordance with Article 13; (d) Denunciations received in accordance with Article 14; (e) The abrogation of the Convention in accordance with Article 15; (f) Notifications received in accordance with Article 16. Article 18 The original of the present Convention shall be deposited in the archives of the United Nations. A certified copy of the Convention shall be transmitted to all Members of the United Nations and to the non-member States contemplated in Article 11.
Article 19 The present Convention shall be registered by the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the date of its coming into force.
Posted by Griffon on :
Now having put a level playing field out there, let's consider article 2 thru 7 in which the reason Saddam had to be removed becomes glaringly obvious.
On the other hand, in order to suggest an American president has engaged in such activity, one must have as threshold the following phraseology from Article 2:
"genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"
The focal point here would be "with intent." There is nothing on record, official or unofficial, that suggests George Bush entered into this war with the intent of genocide.
The charge of genocide cannot be demonstrated and President Bush acted within the UN Converntion on Genocide to the letter. Read Articles 3-7 to see what signatories are to do when confronted with acts of genocide.
On the other hand, under the same article 2, laying out that threshold of intent, it can be argued that Warren Christopher's "off the record" remark at the UN when confronted about Rwanda in 1994 could constitute an act of genocide: "Let them (sic Rwandans) die as long as Americans don't have to." True that is muddy legal water, but there we had an American administration official that said it was alright for an ethnic group to be cleansed as long as American troops did not have to die. At the very least it was a failure of our responsibility as signatores of the Convention on Genocide.
Posted by Griffon on :
Where George Bush has violated international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is at GITMO and the "detention centers" in other countries.
CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which was created in 1994 and finalized in 1997. This convention document's the illegality of the current administration's treatment of prisoners of war. First, the definition the administration is using about these terrorists is only gray because the UN has not caught up with the situation on the ground (what's new about that?). Second, this convention limits the use of ill treatment in order to obtain information.
The idea is to skirt both international law and our legal system as we fight the war. You can find this Convention at this site:
i dont think i know anyone in my old platoon that went to iraq with me would believe in this war anymore. take a good look at the timeline. its pathetic...and no backup or withdrawl plan? what kind of military planning was that? there wasnt...general shinseki tried to plan it out, but rumsfeld wanted to have his way at any cost so shinseki "retired"
how much longer are we going to be there?
and those are facts my friend!
Posted by Griffon on :
The move to leave right now allows genocide to thrive. As my two cousins re-upped in the last year when they could have retired, which meant a return to Iraq and Afghanistan for both, there are many, many who recognize the need to do the right thing and right colonial and Cold War abuses. That too is "the facts" Cash Cow.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Yep. Pathetic and costly.
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: i dont think i know anyone in my old platoon that went to iraq with me would believe in this war anymore. take a good look at the timeline. its pathetic...and no backup or withdrawl plan? what kind of military planning was that? there wasnt...general shinseki tried to plan it out, but rumsfeld wanted to have his way at any cost so shinseki "retired"
how much longer are we going to be there?
and those are facts my friend!
Posted by Griffon on :
As far as facts, I respect your service Cash. I also disagree with you and that is an ideal you have fought for: our right to express ourselves and disagree with each other. It's a commendable endeavor. But consider this. Within this thread and my recent comments the issue is not "how the war is going." None of us agree with the conduct of the war, but that does not mean we must surrender to the genocide that is continuing as Iran backs the Sunni insurgency. To think, if my idea had been tried, none of this would have needed to happen.
Surely you recognize that the world community must end genocide, do you not? That is the only reason for intervention that I endorsed. I never agreed with the war until our troops, including two of my cousins, were in the conflict. Historically my family has given alot to protect this nation, great uncles buried in Africa, Europe and the Pacific depths, ancestors on both sides of the Civil War, ancestors in the Revolutionary War and one that rode with the Rough Riders.
Never in a war like this. Do I think it's a mistake to not have an exit strategy? Yes! Absolutely. Do I think it's a mistake to keep that exit strategy from the public? Absolutely not!
See I suspect you are making the mistake others on this board have made: assuming that I support this war on the basis of what the administration's agenda is. None of us really know what that agenda is or how pervasively it shapes our present actions. I argue against war as a means to an end. I argue for winning a permanent peace.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Griffon,
The whole reason for American troops not staying is contained in the issue on "How the War Is Going".
Posted by bdgee on :
IWISHIHAD,
Griffon is sort of like a RNC operative.
His reasoning is to do and say whatever he can to make dubya not look like what he really is, a mental midget and a moral zero.
Posted by Griffon on :
It was brought into this thread by a war vet and I was replying to that. However, the question of how the war is going is not a reason for American troops to not stay, but that is a discussion that will have to wait. The question here that I was confronted with is Bush's role in genocide and no one has responded to the answer I gave which is fine.
Instead they raised very good questions about the insurgency's efficacy in making us do a Somalia. That event encouraged the genocide in Rwanda and the ethnic cleansing in Sudan intensified. They knew Americans would not prevent the genocide after the events of October 1993. By April 1994 the killings began in Rwanda, and the intensity of killings in Sudan reached new levels by 1995. In both cases leaders have intimated they knew they could do so with relative impunity simply by killing a few caucasian troops. Belgians were seized and killed in Rwanda, Belgians left despite the fact that their racial profiling in part inspired the climate that led to killing.
So are you a fan of what happened to our troops in Somalia? Are you a fan of the genocide and mutilation that went on in Rwanda and Sudan? If so, pull the coalition forces out of Iraq now and you can see it again. You seem to have the philosophy of a fire-fighter: "Drive real fast, spray water all over and leave a mess." That works in a fire, very effectively. But try it in heart surgery, "Oh, things look bad right now, best just go home and hope it gets better."
In this case, our presence prevents something far worse.
Posted by Griffon on :
Still funny, no one responded to the answer given about genocide.
Posted by Griffon on :
When I get back in a few hours, let's have some vigorous debate shall we folks. Been looking forward to it all week.
Posted by bdgee on :
Like I said,
"Griffon is sort of like a RNC operative."
and views his mission
"...is to do and say whatever he can to make dubya not look like what he really is, a mental midget and a moral zero."
Rather than rehash Somalia (so that you can go to bashing Clinbton again to hide from the fact that this is Bush's mess and his alone), lets talk instead of the precedent set of turning tail and running in Lebanon by one of your "oh so wise" republican heros.
If Clinton were, as you want to assert, affraid to meet directly with an enemy, we would still to this day be sitting on the sidelines and watching the terrible genocide in Bosnia.
What you want do is to bash Clinton and tell untruths to denegrate a past president, that has no way to correct the mess we have now in order to avoid the facts!
Playing at "I'm the biggest bully on this playground" is exactly what it sounds like, being immature and creating resentment.
BUSH BROUGHT US THIS MESS.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
How about this idea maybe they should be able to take care of themselves at this point, we have given them that opportunity, we invested enough in that country in lives and money we do not need to send more and more body bags to fill with American soldiers. You are talking to the wrong person to try and use the shock treatment in words, drop by a VA or military hospital if you want a real shock treatment. Maybe we should go to China, Laos, Cambodia etc. It "can" happen there also, I hope there would be more of a reason to stay in a war than what can happen after we leave.
Posted by Relentless. on :
Bdgee, what's the difference between discussing the faults of a sitting or a past president? I hear so many things blamed on Bush that were in place long before he took office. Many of the things blamed on Bush were brewing many years before his birth. I haven't any great love for Bush, or any other president for that matter... but if we wish to play the blame game.. shouldn't we atleast try to be remotely accurate?
Posted by bdgee on :
Well said, IWISHIHAD.
Posted by john wayne on :
Well well well. You boys gettin' your swagger bag after the pasting you received last weekend? IWISHIHAD - I don't know you but I will save you a Bdgee ramble. I'm a straight ticket republican....... RNC .....blah blah blah...... Rove........ Lock step...... blah blah blah I do wish they were able to take care of themselves. I really go back and forth on this. Sometimes I think the only way they can learn to take care of themselves is if they lose their crutch. But I can also see where that leads to civil war or invasion from Iran. people such as you and my brother who have been to Iraq have a much better perspective of things.
I'm out all. Gotta work fairly late again tonight and most of the weekend. Have a nice discussion
IWISHIHAD - I appreciate your service to your country. Now we may disagree on things, but your service earns my respect.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by Griffon: The move to leave right now allows genocide to thrive. As my two cousins re-upped in the last year when they could have retired, which meant a return to Iraq and Afghanistan for both, there are many, many who recognize the need to do the right thing and right colonial and Cold War abuses. That too is "the facts" Cash Cow.
well thats fine and i get your point. however take into consideration how much blood is in the soils of iraq, hell ive even left blood there. when is enough engouh? id rather spill blood on OUR border instead of someone elses. thats another thing...we arent spread out along iraqs borders. we are all hunkered down in the cities playing politics. if we were to do the right thing all the time as you say then we should have troops all over africa because there is daily slaughter and genocide over there. not too many people REALLY know what kinds of things are going on. they are much much worse than saddam. you can just go around doing crap like this saying its the right thing to do.
we should have gone after hezbollah and hamass before going into iraq. hezbollah is very well networked and is a militant arm of iran. if we push them too much they will attack us.
i was all about this war in the beginning. i thought it had to be done and that wont change. i am not for staying there for more YEARS. yes you are right there may be anarchy when we leave. the only way to deal with brutality is be brutal. since we are americans we have to play patty cake for political and media reasons. you just dont send infantry into a country and want them to play police and other things. if we could do a fallujah in every problematic city then this would be over a lot sooner.
this war is great for career soldiers especially officers. its good for their records and gives them bragging rights especially once they need that kind of stuff to get to O-6 and higher.
when the case was made for war there were 2 main points. 1 was get saddam, and 2 was get the WMD
well we got saddam and the WMDs are in syria, and if iraqis dont want to take charge and stand up for a good cause then let them deal with the byproduct. im tired of always having to fix otehr peoples problems and our country giving away our tax dollars to countries like russia who never pay us back. how much money do you think we gave russia to take care of their nukes? billions! and the situation gets worse every day.
oh well.....
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by Griffon: As far as facts, I respect your service Cash. I also disagree with you and that is an ideal you have fought for: our right to express ourselves and disagree with each other. It's a commendable endeavor. But consider this. Within this thread and my recent comments the issue is not "how the war is going." None of us agree with the conduct of the war, but that does not mean we must surrender to the genocide that is continuing as Iran backs the Sunni insurgency. To think, if my idea had been tried, none of this would have needed to happen.
Surely you recognize that the world community must end genocide, do you not? That is the only reason for intervention that I endorsed. I never agreed with the war until our troops, including two of my cousins, were in the conflict. Historically my family has given alot to protect this nation, great uncles buried in Africa, Europe and the Pacific depths, ancestors on both sides of the Civil War, ancestors in the Revolutionary War and one that rode with the Rough Riders.
Never in a war like this. Do I think it's a mistake to not have an exit strategy? Yes! Absolutely. Do I think it's a mistake to keep that exit strategy from the public? Absolutely not!
See I suspect you are making the mistake others on this board have made: assuming that I support this war on the basis of what the administration's agenda is. None of us really know what that agenda is or how pervasively it shapes our present actions. I argue against war as a means to an end. I argue for winning a permanent peace.
"See I suspect you are making the mistake others on this board have made: assuming that I support this war on the basis of what the administration's agenda is."
i dont assume that at all man. u have good thinking
Posted by john wayne on :
Hey Cash, nice to meet you. I wo0uld like to know what you and I WISH believe needs to be done over there. It seems both of you would have better perspective than myself.
And Cash Cow- as I said to IWISH .... thank you for serving your country
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
im not as worried about problems that other countries have. im more worried about domestic issues. we spend more time and more money on other countries that have nothing to offer us in return. too much quid pro quo
it sounds mean, but i think we should only be in iraq one more year and then leave....im not talking about leaving and still keeping american bases there im talking about every last soldier goes home. iraq should have been a special operations war from the get go. we should have focused more on afghanistan. it is a lot more rugged of a country, and we only have 15,000 troops combing the mountains, but we have what something like 120,000 in iraq. we are depleting our resources over there in iraq.
to give you an idea of what is happening....in the army newspaper "the army times" there was an article about how certain army posts in the U.S. are not able to afford things because of all the money being dumped in iraq. it said it was either fort sam houston or fort hood in texas..one of those two is behind its power bill for 3 months because they have no money. the monthly bill is just over 1 million dollars per month on average. fort bragg in north carolina is seeing some units not getting money even for essentials such as pens and printer ink.
all the money is going to iraq. bullets cost a lot of money...especially the .50 cal which is a very common weapon. i was a .50 cal gunner on a humvee over there and i cant even come close to remembering how many 100 round cans i fired off. thats just me....oh and heres a good one...we used to go and visit the local sheik. they have more power over the minds of the people than the govt because they are really religous. anyhow when the money was brought to him it was in the amounts of hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars. cold hard cash....this was basically a bribe for him to preach to the locals to lay down their arms and be peacefull. well hundreds of thousands of dollars later come to find out the sheik was dirty. he was going behind the U.S.'s back and using that money not to help the local population, but instead funding insurgent groups throughout ramadi stashing RPGs and AK47s in mosques.
sure we do good over there like build roads or schools, but they all get blown up sooner or later. you KNOW our govt would love to have some nice oil pipelines coming out of there, and they tried. boom....those were blown up too.
funny before the war started special forces and rangers were sent in early under the cover of darkness to secure the oil fields.
i used to get so mad at people that said the war was all about oil, but after seeing the massive halliburton fields over there...and seeing a subsidary of halliburton (kellog brown and root or KBR) win the contracts to everything ....i kind of wonder now.
this is great business for boeing, northrup grumman, lockheed martin ...etc
just look at the defense stocks
im all about defending this country so dont get me wrong, and i joined the infantry to be in the fight and kick ass. i just now feel like ive been exploited by the govt in this war. the support from the citizens is great i just wish the govt would support us in the same way.
if you want to see a video about how crappy the army treats you when you come back check out a guy from my brigade who took it to CBS...it took him going to CBS for help, and when it aired on TV he was in an office 2 hours after the show getting his ass chewed by his chain of command because it made them look bad. that is just the tip of the iceberg what i write in this post and what you see on the video.
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: Bdgee, what's the difference between discussing the faults of a sitting or a past president? I hear so many things blamed on Bush that were in place long before he took office. Many of the things blamed on Bush were brewing many years before his birth. I haven't any great love for Bush, or any other president for that matter... but if we wish to play the blame game.. shouldn't we atleast try to be remotely accurate?
If these problems were the result of what Clinton did, why hasn't Bush corrected the problems in six years. After all, if it was Clinton that cause these problems, then, as President. it is Bush's reesponsibility to have corrected the problems and he hasn't so much as tried.
And exactly where have I been inaccurate. It is Bush that has brought us this mess in the middle east. Then there is Korea, his rediculous take on global warming, the foolish far right wing religious attack on stem cell researh just to get started naming a few things that Clinton had no possible part in..
The problem is in office, not in retirement!
Play the blame game? That's the way you right wingers approach everything that considers what this disgraceful administration has done, "blame Clinton" instead of admit the facts.
NO!
Clinton didn't pick an unnecessary fight with Iraq over the objections of the CIA and the Pentagon.
Clinton didn't insult and openly dare the Koreans to refuse to follow up on the agreements they were living up to before dubya decided to threaten them and blame his own failures on them.
BUSH LIED IN ORDER TO INVADE A PEACEFUL ARAB COUNTRY THAT WAS THE BEST DEFENSE WE HAD AGAINST AL QAEDA.
Get off blaming Clinton and realize it is a true embarrassment and a serious danger we have in the White House.
Can you not mention anything without attacking Clinton and blaming him?
Don't accuse me of playing the blame game, it is you!
Posted by bdgee on :
War in Afganistan was necessary and moral..
Invading Iraq on trumpted up charges is a sin.
A greater sin is we failed to succeed in Afganistan because of invading Iraq.
Worse, the invasion of Iraq turned the world against us and united the Moslem world with Ben Laden.
Posted by Griffon on :
"Clinton didn't pick an unnecessary fight with Iraq over the objections of the CIA and the Pentagon."
You're right Clinton said 400,000 Iraqis that were killed by Saddam weren't enough to justify ending his reign. No Clinton just let the genocide in Rwanda happen. His own staff person Warren Christopher said let the Rwandans die.
"Don't accuse me of playing the blame game, it is you!"
Funny Bdgee listen to your own words:
"It is Bush that has brought us this mess in the middle east." I'm sure you weren't blaming there. And incorrectly I might add.
No it isn't it's the failed policy of 60 years finally come to roost. It's the pillaging of the Middle EAst in 300 years of colonial rule followed by the neo-colonialism of Cold War politics.
Posted by Griffon on :
Cash said: "im not as worried about problems that other countries have. im more worried about domestic issues. we spend more time and more money on other countries that have nothing to offer us in return. too much quid pro quo"
I would like to agree Cash, but 9/11 is the case where problems abroad hit us at home. The documents I cited above demonstrate that the US has engaged in entangling alliances for the good of the world community because it is in our national interest to begin to undo the hundreds of yers of greed in colonial rule. We fought a Cold War in which we left some barbarous leaders behind, it is our responsibility as a partner in the world to do what is right: end genocide and ethnic cleansing.
"if we were to do the right thing all the time as you say then we should have troops all over africa because there is daily slaughter and genocide over there. not too many people REALLY know what kinds of things are going on. they are much much worse than saddam."
Now you and I agree thoroughly. I favored buying Saddam off and turning the saved money into an effort to forgive debt, fix hospitals, build schools, universities and infrastructure around Africa, while the colonial powers that pillaged Africa convinced those dictators to leave either by purchase or force, then we could have dramatically increased stability throughout the region and beyond.
Could you agree that the best way we can honor our troops service is to find diplomatic ways to never have to commit them to combat? That means letting diplomacy and indigenous cultural development gradually eliminate the need for war? Can you agree that even in the midst of war, NGOs must begin the work of reconstruction, as Iran's money to Hezbollah did for recruiting Palestinians to Iran's side. How's that sound?
Posted by Griffon on :
"If Clinton were, as you want to assert, affraid to meet directly with an enemy, we would still to this day be sitting on the sidelines and watching the terrible genocide in Bosnia."
Bdgee, I have consistently said, Clinton reserved his fight over genocide for Bosnia where the people looked more like us. He chose to stay away from defending people of color. Go back and look my friend, I said Clinton got involved in the former Yugoslavia, but in places where mere skin pigmentation was different he chose not to.
"Rather than rehash Somalia (so that you can go to bashing Clinbton again to hide from the fact that this is Bush's mess and his alone), lets talk instead of the precedent set of turning tail and running in Lebanon by one of your "oh so wise" republican heros."
I already criticized Reagan for that friend, as to your denial of the significance of Somalia, I think the families of 18 US soldiers and millions of Africans will never forget its significnce. Remember Bdgee: "Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it."
Posted by Griffon on :
"You are talking to the wrong person to try and use the shock treatment in words, drop by a VA or military hospital if you want a real shock treatment"
As a pastor, Iwish, I get to the VA hospital just about weekly. I see people in recovering from all manner of injuries from the past and the present conflicts. I have funerals at times on military cemeteries. I saw those hecklers of our soldiers' funerals at one of the services I did.
"I hope there would be more of a reason to stay in a war than what can happen after we leave."
Yes, Clinton said that in Somalia, genocide resulted in Rwanda and ethnic cleansing in Sudan. Best not reflect on the consequences of our actions? It's easy to say, we'll just leave and everything will work itself out. Americans have a reputation for that after Somalia. The test of our fiber, of our metal, is do we stay to stabilize the region? What we also have a repuration for is not learning from our past. It's a real problem in our system of governance.
The side out of power wants to forget the very reasons they lost, the party in power wants to accentuate the positive. Too bad there aren't more apolitical people who are willing to look at all of history, the good and the bad of the present and to offer ideas about the future. It makes for fun discussion.
Posted by Griffon on :
Cash, I just saw upon re-reading that you suggest a year timeline. That has excellent potential and I sincerely pray every day and night, in VA hospitals and in watches of the night, that stability can be achieved by then. I also think a timeline is necessary to give this tottering Iraqi government a kind of ultimatum to get their act together.
Ultimately, as we have both been to Iraq though for different reasons, and my two cousins re-upped to return to Iraq because they see a light at the end of the tunnel where coalition forces will leave with dignity and high honor. For them it was not about WMDs, it was about finishing what we started in eliminating Saddam and dealing with the human rights issues.
I can appreciate your battle-weary sentiment, you have fought and faced the specter of death and you feel the Iraqi people must take over. I would agree, as far as that goes, but are the Iraqi people equipped for that eventuality? If they are not, then everything our troops are struggling, and in reality at times dying, for will be lost and we will eventually find ourselves going back to the Middle East to fight, future generations of our children will die in a war that will go on for decades.
Leaving before contending with the situation on the ground now means factional fighting, no governmental structure and the rise of another dictator. Have we not placed enough brutal leaders on the Middle Eastern thrones? Would you suggest that we abandon the mess we created? If so then WE are like the sinner about whom the gospel musician sings:
No hiding place, down here No hiding place There's no hiding place Down here No hiding place And they went to the rock to hide their face But the rock cried out No hiding place There's no hiding place Down here And the sinners are gonna be running At the knowledge of their fate They'll run to the rocks and the mountains But their prayers will be too late They forgot about Jesus Not knowing the end was near At the end they'll try to find a hiding place When it comes their time to die
No hiding place in the mountains No hiding place in the waters No hiding place Down here No hiding place And they went to the rock to hide their face But the rock cried out No hiding place There's no hiding place Down here
Can't you see old gambler running Saying 'Lord, save my soul' Saying 'Lord, Lord, have mercy, won't you save my soul' Saying 'Lord, Lord, have mercy, won't you save my soul'
No hiding place, down here No hiding place There's no hiding place Down here Yeah I went to the rock to hide my face But the rock cried out No hiding place There's no hiding place Down here
Leaving Iraq now is irresponsible; as irresponsible as having no exit strategy, but your year timeline has potential. One big concern though. If as I hear some people on these threads suggest (Glass, Tex, Bdgee, Sunnyside, Dustoff), Iran is next, then should we leave an Iraq that is otherwise vulnerable to Iran's plan? Given that Iran vowed today that Israel has signed its own death sentence, how do we respond to that threat? Do we get out of the way?
As I said, I respect your battle-weariness; I just believe leaving now creates the environment that means our future generations will face the same battle weary sentiments. The job should have been finished in 1991, but Russia and China threatened to intervene if Saddy was toppled. At the time three of my cousins were in Desert Storm and every one of them wondered how we just let Saddam keep his office. And as we sent one cousin off a couple months ago we growled about inept leadership that can't articulate a vision of what the end is.
Now Israel sits engaged on two fronts with a huge bully in Iran threatening an attack and Syria amping its Saddam provided weapons for potential attack. Tell me, what would the situation be if the coalition had not dealt with Afghanistan and Iraq?
Had we simply bought Saddam off, it would have been cheaper than this war. Had we bought him off, Iraq would be a stable nation right now. Perhaps we could have had an ally to stand against Iran's threats against Israel. Or perhaps the same mess would have happened that we saw in another conglomerate nation: Yugoslavia. We will never know, but we can recognize the situation now and see abandoning Iraq now means sacrificing Israel on the altar as well.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
I don't see how you can walk through those hospitals and go to funerals and console these soldiers and families and yet on the other hand feel that we need to have more American soldiers killed and injured to fight a war for what ever reason you think is right. Do you express your opinion when you talk to these soldiers and their families? I have not been around many pastors maybe there is a reason for that, just to let you know i could not turn the other cheek if i saw these jerks show up to try and put down our dead soldiers at a military funeral. You are better off discussing this issue with someone else you might have a lot better luck, when i see these soldiers that have been injured in the Iraq war it makes me sick what a waste, we are suppose to learn from our mistakes(Vietnam) to many other issues involved and saving human life is not the reason for this war especially at this point. I wish we could stop all the bad things that are being done in this world but our population is not big enough to fight all those wars we will have no youth left and you know there is no way most of these politicians or their families are going to lose their blood for the cause.
Posted by john wayne on :
IWISH- You ever get out to Dodger games? Man they are struggling this year.
Posted by Griffon on :
"I don't see how you can walk through those hospitals and go to funerals and console these soldiers and families and yet on the other hand feel that we need to have more American soldiers killed and injured to fight a war for what ever reason you think is right."
Is an American life more valuable than an Iraqi life?
"Do you express your opinion when you talk to these soldiers and their families? I have not been around many pastors maybe there is a reason for that, just to let you know i could not turn the other cheek if i saw these jerks show up to try and put down our dead soldiers at a military funeral."
Iwish, I can hear in your good words the pain this evil situation is causing you. How close a personal connection do you have to the war? I have buried one close friend and worked with a dozen or so wounded soldiers. You are exactly right about our leaders and their children/grandchildren.
I usually let families do the talking because it's not about me and my opinions. In fact, I consider it malpractice to discuss my political views with families I minister to in any setting. When they speak about the war, I generally hear a mixture of anger and resolution about finishing the job we started. The people I have worked with that have been in either Gulf War understood the mission in their own terms so to say they would agree with the administration's reasons would not be true. Neither did I agree with Bush's decision.
In funerals, I had the help of some biker dudes that kept those protesters about a block away, but we are being sued over the event for violating free speech rights. It will be interesting to see how this all comes out. But again in funerals, I talk about sacrifice, "No greater love has a person than that they would lay down their life for another." I talk about justice and the day when swords will be beat into plowshares and there will be no more war.
"I wish we could stop all the bad things that are being done in this world but our population is not big enough to fight all those wars"
Absolutely agreed, nor should we resort to war as our foreign policy. That is what I have consistently criticized Bush for. I am working to find an alternative to war that may cost as much but doesn't involve killing. This war exists and we must work for its ending, but not at the expense of the Iraqi and the Israeli people. My reason for staying is not to support war, corporations or Bush, but because to leave now is to surrender Iraq and Israel to Iran. That would mean more deaths of American youths.
"when i see these soldiers that have been injured in the Iraq war it makes me sick what a waste"
I agree, war is always sin, but so was the waste of 1,400,000 Iraqis, Iranians, Kuwaitis and Sauds under Saddam Hussein. I respect your principled position and I'm grateful that you express your ideas with such grace. But we still have to take responsibility, as do all the colonial and Cold War powers for the dictators we have created.
What we have done in third world countries, Iwish, is to steal their goods, cause ethnic and religious strife and then leave them poor, often uneducated and without the means to administer a country. 32,000 children die every day from hunger, one every 2.3 seconds. We as the "first world" failed them because we have the means but we lack the will to provide food if there's no money in it.
In Rwanda, Hutu and Tutsi did not have racial tensions, were not aware of two different ethnicities. But to administrate the population, the Belgian colonial authorities started to measure noses to tell them who was what ethnicity. In short, there really was no ethnic difference; the Belgians made it up to play one side against the other. That arrogant act led to genocidal retribution over the last few decades. In 1994, when the biggest one of all came up, after Clinton pulled troops from Somalia, no one intervened. The Canadian General pleaded for 5000 more troops because those armed Western troops could have prevented the war in his opinion. Instead, 800,000 people died.
I agree with you that war is absolutely evil, war is absolutely sin. War is a consequence of broken-ness of human sin in the world. I do not believe it is right, I do not believe it is just. But even the Bible warns us that because we are sinful, war will happen because evil leaders will exist. My prefered way to deal with them is to buy them into exile with no right of return and try them after they are dead. Over and over I have said that, believed it and lived it.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
John Wayne,
I lost most of my interest in the Dodgers and the Angels when they started trading most of their veteran players away. I am still mad at the Dodgers because they traded Mike Piazza away many years ago, i am more of a Mariner fan. Not to get to much off the topic but today i saw the funniest thing at the Beach Pier, A bull dog skateboarding, he stands on the board with 3 legs and pushes with his other leg, i would put this dog against any good human skateboarder.
Griffon,
When you look at the American casualties for Iraq you can add 100,000's maybe millions to the list of injuries that will be shown.
Posted by john wayne on :
Yeah. And add Paul Loduca to that list. Oh for the days of Tommy. Beltre still struggling for the M's? Sounds like your skateboarder dog has me beat. Wish I could have seen it.
Posted by Griffon on :
"When you look at the American casualties for Iraq you can add 100,000's maybe millions to the list of injuries that will be shown."
Yes, Iwish, it is absolutely terrible and inexcusable but I have to ask you, what of the Iraqis that died as a result of sanctions? What about the 1.4 million that died as a result of Saddam's orders. Should their blood be silent to perpetuate Saddam's power? There are too many deaths of Iraqis, but not millions of Iraqis dead as a result of toppling Saddam.
Unfortunately, UN policy on Iraq kept Saddam in power as he authorized killing between 5000 and 6000 people every year. Human beings tortured and murdered. Look at what Saddam did to some of his own family. That on top of thousands of children dying for lack of incubators, neo-natal care and medicine.
Sanctions were never going to be lifted while Saddam was in power and look at these reports on the suffering caused by sanctions:
Now with all of that, we know those sanctions were never going to be lifted. After all we have such a long memory we won't lift sanctions on Cuba and they are about as impotent as a mollusk. So the concern I have with being inactive in the face of those things is this: how many Iraqis must die under unending sanctions before it's worth removing Saddam from power?
My idea to remove Saddam was to bribe him to go into exile. See I am caught between two ethical negatives: war and genocide. As a pastor I am opposed to all war, all violence, and all genocide. I mean consider this: in World War II, imagine if we had decided, war is more expensive than genocide, so let's just let genocide go on.
There is no "good" answer, only necessity. That war was necessary. In the case of Saddam Hussein, sanctions and genocide, there is a potential "good" answer and I have suggested it, in the bribe. Dirty way of doing things but it would have saved lives. That option was not taken. I was opposed to war, but I am also opposed to genocide. There was no good answer. There can be no good war. The only thing good about war is its ending, that's the plain, simple fact.
I commend your desire for bringing the troops home! As I said earlier, the best way to honor our troops is to find diplomatic ways to build peace so they never have to be placed in hostile territory again. Can we agree on that? Can we agree that our goal in war and in peace is to bring the troops home safe and sound? Can we agree that the lack of an exit strategy, lack of clear, measureable objectives, was a serious mistake on the part of this administration?
Then if we can agree on those three premises, is it possible (just possible) that coming up with an exit strategy and dealing with stability in the Middle East now offers a better hope that future generations will not be committed to such a war, in such a place again? My earnest hope and prayer is that we leave in such a way this time that American troops never have to be committed in such a way again. As signatores of the Convention on Genocide, to have that assurance we need to enforce the convention even when other countries cower from the world community's responsibility. I want an end to war everywhere, the Biblical principle: beat swords into plows; love God and love your neighbor. I do not want to be an idyllic illusion we have only in the US as brutality is waged elsewhere. My fear is our too soon withdrawl will lead to us going back into the theater in 6 months to stop renewed genocide, more deaths on all sides and a mauled Israel thrown in for extra measure.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
To the Bush Administration? Apparently so. They don't even bother to keep an accurate count of Iraqi deaths.
quote:Originally posted by Griffon: Is an American life more valuable than an Iraqi life?
[ July 29, 2006, 04:39: Message edited by: Gordon Bennett ]
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Amen to that.
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: War in Afganistan was necessary and moral..
Invading Iraq on trumpted up charges is a sin.
A greater sin is we failed to succeed in Afganistan because of invading Iraq.
Worse, the invasion of Iraq turned the world against us and united the Moslem world with Ben Laden.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by Griffon: Cash said: "im not as worried about problems that other countries have. im more worried about domestic issues. we spend more time and more money on other countries that have nothing to offer us in return. too much quid pro quo"
I would like to agree Cash, but 9/11 is the case where problems abroad hit us at home. The documents I cited above demonstrate that the US has engaged in entangling alliances for the good of the world community because it is in our national interest to begin to undo the hundreds of yers of greed in colonial rule. We fought a Cold War in which we left some barbarous leaders behind, it is our responsibility as a partner in the world to do what is right: end genocide and ethnic cleansing.
"if we were to do the right thing all the time as you say then we should have troops all over africa because there is daily slaughter and genocide over there. not too many people REALLY know what kinds of things are going on. they are much much worse than saddam."
Now you and I agree thoroughly. I favored buying Saddam off and turning the saved money into an effort to forgive debt, fix hospitals, build schools, universities and infrastructure around Africa, while the colonial powers that pillaged Africa convinced those dictators to leave either by purchase or force, then we could have dramatically increased stability throughout the region and beyond.
Could you agree that the best way we can honor our troops service is to find diplomatic ways to never have to commit them to combat? That means letting diplomacy and indigenous cultural development gradually eliminate the need for war? Can you agree that even in the midst of war, NGOs must begin the work of reconstruction, as Iran's money to Hezbollah did for recruiting Palestinians to Iran's side. How's that sound?
griffon you say you are a pastor or involved in the church so i will stray off subject here.
let me quote something for you from the bible: "there will be wars and rumors of wars"
sound familiar? if you agree with revelation then you will see what is unfolding before your very eyes. there is no solution to these wars..it is...inevitable. we are seeing signs of the times. the exodus of the jews from russia to israel recently speaks mass volumes. am i saying the world will end tomorrow? no of course not..events must take place and be carried out.
there is no fix to this...we are fighting an enemy who will never quit. islamic soldiers are fighting for a cause that makes them dangerous in battle. a man who is in combat and feels if he dies he goes to heaven with 7 virgins is someone you should not be weak against. the war in iraq will never end. what was bush thinking? did he think that once we took over there would never be resistance? iraq is a lost cause. it was amazing where i was when i was there....i was at a post on the banks of the euphratese river. a piece of land rich in history. it truly is...holy land.
i asked my chaplain if i could be baptized in the euphratese but he reminded me as i knew that where we were a ceremony like that is asking for a insurgent sniper to have the time of his life.
its ok..there is so much raw sewage now in that river i saved myself from some getting sick.
so anyway....not to be a pessimist but this is what it is and its not going to get better.
look at it..
1. iraq 2. israel and the fight they have 3. north korea going nutty 4. africa's genocide 5. china and the stregnthening of their military 6. i believe russia has serious instability 7. the U.N. and their ultimate global controll 8. the decomposing of americas culture and values
the list goes on and on......how do we come out from that? there is no magic wand...and many here on this board who do not believe in christianity (no offense) do not realize what is now going on.
F*** it and pull the trigger, thats how you stay alive
Posted by glassman on :
since this thread seems to be a feeble attempt to justify invading Iraq by saying regime change was needed? let me remind you that regime change was not acceptable as a sole reason to the American people before nor is it after....
this is a portion of:
Interview with Vice-President Dick Cheney, NBC, "Meet the Press," Transcript for March 16, 2003.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MR. RUSSERT: The Los Angeles Times wrote an editorial about the administration and its rationale for war. And let me read it to you and give you a chance to respond: “The Bush administration’s months of attempts to justify quick military action against Iraq have been confusing and unfocused. It kept giving different reasons for invasion. First, it was to disarm Hussein and get him out. Then, as allies got nervous about outside nations deciding ‘regime change,’ the administration for a while rightly stressed disarmament only. Next, the administration was talking about ‘nation-building’ and using Iraq as the cornerstone of creating democracy in the Arab/Muslim world. And that would probably mean U.S. occupation of Iraq for some unspecified time, at open-ended cost. Then, another tactic: The administration tried mightily, and failed, to show a connection between Hussein and the 9/11 perpetrators, Al Qaeda. Had there been real evidence that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, Americans would have lined up in support of retaliation.”
What do you think is the most important rationale for going to war with Iraq?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think I’ve just given it, Tim, in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons.
MR. RUSSERT: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree, yes. And you’ll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community disagree. Let’s talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We’ve got, again, a long record here. It’s not as though this is a fresh issue. In the late ’70s, Saddam Hussein acquired nuclear reactors from the French. 1981, the Israelis took out the Osirak reactor and stopped his nuclear weapons development at the time. Throughout the ’80s, he mounted a new effort. I was told when I was defense secretary before the Gulf War that he was eight to 10 years away from a nuclear weapon. And we found out after the Gulf War that he was within one or two years of having a nuclear weapon because he had a massive effort under way that involved four or five different technologies for enriching uranium to produce fissile material.
We know that based on intelligence that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of issue, especially where Iraq’s concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don’t have any reason to believe they’re any more valid this time than they’ve been in the past.
"And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons" so?he says right here that he believed sadam had nukes.... nah he was just mistaken...even tho nobody has ever shown any type of evidence to support THAT statement....
i say that Dubya didn't even know Cheney set all this up... Dubya should have known...so he's guilty of not doing his DD, but Cheney is the driving force behind the bad intel IMO...
MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.
simply amazing isn't it...
Posted by glassman on :
MR. RUSSERT: Every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year involvement.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I can’t say that, Tim. There are estimates out there. It’s important, though, to recognize that we’ve got a different set of circumstances than we’ve had in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan you’ve got a nation without significant resources. In Iraq you’ve got a nation that’s got the second-largest oil reserves in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia. It will generate billions of dollars a year in cash flow if they get back to their production of roughly three million barrels of oil a day, in the relatively near future. And that flow of resources, obviously, belongs to the Iraqi people, needs to be put to use by the Iraqi people for the Iraqi people and that will be one of our major objectives.
unbelievable....
Posted by Griffon on :
"since this thread seems to be a feeble attempt"
Not at all feeble because you are mistaken about the intent. It is a thread to ask why the Democratic policies supported and now were willing to accept genocide as Warren Christopher said in May 1994.
"to justify invading Iraq by saying regime change was needed?"
Again you proceed from a false assumption, as that was not why the thread started. Since I have already demonstrated I do not support Bush, suggesting regime change was needed has been my agenda since 1988 when Saddam gased Kurds. Do you believe we should obey the treaties we signed Glass? In the face of an already posted UN Convention on Genocide of which we are signatores, Articles 2-7 lay out the responsibility of every signatore to end genocide.
If you believe in obeying the treaties we sign, we were compelled in Iraq in 1988 and before if you follow other treaties, Rwanda in 1994, and Sudan by 1995. That is if you believe we are bound by treaty. Now if you believe we can ignore our treaties, then you are in the same boat our current president is with his violating international law at GITMO.
See, it doesn't work both ways. You don't get to say we can ignore international treaties when it comes to genocide, but the president should be held accountable for GITMO because of international treaty. What you are trying to apply is a logical inconsistency that sounds an awful lot like political opportunism. My point is the US is engaged in entangling alliances that make us responsible for ending genocidal regimes within the broader world community and we are also bound to demand an end to the illegal practices at GITMO. There is a consistency to that.
Yet Warren Christopher was perfectly willing to let Rwandans die as the representative of his administration. I affirmed that most were not overtly racist but their policies in combatting racism were hamstringed by the Clinton Administration's willingness to let Africans die, again people of color, as long as Americans don't have to.
So once again I ask you Glass, why was that statement made by the Democratic official? I mean when it was a European tribe under attack, Clinton had time, but not for people of color. That is what this thread is about. Why is it the Democratic leadership endorses policies that do not prevent genocide in regions of the world where persons of color live?
As to the need for regime change in Iraq, which under the UN Convention on Genocide, we were bound to effect after 1988 gasing of Kurds, and later with the draining of the marshland to get rid of the Marsh Arabs. It is an entangling alliance that we are obliged to, period.
But consider this: would it even have been considered if Bill Clinton had done his job? UBL on tape in Afghanistan, UBL in Sudan, UBL in Yemen all under Bill Clinton. Two towers fell, thousands of Americans died and conspiracy theorists are dying to talk about conspiracies, how about the reality Clinton had reasonable opportunities to kill or capture UBL before GB was even president and passed them by.
My point in this thread which is yet to be refuted is that Democratic foreign policy, and platform up to the present, is Euro-centric avoiding the harsh realities of the larger world. Remember Glass, "All it takes for evil to flourish, is for good people to sit by and do nothing."
Now I know, you have argued before, you think Saddam was a misunderstood person. Think about it Glass, for your position on regime change to be correct, you have to say those 88,000 or so Kurds deserved what they got. For Saddam to be leader of a peaceful Iraq, you have to ignore 1980-1988, 1991, 1994, 1998. Out of what a nearly 30 year reign, 12 years he had major pogroms. And Carter got the ball rolling by giving the green light to invade Iran.
Posted by glassman on :
Remember Glass, "All it takes for evil to flourish, is for good people to sit by and do nothing."
remember griffo.... your argument is a very good argument to take over the whole third world on "moral grounds".... you are preaching colonialism...it's the only way to "control" all those bad people
your party line is disingenuous...the only way there will be any justice served to the people that have perpetrated the current war is if democrats take control of the house and senate... you are fighting hard to try to keep that from happening...
sad... a preacherman claiming to seek justice by defending liars and cheats....
Posted by glassman on :
Now I know, you have argued before, you think Saddam was a misunderstood person.
this is crapola...
i have posted that sadam is as much a product of his society as his society is a product of him.... you on the other hand want to blame US for him, and it seems that you want to blame the democrats the most which is dumb IMO... he was in power before we started to help him fight our ENEMY Iran...
and Carter (maybe)gave a greeen light, BUT the GOP sent him money and guns and all kinds of other nice toys to go kill OUR ENEMY....
Posted by john wayne on :
and Carter (maybe)gave a greeen light, BUT the GOP sent him money and guns and all kinds of other nice toys to go kill OUR ENEMY....
Thank you for admitting that Glassman.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by john wayne: and Carter (maybe)gave a greeen light, BUT the GOP sent him money and guns and all kinds of other nice toys to go kill OUR ENEMY....
Thank you for admitting that Glassman.
your welcome...
why is that such a big deal...
you still think it's about party don't you? you're hopeless...
Posted by Griffon on :
I support liars? Reply to this:
"Again you proceed from a false assumption, as that was not why the thread started. Since I have already demonstrated I do not support Bush, suggesting regime change was needed has been my agenda since 1988 when Saddam gased Kurds. Do you believe we should obey the treaties we signed Glass? In the face of an already posted UN Convention on Genocide of which we are signatores, Articles 2-7 lay out the responsibility of every signatore to end genocide.
If you believe in obeying the treaties we sign, we were compelled in Iraq in 1988 and before if you follow other treaties, Rwanda in 1994, and Sudan by 1995. That is if you believe we are bound by treaty. Now if you believe we can ignore our treaties, then you are in the same boat our current president is with his violating international law at GITMO.
See, it doesn't work both ways. You don't get to say we can ignore international treaties when it comes to genocide, but the president should be held accountable for GITMO because of international treaty. What you are trying to apply is a logical inconsistency that sounds an awful lot like political opportunism. My point is the US is engaged in entangling alliances that make us responsible for ending genocidal regimes within the broader world community and we are also bound to demand an end to the illegal practices at GITMO. There is a consistency to that."
Where is the support for our present administration?
Posted by john wayne on :
Here's a good consipracy theory for you Glassman. Sink your teeth into this one.
The thinking (using the term loosely) of the left's lunatic-fringe is now THE conventional wisdom amongst the Democrats. And who in the Democratic party has the cojones to counter it?
Or maybe that's all part of a master conspiracy, err... plan hatched long ago to manufacture a "moderate" savior for 2008. Like for example, Hillary!
The plan was, no doubt, hatched at a secret meeting in Mena, Arkansas. And, Vince Foster knew about it and was going to blow the lid on it, so he had to commit "suicide". And then there were some Arkansas State Troopers that were flying to Europe on a 747 to reveal the truth in a secure, undisclosed location, so their plane had to be shot down with a missile.
Posted by bdgee on :
More far far right wing BS about the Clintons to avoid talking about the real problem.
Our country has been taken over by facist and there are Party line fools that want that to be the case.
Posted by Griffon on :
"More far far right wing BS about the Clintons to avoid talking about the real problem."
I see in your response bdgee that d' Nile ain't just a river in Egypt.
Bdge what was it you said about my opinion about GITMO?
Read the post above, better yet I'll post it here:
"then you are in the same boat our current president is with his violating international law at GITMO.
See, it doesn't work both ways. You don't get to say we can ignore international treaties when it comes to genocide, but the president should be held accountable for GITMO because of international treaty"
I mean it doesn't get more apparent I am comparing the expectation on one president and another: I criticize Clinton for allowing genocide and Bush for allowing GITMO, citing both actions as violations of international law. Where's the blame I am calling for equal protection under the law.
Posted by bdgee on :
You are a hypocrite is all you are saying.
You criticise Clinton mostly about crap you imagine and generally to avoid the truth about Bush and his bunch of facist.
Posted by john wayne on :
Wow Bdgee you really got blown out of the water on that one. If you had done just a little bit of homework you could have found his stance on GITMO.
Posted by Griffon on :
Yes the suggestion that I am a hypocrite, translates "Griffon caught Bdgee with his facts off." It's okay, it happens to the best of us, BG, no harm, no foul.
Posted by glassman on :
griffon.....if your stance on Gitmo is that Bush is war criminal then POST it as a TOPIC... don't just bury it in the middle of a long thread.. put your money where your mouth is....
i am unfamiliar with a UN convention that says we will invade other countries because we see bad things happening...
i have never said i am for genocide..
BUT?
i will once again tell you that there are very practical problems to overcome in preventing /capturing warcriminals and genocidal maniacs... as we are seeing right now in Iraq...
i am not UNWILLING... i am practical...
you keep harping about one statement made by one Democrat... i recently heard Clinton say he considers it one of his biggest mistakes... BUT? we had just had a little problem in Somalia about that time, and politically? it wouldn't have worked...
why not talk about how Reagan didn't invade Iran for taking our hostages and restoring order there? i was ready to go do that... it was criminal... why didn't he bring them to justice? you are being hypocritical by posting only one topic like this..
calling dems suporters of genocide is extraordinarliy inflammatory... go ahead... do it.... balance it out... is Bush a war criminal? or just a little bit "misguided" about gitmo?
Posted by Griffon on :
"put your money where your mouth is...."
I did plenty on several occasions. Check the number of posts I made on the topic.
"i will once again tell you that there are very practical problems to overcome in preventing /capturing warcriminals and genocidal maniacs... as we are seeing right now in Iraq..."
it took time but we captured many in Rwanda and in the former Yugoslavia. And certainly of WW2 war criminals. The problems are primarily in the will. See my point Glass is that war was not the only way this could have happened. You are helping me make the case. I am saying there were ways to get Saddam out without war.
"you keep harping about one statement made by one Democrat... i recently heard Clinton say he considers it one of his biggest mistakes... BUT? we had just had a little problem in Somalia about that time, and politically? it wouldn't have worked..."
Somalia was in October/November 1993, because we pulled out, the leaders in Rwanda (from the Frontline report) were emboldened and enlarged their operation. April 1994 the killing began, May not just any Democrat, but our Ambassador to the UN, the spokesperson for the US to the world community is overheard saying let Rwandans die. The request for more troops is voted down. 800,000 people die. I weep to even write that. Six months later Sudan's "insurgency" begins killing in Darfur and Southern Sudan. To date 1.2 million die and the world community sits by and wrings their hands. For Bill Clinton to say he was sorry in front of the Rwandan people in 1998 was a step, but we need to commit ourselves to never let it happen again.
"why not talk about how Reagan didn't invade Iran for taking our hostages and restoring order there? i was ready to go do that... it was criminal... why didn't he bring them to justice? you are being hypocritical by posting only one topic like this.."
Where was the genocide in Iran (that is the threshold I set for this thread) in Reagan's despicable action? Wrong, I think so, but Carter would not have agreed with you and I.
"calling dems suporters of genocide is extraordinarliy inflammatory..."
There policies have enabled genocide, is that a lie? Look, you may notice genocide evokes strong passions in me, to a fault. It so often happens to the least, the lost and the lonely. But you have to understand, I sponsor several children because every time I see those faces on TV I have to do something. Maybe my crusade is to draw attention to those "voiceless" people, the starving, the naked and the dying and challenge us to do better.
And I hear your just complaint, there are many that need help right here in the US. You are right, but I can drive to where they are, carry food and medicine. I can teach and empower them. I can and do lobby my congress-people. In short, I can do things for those close at hand, even across this land all the time. And the need is soooooo much greater over-seas. I just want the children to have a chance at life however they choose to live it.
"is Bush a war criminal? or just a little bit "misguided" about gitmo?"
More than misguided and I think a tribunal would have to determine the war criminal part, but at least the case could be presented.
"politically? it wouldn't have worked..."
That is the cost to sit in the big chair Glass. To lead is to sometimes have to make horrible decisions. Churchill in WWII allowed English citizens to be bombed and killed to preserve the secret of Ultra. Being a leader, sitting in the Oval Office, means doing what is right and getting crucified for it politically. I would never want to be in that office on that side of the desk, but for Bill Clinton that's all he ever wanted. Jesus once said, "If you want to teach (lead?) a much higher standard is expected of you." And I guess that is how our last several leaders have disappointed me. More people died at the hands of their own governments in the last century than in all the wars of history.
Posted by glassman on :
See my point Glass is that war was not the only way this could have happened. You are helping me make the case. I am saying there were ways to get Saddam out without war.
and i made the same point here over and over during the 04 campaign... you shoulda seen the heat i took....
i had five and six people at a time tryin' to tear chunks outa me here.... called me all kinds of things worse than democrat too...
funny tho, calling me a dem pisses me off more...
mostly cuz i am alot of those other things, but i'm not a democrat...
Posted by Griffon on :
"and i made the same point here over and over during the 04 campaign...you shoulda seen the heat i took...."
All people who try to navigate the waters of war, terror and genocide, issues like that evoke strong passions. Because of my understanding, I have been called fascist, communist and much worse. I had phone call threats. You should not have received angry heat from people, but broken humanity can be very cruel.
In our debates we practice to boil down our ideas to present in the public square Glass. This is something of a crucible to forge strong ideas to contribute to the public debate. One thing I learned, which I had underestimated, was how my words do not look on the thread the way I mean them. I think I am getting the hang of that better now.
I have to turn in, but I look forward to more vigorous debate possibly tomorrow after church but most likely in the evening.
Posted by glassman on :
was how my words do not look on the thread the way I mean them
you have a few minutes edit, and you can preview too..but i know what you mean..i often have to rewrite... especially when in a hurry
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Jesus: "F*** it and pull the trigger, thats how you stay alive."
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: F*** it and pull the trigger, thats how you stay alive
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Griffon,
Your theory for war does not seem to get a lot of support on this board from what i see. If you were giving this post as a sermon at your church and many of us here were your audience you might have a empty house. To me these Iraq's you are talking about saving are the same people that watch and hide while the bad guys kill Americans and others. If they wanted to stop what's going on there they can step forward and defend it themselves, if they are not doing it by now then we as a nation are there forever. The word civilian is always used so loosely since Vietnam. We as Americans have been so conditioned to this word which seems to take on the meaning good people, it tends to lean more to women and children to really get are sympathy, the enemy knows this and uses this to their advantage. I have always wondered what age range do we consider children i am guessing up to 18 years old . The enemy uses these civilians as cover and helps get their support by different methods to make sure they get their job done. We are not going to change that, in fact the enemy the soldiers are fighting right now will only increase their hold because not enough Iraq's appear to care enough to change this. The only way we might change the course of this war the way its going now would be to change are tactics and take the tactics the enemy uses and you know a lot of Americans would not allow that.
Here is a question for you, Does the big business of religion grow during war times? It appears that it is a time when religious individuals can access people they might not get to if there was not a war, they say more more wars are fought over religion and politics than anything else, it appears all the wars are fought over these issues i could be wrong on that.
Posted by bdgee on :
Griffon is a hypocrite is not a suggestion, it is a fact based on Griffon's never ending bashing of Clinton for exactly those things he supports Reagan and Bushes for.
It wasn't Clinton that taught our military it was ok to chicken out and turn tail and run from terrorist, it was Reagan in Lebanon.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
so did CMKX ever find diamonds? lol
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
you know sometimes you need to ask yourself....what would you do? if you were in iraq and there was an occupying country there would you not take up arms? if mexico invaded the states would you not grab a weapon and hold your ground? look at israel...they are fighting for their life because they have a whole region that wants to destroy them. i dont blame israel at all...and i dont blame the palestinians for fighting back either. regardless of who is right and wrong you have to admit if you were in any of their shoes you would be doing the same thing. thats just the way it is.
Posted by Griffon on :
"Does the big business of religion grow during war times?"
Since religion is not business, this is an irrelevant question. However, business
"If you were giving this post as a sermon at your church and many of us here were your audience you might have a empty house."
Do you mean the part where I say we could have found alternative ways to deal with Saddam and prevent this war in the first place? Yes, preaching that we must find alternative paths to peace has often been an unpopular message. You see the business world hates us preachers gettin' uppity like that. Or the preaching no more genocide? Yes that too is unpopular preaching. Teaching another path to peace than the sword...yes after 9/11 that too is unpopular, but thoroughly Biblical.
Bdgee said: "It wasn't Clinton that taught our military it was ok to chicken out and turn tail and run from terrorist, it was Reagan in Lebanon."
Follow the Blackhawks Bdgee, they will help you understand. Follow the testimony at the Hague. Aside from your statement being less than true Bdgee, it wasn't Reagan that let 800,000 Rwandans die as his spokesperson at the UN said let them die. Or for that matter, it wasn't Reagan that let 1,200,000 Sudanese die saying, despite our signature on treaties of international law, "not in our national interest." When exactly did Reagan say that?
Bdgee said: "Griffon is a hypocrite is not a suggestion, it is a fact based on Griffon's never ending bashing of Clinton for exactly those things he supports Reagan and Bushes for"
Read my words again bdgee:
then you are in the same boat our current president is with his violating international law at GITMO.
See, it doesn't work both ways. You don't get to say we can ignore international treaties when it comes to genocide, but the president should be held accountable for GITMO because of international treaty"
"I mean it doesn't get more apparent I am comparing the expectation on one president and another: I criticize Clinton for allowing genocide and Bush for allowing GITMO, citing both actions as violations of international law. Where's the blame I am calling for equal protection under the law."
Where's the hypocricy? That was posted on this page of this thread from last night which was originally posted at least Friday night. Not sure how to make that more plain.
Posted by glassman on :
Since religion is not business,
eeehhhhh... gong sound....
religion is busines and politics all rolled into one....
faith should not be confused with religion....
any time two people get together?.......
Posted by glassman on :
some light reading...since you keep pounding this drum which is over 10 years old and irrelevant to todays crisis'...
Clinton meets Rwanda genocide survivors Bizimungu and Clinton Bizimungu with Clinton after his arrival Announces U.S. aid March 25, 1998
KIGALI, Rwanda (CNN) -- U.S. President Bill Clinton on Wednesday told Rwandans that the international community had failed to act to prevent the country's genocide in 1994, and he urged measures to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
"The international community must bear its share of responsibility for this tragedy," Clinton said in a speech at the airport of the Rwandan capital Kigali, where he met with the country's leaders and with survivors of the massacres.
i'll tell you what griffo...you are fool to think we had the power to "solve" this conflict.... this was part of a long term civil war...
Posted by Griffon on :
"any time two people get together?......."
Jesus said, "Wherever two or more are gathered in my name, I am with you."
Posted by glassman on :
so? it's still big business...
don't confuse faith with religion..
Pat Robertson does enough of that for US all...
Posted by Griffon on :
"irrelevant to todays crisis'..."
How can it be "irrelevant" when it's happening again in Sudan, when that intensified in 1995 and continues to this day? What were Clinton's words? Where is the call to a world response from Clinton or Bush recorded from 1995 to the present? Who was in office when the worst of it began? Clinton. Who has failed to deal with since he came to office? Bush.
More people die in Sudan daily than die in Iraq weekly, are they not both crises?
Posted by glassman on :
gee? Sudan needs our help NOW and Clinton is to blame... go drink some more koolaide
Posted by glassman on :
start a thread stating something equally controversial about Bush...
Posted by glassman on :
didn't think so...
i can only deduce that you are not the genuine article
Falwellian yeah that's it, Robertsonian... heeheee...
Posted by Griffon on :
"start a thread stating something equally controversial about Bush..."
Go back and look at my eschatology statements. Take a look at what I said about your four horsemen pic. Nuff said
Posted by bdgee on :
Griffon,
Along with being a hypocrite, you are a bore......a terribly windy bore too.
Posted by Griffon on :
bdgee, you need some new material. You lost the "hypocrite" thing. No evidence. Showed you plain and simple, said no harm no foul. Moved on. Why we keep revisiting it?
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
you know sometimes you need to ask yourself....what would you do? if you were in iraq and there was an occupying country there would you not take up arms? if mexico invaded the states would you not grab a weapon and hold your ground? look at israel...they are fighting for their life because they have a whole region that wants to destroy them. i dont blame israel at all...and i dont blame the palestinians for fighting back either. regardless of who is right and wrong you have to admit if you were in any of their shoes you would be doing the same thing. thats just the way it is.
CashCowMoo- Well said -------------------------------------------------
so? it's still big business...
don't confuse faith with religion..
Pat Robertson does enough of that for US all...
Glassman- Well said also.
-------------------------------------------------
Do you mean the part where I say we could have found alternative ways to deal with Saddam and prevent this war in the first place? Yes, preaching that we must find alternative paths to peace has often been an unpopular message. You see the business world hates us preachers getting' uppity like that. Or the preaching no more genocide? Yes that too is unpopular preaching. Teaching another path to peace than the sword...yes after 9/11 that too is unpopular, but thoroughly Biblical.
Griffon,
You write very good like so many other people on this board, i am always a little jealous of that. You seem to have misunderstood me because i have never made a comment on the issue that there might not have been a better way to solve the Iraq problem we will never know at this point, to me the important thing now is not what we might have done before going to war, but how to we save American lives and prevent more soldiers from going into combat in Iraq. You seem to be stuck on the idea that no one cares about genocide you are so wrong and believe me business people also care but what do we do put our troops everywhere in the world where we think this "might" happen we do not have enough people to do that, this is where your alternative plans we help. We need to get are troops out of Harms Way in Iraq because i doubt if our policy is going to change...thus the war is not going to change just more American casualties. When i made my statement about religion being a big business i did not mean it's bad its just big business and a some individuals have got very rich from it like any business. The thing that is very important to state here is that it is our responsibility to try and make sure that we pass on the mistakes we make in entering into these wars(Vietnam,Iraq) to try and prevent this from happening unless there is no other option. Americans supported this war when it started but many people were also warning that they did not want another Vietnam, if you recall from history we found excuse after excuse to stay in Vietnam until the end. It is going to be the responsibility of younger generation to try and stop the politicians from starting another war unless there is no other option, of course it did not seem to help this time. I hope this Iraq war will turn out to be worth all the American casualties but i really do not see that happening.
Posted by Griffon on :
I agree with most of what you say Iwish.
"You write very good like so many other people on this board, i am always a little jealous of that."
I do not deserve the above, because many times I do not adequately express myself and people misunderstand which causes huge discussions. You and I agree on one big issue: war is never good and should never be anything but a last resort.
Case in point: The focus on genocide is not that we need to be preventive in our application of force (as we thought we were in this war regarding WMDs), but we need to be responsive to genocide and responsive to UN Peacekeeper calls for help in the peace-keeping role.
"We need to get are troops out of Harms Way in Iraq because i doubt if our policy is going to change...thus the war is not going to change just more American casualties."
In the above articles, a similar suggestion was made at the UN about Rwanda following our departure from Somalia which was a precipitous event. The reduction, as opposed to increase of peace-keepers, led to the emboldening of the Hutu extremists. That continued though for 100 days as the Clinton Administration blocked action. That in turn emboldened the Sudanese and that situation is on-going. As the articles I present would suggest, I am not advocating US involvement in every conflict, but I ask my government not to obstruct UN action and in fact to demand the UN do something to end those actions. If the world community would stand up to these acts of genocide consistently, the cowards that might be tempted to abuse their power in such ways might be cowed into not beginning it and restricting themselves to their palaces.
My point is not making a political party statement but calling upon the US to live up to the promisory note engendered in the Convention on Genocide that we signed.
Iwish you state a very good case, with good reasons for bringing our troops home. And well spoken. My position is that we cannot do that without risking a similar fate for the minority Sunni or a three-way Civil War. I think we take different lessons from our experiences in Iraq and from history and that's okay. You and I disagree on methodology for bringing the troops home, but never let your voice be stifled, and never be intimidated by popularity or eloquence. The younger generation is not just the future as some "mature" adults will tell you: you are the NOW!
"I hope this Iraq war will turn out to be worth all the American casualties but i really do not see that happening."
You know, my point of contention with the administration is: how can we know if we succeeded or failed with no goals? I really feel like we set no objectives so measuring success is going to be hard. Maybe it could be argued that we are an interdictory force preventing Iran from running the board in the Middle East, but that was never a stated goal. But really isn't that what we should be told from the start?
See, I think the analogy between Iraq and Vietnam is only real on one part: there is no clear exit strategy, no measure of success. And honestly I think we are over there now because we had an inadequate exit strategy in Desert Storm, and we let too many cooks interpret the UN decision: Russia and China in particular who convinced us not to capture Saddam then. So at this point given the situation in Iran because of poor planning from the start, I think US forces are in place to restrain the rapracity of Ahminajad which was never a stated objective and should not even be on the table without another vote of Congress.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Griffon,
I do not know a lot about the UN. or politics but what i have read they are kind of one in the same, it would be great if the UN would get more involved to solve problems of the world. As far as the analogy between Vietnam and Iraq I feel from talking to veterans of both wars that they have a lot more similarities than just an exit strategy i draw my conclusion more from the soldiers that spent a lot of their time in combat. I will list a few things that i think are similar and i am sure someone will let me know if i am wrong. 1. Guerilla Wars 2.Hard to know the good guys from the bad guys even though they tell you they are the good guys. 3.Information is given from the good people to the bad people about American positions and activities. 4.The bad guys are not limited to the same rules as the Americans. 5. It's hot in both places 5.The soldiers in general are happy to get out of the war zone and they do not want to stay till the end. 6.The longer we stay in this type of war the more hardcore our soldiers get, it appears at this point that the American Iraq soldier is not as bad as the American Vietnam soldier and that is good from what i have read, but they are getting there. 7. Lots of frustration among our soldiers... I will stop here.
Posted by Johnwayne on :
"can only deduce that you are not the genuine article"
This from the guy who claims to be a republican but spends his time here ripping: Bush Jr Bush Sr Reagan Kissinger Nixon Ford Lincoln Jefferson Grant McCaine Quayle Schwartzenneger Harding Teddy Roosevelt Goldwater Dole
Why can we assume you are the genuine article Glassman? A republican that has yet to say one good thing about republicans. I know you've got this secret identity stuff goin' on but you could at least claim to be Nadar supporter. Cause the crap your slinging doesn't fool anybody.
Posted by glassman on :
Why can we assume you are the genuine article Glassman? A republican that has yet to say one good thing about republicans. I know you've got this secret identity stuff goin' on but you could at least claim to be Nadar supporter. Cause the crap your slinging doesn't fool anybody
you have been here since February? and you claim i haveyet to say one good thing about republican
you are just wrong... and? it's no surprise, since you have no idea what you are talking about most of the time...
it's a waste of time even posting to you and "brother" the jesus freak that wants US to go kill "bad" people..
Grant was a drunk...
i voted for Dole..
Quayle was an idiot with a silver spoon...
i haven't ripped Bush Sr too much.. i even posted that i voted for him, TWICE..
here's the deal JW... i don't need to be told what to think by rove...
you obviously do... maybe? maybe you even work for him? i can see how they could afford to pay you minimum wage to post your posts...that's about what it's worth...
in case you haven't noticed? Bush's numbers are dropping agian cuz he has done a poor job... it's that simple.. LOL...
Posted by bdgee on :
snicker
Posted by Johnwayne on :
Sure ya voted for those guys Glassman. The only republican in the US who rips Reagan.
Walk like a duck, talk like a duck...... right Bdgee?
Posted by rimasco on :
Maybe hes a.....Bloomberg? (democrap in repulican suit aka double agent)
Posted by Johnwayne on :
Republican suit???? That doesn't go well with his tin foil hat he wears to keep the government from reading his mind. Or did you upgrade to an Armedillo hat Glass?
Posted by bdgee on :
I know more than just a handfull of republicaans that are terribly ashamed of what the shrubbery has done to the GOP.
These scum are not republicans, they are facist.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Johnwayne: Sure ya voted for those guys Glassman. The only republican in the US who rips Reagan.
Walk like a duck, talk like a duck...... right Bdgee?
show me where i ripped Reagan? cuz he didn't go after Iran like i wanted in the first place? LOL...that's sad.. thats's not ripping him...
i think you are learning disabled.. you can't learn anything unless it's straight from the rove political hnadbook...
Posted by Johnwayne on :
Right Glassman- funny thing is if you are a repub Why have you spent so much time sticking up for the religous left? Why have you made it a priority to make sure that the democrats are known as having a religous wing to their party? In fact - why are you pointing out the democrats positives like family values and how religous they are? Why on earth would a died in the wool republican do that?
Posted by glassman on :
why have you spent so much time sticking up for the religous left? Why have you made it a priority to make sure that the democrats are known as having a religous wing to their party? In fact - why are you pointing out the democrats positives like family values and how religous they are? Why on earth would a died in the wool republican do that?
because i care about the truth???? why is that such a foregn concept to you?
my country before my party ... this here thread makes it sound like half of my country supports genocidal maniacs...
think about that; foool...
Posted by Johnwayne on :
Care about the truth? Hard to decipher the truth with your tin foil hat on isn't it? You believe every conspiracy that comes down the pike and you care about the truth?
Face it Glassman you are a democrat. my hunch is you where forced to vote republican due to some unseen influence, (hence the tin foil hat). It's ok to come out of the closet and admit you are a democrat. I think it would make you a much more believable poster.
Posted by glassman on :
whatever...
i have some problems deciphering the truth...
but i get there...
as far as your impotence here? calling me a democrat is the best you can do??? LOL..
oh well... i wonder if they make internet viagra?
Posted by Griffon on :
"half of my country supports genocidal maniacs..."
Democrats aren't half the country. Further, I am pointing out the policies they adopted amounted to support for genocide. I mean that Warren Christopher quote and the press that spun off that to ask why the US prevented UN action should problematic to the American conscience in much the same way the present crisis in Sudan should be a more urgent concern for the UN but it's not.
I think the course of this thread has made it plain that I am refering to the transition in Democratic leadership from 1968 to 2000. I don't believe the grass-roots Democrat supports genocide any more than you believe all Republicans support fascists. But the consequences of their actions speak for themselves. By drawing stark attention to that we may just embarass complacent people to get motivated and take back their parties.
Posted by Johnwayne on :
Well if you didn't get your panties in a bunch every time I mention it I wouldn't get such a kick out of it. Boy you where right about this one Griff.
Posted by glassman on :
"half of my country supports genocidal maniacs..." Democrats aren't half the country.
really? how much of the country is democrat?
Posted by Griffon on :
really? how much of the country is democrat?
at best in the upper 30s. Otherwise there would be no Independants.
Posted by glassman on :
at best? LOL...
try again...
independants are a very small minority...
Bush only won the last presidential vote by a popular vote of 51 to 49 percent...
and the election before that? he LOST the popular vote...
now? you can quibble all you want about %registrations etc.... but registered democrats basically represent 1/2 the nation and the GOP represents the other half... you're topic title sux... therefore?
Posted by glassman on :
not only is the country more or less evenly divided? Bush's majority was not at all impressive for an incumbent....
especially considering we were at war, and Kerry was a weak opponent... he didn't even answer the swiftboat jerks for three weeks....
Reagan got 51 percent of the vote in '80, 59 percent four years later.
LBJohnson? 61 percent of voters in 1964, as was Richard Nixon in 1972.
Al Hunt observed in the Wall Street Journal (11/4/04) that Bush's victory was "the narrowest win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916."...
you guys live in the midwest....i don't really expect you to have a pragmatic political opinion about the state of the union... but nobody believes the dems are below 43% and i mean REGISTERED dems....
Posted by Griffon on :
"you're topic title sux... therefore?"
Truth hurts huh? Dem policies led to genocide in Rwanda. Refute that. Nuff said.
20% of the political scene is Independent. That bening the case we know Dems are around 38% across the nation. Dems lost by 2%, quite a trouncing given that Susan Estrich and James Carville had them picked to slaughter Bush. Electorially narrow, but popularly, big! 3.5 million votes is a pretty big margin * 1.25% of the whole population of the country (including non voters). That's a waxin' given the expectations.
Bush had two weak opponents which is how he won either election. And that says alot about the state of the Democratic Party. They are issues-weak. But the activating RL will make them stronger. GB 1 got the nod only as a favor to Reagan because the nation was glad he won the Cold War for us
But Gore couldn't win as the VP to a popular sitting president with a strong economy and no war. How did he lose? Can't win on anger.
"i don't really expect you to have a pragmatic political opinion about the state of the union"
actually bdgee it's "blah, blah, blah, blah, blah" in the Charlie Brown teacher voice, but at least you got a new line.
Posted by bdgee on :
With much respect for the fans of "Peanuts", I have always felt that the voice given to the characters on TV lessened the weight of the whole concept.
For those that prefer or accept the limitations imposed by the tv imatations of the "Peanuts" characters, I think you miss a great deal.
For those whose view interpretations of life through those tv imatations of the "Peanuts" characters, I think you miss even more.
Posted by Griffon on :
Caricature is an art form Bdgee, you miss alot of life if you can't imagine bits of color-giving character in literature and celluloid. After all, the Simpsons lived on those images that were caricatures of life.
Posted by glassman on :
now we are equating homer and life? LOL
Posted by bdgee on :
So far, I have managed to escape any actual time spent on the Simpsons and with little effort at all, that will remain true.
I think his intent was to equate such interpretation with intellect, Glass.....
Posted by Griffon on :
"now we are equating homer and life? LOL"
Actually, as you read the post you will note I equate caricature with art, Homer with caricature and the parody of life within the hyperbolic situations and often sophomoric actions embodied in celluloid. How did you all miss that?
Posted by bdgee on :
With agility and deft goal oriented determination.
Posted by Griffon on :
"With agility and deft goal oriented determination."
Good use of linguistic intrepidity and philosophical legerdemain.
Posted by bdgee on :
Here's a lonk for you. It'll speed things up for you.
That's only part of the stuff there.
Posted by Griffon on :
Toward a new approach to foreign policy and UN responsibility, written three years ago. You will see some noticeable refining of my understanding and you will find places to attack. Feel free, I am only growing, having no answers of my own, only ideas. More will come tomorrow.
My goal is to elevate the debate to find a humanitarian foreign policy alternative to endless violent response. It will be idealistic, and you are free to rip it apart, but I ask as you critique and perhaps even destroy this idea, put something better in its place. We are all victims of colonialism and Cold War, rigid ideologies that served us well, but with grave implications for the present and future. For if colonialism, as applied from roughly 1500-1975, polluted indigenous cultures around the world seeding corruption, destruction and despair; then the Cold War, roughly 1947-1990, marked the era of the subjugation of personhood and community to wanton socio-political-economic goals. A new era beckons, calls us to respond. But how? What happens now? The imperialist, colonialist wars are over. The struggle between capitalism and communism is at the very least pausing. What should the guiding principle of our foreign policy be? Terrorism threatens us and I think in the midst of the action we engage in now, part of our response must be to ask: “Why?” Several factors could be held up as causative, but among the most compelling are the very colonialism and Cold War strategies that have destabilized the world for no less than 500 years. The reality goes far beyond those 500 years, but for the moment I focus on that time-span. Please understand there will be gaps and over-simplifications in this discussion as time and space limit what I will say. I recognize and acknowledge it is incomplete and you are welcome to add to or critique what I say and what I leave out. The case could be made that emergent nation states, mercantilism, industrialization and colonialism are natural, coincident partners in the continuing development of Western culture, though I see them more as an economic progression rather than hybridization. With the creation of the nation state came a settling economic base. New territory was becoming a premium resource, and so colonialism was born. Brave sailors, and later families, left home for untold riches in the Orient, and then took a wrong turn. Eventually, a prosperous merchant class rose on the city streets. As resources for investment grew industry began to take root. With industrialization came the need for two things: cheap resources and ready markets for goods. And so a re-invention of colonialism was born. Colonies became an economic panacea; they were a dumping ground for undesirable people, a ready base of resource materials, a market to sell things to. I mentioned this economic progression, preferring that language to hybridization now let me explain where the latter fits in. As all of these events were taking place the Renaissance and the Enlightenment shaped and formed minds, pollinating the nation states, the merchants, the industrialists and even the colonists with new ideas. A scientific approach flowered in human activity and it effected change in nations, economies and so forth. But a dark fungus, a terrible addiction was growing at the base of this economic progression that tainted the Enlightened thought. Nations became economically dependent upon the cheap resources and labor of the colonies. Nations became economically dependant on the colonial market as an outlet for their goods. With that realization came a re-invention of the intellectual perspective on colonies, a re-invention never far from the surface in the first place. Colonies must remain economically and materially bound to the “homeland.” Never mind that homeland for the colonist was under foot, not in Europe. They might be subjects to a European power, but they were still of a distinct tribe, where mother and father for generations are buried and hopefully children and grandchildren for generations will live. The limitations of colonialism were beginning to show. A chill fear grew in the hearts of those that ruled over colonies, too few soldiers, too many colonists. If Europeans were to be in control, they must find allies within the colony to rule with brute force. Divide and Conqueor! Play one tribe against another. Never let one tribe gain complete supremacy. Trade on old, tribal hatreds. Now the United States was a kind of “Johnny-come-lately” to colonialism, and we had our failings, but we did seem to learn from European mistakes. There was usually some mitigation of the worst behaviors and attitudes, based in idealism and the strong missionary efforts. Paternalistic as missions were, they also developed relationships with the indigenous people and worked to meet physical and spiritual needs together. In every single part of this progression the indigenous culture was revealed as somehow inferior. The indigenous identity was lobbied against as economically and socially inferior. “I mean, they don’t even have a shower and they wear feathers.” Said in an air that suggests showers and pants are necessary for full expression of life. Indigenous peoples began to resent being presented as inferior. Eventually, in the 20th century, two world wars tore into the myth of Western cultural superiority, and ended their enthusiasm for colonies. Too expensive you know and so colonies were gaining freedom. But that only began the struggle for what had Western nations taught their colonies: brutal repression, torture, dictatorial rule, military power keeps stability, denigration of smaller tribes, payback visited on tribal enemies, lack of administrative education that might have made transition possible. The litany of crimes perpetrated against former colonies is huge. And the aftereffects? Well, former colonies showed they were good studies, embarking on genocide, mass murder, military repression, torture, disappearing opponents, tribal paybacks and others that are escaping me just now. This is the legacy of Western colonial rule. We in the West are to some large extent, responsible for the instability and violence perpetrated on innocents abroad. I am not suggesting personal responsibility is not applicable. We are not culpable instead of those who do evil, nor is our guilt on the same level as those who butcher their own people, but we have taught the lessons and now they are visited on a world struggling with terror. And if it only ended there, but later, I will post another article to hopefully kick this discussion off right. Next stop Cold War, or another form of colonialism, politicized and economic, but suppressing cultural. If colonialism tore at cultures, the Cold War subjugated people for political and economic reasons. Humanity was dehumanized by the nuclear arsenals. The result was people were not people anymore, they were communist or capitalist (we always put it in terms of communist or democratic, but these are incommensurate categories), totalitarian or democratic. The first two are economic systems while the latter are political systems. To be sure there were other options, but the significance is less in the options but how the interaction between superpowers further damaged the colonies, hereafter refered to as the "Third World." The implication is there even in the name. Somehow, the third world is kind of the also rans. The significance is that we only intervened when there was a perceived national interest. If not, too bad so sad. Millions have died from the way world powers stripped their resources and left them to waste away. That might seem bad, but worse were those areas where the powers saw national interest. Political, Military, Economic and Military support went to brutal leaders who held the people in line through force. It wasn't about ideology as much as location. How many died is unknown, but the people learned lessons in power. Hussein and Milosevic are two of them we know too well. Spheres of influence were so important that we tolerated leaders who should never been in power simply because they gave us room for a base. Places seemingly forgotten were suddenly flying American and Soviet flags. Torture of persons was acceptable for the sake of the cause. People were expendable for the sake of the cause. Terrorism arose from this lesson of personhood expendable for the cause. Now this is a very brief summary. Let me begin by asking for your help in this endeavor. It is never easy to open one's self for review, and this format tends to lend itself to harsh criticism, especially between people of differing views. I am not asking for you blanket acceptance of this platform, I am asking that if you rip something apart, then put something better in its place. Feel free to critique, but move the discussion forward with an idea with a purpose toward peace. I am seeking a better world, and want this discussion to be predicated on that assumption. To help in the tearing down and putting better in its place, I will try to provide reference numbers at the beginning of topical changes. I am sure this condensation leaves some things out, so do feel free to ask anything or challenge some transitions. A PROPOSAL FOR FOREIGN POLICY APPROACH 1. The present configuration of the United Nations is still a reaction to the Cold War. A new paradigm is needed. Structures need to be re-examined and re-designed. The Security Council is one example, but the peace-keeping mandate, the genocide treaty, UNICEF, various relief agencies all need to reflect a global community, not three worlds hopelessly divided. One area of proof of its antiquated structure is the Israel/Palestine question. Clearly, this situation is too volatile for the present expressin of peace-keeping, nevertheless the terrorism on both sides needs to end. Further, the dilema of two nations having historical, social, cultural and religious ties to what is essentially the same plot of ground defies present legal conceptualization of nationhood. Similar trouble is essentially borne out in the question of China/Taiwan/Hong Kong. The international community lacks the jurisprudence to acknowledge simultaneous claims to the same land. This must come from a re-definition of nation as well as of the UN. The ties to the land are brilliantly put forth in Elias Chacour's "Blood Brothers" and "We Belong to the Land." He also is the founder of the Mar Elias School for Palestinian-Israeli Jews, Christians, Muslims and Druze. It is the first Palestinian school of its kind and it became a University under the direct support of James Baker and Shimon Perez. The notion that one can or should be dispossessed now is patently ludicrous. However, tribal claims to the land must cease too. What is my suggestion (sure to be unpopular in some sections of academia)? 2. I suggest that we should actively lobby for a new UN mandate that better reflects the needs of the world community. I also suggest that the UN and world community declare Jerusalem an open city and the new UN headquarters. In this declaration, priority needs to be given for the formation of two national governments to function in Jerusalem: one Israeli, the other Palestinian. Only by working out a jurisprudence that empowers both people to have a nation that occupies the same space can there be healthy resolution and coersed reconciliation. If sovereignty is closely observed by the UN both sides stand to lose too much to risk continuing the struggles. It will also generate the needed economic systems to empower both nations. I did say it would be unpopular but give it a moment to settle in. 3. Next, somehow the US and the UN as a whole need to set standards in black and white that define genocide, mass murder and ethnic cleansing. There has got to be a clearer, less debatable and quicker evaluation of what these things are. There must also be clear delineation of the consequences are for those who engage in genocide, mass murder and ethnic cleansing. I am sure the instinct will be to say we should stay out of them all. It is an isolationist foreign policy that has consistently failed the historical, empirical test. Isolationism encouraged Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Milosovic, Panic, Hussein and others in their efforts of mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide. I hope you recognized that I was blaming the lessons of brutal leadership on colonialism. The colonial powers brutally frequently brutally repressed colonists. The Western powers’ administration of colonies taught leaders to be brutal, played upon tribal tensions, taught that might equals right, taught that power meant better culture, and exploited land and people. That is the lesson we handed down to the new leaders of fledgling nations. The legacy of colonialism is found in brutal dictators, military juntas, coups, exploitation of the masses, cultural malaise, terrorist governments and militant opposition. Because the Western powers taught the lessons of brutality and mass murder out of economic and political expediency, they must now raise a new issue. The world community is morally, ethically responsible for removing leaders who brutalize their populations, first in the powers who caused the instability, but also as the world. The world community must stand together, even if arms must be raised. The world community must cry with one voice against these dictatorial monsters whose power is expressed in terrorizing and neglecting their culture, nation and/or tribe. Until the world stands together and in resolve against depersonalizing leaders genocide and murder will happen regardless of the party in the White House. Those brutal, evil leaders must know, absolutely know, that if they mistreat their people, they will lose power and live in a cage for the rest of their lives. They simply must not be allowed to have control of other peoples' lives. It should also be pointed out that in these cases at present, when the world community represented in the UN lacks political or ethical will to help the powerless end mass slaughter, it is still the absolute duty of all nations to take action. Genocide, ethnic cleansing and mass murder must end and where the UN fails to act, it does not relieve the world community of its moral obligation to end these atrocities. 4. To that end, the UN needs a "Quick Reaction Force" of trained professional troops and equipment to deal with these situations in order to prevent the onset, or react immediately to events that equate with mass murder. Now the reason such need to be in place is well documented in events surrounding the Kurds in 88-89 and the Rwandans in 94. National and even international political and ethical will cannot be counted on to do the right thing. There must be a clear threshold that is easy to monitor and document, and some proverbial "lead in the pencil" to back up the promise that we will remove leaders that abuse their people. For the nations that have a process in place removal of leaders and peaceful transfer of power is becoming tradition. In our country, elections take place as they have for 200+ years. But many nations only experience transition through violence, through coup. That violence often spills over into the administration. The threat of immanent removal for malpractice might instruct would-be leaders that they better not take their aggression out on innocent people. 5. The US must adopt a foreign policy that works on consistency. The Presidential preferences for certain national priorities as they perceive them provide more of a roulette game approach from the perspective of petty dictators. We too need a threshold of intervention that is clear, detailed and concise. There are too many political games played and the cost is paid in too many lives. 6. The foreign policy approach we take must cease the effort to create socio-political-economic-cultures in our image, instead we must work to empower nations to built their own cultural expression of socio-political-economic structures. These structures must be an extension and expression of their communal (tribal) sense of being. We must embrace a unity in diversity understanding of international relationships, recognizing that other nations need not embrace our ideology for us to share peace. 7. As we fight the War on Terror, we must also analyze what has caused this world wide struggle. This war is not only about the US but we have been struck deeply by it. The damage has been terrible, emotionally, psychologically and materially. The instability caused by colonialism and Cold War has now visited us. May I suggest this is our most complex task.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Simple. They didn't count the votes in Florida.
quote:Originally posted by Griffon: But Gore couldn't win as the VP to a popular sitting president with a strong economy and no war. How did he lose?
Posted by Relentless. on :
From what I could tell.. Gore was the one who rigged the election... Well.. too vague I guess.. I think they both rigged the election.. Gore got beat by Bush.. may not have seemed fair from our perspective.. But they were both playing the same game by the same self made rules. They are all scum Gordy.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
I can't disagree with that, Relentless.
Posted by Griffon on :
Since the impartial Supreme Court decided how the votes would be counted as per the Constitutional rule of law, the vote was certified in Congress as per rule of law, the two recounts occured as per the rule of law, a 6 month review conducted by New York Times, Washington Post and CNN verified the results in Florida, I would like to point out none of this adequately explains why Democratic leaders do not work to prevent genocide.
Posted by bdgee on :
First, the Supreme Court that decided the election was NOT impartial,
Second, the Constitution requires the actual counting of the vote and the reporting of that count. Thus, the 2000 election was NOT Constitutional.
(In other words, it was a non-democtic election and we are no longer a democracy.)
Third, it is false that 'THE New York Times, Washington Post and CNN verified the results in Florida". They determined that if the vote was that reported by the republican party and it's quite partial agents, then Bush won.
They did NOT decide or declare that Bush actually won, only that if the count was as they had been told, then he would have won. The actual tally was quite different from what they were provided as can be found proved by the work of the London Times.
Fourth, the loaded question, "I would like to point out none of this adequately explains why Democratic leaders do not work to prevent genocide." fosters another dispicable and insulting lie.
Why must these sorts of insults and lies be couched as if they were intended to be innocent queries, as if the poster did not know better use of the English language, when the fact is they clearly are intended to be assertions of guilt and brandings of evil doings and intent?
Posted by glassman on :
griffo is one of roves top pupils...
I would like to point out none of this adequately explains why Democratic leaders do not work to prevent genocide.
they can't NOW: the GOP is in full control.. so the current mess is on them..
you think we should be invading third world countries and killing people ... that's the only way to "prevent genocide".... do it yourself... Posted by glassman on :
and Griffo? the vote was certified in Congress as per rule of law, the two recounts occured as per the rule of law, a 6 month review conducted by New York Times, Washington Post and CNN verified the results in Florida, that's a myth...
Posted by Griffon on :
"fosters another dispicable and insulting lie."
Except they aren't lies, bdgee. I left the Democratic party over this.
"insults and lies be couched as if they were intended to be innocent queries,"
As a former Democrat, I make no pretense that this is not painful. But as a centrist, I know he truth is cathartic. They were guilty when I was a Democrat bdgee. No lies, I have presented where they came from. One mistake I made was that Warren Christopher was Secratary of State, not UN spokesperson who was Madelyn Albright as the below articles from the NSA at George Washington University point out:
I mean come on, bdgee, how will we ever learn from our past if we do not acknowledge our sins in that past? How do we learn from our errors, if not evil doings, if we refuse to acknowledge they exist.
During Clinton's watch, 2,000,000 Africans died in genocide and ethnic cleansing alone (Rwanda and Sudan). That doesn't excuse Reagan allowing Saddam to gas the Kurds and Iranians, or for that matter arming Saddam along with Germany, France and Russia.
But here is my point, I hear alot of complaints about one side of the aisle, and I offer a balance to that. All this is well-explained in my other threads Bdgee, let's not continue to rehearse it here. Truth and documentation are clearly on my side regarding Clinton and your documentation, or actually Glassman's documentation, about Reagan and Bush I are true as well. To me that is balance.
Posted by bdgee on :
I have checke my facts. You have hunted carefully to avoid facts and quote propaganda.
All that is important now is getting this bunch of crooks out of power. Attempting to sidetrack it to anything else for whatever excuse is like telling an eighth month pregnant single teenager with no home to solve her problem by using safe sex.
Posted by Griffon on :
"I have checke my facts. You have hunted carefully to avoid facts and quote propaganda."
Let's see, I used Glass' source: National Security Archives from George Washington University. Beyond that any search of Rwanda and Clinton will give you the same evidence I posted here. Public Broadcasting Service is propaganda? Frontline is propaganda. I suspect you have done no research or you would find the entire world community has documented this one bdgee. I left the Democrats because of this, I have researched it thoroughly and across political spectrums.
"All that is important now is getting this bunch of crooks out of power."
That may be, but again that is not the topic we are discussing here. There are lots of threads about the Republican crooks. Our friend GB has started one very similar to this one, you are welcome to share your thoughts on the Republicans over there if the balance I offer is offensive. Amazon.com explained that all very well in their survey. People get angry when confronted with a different view of the truth. Since mine is supported aggressively by historical facts, you may want to express your angst about the present administration in a place where facts are presented in a way more to your liking. That's okay, bdgee, no harm no foul.
The reason this remains germain is that Clinton's inactivity in Africa continues to have ripple effects today.
Posted by bdgee on :
Nonsense.
There is importAnt concern with a dictatotial regime being in control of our government and you want to deflect that serious concern with hateful attacks on Clinton.
GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD, THERE IS NO PURPOSE IN ACCUSING CLINTON OF WHAT BUSH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING AND WHAT IS BUSH'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CORRECT, OTHER THAN TO ATTEMPT TO SANCTION THE EVIL COMMING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION.
Posted by Griffon on :
Didn't find any contradicting evidence did you bdgee. There is none. Yes, I see bdgee, when you don't like the truth, you deflect. You use an old tactic: avoidance. Caught with the facts, you change the subject. Plenty of other threads for that bdgee, this one is for balance.
"There is importAnt concern with a dictatotial regime being in control of our government and you want to deflect that serious concern with hateful attacks on Clinton."
Since there is no dictatorial regime I need offer no deflection though you lie, and it's sad to see an educator lie. But this thread is not about President Bush, it is about how Clinton's running away from Somalia ahd repurcussions in Rwanda and Sudan. That comes straight from so many sources with absolutely no contravention whatsoever. There are plenty of other threads to say whatever you want about Republicans, as an apolitical person, I feel balance is necessary so I tell the truth and post topics to balance the boards. Why does that vex you so?
"GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD, THERE IS NO PURPOSE IN ACCUSING CLINTON OF WHAT BUSH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING"
Since the topic is Rwanda and Sudan, what is Bush responsible for? Nothing. But the War Crimes tribunal that tried the Rwandan genocidal regime, the UN documentation and the State Department documentation tell us Bill Clinton was blocking action in Rwanda after running from Somalia.
Bill Clinton admits it is the biggest mistake of his administration, 10 yers after the fact, but he admits it. The Rwandans credit Clinton directly for encouraging them to kill a few Belgian troops so the UN troops would leave. Gen Dalliere does likewise. The journalists of the day do the same. All documentation says the action in Somalia, the inaction in Rwanda have led to genocide in Sudan which continues to this day. How many people of color must die before it is genocide to you bdgee? 1.2 million die before Clinton leaves office, with a mess Bush has to clean up.
"THERE IS NO PURPOSE IN ACCUSING CLINTON OF WHAT BUSH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING"
Again Bush was not involved in federal government in 1994 so he has no responsibility for the genocide. He does however have responsibility for not having an exit plan in Iraq. That, while again not part of this thread's discussion, is not evil, it is wrong. Evil connotes malicious intent, wrong constitutes a mistake.
"OTHER THAN TO ATTEMPT TO SANCTION THE EVIL COMMING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION."
Again not a topic of this thread unless you are talking about the Clinton administration. So I will follow the thread's parameters. I would not suggest Clinton's administration is/was evil. I am merely saying for the sake of historical accuracy that Clinton's inaction allowed genocide to flourish in Africa. That was rather evil activity in Africa by Africans. Regarding the Clinton administration whether you consider blocking UN efforts to place more peace-keepers, making statements through the Secretary of State that we would not interfere at the UN as evil actions is up to you. I think "reprehensible" is a more apt word.
But as I said in earlier posts:
"If you believe in obeying the treaties we sign, we were compelled in Iraq in 1988 and before if you follow other treaties, Rwanda in 1994, and Sudan by 1995. That is if you believe we are bound by treaty. Now if you believe we can ignore our treaties, then you are in the same boat our current president is with his violating international law at GITMO.
See, it doesn't work both ways. You don't get to say we can ignore international treaties when it comes to genocide, but the president should be held accountable for GITMO because of international treaty. What you are trying to apply is a logical inconsistency that sounds an awful lot like political opportunism. My point is the US is engaged in entangling alliances that make us responsible for ending genocidal regimes within the broader world community and we are also bound to demand an end to the illegal practices at GITMO. There is a consistency to that.
Yet Warren Christopher was perfectly willing to let Rwandans die as the representative of his administration. I affirmed that most were not overtly racist but their policies in combatting racism were hamstringed by the Clinton Administration's willingness to let Africans die, again people of color, as long as Americans don't have to."
As you can plainly see, I seek parity in the treatment of presidents and I point out in these threads, though not exactly in this quote, that the president is wrong on GITMO, and I should add the other illegal holding stations around the world, and should end those illegalities immediately or face war crimes hearings. Now tell me, is that sanctioning evil? Is that supporting Bush? If you think so bdgee, then it's because you are not reading objectively.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Can anyone here come up with ten or more positive things that the Bush Administration has done for America?
Because I can't think of any.
Posted by Griffon on :
Lost the topic of the thread hey Gordon? Why did Bill Clinton allow genocide to happen, by his own admission?
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Sure, Griffon. I will defer to your expertise in this area. If anyone is an expert at losing the topic, it's you.
Posted by Griffon on :
Yeah, just keep those one liners going GB and someone may forget you are avoiding this issue because I proved you are wrong.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
You have proved absolutely nothing.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Griffon: Lost the topic of the thread hey Gordon? Why did Bill Clinton allow genocide to happen, by his own admission?
already "splained"....
war in other places..and this terrible thing involving a blackhawk helo...
you guys act like the prez is SUPPOSED to tell the country what to do... the leader is supposed to have a two way relationship with his/or her constituency... you are fascists to the bone... the prez is not the spirit guide to the nation... the prez is still a public servant...
Bush has no idea what that means... unless of course it means that, you, as a public servant, work for him....
Posted by Johnwayne on :
"you guys act like the prez is SUPPOSED to tell the country what to do... the leader is supposed to have a two way relationship with his/or her constituency... you are fascists to the bone... the prez is not the spirit guide to the nation... the prez is still a public servant..."
Well sure if governing is done strictly according to focus groups and public opinion polls, you are correct.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Johnwayne: "you guys act like the prez is SUPPOSED to tell the country what to do... the leader is supposed to have a two way relationship with his/or her constituency... you are fascists to the bone... the prez is not the spirit guide to the nation... the prez is still a public servant..."
Well sure if governing is done strictly according to focus groups and public opinion polls, you are correct.
you've been roved....
this is fascism....
Hitler did have hundreds of thousands of followers just like you...
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
I used to think that kind of mass brainwashing could never happen again.
Boy was I wrong!
Posted by glassman on :
yep GB it's pretty amazing, and all they needed to be pushed over the edge of individual rights and freedom was a shock treatment.....
these are people who would probably kill to keep their rifles and shotguns.... but .....
Posted by bdgee on :
The pity is, they so took to the conditioning, they can't understand they can't think afterward.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Rove's startling strategy similarity to Goebbel's cannot be mere coincidence. I wonder if anyone has told him that the Nazis lost WWII?
Posted by bdgee on :
Yeah, Gordon, sure looks like those reservist and Guard troups in Iraq are close to being like Germany in WWII.
A western front with Syria.
Eastern front with Iran.
And the damned resistance fighters in Iraq playing the part of the French resistance in the "occupied land" of Iraq between.
There are even lots of unfriendlies that wouldn't hesitate to play the part of Japan.
Posted by Griffon on :
"already "splained"....
war in other places..and this terrible thing involving a blackhawk helo..."
No explanation. You are a Democrat through and through Glass. So much so, you can't see me for what I am. What I find amazing is this is the first time I have seen liberals, people from my former party, Glass included, denying the importance of history, to bolster their case, because at every turn they lose on the facts. Apoliticals like me, learn from history, facts change our paradigms, and we progressively teach others a better way.
You mentioned the Blackhawk, Clinton's moral cowardice in pulling the troops out as the world credits that as the cause of an encouraged Rwandan group executing genocide and Sudanese leaders intensifying their campaign of ethnic cleansing of Christians. Yes, Clinton effectively spit on the graves of 18 soldiers, tucked tail and encouraged genocide. But given bdgee's racial slur it's obvious there are people on the left that do not value people of color in the same way they value paler types.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Moral cowardice? Surely, as a Bush supporter, you jest.
I've heard enough. Cut his mic!
LOL
Posted by glassman on :
You mentioned the Blackhawk, Clinton's moral cowardice in pulling the troops out as the world credits that as the cause of an encouraged Rwandan group executing genocide and Sudanese leaders intensifying their campaign of ethnic cleansing of Christians. Yes, Clinton effectively spit on the graves of 18 soldiers, tucked tail and encouraged genocide. But given bdgee's racial slur it's obvious there are people on the left that do not value people of color in the same way they value paler types.
and you are a man with trigger finger or NOT?
i think not... i think you are one of roves pets....
show me who in the white house served with honor...
my point is that Clinton couldn't have done it... and Bush has only invaded Iraq by misrepresenting facts, and you are incorrect to claim you have a plan to bring anybody to the political table.. in fact? all i see is you trying to divide the country more... which is what rove has done so well...
even with the Monica thing? Clinton had more support than Bush does...
and i didn't/don't like Clinton, i'm just examining the facts without prejudice...
Posted by bdgee on :
It was by division that dubya won in the first place.
No, I'm not talking about the 2000 election, but the governors race in Texas.
He (under guidance from Rove) planted well financed slander against the two leading democratic candidates during the primary election, but making it look like the other was paying for the campaign of slander, forcing them to attack one-another visciously, thereby smearing each so badly they had little hope in a following election.
Posted by Griffon on :
"and i didn't/don't like Clinton, i'm just examining the facts without prejudice..."
No you're not. You're examining the facts like a Democratic party-liner. Even Bill Clinton admitted HE DID WRONG. You can't even admit what the primary person did admit. You can't admit it because deep down, you admire him.
"my point is that Clinton couldn't have done it..."
read the NSA file Glass. Nuff said there. He could have, he chose not to expend political capital. He traded hundreds of thousands of lives for votes. It led to the deaths of 2 million Africans while he was in office and continues to do so because of this administration's distraction.
"you are incorrect to claim you have a plan to bring anybody to the political table.. in fact? all i see is you trying to divide the country more..."
No, I have presented a plan, it works, you just don't like the plan because an apolitical person presented it.
Look Glass, since even Clinton admitted I am right about this Rwanda genocide, let's agree as we did on Carter. Clinton could have acted to prevent Rwanda in Somalia first and then in Rwanda which later spread to Sudan. That is what history records, the very NSA records you have gone to in the past. Do you need to now invalidate what you said earlier in order to justify your allegiance to Clinton?
Posted by glassman on :
the one where Bush lost the popular vote: quotes: BUSH: I cannot let this go by, the old-style Washington politics, if we're going to scare you in the voting booth. Under my plan the man gets immediate help with prescription drugs. It's called Immediate Helping Hand. Instead of squabbling and finger pointing, he gets immediate help. Let me say something.
----------------------------- MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, if President Milosevic of Yugoslavia refuses to leave office, what action, if any, should the United States take to get him out of there?
BUSH: Well obviously we wouldn't use the Russians if they didn't agree with our answer, Mr. Vice President. Let me say this to you, I wouldn't use force. I wouldn't use force.
MODERATOR: You wouldn't use force?
BUSH: No.
MODERATOR: Why not?
BUSH: It's not in our national interest to use force. I would use pressure and diplomacy. There is a difference what the president did in Kosovo and this. It's up to the people in this region to take control of their country.
MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?
BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win.
BUSH: I agree our military is the strongest in the world today, that's not the question. The question is will it be the strongest in the years to come? Everywhere I go on the campaign trail I see moms and dads whose son or daughter may wear the uniform and they tell me about how discouraged their son or daughter may be. A recent poll was taken among 1,000 enlisted personnel, as well as officers, over half of whom will leave the service when their time of enlistment is up. The captains are leaving the service. There is a problem.
i don't like to post this much stuff at once.. Bush was actually asked : MODERATOR: New question. We've been talking about a lot of specific issues. It's often said that in the final analysis about 90% of being the President of the United States is dealing with the unexpected, not with issues that came up in the campaign. Vice President Gore, can you point to a decision, an action you have taken, that illustrates your ability to handle the unexpected, the crisis under fire?
Boy gang this is fun isn't it?
Posted by Griffon on :
It's interesting that you can't seem to stay on topic here. Clinton's genocide prevention record is the topic: something 1 intervention to 9 avoidances and two really big ones. Bush debates don't figure into that. Avoidance isn't good for the blood pressure you know.
Posted by glassman on :
there's the proof that the country did not want to be involved in any more interventions..
Clinton has said it was a mistake...
but he didn't have a consensus to go do it..
you are apolitical? LOL...right
BUSH: I think people need to be held responsible for the actions they take in life. I think that -- well, I think that's part of the need for a cultural change. We need to say we each need to be responsible for what we do. People in the highest office of the land must be responsible for decisions they make in life. And that's the way I've conducted myself as Governor of Texas and that's the way I'll conduct myself as President of the United States, should I be fortunate enough to earn your vote. http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html Posted by glassman on :
LOL.... griffo... i voted for Bush... that time anyway...
BUSH: You know, this man has no credibility on the issue. As a matter of fact, I read in the "New York Times" where he said he co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold Campaign Fundraising Bill. But he wasn't in the Senate with Senator Feingold. And so, look, I'm going to -- what you need to know about me is I will uphold the law, I'm going to have an attorney general that enforces the law. The time for campaign funding reform is after the election. This man has outspent me and the special interests are outspending me. And I am not going to lay down my arms in the middle of the campaign for somebody who has got no credibility on the issue.
outspending? omygod...
Posted by bdgee on :
Just who declared that "Clinton's genocide prevention record is the topic" and who granted you the power of enforcement and appointed you as debate monitor?
Wouldn't that be akin to setting up a life long professed enemy of the United Nations as an ambassador thereto?
Posted by glassman on :
actually? griffon? i will eventually get to the GOP debates where Bush didn't even know anything about foreing policy if you keep it up....
yes it's fun to verify that my memory is still good for the time being anyway...
Posted by glassman on :
this kind of speaks for itself....
MODERATOR: Should the people of the world look at the United States, Governor, and say, should they fear us, should they welcome our involvement, should they see us as a friend, everybody in the world? How would you project us around the world, as president?
BUSH: Well, I think they ought to look at us as a country that understands freedom where it doesn't matter who you are or how you're raised or where you're from, that you can succeed. I don't think they'll look at us with envy. It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And it's -- our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we have to be humble. And yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. So I don't think they ought to look at us in any way other than what we are. We're a freedom-loving nation and if we're an arrogant nation they'll view us that way, but if we're a humble nation they'll respect us.
this was the GOP way...
Posted by Griffon on :
"but he didn't have a consensus to go do it.."
Costs to sit in the big chair, Glass. The right thing to do was to save lives, by his own admission. In 1998 when he went to Rwanda he apologized and accepted responsibility. He wanted the office, he got the headaches that go with it. You look at the NSA files and see how he not only didn't commit US forces, the US prevented the insertion of the word genocide into UN documentation, because it would have committed us to act. That is the bottom line. He obstructed fly-overs, humanitarian assistance, anything that would draw us in: moral cowardice that killed 800,000 people.
See you all talk as though I hate Clinton. You talk like it's "Monica-gate." I could care less what he did with her, other than in the business world he would have been fired, but what I do care about is 800,000 Rwandans and 1,200,000 Sudanese that died because Bill Clinton said it wasn't popular. You know, George Bush has run an incompetant war, and very likely illegal prisons but our troops have been responsible for no where near that level of carnage. For that matter Saddy's level of murder and mayhem is exceeded by whom? Shi'a and Sunni territorial in-fighting.
This isn't about party affiliation, this is about reforming the great Democratic Party that used to be articulate, assertive and human rights based. Where did that go?
Posted by glassman on :
Costs to sit in the big chair, Glass.
really? and you think the big chair is a throne? LOL creeepy
YOU are arrogant
i'm telling you that you are simply being unrealistic... nothing more nothing less.. a walk down memory with you to prove it... things could be worse....
things are getting worse in Iraq now..
i watched CSPAN today, i watched the actual speeches delivered by the SCDEF and hillary and the others... not the newsboys rehashing it...the picture is grim..
and i also listened to Sessions of Georgia talk about how many steady jobs are being created by the war..right here in America... and you know what? he was probably the only one there not lying....
Posted by Johnwayne on :
Oh jeeez, here comes Fox Mulder again.
Posted by glassman on :
LOL...
if civil war actually is declared over there? Sen. John Warner declared that Bush would have to return to congress for permission to proceed..
that is REPUBLICAN Sentor John Warner...
Posted by Johnwayne on :
You like that one Glass? I thought it was pretty good, and said with just a hint of humor!!! Sorry about me bragging about my brother on the Israel thread. You and my brother have both argued admirably since he arrived.
Posted by Griffon on :
Here we go Glass, the fundamental difference between the non-religious worldview is they see the big chair as priveledge or entitlement, Christians and other religious folks see that big chair as a call to serve. Jesus said, "Whoever among would be greatest, must become the least." His example of the place of a leader is given in John with the foot-washing of the disciples. His witness of the type of service is embodied on the Cross, blood-stained and sweat soaked.
As a Christian I take the folding chair as opposed to the cushioned chair, I walk through the dinner line last, because having the position of authority in my understanding of Christ's call means I come last and least.
Bill Clinton wanted that position his whole life, to hear his teachers talk. Well, the Office of President is a servant's office, not a king's. He had that reversed at times.
That means sometimes you have to be willing to take heat for what you know is right, the polls cannot dictate what is right or wrong.
"if civil war actually is declared over there? Sen. John Warner declared that Bush would have to return to congress for permission to proceed.."
I said that two weeks ago Glass.
Posted by glassman on :
Christians and other religious folks see that big chair as a call to serve.
tell that to Bush? LOL...
"if civil war actually is declared over there? Sen. John Warner declared that Bush would have to return to congress for permission to proceed.."
I said that two weeks ago Glass.
just reminding you that the GOP is about fed up with "fearless leader".. there were many more GOP quotes that were actually harsher.. i enjoyed hillary and rummy's exchange...
hillary slashed, and rummy condescended to respond....
Posted by Johnwayne on :
I think Warner is right in doing so.
Posted by Griffon on :
"tell that to Bush? LOL..."
This thread is not about Bush, it's about Clinton in the big chair. I agree the Bush sees his service to the country in the wrong light, as do all people who are too wealthy for their britches. But that's my point about all of them. You get a decent days work in you, it changes how you view people. We build Habitat houses up here and down your way post-Katrina, and you sit across from the guy that ten, twelve hours ago was a stranger, it changes things.
Those folks don't do that, generally, except for photo ops. Grandma used to say, "If your hands ain't calloused, you ain't working. Farmin' ain't no place for soft hands. Soft hands make for a soft head and a hard-heart."
These folks in Washington got to that point: so far removed from the situation in Mississippi or Iowa...you name the place. And that's what's got to change. Both parties need a wake up call. I'm going to my old party, I'm hitting 'em hard "between the eyes" so-to-speak because I can't do it the way General patton said, "Loud and dirty so it sticks." So I provoke in the hope that one day, someone will get mad enough to listen.
Posted by glassman on :
look? this thread is basically a waste if you aren't going to apply the principles to the time zone the rest of US are living in.....
done is done... i don't like clinton, i don't like hillary, i don't like Bush..
maybe McCain? maybe not...i once liked him but he started hanging out with Falwell.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Those folks don't do that, generally, except for photo ops. Grandma used to say, "If your hands ain't calloused, you ain't working. Farmin' ain't no place for soft hands. Soft hands make for a soft head and a hard-heart."
Griffon,
I do not think that holds true today if you take it literally, the times they are a changing and so are the jobs.
Posted by Johnwayne on :
I don't believe history is ever a waste.....
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
I like McCain but i really wonder if he would survive the presidency it seems to me his health would be a real question it appears from watching him the last few years he does not look very good, i think all that POW stuff has taken a big toll.
Posted by glassman on :
agreed iwish...
too bad rove slandered him in the primaries way back in '00 huh?
the guy is so close to being a traitor? i can't believe he's allowed a clearance to wash the white house windows, much less be bush's close advisor......he has no scruples...
Posted by glassman on :
more from the '00 debate with Gore:
BUSH: Make a couple comments.
MODERATOR: Sure, absolutely, sure. Somalia.
BUSH: Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either.
Posted by glassman on :
here's wher i've been leading you grifoon..
BUSH: I think the administration did the right thing in that case. I do. It was a horrible situation, no one liked to see it on our TV screens, but it's a case where we need to make sure we have an early warning system in place in places where there could be ethnic cleansing and genocide the way we saw it there in Rwanda. And that's a case where we need to use our influence to have countries in Africa come together and help deal with the situation. The administration, seem like we're having a great love for us tonight, but the administration made the right decision on training Nigerian troops for situations just such as this in Rwanda, and so I thought they made the right decision not to send U.S. troops into Rwanda.
MODERATOR: Do you have any second thoughts on that, based on what you said a moment ago about genocide?
GORE: I'd like to come back to the question of nation building, but let me address the question directly, first. Fine. We did, actually, send troops into Rwanda to help with the humanitarian relief measures. My wife Tipper, who is here, actually went on a military plane with General Sholicatchvieli on one of those flights. But I think in retrospect we were too late getting in there. We could have saved more lives if we had acted earlier. But I do not think that it was an example of a conflict where we should have put our troops in to try to separate the parties for this reason, Jim. One of the criteria that I think is important in deciding when and if we should ever get involved around the world is whether or not our national security interest is involved, if we can really make the difference with military forces. We tried everything else. Posted by glassman on :
in case you missed it? Bush said:but the administration made the right decision on training Nigerian troops for situations just such as this in Rwanda, and so I thought they made the right decision not to send U.S. troops into Rwanda.
Clinton was in power, he failed and hondreds of thousand died. Bush is wrong in the quote. Easy enough to see. Something he realized when his time in office came. Problem is he never planned for the nation-building and Iran was never going to let that happen.
Posted by bdgee on :
Griffon, can't you get it through your head that you have not been declared debate supervisor and have no say in what is talked about here?
Posted by Griffon on :
"Griffon, can't you get it through your head that you have not been declared debate supervisor and have no say in what is talked about here?"
Whiner. I have it through my head bdgee, it's just my comment to segue back to the purpose I began the thread with. Now that we have confirmed the Clinton said he was wrong for allowing the genocide to happen, this thread is pretty well done.
Posted by glassman on :
this? this is where things get inside out and backwards:
MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, do you agree with the governor's views on nation building, the use of military, our military, for nation building as he described and defined it?
GORE: I don't think we agree on that. I would certainly also be judicious in evaluating any potential use of American troops overseas. I think we have to be very reticent about that. But look, Jim, the world is changing so rapidly. The way I see it, the world is getting much closer together. Like it or not, we are now -- the United States is now the natural leader of the world.
GOP? Democrat? liberal? conservative? who cares anymore? LOL
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Griffon: Clinton was in power, he failed and hondreds of thousand died. Bush is wrong in the quote. Easy enough to see. Something he realized when his time in office came. Problem is he never planned for the nation-building and Iran was never going to let that happen.
Bush is wrong? LOL
MODERATOR: So what would you say, Governor, that somebody would say hey wait a minute, why not Africa, I mean why the Middle East, why the Balkans, but not Africa, when 600,000 people's lives are at risk?
BUSH: Well, I understand, and Africa is important. And we've got to do a lot of work in Africa to promote democracy and trade, and there are some -- Vice President mentioned Nigeria is a fledgling democracy. We have to work with Nigeria. That's an important continent. But there's got to be priorities, and Middle East is a priority for a lot of reasons, as is Europe and the Far East, our own hemisphere. And those are my four top priorities should I be the president, not to say we won't be engaged nor work hard to get other nations to come together to prevent atrocity. I thought the best example of a way to handle the situation was East Timor when we provided logistical support to the Australians, support that only we can provide. I thought that was a good model. But we can't be all things to all people in the world, Jim. And I think that's where maybe the vice president and I begin to have some differences. I'm worried about overcommitting our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. You mentioned Haiti. I wouldn't have sent troops to Haiti. I didn't think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation building mission, and it was not very successful. It cost us billions, a couple billions of dollars, and I'm not so sure democracy is any better off in Haiti than it was before.
you can't "play God" you either kill people? or stay the hell out of their business....
this isn't the computer game syms....
Posted by bdgee on :
The title of the thread is "Why does the Democratic party support genocide!" which was clearly a devious attempt to desguise a partisian political lie of the RNC as a supoposed question, which in turn was a guise to twist and turn legitimate political discussion that was treading on the deceit and hypocrisy of the Administration into attacks on Clinton, i.e., to change the subject.
Posted by glassman on :
now? griffo?
will you accept that i am Republican, not ashamed, and disagree with my current party leadership, because? basically?
i don't see 911 as a worldchanging event in the SAME way the admin does?
IF? if i were an influential politician? i would have fixed our BORDERS (duh)...
and i would have finished Afganistan... or maybe i should say would still be improving Afghanistan....
the fact that our borders are still so porous leads me to believe that Bush doesn't take terrorism seriously at all...and NEVER did.. not before or after 911... just one more reason to be very suspicious...VERY suspicious...
Posted by Griffon on :
Nope. The purpose of the thread is to challenge my former party to reclaim its human rights identity.
"face it griffo.... you can't "play God" you either kill people? or stay the hell out of their business.... this isn't the computer game syms...."
Neither was the genocide Glass. What you are suggesting is Clinton did the right thing in letting 800,000 Rwandans and 1,200,000 Sudanese human beings die. Period. That is what you advocate. Let me tell you something I am sure you know: those dead bodies floating down the river weren't part of a video game either. They were human beings, and we should have done more.
But after all, why go to Bush's statement, when Bill Clinton spoke of his actions, his moral cowardice, going to Rwanda and saying we were wrong. Who's changing the subject, guys? Where is Bush mentioned in the topic? Who has a political agenda? Not me, I'm afraid. I just point out the inconvenient truth, for political reasons Bill Clinton's administration blocked action at the UN, and the administration's action effectively aided and abetted genocide in Rwanda. When you go out of your way to make sure "genocide" is not part of the document so you skirt international law, you aid genocide by not acting against it.
Did we not say, "Never again!" After WW II? Did we not sign an agreement formalizing what "Never again" means? We did and Clinton skirted it because it wasn't politically expedient. And you are being apologists for that decision. 2,000,000 people dead during his administration in those two countries alone.
"legitimate political discussion"
who decides what legitimate political discussion is? In an open forum, if I choose to discuss historical politics, then it is a legitimate political discussion presented for debate.
"to change the subject."
please note the legitimately presented political topic for discussion: "Why does the Democratic party support genocide." Can we agree that is the subject I posted to discuss? As this is an Off-Topic Forum, meaning I cannot talk about investments in my threads, have I crossed that threshold of propriety? No. Do the rules anywhere limit the parameters of political debate to the current administration? I am not aware of any such rule.
Who then is changing the subject of this legitimately presented thread? bdgee. Did you have the option of posting in this thread? Yes you did, as I stay away from the bait set to offend my supposed sensibilities. I just laugh 'em off so you have that freedom when you see me post. So I have to ask, why not just avoid the discussion if you disagree with the posted topic or the presenter so stongly?
Posted by bdgee on :
And if someone else wants to discuss the political scam of the far far righ wing religious zelots blaming Clinton for the crap their hero dubya got us into, that to, by the same reasoning is acceptabel and YOU NEED TO ACCEPT THATor stop complaing about them.
Posted by glassman on :
international law
this is where i start having problems...
i think the UN is important....
i think it's a good place for dialogue and diplomacy... consensus building, etc...
BUT?
i'm not that thrilled about international laws in generel...
i've been around too many Europeans that wanted to tell me how to live in my own damn country...
Posted by andrew on :
So do you all think that a democrat has a chance this next election to be President. And IF so...Who has the best chance? Humor me. I dont see a democrat being elected President for the next 8 maybe 12 years.
Posted by glassman on :
i see no democrats that have anything to offer right now... Hillary is; well, Hillary...yuk..
i could vote for Biden... if i couldn't vote GOP again... there are GOPs i won't vote for too.. like Allen... that guy reminds me of Gore.. only dumber...
Posted by Griffon on :
Bdgee says: "And if someone else wants to discuss the political scam of the far far righ wing religious zelots blaming Clinton for the crap their hero dubya got us intoYOU NEED TO ACCEPT THATor stop complaing about them."
You bet in your own threads. It's obvious the topic is so upsetting to you, you can't respect the basic humanity of a person who disagrees with you. I already do tolerate other opinions, bdgee.
The problem is that this site is not your own personal fiefdom anymore than it is mine. It SEEMS that you do not want to hear any other viewpoint which is exactly what Amazon.com says. I do not complain about anything in your provocative threads. Look at the threads posted with titles that you SEEM to have thought would get my ire. I'm not in them. I respect peoples' right to have their own opinion. I respect a person's right to say nasty things about my person. But when I am in a thread people enter simply to say false things in reference to my person ("Egocentric nut" posted by bdgee July 23, 2006 21:41 Clinton Vietnam)I will challenge such behavior on the basis of its inaccuracy. When I am advised to watch a decapitation video, I will refuse such graciousness because it is in reality, hypocricy.
It's simple, "Off Topic" does not mean "Bush bashers only." People who are centrist like me or conservative like my brother will speak to issues of the day with a different perspective as is our right.
Posted by glassman on :
grifoon you is centrist? right....
so is Bush...
funny huh?
Bush says he wants to stop genocide too..
and? so is Gore... But Clinton? he's a conservative cuz he didn't want to interfere in another countries affairs since it would be meddling, and our national security wasn't involved...
LOL...
and? now? Leiberamn? he and Hillary are real Hawks...they want to take over the military and do the job right... but the core of the democrats are peaceniks who want to cut-n-run?
does that cover it all? or did i miss one of the other looney tunes?
Posted by bdgee on :
You have no basic humanity, just basic arrogance.
Had you any humanity, basic or not, you would stop belaboring the pack of lies you constantly spew in oh so very much too long dialongs that really is noting but an overt atempt at patting yourself on the back.
Get over you egomania.
Posted by Griffon on :
I should make one correction, I did enter the Israel-Lebanon thread. Note, not about Clinton, but about historical relations between Israel, Hezbollah, and Lebanon.
Posted by Griffon on :
"You have no basic humanity, just basic arrogance. Had you any humanity, basic or not, you would stop belaboring the pack of lies you constantly spew in oh so very much too long dialongs that really is noting but an overt atempt at patting yourself on the back. Get over you egomania."
Hit a nerve Bdgee, get used to it cause as a nice humble, gentle, courteous Christian, I will present here. I have no ego, I need no ego, my hope is built on nothing than Jesus' blood and righteousness and I need nothing more.
You need to examine your own name-calling and hypocricy my friend before you attack me. You are the one who started putting words in the other's mouth. I'd love to correct you more, but we need to get back to why Clinton let those people die, all people of color, and for a war crime that Clinton acknowledged his indirect complicity in. No more distractions bdgee, let's be about the issue or let's move on. I prefer the latter.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
LOL
showed up....![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)